Combat Patrol 10th Edition Combat Patrol Preview

[Petitioner's City]

8 minutes ago, Kallas said:

If combis are getting smooshed to make special weapons stand out more, there are other methods to do this, such as giving full special weapons slightly better stats and a cheaper cost while combis are more expensive but give flexibility in loadout. Especially with new USR keywords, a Combi-Flamer, for example, could have Ignore Cover and Torrent, but a full Flamer could have Anti-Infantry 5+ - as an example, probably don't want all Flamers like that, but to illustrate the point that there are more knobs to dial in balance.

 

The annoying thing is, as a solution, creating demi-versions of each would add unnecessary complexity (although it is a solution I am partial to).

 

Nevertheless, I think combining them all is ok as a change, it just is what it is, we'll get over it - it really is a small thing. (Or we'll always be able to house rule it :) )

[Toxichobbit]

23 minutes ago, Kallas said:

I disagree that the combi profiles don't need to exist. By this logic we could go so far as to smoosh down all special weapons into one profile, and all heavy weapons into one profile, across all factions. While we're at it, we might as well smoosh down infantry weapons into one profile.

 

Yes, reducing unnecessary rules and profiles is good but we should still have some granularity.

 

If combis are getting smooshed to make special weapons stand out more, there are other methods to do this, such as giving full special weapons slightly better stats and a cheaper cost while combis are more expensive but give flexibility in loadout. Especially with new USR keywords, a Combi-Flamer, for example, could have Ignore Cover and Torrent, but a full Flamer could have Anti-Infantry 5+ - as an example, probably don't want all Flamers like that, but to illustrate the point that there are more knobs to dial in balance.

 

They could also just go back to once per game for the combi-part of the weapon. I'm not a big fan of it personally, but if the issue is that combi-weapons are outshining special weapons then it's the easiest solution. It's a simple rule that we've seen on hunter-killer missiles already. Or they could just make combi-weapons more expensive than special weapons (I've taken zero notice of points values for 10th, so this might be irrelevant).

 

That said, I don't buy the reasoning that they've done this because of combi-weapons competing with special weapons. Most models that can take combi-weapons can't take special weapons. I'm thinking characters, Chaos/Death Guard Terminators & Marine Sergeants. Sure, a Tactical Squad can take a special weapon, but they take the combi-weapon as an extra option so they've not competing. The only place I can think of where the special weapons are redundant because of combi-weapons is Sternguard, & one squad's "problem" doesn't seem to be a reason to create this weird chimera of a weapon that does a poor job at representing any of the options. 

 

I don't like it. Sadly that's being added to a significant list of things I don't like about 10th. The outlook for me playing this edition is getting slimmer with every preview, at least without house-ruling the  out of it to fix some of the design teams .. weirder decisions.

 

Another thought I had, could it be that they just don't want weapons with multiple profile options? Have we seen anything like a plasma weapon with an overcharge profile yet? I feel like there has been a weapon previewed with multiple profile options, but I can't remember what it was or if I just imagined it.

[Blindhamster]

I'm in the camp that doesn't like the combi weapon change, that said I can also see why it's necessary, they're straight up better than their main weapon counterparts atm, they'd need some very clear drawbacks vs a regular special to make it make sense IMO.

Still weird though

[Kallas]

2 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

Another thought I had, could it be that they just don't want weapons with multiple profile options? Have we seen anything like a plasma weapon with an overcharge profile yet? I feel like there has been a weapon previewed with multiple profile options, but I can't remember what it was or if I just imagined it.

Yeah, the Guard preview showed the Plasma Gun with overcharge, and we've seen melee weapons with strike/sweep options too. We've also seen in the Guard preview that they're keeping normal special weapons, so I just don't get why they're changing combis.

[Karhedron]

17 hours ago, CCE1981 said:

Relic Shield - +1 wound, feels a little anaemic.  What will Storm Shields get? 

 

My guess is that this is weak because it is balanced against the loss of the Stormbolter. If you make it too strong, it will become an auto-take option.

 

We will have to wait and see what the balance is like for Storm Shields on units that do not have native Invulnerable saves.

[Sir Clausel]

I hope they keep the 4+ invul on the storm shields. Otherwise i really dont see them being used. Wont matter for terminators but stuff like bladeguard would be pretty bad without. 

[Karhedron]

4 minutes ago, Sir Clausel said:

I hope they keep the 4+ invul on the storm shields. Otherwise i really dont see them being used. Wont matter for terminators but stuff like bladeguard would be pretty bad without. 

 

Maybe Storm Shields will still confer a 4++. Relic Shields will confer +1W and will be for units that already have a native Invuln (e.g. Terminator Captain, Indomitus Primaris Captain etc).

[Toxichobbit]

16 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Yeah, the Guard preview showed the Plasma Gun with overcharge, and we've seen melee weapons with strike/sweep options too. We've also seen in the Guard preview that they're keeping normal special weapons, so I just don't get why they're changing combis.

 

I kind of feel the same about melee weapons. They're moving power weapons to one profile, but keeping chainswords & Astartes chainswords seperate? And they've giving heavy power weapons (fist, chainfist, thunder hammer etc) different profiles. I don't like the combined weapon profiles* but if you're going to do it, at least be consistent.

 

And while we're talking about being consistent, why do two identical flamers have very different profiles (flamer & combi-flamer). Same for melta, grav & plasma. I've seen people saying that they're doing the combined combi-weapons to make things simpler for new players, but if I was a new player I'd find it more confusing that two of the same weapon are so widely different. A combined bolter-flamer with a bolter & flamer profile isn't exactly a high-level concept that's hard to grasp.

 

I think the nicest thing I can say about previews like this is that if they were leaks, I'd think they were fake :D.

 

* though to be fair, I do like the modelling options it gives - want a power spear? No problem!

[Redcomet]

40k straddles such a diverse player base that it will never please everyone. 

[Kallas]

11 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

* though to be fair, I do like the modelling options it gives - want a power spear? No problem!

Yeah, I don't mind the Power Weapons so much - a lot of that was much like the Bolt Rifle thing: they were so close to one another that it wasn't worth having the different options, and having them all the same means people can model what they like.

 

12 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

I kind of feel the same about melee weapons. They're moving power weapons to one profile, but keeping chainswords & Astartes chainswords seperate? And they've giving heavy power weapons (fist, chainfist, thunder hammer etc) different profiles. I don't like the combined weapon profiles* but if you're going to do it, at least be consistent.

The inconsistency here is definitely odd. Seeing Legionnaries with Heavy Melee Weapon while Terminators have the various options is just...strange. I get that they want to reduce stuff on the datasheets, but it's not like it's reducing overall complexity, because this issue is now functionally the same as the 9e Not-USRs - you've got Heavy Melee Weapons which are functionally identical to Power Fists...but named differently.

 

And then Combi-Weapons are Bolter+Special weapon, but the Combis are getting smooshed down while Special weapons aren't, as if Combi-Weapons are some arcanely complex idea that nobody could understand? It feels a bit haphazard.

 

15 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

And while we're talking about being consistent, why do two identical flamers have very different profiles (flamer & combi-flamer). Same for melta, grav & plasma. I've seen people saying that they're doing the combined combi-weapons to make things simpler for new players, but if I was a new player I'd find it more confusing that two of the same weapon are so widely different. A combined bolter-flamer with a bolter & flamer profile isn't exactly a high-level concept that's hard to grasp.

Don't forget they've got Pyreblasters as well, which are just Flamers with S5. So there's:

1. Flamers, 4/0/1, Torrent, Ignores Cover
2. Pyreblasters, 5/0/1, Torrent Ignores Cover
3. Combi-Weapon (Flamers), 4/0/1, RF 1, Devastating Wounds, Anti-Infantry 4+...???

Situation feels very much like taking with one hand and giving with the other, which is very in keeping with GW I guess.

[ZeroWolf]

55 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

They could also just go back to once per game for the combi-part of the weapon. I'm not a big fan of it personally, but if the issue is that combi-weapons are outshining special weapons then it's the easiest solution. It's a simple rule that we've seen on hunter-killer missiles already. Or they could just make combi-weapons more expensive than special weapons (I've taken zero notice of points values for 10th, so this might be irrelevant).

 

That said, I don't buy the reasoning that they've done this because of combi-weapons competing with special weapons. Most models that can take combi-weapons can't take special weapons. I'm thinking characters, Chaos/Death Guard Terminators & Marine Sergeants. Sure, a Tactical Squad can take a special weapon, but they take the combi-weapon as an extra option so they've not competing. The only place I can think of where the special weapons are redundant because of combi-weapons is Sternguard, & one squad's "problem" doesn't seem to be a reason to create this weird chimera of a weapon that does a poor job at representing any of the options. 

 

I don't like it. Sadly that's being added to a significant list of things I don't like about 10th. The outlook for me playing this edition is getting slimmer with every preview, at least without house-ruling the  out of it to fix some of the design teams .. weirder decisions.

 

Another thought I had, could it be that they just don't want weapons with multiple profile options? Have we seen anything like a plasma weapon with an overcharge profile yet? I feel like there has been a weapon previewed with multiple profile options, but I can't remember what it was or if I just imagined it.

Regarding points, all we know so far is that a space marine infiltrator costs 24pp and a techmarine costs 85(if I remember correctly, could be wrong) and that's only because they're listed in the example crusade sheet from the Leviathan preview. Someone did make a topic about it.

Other than that, we know next to nothing on points.

[TrawlingCleaner]

1 hour ago, Kallas said:

I disagree that the combi profiles don't need to exist. By this logic we could go so far as to smoosh down all special weapons into one profile, and all heavy weapons into one profile, across all factions. While we're at it, we might as well smoosh down infantry weapons into one profile.

 

Yes, reducing unnecessary rules and profiles is good but we should still have some granularity.

 

If combis are getting smooshed to make special weapons stand out more, there are other methods to do this, such as giving full special weapons slightly better stats and a cheaper cost while combis are more expensive but give flexibility in loadout. Especially with new USR keywords, a Combi-Flamer, for example, could have Ignore Cover and Torrent, but a full Flamer could have Anti-Infantry 5+ - as an example, probably don't want all Flamers like that, but to illustrate the point that there are more knobs to dial in balance.

 

As @Petitioner's City pointed out, creating different profiles for combi weapon just adds another 4(?) profiles ontop of what is already a very stacked army. Combis are 2 guns strapped together for the price of 1, it's pretty much a uniquely Power Armoured issue (although I'm sure Tau would love a Fusion Blaster combi weapon )

As it stands, a unit like Sternguard or Chosen kitted out with Combis does everything your baseline Troops, even some of the Support units do but better. I agree granularity and options is good but I'd much prefer it came from unit choices and special/heavy weapons

 

(Purely conjecture) The route they could take is a strategem for a unit with combi bolters, along the lines of swapping the Anti-Infantry rule for Anti-Vehicle or adding damage or giving it Torrent. The baseline 10th ed Combi weapon isn't too much to write home about, in a vacumn, and is very clearly Infantry focused. It gives the units that can take loads, more of a role and not just Swiss Army Knives that can do everything

[Kallas]

2 minutes ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

As @Petitioner's City pointed out, creating different profiles for combi weapon just adds another 4(?) profiles ontop of what is already a very stacked army.

Those profiles already exist in the special weapons though. At the simplest, they could just make the Combi-weapons hit on 4s (like how Captains hit on 2s with their Power Fist vs Terminators on 3s) to make them not just straight upgrades to regular special weapons. If anything, the new Combi-Weapon profile has added one additional profile for no appreciable reason: we still have weapons that choose which profile to use (eg, Plasma Guns), and we have a simple way to indicate this kind of behaviour on a datasheet (ie, the arrow symbols they use). 

 

5 minutes ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

It gives the units that can take loads, more of a role and not just Swiss Army Knives that can do everything

It forces them into one specific, anti-infantry role, rather than being a flexible unit that could tackle various threats depending on loadout: which is kind of the point of equipping your Veterans with the best gear available. It'd be like forcing Vanguard Veterans into only taking Thunder Hammers.

 

Oh god, let's hope they don't do something that stupid for Vanguard...

[Khornestar]

4 hours ago, Doobles88 said:

Might be a sign of a new multipart kit (hopeful but doesn't feel likely). Might be that Lysander is losing named character status and this is to give his model a data sheet? Might be that if they're now including Forgeworld models proper, it's to allow you to use this guy:

 

Again, doesn't feel that's the likely intent, but since I have that model, that's probably what I'll be doing!

I forgot about Lysander. I think if any existing model explains it, it’s him. Though, a multipart kit that has a shield would be my preference.

[Toxichobbit]

37 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

40k straddles such a diverse player base that it will never please everyone. 

 

Different versions of the rules is the way to go IMO. They've toyed with this idea over the last few editions but never fully committed. If I was in charge I'd go with a core rule set which is simplified, concentrating on ease of access, balance & speed of play. That would be where I'd recommend beginners start, but make it clear that it's not only for beginners. If people prefer a more balanced & stripped back set of rules, then this would be the rule set to use.

 

Secondly, an advanced rule set (change the name to something else, so there's no baggage suggesting that it's a better way to play), which adds more detail in the form of more granularity & customisation options. More stratagems (though not as many as 9th). Have the ruleset be modular, so you can choose to add in, say, different profiles for each weapon but not add in more stratagems. Or add in more stratagems but not warlord traits. It'd be aimed towards narrative & players who just like to use cool models with a variety of different options, or players who like the complexity & everything being unique. This wouldn't be balanced, but as long as the players know they're going to use this ruleset for the spectacle & customisation rather than a well balanced game, then that's not an issue. I think this is vital, because balance & customisation are polar opposites in games design. The more customisation you add, the further away from balance you go and the more broken combinations exist. And vice versa.

 

Then I'd do a couple of rules supplements, one for competitive play & one for narrative (including, but not exclusively made up of Crusade). The competitive supplement would include rules for running an event, restrictions to stop egregious spam and whatever else the competitive community wants from the game. It would be a supplement to the core rules. The narrative supplement would include Crusade, tree campaigns, asymmetrical scenarios etc. It would be based on the "advanced" rules & like those, would throw balance out of the window & instead concentrate on spectacle, customisation & detail.  

 

The main thing is that everything beyond the core rules is optional. Stuff you can add on to play the game your way.

 

And make the entire thing a living, digital rules set. No more having to have pages of FAQ/errata/balance updates alongside your rulebooks just to keep up to date, because that sucks. Just download the latest version (plus a reference sheet listing what rules have changed & what pages those rules are on) & you're good to go. Also, with different rule sets balance updates can be applied more selectively. Like in 9th where T'au indirect fire was causing a big issue, so they nerfed (almost) all indirect fire, effectively killing the already bad indirect fire of other armies like Astartes. The more compartmentalised the rules sets are, the easier it is to make balance updates to address a subset of players exploiting something without ruining said thing for the entire playerbase.

[Marshal Reinhard]

I like the differentiation of chainsword and astartes chainsword. If possible i'd like a similar distinction between boltguns and astartes boltguns (sorry, sisters and inquisitors, but lore frequently depicts astartes gear as much larger and powerful than what you can wield).

You typically won't find both versions within the same army (no astartes would wield a non astartes chainsword) so there's no issue between those profiles remaining distinct.

[Toxichobbit]

20 minutes ago, Khornestar said:

I forgot about Lysander. I think if any existing model explains it, it’s him. Though, a multipart kit that has a shield would be my preference.

 

Lysander isn't an existing model though. He's out of production (in range rotation, but I think by now we know that's shorthand for "getting a new kit" or "going to Legends"). I can't see them adding an upgrade option to the generic Terminator Captain that only exists to allow people to use an (effectively) out of production named character as a generic model.

 

3 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

I like the differentiation of chainsword and astartes chainsword. If possible i'd like a similar distinction between boltguns and astartes boltguns (sorry, sisters and inquisitors, but lore frequently depicts astartes gear as much larger and powerful than what you can wield).

You typically won't find both versions within the same army (no astartes would wield a non astartes chainsword) so there's no issue between those profiles remaining distinct.

 

I like that idea. Personally I prefer all the different profiles, it's more thematic & to me feels less immersion breaking. But if they're going to streamline power & combi-weapons, then they should be streamlining chainswords too. One or the other, not this weird half-way house where we have different versions of chainswords, different heavy power weapons but combi & power weapons are all the same profile.

 

I get that different chainswords are (mostly) in different armies, but the heavy power weapons aren't and even if different versions of the same weapon are in different armies, it still adds to the mental bloat/complexity for players when they encounter them. New players see a chainsword and have to remember that it's different when on a Marine than on a Sister or a Guardsman. And then it's different on a Cultist to a Chaos Marine (same army) & different again when used by Aeldari, etc. I don't see how that's any better than a new player seeing a combi-plasma & combi-melta & needing to rememeber they're different guns. Or a power sword & a power axe. If anything, the weapons that have combined profiles are more visually distinct than the different chainswords, which are just bigger or more ornate versions of the same thing.

[BluejayJunior]

1 hour ago, Kallas said:

Yeah, the Guard preview showed the Plasma Gun with overcharge, and we've seen melee weapons with strike/sweep options too. We've also seen in the Guard preview that they're keeping normal special weapons, so I just don't get why they're changing combis.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure the biggest reason is just to reduce rules bloat. When you're trying to fit all of a unit's possible war gear on a card, you need to reduce what you can. I don't think it's because it "easier for new players" or anything else. Just to be able to fit everything on the cards and combi-weapons are something that aren't used as often and can only be taken by Sgts. (mostly, for regular SM at least). 

[Kallas]

6 minutes ago, BluejayJunior said:

Honestly, I'm pretty sure the biggest reason is just to reduce rules bloat. When you're trying to fit all of a unit's possible war gear on a card, you need to reduce what you can. I don't think it's because it "easier for new players" or anything else. Just to be able to fit everything on the cards and combi-weapons are something that aren't used as often and can only be taken by Sgts. (mostly, for regular SM at least). 

We already have units (eg, Cadian Shock Troops) that have weapon options without a profile listed on the datasheet. Seems like that would be an easy enough solution for the less-used options, just reference the main weapons table.

[Mogger351]

The other issues with combi weapons is they allow a unit to perform tasks it's not intended for to some degree. Are special weapon teams meant to be able to take 5 special weapons thanks to the combi? Units like terminators become dedicated ranged tank hunters with combi-melta, whilst losing very little. The EC plasma blob shows another hard to balance nugget of units with combis.

 

Conversely to the point above, combi weapons are rarely provided in the right number and format to those needed. There aren't enough in the chaos terminators box for all to have combi weapons, nor the right mix of for that matter.

 

I don't think the solution is perfect by any stretch but I do fully understand why they've done it.

[Orange Knight]

I like what they have done to the combi weapons. Units now exist that are dedicated to a certain type of weapon - Plasma, Melta, Flamer, Missiles, etc etc. This wasn't the case until recently, as Primaris introduced a lot of dedicated units that mirror the Horus Heresy support squads.

 

The combi weapons as they existed are either redundant, or in a few cases simply flat-out superior.

 

Although the new rules are very different, and I think we will all need some time to get used to them, they now offer something unique and interesting on the tabletop that isn't covered by another gun.

[Khornestar]

49 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

Lysander isn't an existing model though. He's out of production (in range rotation, but I think by now we know that's shorthand for "getting a new kit" or "going to Legends"). I can't see them adding an upgrade option to the generic Terminator Captain that only exists to allow people to use an (effectively) out of production named character as a generic model.

Well, he does exist, but I understand the point you’re making. It does seem unlikely that they’d base the loadout on his model, though I suppose it’s possible.

[Kallas]

5 minutes ago, Khornestar said:

Well, he does exist, but I understand the point you’re making. It does seem unlikely that they’d base the loadout on his model, though I suppose it’s possible.

It's also possible they're considering peoples' existing models: TH/SS (and even just SS) has been an option for Terminator Captains for...ages.

[Orange Knight]

@Kallas to what comment do you disagree with? The only thing combi-weapons offer now (pre 10th) that is functionally different from the dedicated units I outlined above is the ability to mix them, but doing so results in an ineffective and unfocused unit.

 

40k is going to be a less lethal game, with more durable units. The ability to dispense mortal wounds from units with combi-weapons is something unique that could be very useful on the tabletop, and is a niche that doesn't cross over with other units.

 

They probably could have re-named the combi-weapons into something that fits their new role better, but the naming of things within 40k is very ingrained at this point.

 

---

 

As for Lysander, I truly hope they release an updated model. I think he has the potential to be one of the better looking named characters, as his wargear is so iconic.

[Petitioner's City]

13 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I like what they have done to the combi weapons. Units now exist that are dedicated to a certain type of weapon - Plasma, Melta, Flamer, Missiles, etc etc. This wasn't the case until recently, as Primaris introduced a lot of dedicated units that mirror the Horus Heresy support squads.

 

The combi weapons as they existed are either redundant, or in a few cases simply flat-out superior.

 

Although the new rules are very different, and I think we will all need some time to get used to them, they now offer something unique and interesting on the tabletop that isn't covered by another gun.

It's a bit like how snazzgunz work in models versus rules - they are combiweapons, ostensibly, as models, with rather different kinds of weapons represented (bullets, plasma, flamer, etc), but they all had the same profile.

 

 

 

Combi weapons are now their own snazzgun, irrespective of the barrel type/presumed ammunition discernable on the model.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Petitioner's City