Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Knightworld - Castellan/Crusader Conundrum
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20250		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:57 am ]
Post subject:  Knightworld - Castellan/Crusader Conundrum
In the past, I've had trouble accepting the worth of the Castellan compared to the Crusader. Otherwise identical in all aspects, with the one difference being a secondary weapon system. Both the Crusader Lascannon, and the Castellan Gatling are 45cm, with the former being 2xAT4+/AP6+, and the latter 2xAP4+/AT6+.

Given the relative values of AT and AP weaponry aren't equivalent, and that unless you start hitting 4K you aren't going to field more than one formation*, I've been thinking of potential fixes, that make the Castellan actually worth fielding. Coupled to the primary BPMW weapon which is generally more useful against AP targets, that's a fairly large effectiveness shortfall, to the point I've not actually fielded one, or regretted not taking them over Crusaders.

* At 500pts, with no ability to affect cost, taking more than one formation in all likelihood gives your opponent two BTS targets, or shreds your activation count by forcing another formation to be 525+.

So, here's a couple of thoughts that I've come up with as a potential fix. I'm not a big fan of polls, as they tend to not give the kind of information I want (why a particular preference, rather than the actual preference).

1) Change the Gatling Cannon to a 3x weapon, either retaining the AP4/AT6, or dropping it to AP5/AT6. The latter makes it marginally better, the former even more so.

2) Allow cross-formations. Meaning a new Crustellan (Castader?) formation of a combination of 3. This is probably the weakest option, but it means a pair of Crusaders can add a Castellan for alternate fire, without a significant drop in formation firepower.

3) Dropping the absolute cost of the Castellan formation (probably by 25-75pts or so). This would allow a formation of each to be fielded without hindering the player with regard BTS. I could increase the absolute cost of the Crusader formation. This has the same effect, but I'm not likely to go down that road unless the Crusaders actually need the price bump. I've seen no evidence of that yet.

4) A combination of (2) and (3), something along the lines of (completely untested) 425 for 3 Castellans, upgrading to Crusaders for 25pts each. I'm worried that that might encourage minmaxing, and be harder to properly points cost.

5) A variation on 4, where the formation is built as a 2-4 mecha formation, costed independently. This is even harder to cost, IMO, because of the variations of scale.

6) I'm insane, and Castellans are fine. Crusaders are exactly equal, or inferior.

I'm curious what people's first reactions are to Castellans, and any opinions on how they've actually played on the table. As I've said earlier, they look inferior enough on paper, and having taken Crusaders many times, I've never regretted not fielding them instead.

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion
Author:  MikeT [ Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Castellan/Crusader Conundrum
You're right about the relative worth of AP vs AT weaponry.

Just bump it up to 3 x AP4/AT6 and test, I can't see it being game breaking.
Author:  Ogre44 [ Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Castellan/Crusader Conundrum
As the Castellans and Crusaders are intended to be support/cover fire formations, what about giving the Castellan's Gatling cannon AA ability?
It would give them a definite utility on the battlefield and make the decision between Castellans/Crusaders a little less cut and dried.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Castellan/Crusader Conundrum
I must be in the minority. I usually take Castellans over Crusaders.
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Castellan/Crusader Conundrum
Ogre44 wrote:
As the Castellans and Crusaders are intended to be support/cover fire formations, what about giving the Castellan's Gatling cannon AA ability?
It would give them a definite utility on the battlefield and make the decision between Castellans/Crusaders a little less cut and dried.
It's a reasonable idea, but then there'd be a conceptual conflict with the Warden AA variant. I'm not adverse to removing it, but it'd mean shifting the focus to a much more expensive formation. And the Warden role fits AA better, I think. The clunky old machines, piloted by those without the title or resources to acquire a "true" war machine, relegated to roles that are necessary, but don't come with a much prospective glory.

Dwarf Supreme wrote:
I must be in the minority. I usually take Castellans over Crusaders.
I'm really curious as to the reasoning. Metagame (opponent plays heavy INF)? Aesthetics?

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Castellan/Crusader Conundrum
Morgan Vening wrote:
Dwarf Supreme wrote:
I must be in the minority. I usually take Castellans over Crusaders.
I'm really curious as to the reasoning. Metagame (opponent plays heavy INF)? Aesthetics?

Morgan Vening
- KnightWorld SubChampion


Yup, heavy infantry opponent, specifically Dave's Tyranids.
Author:  Dughan [ Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Castellan/Crusader Conundrum
I too am for the 3x AP4/AT6 stat line.. i was looking into my net epic stuff and saw that it was still 3 shots of fire. So, lets test that out.
Author:  ortron [ Tue May 10, 2011 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Castellan/Crusader Conundrum
I'm for the 3x AP4+ (or AP5+) / AT6+ stat line.
Author:  GlynG [ Wed May 11, 2011 12:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Knightworld - Castellan/Crusader Conundrum
I'm for making the Castellan 475 with the current stats to avoid two BTS problems (I'm one that has a formation of each and would like to be able to use an pure Knight army sometimes without having this issue).
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/