Grand Master vs Brother Captain...

[skarn]

Instant Death is the only thing that makes a BC and 2 man retinue better than a GM. Every other circumstance I can think of the GM wins out.

I smell a challenge! :D

 

Clearly there are at least a few situations where the GM will be handy. But most of the time, in my personal experience, he's just not as efficient. As already stated, having thrice the shooting and twice the melee attacks is nearly always as good or better. Even at I4. ;)

 

If you'd like to discuss this further, skarn, I encourage you to start a topic on it and we can run some numbers or whatever suits your fancy. B)

 

For now, let us just lament the absurdity of a GK GM losing to a Chaos Lord. ;) :o :(

I'd contest that the BC + 2 GKT are better than the GM against I4 opponents and some other situations (such as the Slaanesh lord you ran into), but the GM is better against I5+ opponents, multi-wound opponents, and anything with power weapons. Which includes almost all enemy HQs. The only area I like the BC is cost.

 

Having said all that, I may be wrong. If so, please let me know... :D

[Red Lost Soldier]

BC + 2 GKT Gives you three times the firepower, almost double the attacks basic and double the attacks on the charge, and the same amount of wounds but invulnerable to instant death. You can add bodies and a LR to make a combat unit comparable to TH/SS Terminators while including your compulsory HQ, which are usually always not as good as points spent elsewhere, particularly in older codices. Or you can add 2 Psycannons and have a modest fire platform and counter charge unit for relatively few points, spending more points on scoring units which GK desperately need.

 

The GM gives you Initiative 5, and an old Force Weapon which ignores EW. While the cost of these two is basically the same, to make the GM effective you need to buy him a retinue of at least 3 more GKT, preferably 4 or 5 and a LR is also compulsory to get him and his buddies into combat. Pushing this unit well over 500pt.

 

To be honest I prefer the BC every time. Those extra points are better spent elsewhere when I play, though I hardly ever face huge EW characters. Whatever I've charged with my BC + GKT usually is overkill already. The only thing I really want for my BC is the Initiative boost, but it's not worth paying more than double the points.

 

In short:

BC + GKT = 3X shots, 2X attacks, no Instant Death (in either direction)

GM = Initiative 5, Force Weapon

[skarn]

Good points, except that the BC and 2 GKT only have more attacks if they are still alive. Anything with I5 that does even 1 wound cuts down on those attacks very quickly. The GM on the other hand has the same amount of attacks regardless of his wounds.

[Gentlemanloser]

As long as he doesn't take those 3 wounds before attacking, or suffer an ID hit, ofc.

 

In which case (for the ID hit), you're potentiall sticking that on a GKT and not your GM.

 

All in all, unless you really need to ID an EW, the GC+GKT are always going to be the better choice.

[skarn]

As long as he doesn't take those 3 wounds before attacking, or suffer an ID hit, ofc.

In which case (for the ID hit), you're potentiall sticking that on a GKT and not your GM.

Right, so the primary weakness of the GM, vulnerability, is mitigated by the retinue rule.

 

All in all, unless you really need to ID an EW, the GC+GKT are always going to be the better choice.

What about against any I5+ character? Something like a SM cap with a relic blade will usually kill 2 or 3 GKT in one go, leaving only a couple to hit back before being wiped out. GKT have excellent offensive capabilities but are very vulnerable compared to TH/SS termis.

 

IMO the only thing the BC has going for him is cost. I fully admit that in an army as overpriced as the DH this is no small issue, but the GM certainly has something to offer.

[Gentlemanloser]

Right, so the primary weakness of the GM, vulnerability, is mitigated by the retinue rule.

 

Which incurs more cost, which would then give the BC+2GKT and equal amount of extra GKT.

 

If points are not an issue, always go with the GM.

 

But in how many games do you play where points aren't an issue?

[Drahazar]

I do not like the fact that a BC has ONE wound. If I want a fire base I run BC but if I want to kill I run a GM and give him and his ret THSS. though the GM keeps his force weapon.

[Daedalus Templarius]

I do not like the fact that a BC has ONE wound. If I want a fire base I run BC but if I want to kill I run a GM and give him and his ret THSS. though the GM keeps his force weapon.

 

I may try that... I'm sure my friends wouldn't mind me actually using the newest SS rules either, I certainly would let them do it if it was an older codex. Is it way more expensive to get swap the stormbolter for a SS? Could easily run a 3/5 SS squad to get the good save.

[number6]

As long as he doesn't take those 3 wounds before attacking, or suffer an ID hit, ofc.

In which case (for the ID hit), you're potentiall sticking that on a GKT and not your GM.

Right, so the primary weakness of the GM, vulnerability, is mitigated by the retinue rule.

The only way to compare these things is to purchase the same number of points worth of models. A BC + 2 GKTs is almost exactly the same cost as a naked GM. So if you buy the GM a minimal 3-model retinue, then you must also add 3 additional GKTs to the BC/GKT "package" to keep things even.

 

A BC + 5 GKTs gives you 12 shots and 19 attacks on the charge.

A GM + 3 GKTs gives you 8 shots and 14 attacks on the charge.

 

Same number of wounds in both cases.

 

What I see is that the BC "package" is far more damaging. Total damage output is unequivocally superior.

 

And it's also more capable of absorbing damage because wounds can be distributed most advantageously. Consider that most targets GKTs will be fighting will deny armour saves and many will likely have insta-kill capability, too. (E.g., outright with daemon weapons, boneswords, or S8+ attacks, etc.) Having more models on hand makes it far easier to stack insta-kill wounds on fewer models meaning you can keep more of the unit alive to continue fighting. A smaller unit -- the one with the GM -- is far more likely to force you to put an insta-kill wound on the GM and risk losing him all in one go.

[Justicar Valius]

Just one to put this one out there.

 

GM, hammerhand, psychic hood, 175

Retinue: 4GKT, 1 incinerator, 199

 

Expensive but I put this in one of my 2 LRC and use it as point and click destruction. Eats Hive tyrants for breckfast too.

[Gentlemanloser]

Drop that to a BC, and add the last GKT to fill out your LRC? ;)

[skarn]

The only way to compare these things is to purchase the same number of points worth of models. A BC + 2 GKTs is almost exactly the same cost as a naked GM. So if you buy the GM a minimal 3-model retinue, then you must also add 3 additional GKTs to the BC/GKT "package" to keep things even.

 

A BC + 5 GKTs gives you 12 shots and 19 attacks on the charge.

A GM + 3 GKTs gives you 8 shots and 14 attacks on the charge.

 

Same number of wounds in both cases.

 

What I see is that the BC "package" is far more damaging. Total damage output is unequivocally superior.

As I said before, only if they are all alive.

 

As you say;

And it's also more capable of absorbing damage because wounds can be distributed most advantageously. Consider that most targets GKTs will be fighting will deny armour saves and many will likely have insta-kill capability, too. (E.g., outright with daemon weapons, boneswords, or S8+ attacks, etc.) Having more models on hand makes it far easier to stack insta-kill wounds on fewer models meaning you can keep more of the unit alive to continue fighting. A smaller unit -- the one with the GM -- is far more likely to force you to put an insta-kill wound on the GM and risk losing him all in one go.

A lot of targets the GKT hit will have I5+. This means for each wound you lose 3 attacks. If you are going against the type of opponents you describe you only need 1 wound with the GM to finish them off, awesome for multi-wound creatures. If they don't cause ID, then you can lose up to 3 wounds before you lose any attacks. With a troop as vulnerable as GKT thats a big deal to me.

 

Of course, if the pdf gives us 3++ SS, we'll all have to reconsider our positions. :tu:

[number6]

A lot of targets the GKT hit will have I5+.

There are very few enemies with exactly I5, which is the only place where having a GM is slightly handier. There are, however, many more with I6+, and then the I5 GM isn't any better at all than a GKT with the usual I4.

 

That narrow window of Initiative utility is so very narrow that the loss of offense and loss of protection -- which is all-important when you are forced to tangle with high-init foes -- is so not worth it.

[skarn]

There are quite a few enemies with I5+ who either don't have the strength or weapon to cause ID, or who don't have enough attacks to chew through 5 GKT in one go. Even if the GM is the last one left standing, odds are he's going to take out whatever he hits.

 

Relic blade captains, hive tyrants, greater daemons and a slew of others will take out 2 or 3 GKT, weather the remaining attacks and finish off the squad next round. If I field a BC and ret squad, my opponents know its good against anything it hits first, but no match for any of the above. Put a GM in there and its a different story. Not to mention the BC's added vulnerability against plasma, perils, dangerous terrain checks etc.

 

Of course if the GK get psyk-out grenades in their new book, the BC will be awesome. I can see why people choose the BC over the GM to save points, but I still fail to see how the GM is simply not worth his.

[Zode]

A lot of targets the GKT hit will have I5+.

There are very few enemies with exactly I5, which is the only place where having a GM is slightly handier. There are, however, many more with I6+, and then the I5 GM isn't any better at all than a GKT with the usual I4.

 

That narrow window of Initiative utility is so very narrow that the loss of offense and loss of protection -- which is all-important when you are forced to tangle with high-init foes -- is so not worth it.

 

Very good point. Following that line, a GM+retinue vs Mephiston (for an example from my gaming group) has no initiative advantage over the BC+retinue, so you have to ask if the GM's FW is worth the extra points. Does anyone think it is? Would the GM have a clear advantage over the BC+T against a CC monster like Mephiston? Especially considering the best way to kill him is by shooting him before he gets too close?

[Daedalus Templarius]

Doesn't the GM have the advantage when fighting multi-wound models without EW? I don't think the BC can use his NFW as an actual force weapon, can he?

 

Meph doesn't have EW.

[Zode]

Doesn't the GM have the advantage when fighting multi-wound models without EW? I don't think the BC can use his NFW as an actual force weapon, can he?

 

Meph doesn't have EW.

 

You are correct, only the GM and the sp char Brother Captain Stern can count their NFW's as force weapons, BC's just count NFW as power weapons.

 

I'm starting to get the impression that the choice between GM and BC is one that has to be made depending on what you need the unit for: GM seems to be better against big IC's and critters with lots of wounds that he can potentially bash down in one go. The BC seems to be better against units of more fragile but fast troops with high initiative, like eldar, or hoard troops that you can hopefully soften up quite a bit with the increased SB fire before assaulting.

[number6]

Firstly, Zode is absolutely correct. Super-assaulters like Mephiston should NOT be dealt with by assaulting! They need to be shot down.

 

Most armies can also screen their more valuable assets with cheap screening units. (E.g., Kroot, platoon infantry squad, tactical combat squad, etc.) However, sadly, the DH do NOT have any disposable units available ... unless you induct IG. And very few of us forum participants like to do that, as necessary as it is. (Screening -- or "bubble wrap" as I sometimes see it called -- is one of the biggest reasons why IG are so utterly necessary given our current codex.)

 

So without screening units, the DH are left essentially helpless. Super units like Mephiston and The Swarmlord will have to be taken down in assault ... which is where they clearly outclass us.

 

Since that is the only way to combat them, and since the GM isn't any help at all (because he can't stick them with his FW before he's going to absorb at least a wound or two), there really isn't any reason at all to ever take the GM.

 

Either the unit you attack with your HQ retinue (led by a GM or Stern or a lowly BC) can be handled just fine with all the extra attacks and wounds you'll be generating with the cheap BC option, or it'll be so good that the GM's only significant advantage (the slightly superior initiative) is abslutely meaningless.

 

It's not like the GM's force weapon is actually required to take down any Tyranid monstrous creature. An extra 3 or 4 melee attacks hitting it is all that you need ... and you get that with the cheaper BC package. Not to mention you're much more likely to survive to get any attacks in on the likes of the Swarmlord with the BC package. If the Swarmlord is up against a GM and a smaller retinue (because of points restrictions), it's much more likely to wipe the unit out than if it faced the BC package.

[Daedalus Templarius]

What if your GKGM and his retinue are coming out of a GK LRR with initiative 10 from psyk-out grenades :cuss

 

it can also only hold 12 models, so 6 terminators.

[number6]

What if your GKGM and his retinue are coming out of a GK LRR with initiative 10 from psyk-out grenades :)

I don't know nothin' about broken IA rules. Our gaming group doesn't allow them and never will.

 

IMHO (and the HO of my entire gaming community): IA is great for fluff but total crap for balanced rules.

[Daedalus Templarius]

What if your GKGM and his retinue are coming out of a GK LRR with initiative 10 from psyk-out grenades :)

I don't know nothin' about broken IA rules. Our gaming group doesn't allow them and never will.

 

IMHO (and the HO of my entire gaming community): IA is great for fluff but total crap for balanced rules.

 

Doesn't GW have any sort of oversight over the rules/units that get put into IA? or are they(the IA authors) just allowed to make up whatever the hell they want? A while back there was a update document for older codex vehicles, adjusting their costs to current. I found it quite helpful actually, since the DH codex is ridiculously old.

 

Well, lets say it is broken IA rules, what would you say about BC vs GM in that situation, where you are striking at I10 coming out of a LR? I would think at that point, the GKGM would have an advantage, hitting with a force weapon at I10.

[number6]

Doesn't GW have any sort of oversight over the rules/units that get put into IA?

Nope.

or are they(the IA authors) just allowed to make up whatever the hell they want?

Yep.

Well, lets say it is broken IA rules, what would you say about BC vs GM in that situation, where you are striking at I10 coming out of a LR? I would think at that point, the GKGM would have an advantage, hitting with a force weapon at I10.

If everybody's going at I10, what does the GM actually get you, then? Answer: Nothing. Nothing at all. A force weapon? Meh. You'll have way more attacks and wounds. You won't need a force weapon. You should be killing whatever you hit.

[Inquisitor Fox]

My community around here uses them without problem (the IA rules that is.. I love my reduced cost Chimeras with autocannons, heavy bolters, and heavy stubbers!), and in essence then the GKGM gets you increased weapon skill and an extra attack and two extra wounds. At a HEFTY price tag.

 

My opinion is similar to that I have in Warhammer Fantasy when I was playing that before I kinda put my Bretonnians on the shelf for a years-long 40K binge. The best magic item for my army was more men on horseback with lances. My answer to "uber characters" like 400 or 500 point daemons, dragons, or mages was like number of points worth of men on horseback with lances. I took these additional knights, pointed them at the scary thing, and charged it. I usually won B)

[Daedalus Templarius]

Well, for my game on sunday I'll be taking a BC, after this discussion, with holocaust, and a 4 gkt retinue. Might be rolling up on some tyranids.

 

At least in my defense, I do have the GKLRR model from FW B) Honestly, I will likely beat everything's initiative on the board w/o the 10 initiative from the tank, but I'll take it.

[Justicar Valius]

INP, the GM has WS5 still, like a PAGK. It's a Ballistic skill point he gets.

 

I dunno, I will always stick with the GM, no matter what anyone says because of the amount of warbosses (while GKT target the nobs), hive tyrants (while GKT deal with the smaller bugs) and because I like him. Also i can allocate the occasional wound to him without fear of losing any ability in combat.

 

And also INP, that's because brets are cheating filth with their "lance formations" bah, cheating and dont get me started on the rest! *goes off to have a rant about DoC and his sub par WoC*