Dusldorf

27 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

One thing that keeps coming up in practice games is the time frame.  We all know new rules will slow things down but the games seem to be taking a lot longer than I expected them to, especially between people who already knew 40K and are familiar with a lot of it by feel.  For example the AP's follow a predictable pattern and so a lot less looking stuff up is needed on those things when the experienced players play but even in those games I've been somewhat bothered by game length.  

Hoping that smooths out.  We have a 2K tournament on July 1 and my hope is everyone going will have done some practicing and list noodling long before.  We might just raffle all prizes in consideration of the fact that some games are just not going to conclude in the 2 hours that GW claims they will.

Anyone else seeing the trend on time?  Any tips on what you're doing , other than the obvious, to avoid the time issues?

 

 

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.

22 hours ago, Andrewgeddon said:

I think it really just depends on which detachment (or combinations you take):

-Air Wing Detachment allows for 3 to 5 flyers

-6 other detachments allow you to take up to 2 flyers per.

Assuming you are playing by the "3 detachment limit" suggested by the rulebook, you could sprinkle up to 6 in if you stick to some of the more traditional detachments, or you could take 3 Air Wing detachments and get up to 15.

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

10 minutes ago, pretre said:

You can't buy stuff off those lists unless your profile says you can. See the 'Wargear' page at the front of the chapter (page 11)

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?

5 minutes ago, pretre said:

Minimum 20.

I guess you found your solution then

Just now, pretre said:

Heeeelll no. I would drop a conscript if I want the PC that bad.

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

13 minutes ago, pretre said:

No, all the power weapons are 4 points and Chainsword isn't on the list of AM Melee Weapons to buy.

Could drop a Gemini and take another imagifier. 

14 minutes ago, pretre said:

Oh shoot, I need to find another point. PC have a chainsword so 21 points.

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

9 minutes ago, pretre said:

True.

The problem with trying it is I only get one go. Chances of many test  games between now and then are low.

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. 

1 minute ago, pretre said:

Yeah, but it feels like I'm dumping a lot of points into conscripts with all those characters. I've got 120 pts in conscripts, 55 for a LC, 35 for a ministorum priest and now 20 more for a PC. 

Is it really going to be worth it? 

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. 

2 minutes ago, pretre said:

So, I could drop 5 Storm Bolters to get a Platoon Commander, but I don't know that one order is going to be worth that.

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

2 minutes ago, pretre said:

Good catch, btw.

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. 

2 minutes ago, pretre said:

Hand Flamers. That was a typo. Let me see if I can get it to three, I think the restriction at this point is HQs. I'd have to move something to an HQ, maybe Lord Commissar from Commissar?

Gotcha. 

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

1 hour ago, pretre said:

Bronson has confirmed 1500.

 

Here's my tentative list:

Spearhead 1

St C&2G - 250

5 Ret with 4 HB and SB - 89

5 Ret with 4 HB and SB - 89

5 Ret with 4 HB and SB - 89

6 Seraphim with 2 HB, Chainsword - 90

6 Seraphim with 2 HB, Chainsword - 90

Imagifer - 40

Imagifer - 40

 

Vanguard 

Canoness -45

40 Conscripts - 120

Ministorum Priest with Chainsword/BP- 35

Commissar with Chainsword/BP - 31

Imagifer - 40

5 Doms with 4 Melta, Chainsword - 118

Immolator with SB - 107

5 Doms with 4 Melta, Chainsword - 118

Immolator with SB - 107

1498

 

Thoughts?

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.

Just now, pretre said:

Re-read the AoF section. I posted it in the OP.

Normal: On a 2", one unit with AoF can perform an AoF.

Celestine: Pick a friendly AS unit and they can perform an AOF.

 

The action 'Act of Faith' is separate from the ability 'AoF'. The ability does not say 'This ability grants you the ability to perform an act of faith. It just references how they work. I agree that it is probably not intended to work the way I have interpreted, but until they FAQ it, it does.

 

Agreed then. Enjoy it while it lasts!

6 minutes ago, pretre said:

Yes, so this is on page one. Basically, normal 2+ AoF only affects people with the AoF keyword. Both Celestine and Imagifer have different wording that affects different units and does not require the AoF keyword. They require either Ordo keyword or Adepta Sororitas keyword, both of which vehicles have.

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. 

On 6/5/2017 at 11:38 AM, pretre said:

Especially since they can benefit from Imagifer and Canoness.

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

7 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

The most is maybe a Stormsurge or Ghostkneel getting a shield and target lock  as those are like 40 points or so each. Other than that, it comes down to weapons 

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.

1 hour ago, WestRider said:

I kind of feel like we have very different definitions of some basic terms here, and are sort of talking past each other. I'm going to leave it at this: GW has given us multiple tools. We get to choose the ones we like. No one is forcing the whole community into one mode or another.

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 :)

29 minutes ago, WestRider said:

1) OK, yeah, that kind of Game isn't what Power Levels are for. That's playing in a competitive mindset, constantly looking to improve. Which isn't bad, by any means, but absolutely that's the setting for Matched Play Points. Power Levels are for the times when we just want to throw some dice around and blow stuff up. Casual pickup games, narrative play, introductory Games, stuff like that.

2) That's also making the assumption that everything is actually properly priced in the Matched Play Points, in all possible combinations. Even at a glance, 8th is way better in this regard than previously, but in 7th, that has definitely not been a sound assumption. If I run my Nids against someone else's Eldar in 7th, I'm getting destroyed, regardless of whether or not the Points say it's an even match.

That said, I'm pretty confident that if anyone's gaming the Power Level system to such an extent that it's more of an issue than the simple fact that it's impossible to get a truly balanced Points System for Game this complex, it's going to be blatantly obvious. If someone shows up with 80 Acolytes with Thunder Hammers and Combi-Meltas, yeah, I'm going to ask to go with Matched Play Points. If it looks even remotely like a "standard" 40K Army, tho, I'm more than happy to just roll with it, because it's unlikely to be a significant difference.

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.

15 minutes ago, WestRider said:

Not really. Terminator Squads max out at about 22 Points per PL. Wolf Guard Terminators are the most extreme ratio I've found in a Marine Army, and they're still less than 27 PpPL, even with the most expensive loadout I could think of (Thunder Hammers/Combi-Meltas, plus a Cyclone). Which doesn't actually seem like a great one to me. Give them a more standard TH/SS loadout, and they're at 22PpPL as well.

Acolytes can get ludicrous, but theyre still incredibly fragile whether they're 8 Points or 52.

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. 

7 minutes ago, Rhuntar said:

My assumption is you will still have to have a conversation with your opponents regarding what kind of game you'd like to play.  If your buddy always brings a capped out PL list, he should probably be forced to play by points, or just go back to not having friends to play with.

 

Damn you GW, still expecting us to be adults!

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

2 minutes ago, WestRider said:

The Power Levels assume that you're putting on a fair amount of gear, yes. That said, there's not as many super expensive upgrades as previously, and most of the Weapons and such that are really expensive are ones that are more or less standard, so they're easily accounted for in the PL. It really does come out quite close to 20 Points per PL in all the Lists I've written up, regardless of whether I started from Points or PL.

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

4 hours ago, fluger said:

Again, what do you think the functional difference between power level and points is?  

Again, large models/units have never been the primary driver of first turn losses, 40k is generally dominated by MSU especially when it comes to shooting.  Again, in a game where you activate 100% of your forces, it matters not how they are divided up.  What makes first turn losses happen is the way turns work, not Big Units.  

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.

8 hours ago, necrontyr said:

Article has been edited. Twin Linked weapons now get double the normal shots all the time.