Combat Patrol 10th Edition Combat Patrol Preview

[Toxichobbit]

4 minutes ago, Arkhanist said:

There does seem to be a general design principle towards dramatically toning down and eliminating man-portable anti-tank capability, presumably as part of the idea of bringing tanks back to the table as a meaningful choice. If we want tanks (and knights) to be dangerous, tough and impactful, then they need to have space to operate in, which they haven't really had for the last few editions except for casual games and very specific examples (every Russ a tank commander!). The idea appears to be to take down tanks you need tank-hunter vehicles, or e.g. massed lascannons. Infantry will mostly be there to hold objectives and fight other infantry. with the weapon profiles designed around strengths at taking on different types rather than just plasma > everything. Having transports be a viable option again, assuming that's how it shakes out opens up some interesting possibilities too.

 

It seems to be going that way, which I don't mind. In fact, I'd very much like vehicles to be tougher and seen more, as long as we don't go back to the 5th edition parking lot style meta.

 

In the case of combi-weapons though, it doesn't make much sense. Only Sternguard can field enough combi-meltas to be anything other than incremental anti-tank, so they're the only ones the reasoning for this change applies to.  Sure, Sternguard can no longer drop pod in and melta the ever loving  out of an enemy monster/vehicle, but Devastators can and they are significantly better at it than Sternguard, what with having 4 multi-meltas + combi-melta per squad. Eradicators can still trundle up in a Repulsor & now Land Raider to ruin some tankers day. Fire Dragons, Crisis Teams, Dominions etc are all still able to get close and melta something big & scary to death. So changing combi-weapons to no longer be anti-tank feels ineffectual if they want to reduce infantry's ability to deal with vehicles. People will just use other options.

[Orange Knight]

7 minutes ago, Kallas said:

That very much depends on the unit shooting. As is, with the current Melta profiles we've seen, a unit of 10 Meltas at 12"/beyond Melta range would kill an average of 1.4 Terminators (math isn't perfect there, because I couldn't be bothered working out chances for a low damage roll followed by another low damage roll; so they're actually a bit tougher as that 1.4 is calculating for the 3+ needed to one-shot a model). Of course, Oath increases that significantly (up to 2.55).

 

Besides, we still have whole units equipped with these kinds of weapons, just specifically not these Combi-Weapons, because apparently those specifically are a problem 

 

Sounds like the best way to kill Terminators is by using the new combi-weapons

[Toxichobbit]

11 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

again, the design direction seems to be to do away with the idea of consistency of weapon rules across the entire game, and instead balancing of the weapon rules for the unit. They likely start with a baseline and go from there.

 

Honestly, I'd not even be surprised if combi weapons on units like sternguard ARE still distinct. In the same way that melee weapons on line units seem to be merged whilst the more melee focused captains have unique melee profiles for each choice.

 

I fully understand that. My issue isn't with that. It's with them combining combi/power weapons into one profile & people that it's been done to simplify things. It doesn't hold up as reasoning when Astartes chainswords still exist, when Marines now have different bolters to everyone else and who knows how many more unique weapon profiles are emerging. Because hit roll & strength are being incorporated into weapon profiles, I'd imagine we're going to have more unique weapons this edition than any previous edition. Which makes it very silly to reason that some arbitrary weapons are being merged into one profile when other very similar weapons are staying distinct or having new weapon variants added.

[Orange Knight]

I think we probably will end up with more profile variations, yes. But the way rules are presented and accessed can mitigate that a lot.

 

If your entire army at any given time is only using a few pages of rules, and all unit profiles along with their weapons are on easy access cards, then it's not really a problem.

[Kallas]

8 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Sounds like the best way to kill Terminators is by using the new combi-weapons

And? The CW profile is better at that specific role, sure?

 

The problem is that it's doing things with weapons that it shouldn't be doing. My reply was to Bradeh who said that GW didn't want units full of Melta wiping out Terminators; but the stats say that's not what's happening anyway. Besides, with Oath (which you seem to assume is factored in to every attack), Meltas are causing 3.8 failed saves, it comes down to damage rolls: they can easily wipe 4 Terminators, or they could roll low and kill 1.3; and they have as much potential to spike their hit/wound rolls as the CWs.

 

1 minute ago, Orange Knight said:

with their weapons are on easy access cards

We know that's not the case, given the Legionnaries and Cadian Shock Troop datasheets having weapon profiles in a separate location.

[Orange Knight]

Depends if the weapon lists are on the army pages or not. 

 

They said a given army would need 4 A4 pages, or something to that effect. 1 page for army rules, relics, unique objectives, another page for stratagems, etc, It's possible the weapon profile list is also on a single page.

[Toxichobbit]

10 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I think we probably will end up with more profile variations, yes. But the way rules are presented and accessed can mitigate that a lot.

 

If your entire army at any given time is only using a few pages of rules, and all unit profiles along with their weapons are on easy access cards, then it's not really a problem.

 

Agreed, I don't think it will be a problem at all.

 

What bothers me though is if we're going to end up with more weapon profiles, then why do something as weird as combine combi-weapons to reduce weapon profiles. If the goal is to simplify weapon profiles, why keep other weapon variants like Astartes bolter & chainswords (other than having different hit rolls/str, which will apply to most weapons). Hell, why not just put chainswords into a generic melee profile like in 3rd, with the only difference being the to hit roll/str, depending on the unit using it?

Before someone says anything, I'm not actually suggestiong anymore weapon homogenisation. In fact, one of the three weapon changes that I dreaded as a potential rule for 10th was the return of the melee weapon profile that covered everything from a teaspoon to a chainsword. It's just to demonstrate that keeping some weapon variants as distinct despite the models/lore being almost identical, while other weapons with noticeably different models & lore are combined gives the entire thing an inconsistent feeling.

[Karhedron]

37 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

I understand how the weapon profiles work & the reasoning as to why Marine bolters are better. What I don't understand is why they kept Marines with different bolters/chainswords when they are merging power/combi weapons to streamline the game (or whatever reason they've decided to do it).

 

Because each squad only has access to one flavour of bolter and Chainswords seem to be fairly standardised. Melee units often had the choice between between power swords and axes in the same unit leading to people either trying to min/max their loadout or resorting to magnets etc. Consolidating power weapons cuts down on the number of choices on each squad. Consolidating Intercessors bolt rifles into a single profile does the same job.

 

Giving different squads different flavours of bolters is also fine because each squad will only ever have one type of bolter. If you want Marksman bolt carbines, you take Infiltrators. Rather than worrying about what flavour of bolter a particular member of a squad is armed with.

[Mogger351]

49 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

Sorry, I don't think I managed to get my point across clearly. You can't take 5 combi-meltas on any unit other than Sternguard, so you don't need mass combi-meltas anymore. Chaos Terminators are not anti-tank because they can only take one combi-melta. Chaos Terminators do not need multiple combi-meltas from eBay because they can only take one. Same with Chosen, Death Guard, Tactical Squads, Devastator Squads etc. People shouldn't be needing to go onto eBay and mass buy combi-meltas, combi-plasma or whatever the flavour of the edition is anymore, because most units come with their maximum allowance in the box. It would be a simple change to limit the remaining units (mainly Sternguard) to what's in the box. But even if they didn't, the price of combi-weapons will drop because the demand for them has gone down.

 

The issue with not getting enough combi-weapons was solved last edition for most units, therefore it isn't a good reason for GW to make this change.

 

 

To expand upon this, a weapon killing infantry does not make it an anti-infantry weapon. It just means it passes the bare minimum requirements for being a feasible weapon (sorry Grots). Calling anything "anti-X" suggests some kind of specialisation. In the case of anti-tank, it's the ability to defeat high toughness, good armour saves & multiple wounds. In the case of anti-infantry these things are less important and rate of fire becomes king, either because the weapon fires a lot of shots or can be fielded in large numbers. This does not apply to melta weapons, therefore they are not anti-infantry.

 

 

Yeah, I can see why they've done it. I'll be honest, I like the weapons on the datasheet with all the relevant stats baked in. It feels elegant (whether it will be in practice remains to be seen). What I don't get is why some weapons are combined while other's remain different, and the post I was replying to suggested that it was because they now had different hit rolls & str. I was just showing why I don't think that theory holds water, because if that was the case we'd see different weapon names every time there's a different hit roll/str.

 

You're right for a grand total of 18 months after 7 editions chaos terminators have been lumbered with a radical loadout restriction based on the limitations of a plastic kit. Outside of that yes, people will min-max, that's the point.

 

Even with sternguard, they are not explicitly an anti-vehicle unit, twisting their role into one via cheap combi weapons is a problem.

 

We clearly don't agree though so happy to leave it as a difference of opinions.

[BluejayJunior]

10 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

I fully understand that. My issue isn't with that. It's with them combining combi/power weapons into one profile & people that it's been done to simplify things. It doesn't hold up as reasoning when Astartes chainswords still exist, when Marines now have different bolters to everyone else and who knows how many more unique weapon profiles are emerging. Because hit roll & strength are being incorporated into weapon profiles, I'd imagine we're going to have more unique weapons this edition than any previous edition. Which makes it very silly to reason that some arbitrary weapons are being merged into one profile when other very similar weapons are staying distinct or having new weapon variants added.

Those two things are not the same. Simplifying weapons into just power weapons and combiweapons and two different factions treating the same weapon differently aren't the same. 

Combining weapons is a simplification. Not getting into whether that is good or not, but it is a simplification. Probably, at least partially, for the reason that combiweapons aren't options for many units and they're trying to reduce rules bloat. 

But Sisters and Astartes having different numbers of shots on boltguns isn't bloat or anti-simplification. Nothing about the strength, damage, AP is different. They're still the same gun. The only difference is that Astartes essentially always get to rapid fire them and other factions don't. 

One is an internal faction wargear issue and the other is just differences between factions. 

Astartes chainswords were separated to give them additional AP, so they were deadlier in Space Marine hands. With weapons having bespoke profiles for each unit, they probably don't need that distinction anymore. They could just be chainswords and have -1AP. But they're sticking with Astartes Chainswords. I'm actually not sure what you're complaining about when you mention them. Because it seems like you both hate that they're a different weapon with a different profile compared to regular chainswords, but also don't want them to be Chainswords that have different stats depending on which unit uses them. 

[Toxichobbit]

3 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Because each squad only has access to one flavour of bolter and Chainswords seem to be fairly standardised. Melee units often had the choice between between power swords and axes in the same unit leading to people either trying to min/max their loadout or resorting to magnets etc. Consolidating power weapons cuts down on the number of choices on each squad. Consolidating Intercessors bolt rifles into a single profile does the same job.

 

Giving different squads different flavours of bolters is also fine because each squad will only ever have one type of bolter. If you want Marksman bolt carbines, you take Infiltrators. Rather than worrying about what flavour of bolter a particular member of a squad is armed with.

 

I could see it being to reduce complexity of individual data sheets & help prevent min/maxing or needing magnets, but then they haven't done that for special or heavy weapons, or for heavy power weapons. The issue you're giving as a reason for power/combi weapons having one profile also applies to special & heavy power weapons, and especially to heavy weapons. So again, it's inconsistent. It could be argued that special & heavy weapons look more different than combi-weapons (hard to make that argument for power weapons), but that still feels arbitrary. As I've been saying all along, sometimes they've combined profiles, sometimes they haven't and I've yet to see any consistent logic behind the decision, which makes it less palatable. It just feels like the games designers decided to cut down on some stuff & went with what they felt was right, not what made logical sense.

 

 

[Blindhamster]

5 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

I could see it being to reduce complexity of individual data sheets & help prevent min/maxing or needing magnets, but then they haven't done that for special or heavy weapons, or for heavy power weapons. The issue you're giving as a reason for power/combi weapons having one profile also applies to special & heavy power weapons, and especially to heavy weapons. So again, it's inconsistent. It could be argued that special & heavy weapons look more different than combi-weapons (hard to make that argument for power weapons), but that still feels arbitrary. As I've been saying all along, sometimes they've combined profiles, sometimes they haven't and I've yet to see any consistent logic behind the decision, which makes it less palatable. It just feels like the games designers decided to cut down on some stuff & went with what they felt was right, not what made logical sense.

 

 

Power weapons they actually explained, they it’s apparently so it’s less restrictive for conversions.

 

also, power weapons have struggled with one option always being the best since they got split up again anyway, so on that front, I see it as nothing other than a good thing.

 

combi weapons feel like there is far less good reason for it, though I guess it could be argued that it lets you mix them in a unit and not have the unit suck, I doubt that’s the reason though

[Squark]

22 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Power weapons they actually explained, they it’s apparently so it’s less restrictive for conversions.

 

also, power weapons have struggled with one option always being the best since they got split up again anyway, so on that front, I see it as nothing other than a good thing.

 

combi weapons feel like there is far less good reason for it, though I guess it could be argued that it lets you mix them in a unit and not have the unit suck, I doubt that’s the reason though

That might be it, actually- more specifically, so GW's sculptors and sprue designers don't need to stress about combi-weapon variety and quantity in future kits.

 

Going back to one power weapon profile and not punishing people because they prefer swords over axes or spears over mauls is good, especially since it also made searching for specific bits that much more frustrating if a kit comes with a different setup. As for combi-weapons, though... A combi-flamer and a combi-melta clearly look and feel different. Condensing to one profile feels odd, to be sure.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Squark

[jaxom]

*Removed for being off topic and moved to appropriate thread.*

Edited May 10, 2023 by jaxom
Moved to thread in ADEPTUS ASTARTES

[dicebod]

To pivot away from combis...

The thing I am most curious about is how this game mode is going to be balanced. The contents of these combat patrol boxes has always seemed a bit scattershot and it's obvious they weren't made with the intention of being balanced against each other. I have high hopes for small scale 40k that can be played in a few hours instead of taking up a whole evening and I love that army creation has a definite end. All you do is pick up a box and paint it? Sounds great for getting people into the game.

[Toxichobbit]

14 minutes ago, BluejayJunior said:

Those two things are not the same. Simplifying weapons into just power weapons and combiweapons and two different factions treating the same weapon differently aren't the same. 

Combining weapons is a simplification. Not getting into whether that is good or not, but it is a simplification. Probably, at least partially, for the reason that combiweapons aren't options for many units and they're trying to reduce rules bloat. 

But Sisters and Astartes having different numbers of shots on boltguns isn't bloat or anti-simplification. Nothing about the strength, damage, AP is different. They're still the same gun. The only difference is that Astartes essentially always get to rapid fire them and other factions don't. 

One is an internal faction wargear issue and the other is just differences between factions. 

Astartes chainswords were separated to give them additional AP, so they were deadlier in Space Marine hands. With weapons having bespoke profiles for each unit, they probably don't need that distinction anymore. They could just be chainswords and have -1AP. But they're sticking with Astartes Chainswords. I'm actually not sure what you're complaining about when you mention them. Because it seems like you both hate that they're a different weapon with a different profile compared to regular chainswords, but also don't want them to be Chainswords that have different stats depending on which unit uses them. 

 

You might need my previous posts for context - I'm not complaining about Astartes chainswords having different profiles, but rather about combi-weapons & power weapons not having different profiles. It's about GW being inconsistent - some weapons that are similar have been combined into one profile, while other weapons that are also similar, haven't. Astartes chainswords are one of the examples I'm using of that inconsistency, but I have zero problem with them, or any other chainsword for that matter. 

 

I don't think it matters much if different weapon profiles are in-faction or in different factions, it's still bloat. At the end of the day, more weapon profiles means more stuff to remember. Someone still needs to be aware that when facing Sisters, chainswords & bolters have one profile but when facing Marines they have another (and a different name for the chainswords). And likely when facing Aeldari another different profile (or two) for chainswords. And when facing Guard a different chainsword profile to Marines again (possibly two, depending on how much you consider the hit roll changing being a different profile). Then we have other weapon options that are in the same faction, even on the same datasheet, like special or heavy weapons that all have different profiles. 

 

There's so much hoop jumping going on to give logic to GW's combi-weapon decision. Hit roll/str isn't a different profile, it's just reflecting the units stats so it isn't comparable. AP-1 for Astartes chainswords isn't comparable because every other stat is the same (apart from the hit roll, & str - so yeah, almost a completely different weapon at that point). It's not comparable for Marines to have different bolters to everyone else because it represents Marines skill. It's not comparable to have different profiles for weapons between different factions, because (I assume) the differences are once again based on the models hit roll/str being moved to the gun. Etc, etc.

 

But it's not fine for combi-weapons to have one profile for different weapons, because it's more than just hit roll/str changes, it's different to Astartes chainswords because they are deadlier than normal chainswords & chainswords have mostly standardised stats, it's different to special/heavy weapons despite them being in the same faction like combi-weapons because.... well, nobody has tried to give a reason for that one yet.

 

It's all arbitrary distinctions being applied to justify GW's decision. If bloat is the issue then why is it more important that Marines have their slightly different profiles for bigger chainswords & better bolter skill, than for combi-weapons (which are different guns to each other) having different profiles? If it's because differences only matter in faction, then why do special weapons all have unique profiles in the same faction but combi-weapons (which are the same special weapon strapped to a bolter) do not? If it's to make things simpler, then why specifically have these generic profiles for combi & power weapons, but not for other melee weapons (chainswords, heavy power weapons etc), or other special & heavy weapons?

 

At the end of the day, this is where GW decided to draw the line. Whatever, their game, their rules. I don't like it, but I can accept it. What I find hard to accept is that there just isn't consistency or logic behind the decision, which makes it a bitter pill to swallow.

[Frogian]

We seemed to have moved on to general 10th discussion, but is anyone planning on getting a combat patrol due to these new rules? 

It's certainly making me looking at the Votann one a bit more - will have to see how many people are interested at my club

[Jolemai]

41 minutes ago, jaxom said:

 

Also, Mods, would it be possible to split all the combi-weapon posts into a separate thread from combat patrol? 

 

Discussion on combi-weapoms can be found below. In the meantime, please keep this thread on the topic of the Combat Patrol rules preview.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Jolemai

[Petitioner's City]

4 minutes ago, Frogian said:

We seemed to have moved on to general 10th discussion, but is anyone planning on getting a combat patrol due to these new rules? 

It's certainly making me looking at the Votann one a bit more - will have to see how many people are interested at my club

 

If I didn't have a pile and little time, yes, I would be. But I think I could construct one from my collection, maybe, and would gladly do it as a quicker, easier form of 40k. 9th passed me by with its rapid pace, whereas this hopefully wont 

[Toxichobbit]

13 minutes ago, Frogian said:

We seemed to have moved on to general 10th discussion, but is anyone planning on getting a combat patrol due to these new rules? 

It's certainly making me looking at the Votann one a bit more - will have to see how many people are interested at my club

 

I don't think so. But I'm pretty sure most people in my gaming group will have all the models for their chosen factions combat patrol, so we might give it a try. If our weapon loadouts match. I doubt any of us will buy new units to arm them with GW's approved loadout.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Toxichobbit

[ZeroWolf]

7 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

 

If I didn't have a pile and little time, yes, I would be. But I think I could construct one from my collection, maybe, and would gladly do it as a quicker, easier form of 40k. 9th passed me by with its rapid pace, whereas this hopefully wont 

I'm in the same boat, there's a lot of combat patrols I'd happily pick up (besides the Sororitas one, as I'm only missing the tank from having that one!). Alas I really shouldn't be picking up anything else at the moment...on the other hand, I was planning on starting a space wolf army at some point this edition...

[BluejayJunior]

55 minutes ago, Toxichobbit said:

 

You might need my previous posts for context - I'm not complaining about Astartes chainswords having different profiles, but rather about combi-weapons & power weapons not having different profiles. It's about GW being inconsistent - some weapons that are similar have been combined into one profile, while other weapons that are also similar, haven't. Astartes chainswords are one of the examples I'm using of that inconsistency, but I have zero problem with them, or any other chainsword for that matter. 

 

I don't think it matters much if different weapon profiles are in-faction or in different factions, it's still bloat. At the end of the day, more weapon profiles means more stuff to remember. Someone still needs to be aware that when facing Sisters, chainswords & bolters have one profile but when facing Marines they have another (and a different name for the chainswords). And likely when facing Aeldari another different profile (or two) for chainswords. And when facing Guard a different chainsword profile to Marines again (possibly two, depending on how much you consider the hit roll changing being a different profile). Then we have other weapon options that are in the same faction, even on the same datasheet, like special or heavy weapons that all have different profiles. 

 

There's so much hoop jumping going on to give logic to GW's combi-weapon decision. Hit roll/str isn't a different profile, it's just reflecting the units stats so it isn't comparable. AP-1 for Astartes chainswords isn't comparable because every other stat is the same (apart from the hit roll, & str - so yeah, almost a completely different weapon at that point). It's not comparable for Marines to have different bolters to everyone else because it represents Marines skill. It's not comparable to have different profiles for weapons between different factions, because (I assume) the differences are once again based on the models hit roll/str being moved to the gun. Etc, etc.

 

But it's not fine for combi-weapons to have one profile for different weapons, because it's more than just hit roll/str changes, it's different to Astartes chainswords because they are deadlier than normal chainswords & chainswords have mostly standardised stats, it's different to special/heavy weapons despite them being in the same faction like combi-weapons because.... well, nobody has tried to give a reason for that one yet.

 

It's all arbitrary distinctions being applied to justify GW's decision. If bloat is the issue then why is it more important that Marines have their slightly different profiles for bigger chainswords & better bolter skill, than for combi-weapons (which are different guns to each other) having different profiles? If it's because differences only matter in faction, then why do special weapons all have unique profiles in the same faction but combi-weapons (which are the same special weapon strapped to a bolter) do not? If it's to make things simpler, then why specifically have these generic profiles for combi & power weapons, but not for other melee weapons (chainswords, heavy power weapons etc), or other special & heavy weapons?

 

At the end of the day, this is where GW decided to draw the line. Whatever, their game, their rules. I don't like it, but I can accept it. What I find hard to accept is that there just isn't consistency or logic behind the decision, which makes it a bitter pill to swallow.

Fair enough on the chainswords. I understand that. 

I still think you are overstating the difference between sisters and astartes bolters. There's almost no different than how they are now. Sisters bolters work the exact same. Astartes bolters used to work the exact same way as Sisters. Except when the unit stood still, then Astartes got to rapid fire regardless of range. Or except when in the Tactical Doctrine, then they were AP -1. 

So in 9th, there was more of a difference between the two and you had to remember 2 separate rules. Now, the only difference is the number of shots between 12-24" that will be listed on a card that is easily referenced during play. So simplification. 

I'm not arguing on if the changes to combi-weapons are good or make sense. But I don't think it was arbitrary to GW and don't think it's even close to the bolters/chainswords you mention. 

[Noserenda]

Theyve outright told us how they plan to balance the various Combat patrols guys, there are different datasheets for this mode so they can make various units better or worse to make the game mode work, tanks might have significantly lower toughness for example.

Equally, character combi weapons could well be different to unit ones, we just dont know yet.

[Jolemai]

If only there was a thread about combi-weapons! 

[Arkhanist]

5 hours ago, Frogian said:

We seemed to have moved on to general 10th discussion, but is anyone planning on getting a combat patrol due to these new rules? 

It's certainly making me looking at the Votann one a bit more - will have to see how many people are interested at my club

 

I've been tempted since it was announced, and the preview does sound interesting for quick games. I have equivalents of the Blood Angels one bar the Impulsor, but it's not a very Blood Angel-y box, and I'm unconvinced a floaty rhino is that useful with no melee unit to go in it. It'll probably depend on how much the marine combat patrols end up faction locked with the detachment rules; the Dark Angels or Space Wolves boxes seem like they'd be a better fit, but I may not be able to take them.