Combat Patrol 10th Edition Combat Patrol Preview

[Kallas]

4 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

@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.

13 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I like what they have done to the combi weapons.

Disagree with that.

 

13 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

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.

Disagree with that - Marines don't/didn't need to be turned into Imperial Aspect Warriors.

 

13 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

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

Disagree with this, because there is absolutely room to make them different.

 

13 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

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.

 

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.

This I kind of agree with - they do do something that the special weapons don't, but I don't think it's a good thing.

[Orange Knight]

Well, you can disagree with what Marines should and shouldn't be, but the fact is that GW have now produced a line of units that are focused around specific weapon types, and can deploy them in numbers across every model in said units. Their very nature steps on the toes of the old combi-weapon rules, which specifically allowed one particular veteran unit to equip itself for a particular purpose.

 

Now, the Veterans maintain a unique niche - They can engage any and all infantry effectively, no matter their armour or invul. I would argue this is a better role for the Sternguard.

[Kallas]

Just now, Orange Knight said:

They can engage any and all infantry effectively

And not engage armour, because apparently giving your guys Meltas doesn't help vs vehicles/monsters.

'But Devastating Wounds!' - No, not on 2x 1D shots. That's pretty worthless vs vehicles/monsters.

 

The whole point of Veteran units was to be flexible in their deployment, and now they're not.

[Orange Knight]

Sure, but there are other units for that role now.

 

Things change from edition to edition, and GW have decided to consolidate the various combi-weapons into a single profile with a dedicated purpose. That will be better in certain situations, and worse in others.

[Kallas]

2 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Sure, but there are other units for that role now.

Yeah, that's a terrible way to go about it.

 

Oh, your unit of Veterans equipped to kill vehicles? Nah, now go buy a different unit just because!

[Petitioner's City]

3 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Yeah, that's a terrible way to go about it.

 

Oh, your unit of Veterans equipped to kill vehicles? Nah, now go buy a different unit just because!

 

But the unit isn't invalidated, nor the modeling; it has a different purpose (one I feel is a bit like the snazzgunz I mentioned above). 

 

Although it does make me wonder how GW will keep kombi-weapons different from snazzgunz, or even consolidate them?

[Kallas]

8 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

But the unit isn't invalidated

The unit built for that purpose is invalidated. It's not an anti-vehicle unit anymore, it tickles them.

 

8 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

it has a different purpose

Yes, one that doesn't match up with what the weapons are intended for. Combi-Meltas are not anti-infantry weapons; hell, Combi-Flamers are not meant to deal with heavy infantry but now they will cause as much damage to a Centurion as a Combi-Melta will.

 

Just because it can be used in some form, it doesn't make it a good change. They've made weapons do things that they shouldn't.

 

Edit: The problem is that you have models/weapons meant for a purpose and then that changes radically in rules to a point that it doesn't even vaguely reflect what they're supposed to do. You built your Heavy weapon as a Lascannon to take on vehicles? Whoops, now it's meant to shoot infantry.

 

Is it still 'useable'? Yes, but it's not what you built it for, and it's not what Lascannons are meant to do.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Kallas

[Orange Knight]

Grav Guns used to be the best weapons for dealing with vehicles in 7th edition, and in 8th and 9th they can only effectively deal with infantry. This is nothing new.

 

Things change from edition to edition. It's why I don't put all my eggs in one basket at any given time - having an army with a good variety of units means you can adapt to changes easily as rules are changed or updated.

[Kallas]

1 minute ago, Orange Knight said:

It's why I don't put all my eggs in one basket at any given time

Ah yes, building your Combi-Meltas as a way to kill vehicles is putting all of your eggs in one basket. What a ridiculous notion, to build anti-tank weapons to use them for anti-tank purposes!

 

Seriously, this is ridiculous. Yes, things do changes at times, it doesn't mean it's a good thing; and there are units and weapons and such in the game that are well established as doing certain things - such as Meltas being anti-tank weapons - and suddenly changing them so that they're anti-infantry instead is just absurd.

 

What happens next edition? Storm Bolters become Anti-Vehicle 2+? 

[Orange Knight]

I wasn't referring to this unit in particular, but flavour of the month units in general.

 

But clearly you don't like the change. This discussion will only continue to be circular so the decision will rest with you. You can continue to use your models in 10 edition with their new role, or you can drop them.

 

Combi-Meltas don't exist anymore, they are simply combi-weapons now.

[Kallas]

1 minute ago, Orange Knight said:

I wasn't referring to this unit in particular, but flavour of the month units in general.

Ok, but that wasn't the discussion.

 

2 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

But clearly you don't like the change. This discussion will only continue to be circular so the decision will rest with you. You can continue to use your models in 10 edition with their new role, or you can drop them.

Maybe don't bring specious arguments into a discussion about something if you're not actually going to talk about the same thing.

 

You're right, I don't like the change because it's utterly ridiculous. I don't like the change because it makes the models not do what they're representing. I don't like the change because it's completely pointless - there aren't fewer weapon profiles in the game now, there are more, so it's not 'streamlining'; and it's not simpler, because now that new profile has a bunch of rules to do very little, while being completely different from other weapons that are other visually identical.

 

2 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Combi-Meltas don't exist anymore, they are simply combi-weapons now.

Yes, they do. These models are still Combi-Meltas, Meltaguns still exist: reducing them down to being weird anti-infantry weapons is utterly stupid.

[Blindhamster]

personally, I'd have liked them to make combi weapons BOTH anti infantry and anti vehicle, but both be on 5+

 

that said, for the most part, this edition seems to be shaping up where infantry are almost never well placed to deal with vehicles. Melta and Krak are both strength 9 generally. Lascannons may be strength 12, or they may only be 12 on vehicle mounted ones, we don't actually know yet.

[Petitioner's City]

But @Kallas, the issue isn't that melta in general has become something it isn't (and that storm bolter comment is hyperbolic) - just this instance, where the team have tried to create an 'in between' all the combi possibilities much like those snazzgunz were for orks (and/or represent the sum "half" of combining another gun shooting with the bolter).

 

Should they have had different profiles, just like combi-weapons since 2nd; or isn't it unfair that since their introduction snazzgunz haven't been treated as kombi-weapons? Overall, it doesn't really matter.

 

Yes many people built combi-melta squads in the past, for anti tank/anti termie purposes. Anyway, now they are something else, tis done, it's worth moving on to enjoying their new proficiency :)

 

[DemonGSides]

Yeah I don't think complaining about it or getting hot with another poster here who's obviously trying to de-escalate is worth the effort.

Combi-weapons are combined.  Take it or leave it; maybe we wait to see what Eradicators do and there's and option for SM infantry based Anti-Tank.

These S9 might be good against lighter armor, which we haven't had any real examples of, like the various Warsuits across factions, or like Sentinels.

Things change, that's the fun of a new edition.

Edited May 10, 2023 by DemonGSides

[Toxichobbit]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

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.

 

I'm afraid that you're wrong on both points. First, Terminators with combi-melta do not become dedicated tank hunters, as both Chaos Terminators & Blightlords can only have one combi-melta per unit. That's less melta than a Tactical Squad, which I don't see anybody complaining about as being dedicated ranged anti-tank.

 

Second, as I said in my post above only the Terminator Lord & Chaos tanks don't have enough combi-weapons to do any legal combination. I guess Sternguard too, as they "only" have 2 of each combi-weapon, although unless you're min-maxing that shouldn't be an issue as 8 combi-weapons + storm bolters + special issue bolters + heavy bolter + pistols is more than enough options.

 

These points do not support GW's decision to change combi-weapons, as they just aren't relevant anymore. Years ago when anybody could take any combi-weapon in any amount, they were valid. But as of 9th they shut that down and combi-weapons outside of Sternguard are much more limited. And if that was the argument, then it can be applied to things like heavy weapons as well. Quite a few Chaos/Firstborn units don't have enough heavy weapons to do any option, so shouldn't we be just doing a generic heavy weapon profile?

[Kallas]

6 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

But @Kallas, the issue isn't that melta in general has become something it isn't

Yes, it has. Combi-Meltas have become anti-infantry weapons. That's literally what they've done.

 

6 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

(and that storm bolter comment is hyperbolic)

Yes it is. But it's also the logic that Orange Knight is using to like the changes for some reason. Why not make Storm Bolter AV2+ in 11E? Rules change, right? So why not? Because that's not the purpose of Storm Bolters - and Combi-Meltas are not AI weapons.

 

6 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

or isn't it unfair that since their introduction snazzgunz haven't been treated as kombi-weapons?

Not sure anyone has said that that's not unfair. Almost like most people focus on the factions they play.

 

6 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

Overall, it doesn't really matter.

It depends. I want my games to have a basis in the lore. Combi-Meltas being AI is not part of the lore; Meltas are very much AV weapons, so why are these melta weapons suddenly utterly awful at it? People enjoy the game for different reasons: personally, I like my models to have weapons that do what they're supposed to - I didn't build my AV models to suddenly have them become AI weapons, or vice versa.

 

6 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

Anyway, now they are something else, tis done, it's worth moving on to enjoying their new proficiency :)

It's worth mentioning how it's a stupid notion. It's worth not accepting stupid changes for no good reason.

 

2 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Yeah I don't think whining about it or getting hot with another poster here who's obviously trying to de-escalate is worth the effort.

Yes, OK is totally known for de-escalation 

 

2 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

maybe we wait to see what Eradicators do and there's and option for SM infantry based Anti-Tank

What do Eradicators have to do with Combi-Weapons?

 

3 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Things change, that's the fun of a new edition.

It's not fun when it's utterly ridiculous and against the lore of what things in-universe do. Combi-Meltas are not anti-infantry weapons.

[Blindhamster]

3 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Yeah I don't think complaining about it or getting hot with another poster here who's obviously trying to de-escalate is worth the effort.

Combi-weapons are combined.  Take it or leave it; maybe we wait to see what Eradicators do and there's and option for SM infantry based Anti-Tank.

These S9 might be good against lighter armor, which we haven't had any real examples of, like the various Warsuits across factions, or like Sentinels.

Things change, that's the fun of a new edition.

Eradicators melta rifles are just 18" melta guns with the heavy rule now. So strength 9, AP -4, Damage D6 (+2 at half range), hitting on 3s, or hitting on 2s if stationary

[DemonGSides]

9 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Eradicators melta rifles are just 18" melta guns with the heavy rule now. So strength 9, AP -4, Damage D6 (+2 at half range), hitting on 3s, or hitting on 2s if stationary

 

Where's the data slate for 10th? I googled it and found nothing.

Edited May 10, 2023 by DemonGSides

[Toxichobbit]

15 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

Anyway, now they are something else, tis done, it's worth moving on to enjoying their new proficiency :)

 

 

10 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Yeah I don't think complaining about it or getting hot with another poster here who's obviously trying to de-escalate is worth the effort.

 

I disagree. People should keep complaining about things that they don't like, as long as it's relevant to the discussion & has some constructive content (reasons why something is not liked, what would be better etc). Otherwise GW just do whatever they want with no regard for the community. If people hadn't complained during 9th, 10th might well be an escalation of the absurd over-complication that the game had become. Telling people to stop complaining because GW have already made a decision, or because you don't like the complaints* is antithesis of improving a product that we all care about. Constructive feedback is always needed & (should be) valued, whether it's positive or negative.

 

* not suggesting either of you feel this way, but we do see it a on here where people get all precious about things if anyone is negative.

[Blindhamster]

1 minute ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Where's the data slate for 10th? I googled it and found nothing.

it was in the weapon preview: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/14/weapons-rules-are-fun-and-flexible-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/

 

small possibility they may get a special rule that gives them a bonus to wound vehicles maybe I guess.

[Orange Knight]

We haven't seen their full rules.

 

Something I think 10th is doing well is giving all units unique special rules. I expect that the Eradicators might get additional shots or a bonus to the wound roll, and that Aggressors will perhaps be able to move/shoot/charge or double their shots in certain conditions.

 

GW mentioned that toughness will also be increased for Centurions and Gravis units, but do we really think that Gravis will be T6? You could run an entire army of high toughness models if so...

[danodan123]

Well, as for CSM, the combi changes suck :)

[Petitioner's City]

22 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Yes, it has. Combi-Meltas have become anti-infantry weapons. That's literally what they've done..

 

It depends. I want my games to have a basis in the lore. Combi-Meltas being AI is not part of the lore; Meltas are very much AV weapons, so why are these melta weapons suddenly utterly awful at it? People enjoy the game for different reasons: personally, I like my models to have weapons that do what they're supposed to - I didn't build my AV models to suddenly have them become AI weapons, or vice versa.

 

But melta has always been an anti-infantry weapon too, as its rather frightening descriptions (from Codex Wargear in 1993) of bodily moisture exploding due to its microwave effects tell us :)

 

 

Similarly they are pretty snazzy anti-infantry weapons in Inquisitor and in Necromunda too 

 

 

 

I guess it can be rationalised as a version of melta which is a less strong microwave, in terms of armour, but still doing horrible things to the flesh it vapourises? 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Petitioner's City

[RolandTHTG]

2 hours ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

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.

Ok, but the chain swords were effectively different profiles before, because they used user strength, so the marine always hit on 3+ with S4, while the guardsman was on a 4+ with S3.  You're just seeing that all factored in already in the weapon profile. 

 

The captains still having distinct heavy close combat  weapons while legionnaires get the profiles squished together is a legitimate complaint. I just don't think that the chainswords are equivalent. 

[Toxichobbit]

10 minutes ago, RolandTHTG said:

Ok, but the chain swords were effectively different profiles before, because they used user strength, so the marine always hit on 3+ with S4, while the guardsman was on a 4+ with S3.  You're just seeing that all factored in already in the weapon profile. 

 

The captains still having distinct heavy close combat  weapons while legionnaires get the profiles squished together is a legitimate complaint. I just don't think that the chainswords are equivalent. 

 

So if it's because of the hit roll & str difference, why don't we have astartes power weapons? Astartes bolters? Will guardsmen have chainswords while Command Squads/Castellans/Commissars have officer's chainswords? Or the likely difference between Aeldari chainswords & Scorpion chainswords? If we need a different weapon type every time there's a different str or hit roll, then a lot of armies and even units within armies will have their own unique weapons, which sounds like an even more convoluted set of weapon profiles than the one they've just replaced.

 

Given the above, I feel confident that the only reason we have Astartes chainswords is the -1AP, which is much less reason to have a different weapon profile than combi-weapons/power weapons.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Toxichobbit