Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Since there is a bit of chatter regarding Combat Patrol lately, and since there is a debate on using the standard force organization chart for CP (combat patrol) even though Combat Patrol inst a standard mission, I figured it was time to raise this thread from the dead....
To quote the popular video game from the late eighties "Altered Beast":
There are general rules laid out on pp77-81. They talk about the way to organize your army (FoC), how much terrain to use, how to deploy, etc. For those rules to be well... overrulled, you would need a specific rule to do so. Note: It does not say these are only to be used for the following 6 missions, they are stated as 'the' way to play.
On p. 192 it brings up the concept of creating missions that use an *alternate* FoC;(Since the one on p 78 is the default one). It then goes on to provide an example of some alternate FoC's, as well as some example missions that could use those alternate FoC's.
On pp190-191 they talk about 'Special Missions', but since there is nothing specific stated about changing the default FoC rule, you still need to use that rule.
On p184, it has another mission, Combat Patrol, this time is mentions a change modification to the FoC, but does not provide a new one, nor does it say to ignore it. It mentions two, very specific, modifications. You don't have to take a HQ, and you only have to take 1 troop choice. I see nothing that says you are allowed to ignore the rest of the FoC rules. To support that: If they *did* want you to ignore the FoC rules, there would be no reason to mention the HQ. The only reason to mention the HQ is if they want you to keep the standard FoC, with a modification.
Posted By coredump on 06/12/2007 3:14 PM Awesome, Necroing your own thread.
Looking at "The Book"...
There are general rules laid out on pp77-81. They talk about the way to organize your army (FoC), how much terrain to use, how to deploy, etc. For those rules to be well... overrulled, you would need a specific rule to do so. Note: It does not say these are only to be used for the following 6 missions, they are stated as 'the' way to play.
Sorry, but youre mistaken. Standard FOC is not a default, it is for Standard Missions, as explained twice. Notice how the following says that "There are a total of five standard missions to choose from. All of these missions use the standard Force Organization chart."
And on page 78 this is also said:
Also notice how it says that "As you can see from the Force Organization chart opposite (refering to the std FOC), which is used for all Standard Missions..."
It doesnt state "Any mission that doesnt have a Force organization chart uses the standard force organization chart".
We already know that "we dont always have to take 1 HQ and 2 troops" because of the way the alternate FOC's are arranged. The precedent has been set so that we know that when GW said "you will always have to take at least one Headquarters selection and two Troops selections" that Always is not set in stone. This is exemplified by what limitations you must have in the Combat Patrol army limitations rules bullets.
Because of that, I maintain my posit that this is the complete entirety of the CPFOC
Posted By coredump on 06/12/2007 3:14 PM
On p184, it has another mission, Combat Patrol, this time is mentions a change modification to the FoC, but does not provide a new one, nor does it say to ignore it. It mentions two, very specific, modifications.
Also incorrect. It states:
"Army Limitations Each player will need a patrol that conforms to the rules below."
I does not state that "These are modifications to the std FOC". It states that whatever army you take conforms to the rules below. That doesnt mean that you can take a brood of 2 genestealers. it means that you select from your codex as normal, with these limitations.
Nothing more.
Posted By coredump on 06/12/2007 3:14 PM
You don't have to take a HQ, and you only have to take 1 troop choice. I see nothing that says you are allowed to ignore the rest of the FoC rules. To support that: If they *did* want you to ignore the FoC rules, there would be no reason to mention the HQ. The only reason to mention the HQ is if they want you to keep the standard FoC, with a modification.
I think I have shown that your posit above is not based on rules, but on assumption that has lead to an incorrect interpretation of the rules.
While you're clearly not wrong from a strict RAW, it's pretty clear that the Combat Patrol rules are pretty loosey-goosey given the fact that they have a giant caveat of: 'these rules may not work for every army!'
IMO any competitive version of Combat Patrol (such as a tournament) would need to spell out exactly what armies these rules don't appropriately cover (and how to play with those armies) and the organizer would probably want to institute a maximum number of Elite, FA and Heavy choices just to keep things relatively balanced.
Oh I agree its meant for very loose fun games. But then again, the word fun is subjective as well.
When used in a competitive environment, a bit more definition is needed. I originally thought that CP was based on the std FOC as well, but have learned that this isnt neccesarily a universal way of thinking when playing. Out of 7 different states that I have played CP in, only a couple places in Montana and one place in Minnesota has played it with the assumption that std FOC was to be considered.
I know this holds about as much water as a redshirts shirt, but even army builder doesnt have any FOC restrictions other than 0-1 HQ and 1+ troops when building a CP list. Thats not the basis of my argument, just an interesting aside.
In the army lists section of dakka is where this debate arose, and I too beleive that the organizer should define this issue of FOC before the tourney starts. I have already emailed him about the question and possible clarification, even though I dont plan on attending.
While I hang my head in shame for my lack of reading comprehension.... (I just plain missed some stuff) I think some assumptions are being made that do not make sense.
There is a standard FoC; there are some standard missions. I do not believe they are meant to have a 1:1 correlation.
Having a Breakthrough FoC, which are used if an only if running Breakthrough missions, makes sense and is a decent assumption. But the word standard I don't think is a title, but used in the context of default.
If you create a new mission, and do not create a specific FoC for the mission, then it will use the standard FoC, because, well.... it is the standard.
There is supporting evidence. 1) the missions listed later have specific FoC's listed for them 2) There are other 'not the 6 standard' missions listed, also with no FoC listed. Unless you believe those have *no* FoC restirctions, then it is logical to assume they use the 'standard' FoC 3) If the CP meant to ignore the standard FoC, then there is no reason to mention that HQ is optional. All you would say is no more than 1 HQ. The only reason to list the optional aspect' is if the standard FoC is otherwise being used.
To clarify 1&2: There are 3 special missions presented, with no FoC. Does that mean you can take anything you want? Or does it mean that you default to the 'standard' FoC. Since the missions directly following that specifically call out that they are using alternate FoC's, it seems obvious to me.
Posted By coredump on 06/12/2007 9:04 PM While I hang my head in shame for my lack of reading comprehension.... (I just plain missed some stuff) I think some assumptions are being made that do not make sense.
There is a standard FoC; there are some standard missions. I do not believe they are meant to have a 1:1 correlation.
Having a Breakthrough FoC, which are used if an only if running Breakthrough missions, makes sense and is a decent assumption. But the word standard I don't think is a title, but used in the context of default.
If you create a new mission, and do not create a specific FoC for the mission, then it will use the standard FoC, because, well.... it is the standard.
There is supporting evidence. 1) the missions listed later have specific FoC's listed for them 2) There are other 'not the 6 standard' missions listed, also with no FoC listed. Unless you believe those have *no* FoC restirctions, then it is logical to assume they use the 'standard' FoC 3) If the CP meant to ignore the standard FoC, then there is no reason to mention that HQ is optional. All you would say is no more than 1 HQ. The only reason to list the optional aspect' is if the standard FoC is otherwise being used.
To clarify 1&2: There are 3 special missions presented, with no FoC. Does that mean you can take anything you want? Or does it mean that you default to the 'standard' FoC. Since the missions directly following that specifically call out that they are using alternate FoC's, it seems obvious to me.
I guess we are both using some assumptions here, I have shared yours before but have since given them up for a freer way to game.
Though, I really do not think that applying Breakthrough Force org, for breakthrough missions is an assumption at all. Stadard missions equate to standard force org, just as raid missions equate to raid force orgs.
But onto your supporting evidence...
To create a new mission, you could just as easily apply any force org as you could standard.
1) Yes. The missions in the dark millenium section (page 162 and beyond) have their own force org charts. Infact, the only missions not in dark millenium are standard missions and standard force orgs. 2) is also true. The special missions on page 190 and 191 (formerly standard missions in third edition) immediatly precede the alternate force org charts. So exactly how they are placed is somewhat of a mystery although there is one place to look to answer that quaetion, and that is the beginning of dark millenium. Here is an excerpt from dark millenium regarding how to use the "Special Missions"
As you can see, they have intended the missions we are spealing of to be rather loosely interpreted. Just agree with the opponent on how they should be used and away you go. Basically, everything in dark millenium is such.
3) I know this is a reiteration of your previous post, but to be honest, it really doesnt make much sense to me. (sincerely, no offense is intended, I honestly dont really understand) Yo me it seems you are superimposing what you knew in theird edition, and what the rulebook tells you preceding the dark millenium chapter that contains the subject of this debate. Combat Patrol.
Dark millenium is simply not subject to the stricter parameters that are invoked in the earlier main part of the rules. Such things as standard FOC just doesnt come into play unless you impose it on the opponent or gaming group as an option.
Pages 162 and beyond just arent in the realm of truly competitive play. I find it sad that Jervis is deciding to do away with such things in the normal rulebook in the future, but it is threads just as this that validify his belief that they should be removed. He thinks that people cannot differentiate between competitive rules and stuff for fun. I fear he is right. But, I severely digress....
When I read the combat patrol entry on page 168, I think of some one new to the hobby who might have bought a battleforce which really isnt legal to field using the std FOC but wants to play. Using Combat Patrol rules, they have a basically unrestricted way to use almost any models in their collection, as long as they use no more than one HQ and atleast 1 troops choice.
Really, CP isnt meant for very hard lined rules disputes, and this thread is testament to how wrong it can go. But for the sake of competitive consistency this should be hashed out, one way or the other.
This thread has left me with a bitter taste in my conscious about arguing a pedantic point regarding combat patrol. Its one of the few things I play where I have little to no disagreements playing. That little bit of innocence is now shattered.
I actually am quite sorry I started this thread to be honest.
I hate being told what to do, and when somebody as in coredumps case tells me I MUST play it this way....well I have this damned urge to argue against such strictures that are obviously not present.
*walks slowly away from thread in a horrendously maudlin overly dramatic fashion* *cue incredible hulk end credit music*
I am not telling you how you MUST play, I am telling you what I think the rules say. You show up with a fun list with no troops, heck I don't care. Lets play. I think a Nid CP with only lictors would be fun, and kinda makes sense.
But as far as the 'new person' issue, and helping them out. It doesn't really come into play. It is only 400 points, you really have to put in effort to try and break the std FoC. Look at the original issue, 6 war walkers. Perfectly legal according to the Std FoC. The only problem is the original poster wanted to put them into 6 separate units. That isn't a 'new person' issue, that is someone going "Hey, I can get quite an advantage with 6 units instead of 3 units". Nid CP can have 4 rippers and 9 raveners. It would sure be more advantageous to have raveners in *9* broods instead of 3. Again, not a 'new person' issue, but an experienced person knowing a way to get quite an advantage.
You say that CP is meant to be for fun, and the rules are looser. Okay, but then lets see examples where the std FoC is limiting that. So far what I see, breaking the FoC is not for 'fun' or 'theme', but for strictly a *competitive* advantage. (ala warwalkers)
Battle/Raid/Breakthrough are all meant to use a different FoC. Interestingly enough, they are listed *after* the section that talks about using alternate FoC's. In fact, they have those alternate FoC's listed. Night Fight, patrol, and rescue are meant (IMO) to use the 'standard' FoC, and are listed before the section dealing with FoC. CP is also listed before alternate FoC's are discussed; why do we assume that they meant for an alternate FoC to be used, when they haven't even discussed it before that? And then why not supply the alternate FoC, like they did for the other examples?
You want to make CP for 'fun', fine. Lets get rid of the 1 troop requirement.
When I show up with 9 raveners, it is because of a 'theme' that I have. When I show up with 9 raveners, and put them in 9 different broods, it is purely for the competitive advantage it gives me. I feel the same can be said for the 6 warwalkers...
true, but with the GT having CP in it now (as i heard some-one say), surely people will be making competative armies, and so these questions must be asked
I guess technically you are correct hellfury... but I totally agree with the poster who brought up the LAME factor. I am surprised you have encountered more people using no FOC, than the normal restricted FOC. Well, given your average gamer, I guess I'm not that surprised.
Posted By 01777 on 06/13/2007 5:43 AM true, but with the GT having CP in it now (as i heard some-one say), surely people will be making competative armies, and so these questions must be asked
Posted By 01777 on 06/13/2007 5:43 AM true, but with the GT having CP in it now (as i heard some-one say), surely people will be making competative armies, and so these questions must be asked
Thanks 01777, thats the point I was trying to make.
It doesnt really matter. But it can be seen two ways, no matter how wrong or cheesy someone views either aspect, both are valid ways of perceiving how to make a Combat Patrol.
I still havent heard back from the organizer regarding the issue. I am not sure if I even will hear back from him. Hopefully instead of responding to the email, he will post here and let us know how the event will rule on this.
Basically it doesnt matter on what anyone here says, it all hinges on how the organizer rules on the issue. Then there will be no suprises and there will be consistency.
Here is the tourney organizers response to the question I asked last night.
In short, we now know that the Standard FOC will be used with the exception of 0-1 HQ and 1+ Troops.
Thanks for the heads up. Usually when poeple ask me a question I read my own rules should I have forgotten them or if I feel they are interpreting something that I did not intend. If it is something that deserves a judgement call I make it, but usually it is right there plain as day. In this case it is as plain as day that there is no force organization reference in the rules. So, this is going to have to be an exception to my quid pro quo. I was unaware that combat patrol did not follow the standard force organization chart. I wrote the scenarios with that chart in mind. I am pretty sure the GW software AoI and EoI have a force organization chart for combat patrol since the most recent update. I'll e-mail all of my entrants and let them know that we will use the standard force organization chart with the two exceptions being 0-1 hq and 1 cumpolsory troop. Should this have happened on the day of the tournament, I would have had to let it go, so thanks again for the heads up.
Before I ran the first tournament I had a 'guy' try to break them and he did a pretty good job. He must have come up with 20 questions and a loop hole or two within minutes, but he missed this. He then went on to win the tournament with a pretty basic list. He even beat the 5 warwalker eldar pretty handily. In that tournament, all participants were given the entire book of six scenarios when they registered so that they could prepare. The way I envisioned the tournament, perhaps naively, is that given the amount of terrain, and new scenarios, which in many cases explicitly state new and modified rules, was that the person that brought a balanced list and thought the best on their feet had the best chance of winning. In other words I tried to design everything with composition hidden in the scenarios.
Now, that 6 warwalker, 3 bike army is still legal, but you have to fill 2-3 heavy slots to do it.
The 4 landspeeder list is still doable but you have to fill 2-3 fast attack slots to do it.
But, you may find few firing lanes available to make the warwalkers dominate, and you may be lacking in objective taking capability with the speeders. So, keep that in mind.
Like you, I want everyone to have a blast playing in this tournament. I want to invite youngbloods, new players, and veterans too, whether they are into fluff or building monster lists. And I want them to be able to all have fun playing the same game.
I'll be running this in Chicago, too. Someone else may take over in LA. If not, I'm fairly certain GW will want it again next year. I also am planning on going to the Baltimore GT. As of now, there are no plans to run it there, even on Friday, but that may change before November. Games Workshop seems pretty upbeat about this tournament, so if all goes well, it may be around for a while.
If you want to print this email for the folks at Dakka, or anywhere else, or just paraphrase you have my permission.
