How valuable are CPs?

[Fahlnor]

I'm writing a list, which is intended to be more of a fun/fluffy list than a hardcore competitive list and I'm wondering how much focus so should give to a Command Points.

 

My list so far, very roughly, is a Battalion:

 

Voldus

GMNDK

3* 5-man Terminators

5-man Paladin

Apothecary

Brotherhood Ancient

Stormraven

- 2,000 points on the nose

 

So what I'm wondering is whether I ought to consider swapping out the Stormraven for an alternative HQ, which would get me one addition Command Point as I could fill a Vanguard Detachment in addition to the Battalion.

 

I'm also half-considering switching out either Voldus or the GMNDK for cheaper HQs. For example, I could keep the Stormraven and swap the GMNDK for a Brother Captain and a Chaplain. Would mean an extra CP and would arguably be more fluffy than having two Grand Masters running around together....

 

Any thoughts?

[Corvus Fortis]

Value of CP is highly dependent on your playstyle. A critical reroll is almost always a good thing but not at the cost of powerful unit you must sacrifice to fill another detechment. But GK have a lot of stratagems. I felt the value of CPs today, when an enemy sorc cast Death Hex on my GMNDK and I spent my last 2 CPs on Psychic Onslaught and couldnt use Aegis. With our low model count and inability to fill multiple large detachments every CP is of great value. Such stratagems as Honour the Chapter literally doubles potency of a unit. I think, getting 1 cp that can make your GMNDK fight another 3 attacks before going out or save him from a melta shot with save reroll is worth switching Voldus for someone cheaper.

[duz_]

Personally I find them extremely valuable.

With GKs its tough to maximise them, but you want to aim for at least 6 or 7 if you can.

[Vorenus]

If you split up your two HQs that you already have, and put all the Elite units in a separate detachment, I think you have enough for a Battalion and a Vanguard detachment without having to get rid of the Storm Raven.

[Vash5800]

If you split up your two HQs that you already have, and put all the Elite units in a separate detachment, I think you have enough for a Battalion and a Vanguard detachment without having to get rid of the Storm Raven.

 

Battalion takes two HQs.

[Fahlnor]

 

If you split up your two HQs that you already have, and put all the Elite units in a separate detachment, I think you have enough for a Battalion and a Vanguard detachment without having to get rid of the Storm Raven.

 

Battalion takes two HQs.

Yup, this.

 

I posted a list which looks to replace the Grand Master Nemesis Dreadknight for a Chaplain and a brother-Captain. Would be interested in your thoughts.

[Muaddib]

I don't agree about CP's. Except for the reroll and maybe one or two others, stratagems are not game breakers, or you'll need too much cp. Most of the best cost 2CP, which mean you can use them once per game. And the others can be really good but very situational.

It's only my opinion but I really think that most strat are overrated or too expensive to be relied upon.

I stopped worrying about them and run two Detachement but no battalion, because I don't like strike squads. And I did fine with 4-5 CP so far.

[Seizeman]

You always want at least 2 HQ and 3 strike squads, so the 3 first CP (for 6 total) are easy to get and really important. The 7th point is pretty good, but anything after that is not that important.

 

You will ususually want 2 CP for a psychic overload for one of your GMNDK and 2 more for a counter-charge. After that, you want some extra points for Only in death, rerolls (very important to have one for deestrike charges and very convenient to have one for perils)  and maybe truesilver armor. If for some reason you don't need the counter charge, you can use the points for an extra psychic overload or heed the prognosticars. Usually you should not save points specifically for Honor the chapter, but keep it in mind, as it an extremely powerful but situational stratagem. As you see, 6 CP are enough and 7 is plenty. Anything less than 6 is not good (and army compositions that result in less than 6 CP are not good, anyway).

[Waking Dreamer]

Well if people are enjoying fielding all the models they like on the table while not reaching that 6CP benchmark - obviously go for it. Enjoying it is the main goal of playing a game in the first place.

 

Especially for thematic lists such as an all paladin/TDA infantry strike force - very fluffy, very fun. What are you supposed to do, never play it in 8th...? Wait for 9th? Nah...

[Fahlnor]

You always want at least 2 HQ and 3 strike squads, so the 3 first CP (for 6 total) are easy to get and really important. The 7th point is pretty good, but anything after that is not that important.

 

You will ususually want 2 CP for a psychic overload for one of your GMNDK and 2 more for a counter-charge. After that, you want some extra points for Only in death, rerolls (very important to have one for deestrike charges and very convenient to have one for perils)  and maybe truesilver armor. If for some reason you don't need the counter charge, you can use the points for an extra psychic overload or heed the prognosticars. Usually you should not save points specifically for Honor the chapter, but keep it in mind, as it an extremely powerful but situational stratagem. As you see, 6 CP are enough and 7 is plenty. Anything less than 6 is not good (and army compositions that result in less than 6 CP are not good, anyway).

I'm vaguely curious to know what your background is in terms of 40K. I assume you play tournaments.

 

The reason I ask is that your posts are invariably written as factual statements with no possible room for anything other than what you consider to be maximum efficiency. I see a lot of phrases like "You always want at least 2 HQ and 3 strike squads..." and "Anything less than 6 is not good..." and "... there's no reason ever to take terminators with GKs. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is absolutely clueless".

 

Given how little room you leave for compromise, I'd be interested to know what your tournament record is like. You seem to post as a 40K authority - where does that authority come from?

 

Note, I'm not having a go. I'm genuinely curious to know what the basis is for your confidence in your posts.

[Zamtro]

5-7 CP seems pretty normal, if you have the guys and want to use them for a battalion go for it, otherwise a couple Vanguards will do the trick.

 

Slightly Off topic - Can Grey knights use standard Space Marine Stratagems? Can't seem to find anything saying yes or no specifically though I'm at work and can't look properly.

[Gentlemanloser]

Nope.

 

GK aren't classed as 'space marines' so can't use space marine Stratagems.

[Zamtro]

Nope.

 

GK aren't classed as 'space marines' so can't use space marine Stratagems.

Rogie, was thinking the Index Astartes keyword shared by both might unlock it, guess not!

[Seizeman]

I don't write everything as factual, just things that are objectively true or extremely evident.

 

The reasoning of "you can play anything if you like it" is pointless. Of course you can play wathever you like, noone needs to tell them that. When someone asks about how effective or important a resource, unit, etc is, answering "play wathever you like" does not help, as he/she already knows that. I just try to give the most objective information possible from the point of view of maximum competitiveness. How anyone uses that information is up to them.

 

About my authority,  it is absolutely irrelevant. Either the facts are correct and the arguments are sound or they aren't, regardless of who states them. Trying to prove or disprove an statement based on authority is fallacious. Anyway, I've only been able to play one turnament with 8th edition, so I've only won that one. I've played about 25 games with 8th edition and lost 3 of them (not every opponent was a good one, of course), so I have a bit of experience, but, as I said, it's not very relevant.

 

Expanding on the CP matter, having just 6 CP is just fine and not worth playing suboptimal units to get more. In fact, is pretty difficult to get more than that. You can get the 7th one relatively easily with a vanguard detachment, as you usually want mostly elites and a 3rd HQ is good, but anything else is very hard to achieve. Anything less than that is a substantial handicap (and I've already explained why). Of course you can play with 4 CP, in fact, before the codex solved our issue with HQs, it was pretty much the norm, but it's not ideal.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Seizeman

[Beams]

Saying something is wrong because it is a fallacy, is in and of itself, a fallacy. Edited August 28, 2017 by Beams

[Seizeman]

Saying something is wrong because it is a fallacy, is in and of itself, a fallacy.

The only thing that can be a fallacy is an invalid form of reasoning, so pointing that a fallacy is a fallacy is not a fallacy. What constitutes a fallacy is to negate an argument just because it contains a fallacy, but that applies to the proposition, not to the fallacy (the reasoning) behind it. I didn't say an argument based on authority is wrong, I said the reasoning behind it is wrong, which is a different thing.

 

Anyway, a bit off topic to discuss philosophy here.

[Fahlnor]

Thanks for coming back and, as I said, wasn't trying to ruffle feathers - was just curious to know where your thoughts were coming from. I guess the word "authority" wasn't quite what I meant, but I hope you know what I was trying to ask.

 

Sadly, I haven't been able to play a single game of 8th, having just bought a new home and having to spend every waking hour on DIY. Definitely hoping to get a decent run of hobby in once things settle down, though.

 

I think it's very difficult to compare units in a truly objective fashion, because each unit carries so many variations of data. Apart from the statline, you have build options, Force Org slot, access to specific buffs, ability to be transported, access to Command Points, all that jazz. You've also got to consider the impact on your opponent - for example, Paladins may seem more points efficient than Terminators, but they're also a higher priority target for your opponent, which is incredibly hard to quantify. Some units will almost inevitably be out of sync in terms of their points cost, but I don't think it's as easy as saying, for example, "Paladins are x% more expensive than Terminators, but y% more resilient, therefore they're a better unit". This came up in the Strike Squad vs. Paladins thread.

 

Interesting to see you lay out the specific Stratagems you would go into a game expecting to use. I hadn't even considered narrowing down the options and using that as a guide for how many CPs I might need. I'll take a closer look at that this evening - good shout.

 

Lastly, congrats on winning your tournament - I've only ever played in one and I came across some thoroughly good players. Was a good weekend!

 

:)

[the jeske]

 

I think it's very difficult to compare units in a truly objective fashion, because each unit carries so many variations of data

That is not true. Take codex units you have and look at the stratas they can take. Is there one that you drasticlly buffs your army. then check how many such units with enough CP you can run in avarge [for your area] armies you can run. If you can make a working army it is worth playing such an army. Lets say you play chaos terminators, good unit, when it double taps it gets better. So making them MoS and running around other shoty units is good[NM who can be buffed by the strata too], and it is worth to build an army that can use the stratagem 2-3 times per game. To use a more GK example, lets say you use NDKGMs, building an army in a such a way that the GMs can carry the list in some way [lets say they get a lot more resilient and diverge fire power from paladins, and more alive paladins= higher chance to win], it is good to think how many turn of such buffing is required to optimise the list and it is worth to run lets say a batalion instead of some other less CP hvy detachment.

 

 

for example, Paladins may seem more points efficient than Terminators, but they're also a higher priority target for your opponent

 

This situation almost never happens. taking terminators instead of paladins minimax does not give enough points to run enough other units to diverge fire power from termintors. If lets say a paladin army could run a voldus+1GMNDK and a terminator army would run 3-4 GMNKDS and 0-1 voldus, then yes termintors would not be the same type of targets paladin squads are. The reality[sadlly by the way] is that the "saved" points from terminators do not buy even 1 full unit worth redirecting fire power.

Edited August 28, 2017 by the jeske

[Seizeman]

Well, some comparisons are more difficult and depend more on unquantifiable factors, so they aren't as clear, but Terminators vs Paladins is not one of those.

 

Paladins and terminators have the same role on the battlefield. They are exactly the same unit, the only difference being their stats and their cost. Paladins do 25% more damage in melee (assuming they use falchions, otherwise is 50% more, and that's not counting on the paragon's extra WS) and are at least 50% more durable (100% more against 1d3, 1d6 and 2 dmg weapons, which is the case most of the time) for a 15% price increase. There's nothing tricky about the comparison, it's just a simple massive increase in efficiency. If they were very different units, one anti-infantry and one anti-armor, or one ranged and one melee, then there could be some kind of discussion, but as it is, there's no room for argument. And no matter how many CPs you throw at them, bad units are still bad.

 

About the CPs I use every game, I've used psychic onslaught on a GMNDK on all my games so far. It increases his average wounds from 3 to 6 against vehicles, which is pretty relevant to make sure that threatening dreadnought or that rhino that's sheltering their valuable unit dies. We don't have much ranged anti-armor, so that increase is even more relevant.

 

After that, counter-charge is arguable the most powerful stratagem in the game, so you have to save 2 points for it in games where it is relevant, which are most of them. This stratagem is truly a game-changer and it can change your whole planning for the turn if the opponent has the points for it.

 

Only in death... is very relevant just for the threat it represents. You having that point up forces the opponent to think twice before engaging or moving close to your characters. Even if they can kill your hero, using this stratagem makes so the attacker will usually die, as our characters are beasts in melee. That makes so the opponent can't trade favourable, and your unit will almost always make up for its cost. Even against ranged fire, a GMNDK shooting with all his weapons one last time can kill a small infantry unit or put some wounds on a vehicle or monster.

 

Lastly, the reroll stratagem is very important to pass failed  psychic test on key powers. Even after a double 1, is reasonably easy to cast your power by rerolling a single die thanks to the +1 from brotherhood of psychics. The reroll is also important to get some key charges. Specially the turn you deep strike, between First to the fray (warlord trait) and one reroll you can usually get at least 2 units in melee.

[Waking Dreamer]

True Silver Armour is a pretty handy one, against psyker-heavy armies that love to pew-pew you with mind bullets.

 

For 1 CP,  I've seen a NDKGM require 16 mortal wounds to take it down (11 of which coming straight from Magnus)!

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm not sure how valuable only in death is, if your planning to use it on a GM NDK.

 

It depends on how your group/opponent has agreed to rule it works at zero wounds.

 

Attacking back with 3A / BS4 seems very meh.

 

Great to use on Draigo / Voldus however.

[Seizeman]

Only in death with GMNDKS works as if they have 1 wound remaining.

 

It's pretty valuable anyway. Three GMNDK attacks are still a lot of damage, and they will do 4 or 7 wounds on a character or monster, which is very dangerous for a single point, specially when you compare it with the 0 wounds it would do otherwise, if the attacker killed the GMNDK before he could strike. The shooting attack is not great, but it is an option nonetheless.

 

But anyway, the best part of the stratagem is that, like counter-offensive, it does not need to be used to be effective. Just the threat of it forces the opponent to play differenly and make bad moves. If they charge your character, they die, and that's bad, if they avoid him and don't kill him, he survives, wich is also bad.

[Gentlemanloser]

That's not raw. You can only use only in death when a unit is slain.

 

You are slain when you hit 0 wounds

 

Degen chart doesn't go to zero.

 

It's a nice house rule though.

 

My group when asked, with no input from me have decided to use the wound value the ndk was at before the killing blow.

 

If it's always 3A or BS4, i don't think it will influence openents too much. They'll just try to tapit still (hi 20 gaunts) and kill him when the return attack doesn't really matter.

 

I'd rather use only in death on voldus or a custom gm with relic hammer or nemesis lord.

[Seizeman]

Lash whip on the hive tyrant does the same (allows the tyrant to attack when he dies) and the faq resolves that it uses the lowest profile on the table, so Only in death... should work the same way.

 

About not using it with a GMNDK, there's no reason to not use it with him. The damage is not much lower than voldus, as it's only 3 attacks but each one deals more damage. You should use it every single time one of your characters dies, no matter who is it. What are you going to do, not kill the enemy unit just because the stratagem on an ideal scenario Voldus would be better? Also, it's not like you want your characters to die anyway, and it is much more likely for your GMs to die than Voldus, as he's a character that wants to be safe inside a squad so he can keep killing and casting powers, while the GMNDKS are your tanks and are supposed to be taking damage.

 

If the opponent ignores Only in death with a GMNDK... he's a fool. Just overwatch + Only in death kills most heroes or monsters/dreadnoughts, and there's always the chance of the GM surviving. Also, how are tarpitting gaunts relevant to the subject? It should not happen (you know, tons of bolter fire and all that), and if it does, it's almost impossible for them to kill the GM. Also GoI exists. In any case, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Fahlnor]

 

Paladins and terminators have the same role on the battlefield. They are exactly the same unit, the only difference being their stats and their cost. Paladins do 25% more damage in melee (assuming they use falchions, otherwise is 50% more, and that's not counting on the paragon's extra WS) and are at least 50% more durable (100% more against 1d3, 1d6 and 2 dmg weapons, which is the case most of the time) for a 15% price increase. There's nothing tricky about the comparison, it's just a simple massive increase in efficiency. If they were very different units, one anti-infantry and one anti-armor, or one ranged and one melee, then there could be some kind of discussion, but as it is, there's no room for argument. And no matter how many CPs you throw at them, bad units are still bad.

 

And yet, if just one of my Terminators is standing next to even ten of your Paladins on an objective at the end of the game, I hold the objective. Just saying.

 

I'm not arguing that throwing Command Points at Terminators makes them suddenly good, but I am arguing that having Terminators allows you access to Command Points that you wouldn't get from Paladins by opening access to the Battalion Detachment.

 

Terminators also benefit more from buffs such as the Brotherhood Banner - an extra attack per model is a damage buff of 50% (33% with falchions), where for Paladins it's a buff of 33% (25% with falchions). It doesn't suddenly make them amazing, but they're getting more value out of that buff than the Paladins are. Stick a Chaplain into a squad of Terminators and they get more value from his Litanies of Hate and Spiritual Leaders rules than Paladins do.

 

I just still don't buy that the Terminators vs. Paladins argument is as cut and dry as you and so many others insist that it is. I do agree that Paladins outweigh Terminators in a lot of ways, but the fact still remains that Terminators can do things which Paladins can't and which have major benefits to the army, while also being cheaper than Paladins per model.