> Models which do not have any other listed close combat weapons
Pistols are close combat weapons, friendo.

> Why would they do that?

To counteract the glaring points imbalance? To provide a scenario in which the forces are balanced? To provide a contrast to "slap everything on table, have a bad time" thing that you seem so worried about?

And who said "allowed"? I'm not saying "THIS BOOK FORBIDS YOU FROM USING ALL YOUR MODELS!!! FUCK OFF IF YOU LIKE TERMINATORS AND BIKES AT THE SAME TIME!!!" What I'm saying - and have said two or three times now - is that there's a good chance they will include one or more *scenarios* in the introductory set that will present you with balanced point options. If you want an even game, you will use those scenarios. Or, you'll do as I did with the 5th ed box when teaching my friend, and you'll find a way to balance the point costs between full forces because you're not a giant shithead.

Note that scenarios with balanced points values *DO NOT* preclude a scenario where you use all the models. But if they include multiple scenarios, then they can take you through a narrative mini-campaign, which is very much in keeping with 6th edition's cinematic mindset. You keep insisting that imposing limits on a fair match would preclude you from using all your models in an all-out match, and that is just not the case.

I just don't understand what point you're trying to argue here. You're saying "the forces are unbalanced, why aren't they balanced?" And then you're saying "there's no reason to balance the forces because then the Dark Angels player won't get to use all his models." They're not compatible arguments.

And you're still ignoring the 99.8% probability that there will be a starter booklet that addresses that imbalance. Smart money says there's a starter scenario that tells you "pick Terminators or Bikes, pick Captain or Librarian." It makes a lot more sense for the starter to provide you with more than what you need than for the starter to be off-kilter by between 200 and 400 points.

It's not you I was addressing with the comment on points. I think there might have been some confusion there.

I know you were totaling the points for everything in the box. But to just take those points totals and claim "Dark Angels have 400 more points" as though they're going to have that advantage in an actual battle is a little disingenuous.

It's relevant because you're comparing a codex-legal force with one that's not codex-legal because it eschews the expensive but necessary Troops in favor of high-powered Elites and Fast Attack choices, and that is going to weight the battle. But any chucklefuck who's literate enough to read the rulebook will realize that, and probably react accordingly - either by adjusting points values or by giving Chaos the Librarian for use as a Sorceror. And let's be honest: if a player can't handle reading the rules before playing the game (or if they read them, but don't care enough to make the game fair to the other player), do you *really* want to face that player at your FLGS?

Are some middle-schoolers going to pick up the game, halfass their way through the book, get stomped as Chaos and decide Chaos sucks? Probably. Are some other middle-schoolers gonna curbstomp Chaos with their unbalanced starter army and then get delusions of invulnerability? Quite possibly. But even a mildly attentive player will notice the discrepancies and adjust accordingly. And again, that's assuming that GW doesn't *know* about the unbalanced forces and specifically address them in the quick-start rules.

As clever handle points out, the Marine force is not game-legal. I suspect there will be a provision in the game book about "don't give the Marine player the Terminators and the bikers in the same game because that would provide a ridiculous advantage." I'm also not sure where you're getting 900 points, because quick top-of-head math says 200 for tacs, 250 for termies, 125-ish for Bikers, and 125-ish for one HQ. That's 700. So to get that 400-point advantage you're talking about, yes, you need to include both extra HQs.

We also don't know how the Mark system works this edition. It might be changed (improved) from the awful crap of the Gavdex. We don't know how the Hellbrute will work. It looks kind of like a Dreadnought-sized Obliterator. It's not farfetched to suspect that it has a trick or two in its giant beefy sleeves.

I'm not saying the forces are balanced, but I am suggesting that maybe they're not quite as apocalyptically uneven as you might think, especially when you account for the illegal FOC of the Marines.

You're jumping to an awfully big conclusion based on models whose abilities you don't know yet.

1) If you take two armies that are roughly equivalent and you give one of them two extra HQs without points-balancing the other side in any way, the side with two extra HQs might have the advantage. Imagine!
2) Aside from armament, we don't know what Cultists do. It's possible you can kit them out with Marks to make them ded 'ard an' killy.
3) The Space Marines had a points advantage of about a hundred over the Orks in the Assault on Black Reach set, but the Orks had a pretty solid chance of winning that battle. Don't write Chaos off as losers just yet.
4) If the imbalance is really ridiculous, just give the Chaos player one or two of the Loyalist player's units (librarian is Chaos sorceror, anyone?). Call them Fallen. Balance.

I'd like to see an evaluation of some of the units that were awful in the previous edition and are usable now, and vice versa. I'm thinking Artillery units in general, and as a personal request, Honour Guard from Codex: Space Marines (changes to power weapons make these guys more survivable and more versatile). I'm sure there are other units that got hit with the buffhammer or the nerf bat pretty hard, and I'd like to see how those units changed.

Wraithlords - 18 AV.