Dusldorf

the main rule book has game time estimates that conform with what they said during the live Q&A: a sub-2hr game is 1500 points or less. basically the game plays in roughly the same amount of time as before.

I think there will have to be limits on the # of detachments you can take...otherwise things will get quite silly.

Ohhhh

Btw, I am looking at the leaked PDFs for Astra Militarum and chainswords are on the melee weapons list, plus demo charges are on the ranged weapons list. Where does it say LC and PC can't take these?

I guess you found your solution then

Ah right, for some reason I was thinking of conscripts as min 40

Could drop a Gemini and take another imagifier.

Can the LC's sword be swapped for something cheaper?

Well, don't do it if you aren't comfortable. My last bid for the PC is just to suggest that you really will get mileage out of it, whether in terms of movement, shooting, or cc. The main advantage I see out of it compared to 5 storm bolters is the versatility. Force multipliers tend to work wonders when you have so many models to take advantage of them, and that goes for the LC and priest as much as the PC.

Only way to find out is to test it. But imo the character investment makes the blob a higher target priority. And if your opponent is shooting your blob, you're winning. If they choose to ignore it, the platoon commander makes it even more devastating.

There's a lot of utility in orders now. For your list, combined with the priest, the "fix bayonets" order seems especially invaluable.

Cheers. Only other thing I would consider now, if you want, would be to drop some more upgrades for a platoon commander so you can order the blob (assuming conscripts can take orders...I forget). Then the last thing on my list would be finding points for demolition charges on the Lord commissar and platoon commander if possible...at 5 points they are a steal, and have the potential to make a bigger difference in certain circumstances than all those storm bolters, imo.

Gotcha. Yes I think that is the smallest change you can do for another hq.

What are the "2 HB" in your seraphim units? Only glaring thing I would try to change is how the list is organized into detachments. You are very close to having a third one to get an extra command point.

Agreed then. Enjoy it while it lasts!

I want you to be right, but I read it differently. Sounds to me like morale bubbles worked in 7th Ed: sure a rhino within 12" of karamazov can re-roll morale, but it doesn't take morale checks. Similarly an imagifier or Celestine could activate AoF on an exorcist, but they don't have it.

You sure? I don't think vehicles have the acts of faith keyword.

Wargear is anything not included with the base model cost, doesn't matter if it's a weapon. Also to find the biggest offenders you have to look at wargear costs relative to model costs, not absolute cost of wargear like you did there.

Of course nobody's forcing the community. We were just discussing the reasons for our respective choices. If you don't want to go into the terms, so be it. Happy gaming :)

I'm not against other people choosing to play with power levels, but I think it's wrong to assume that people looking for casual, narrative, or introductory games aren't looking to improve or care about the result of the game. Everybody cares at some level and wants to do better next time. If they don't want to go through the few extra minutes it takes to make a list with points, that doesn't tell me they aren't competitive at some level and care about winning. It just tells me they don't want to spend the time. Which could be because they're in a hurry, or want an excuse if they happen to lose, or they're lazy, or any number of other reasons. I'm not at all assuming the points are balanced. All I'm saying is that power levels introduce more variance than is already present elsewhere in the game - due to points, or codices, or whether a player went first or second, or stole the initiative, etc. - and I think that's unnecessary and undesirable. Your last example misses the point. I'm taking issue with the fact that it's impossible to tell whether a points discrepancy due to power levels is significant or not. I don't like that. In light of that uncertainty, I want to err on the side of caution and assume that there is a difference, whereas it seems like you'd prefer to err on the side of ignoring it completely.

Regardless of degree, power levels introduce more variance. For me, that's the only reason I need to avoid them. Because when I play 40k I want to analyze the game afterwards and think about how I could have done better. If we're using power levels, then one of the explanations could always be that my opponent or I had a latent points advantage. I don't want that to be a reasonable argument. Ever.

Imo I'd rather avoid the conversation and just play points.

But with certain units - take 5 terminators, or wolf guard, or acolytes for example - the difference can be extreme.

With power levels don't certain units get tons of wargear for free? So if someone doesn't have a unit modeled with the most expensive loadout (or isn't playing against someone who will allow them to proxy the model as if it were), then they're basically handicapping themselves? As far as I can tell, that's the biggest difference between the two.