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.
Which game mode, between Combat Patrol and boarding actions, should GW focuses its energy on in the future ?
I feel that CB requires a lot more ressources (basically rebalancing a whole lot of datasheets) just to play more 40k redux, while Boarding Actions pretty much solves many problems of 40k (ie mixing vehicles and infantry using only D6 in the same game mode), feels very different, is much more rewarding for the time spent, and is more interesting than Kill Team, because it let you mix and match your infantry units instead of locking you with a team.
I would rather BA become a fixture of the game in future editions, integrated into Codices, rather than a continued Combat Patrol focus.
What do you think ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/09 20:36:55
The problem with boarding action is that it’s really terrain focused. While great if you have it, requiring a specific table full of terrain makes it less ideal as an on ramp to the hobby.
I think that Combat Patrol as a concept is a better way to get people into 40K. Would be nice if the different Combat Patrols were more balanced against each other. That’s a challenge though if GW wants to make all Combat Patrol boxes the same price.
Combat Patrol, with a Focus on AdMech Knights, give me a pair of Armigers and some Skitarii and we have ourselves a Combst Patrol for Imperial Knights.
Replace the Skitarii with some Cultists and now you have Chaos Knights.
Perfect. They should be all inclusive with Combat Patrol.
BorderCountess wrote: Just because you're doing something right doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing...
I think Boarding actions is great because it interacts with Crusade, but I agree that it's currently too terrain focused. If they put development into it, it should be finding a way to expand the types of battlefield on which it can be played. Going faction specific on terrain could be a way of providing some diversity. I'd love plastic terrain like the old Tyranid Attack game- the interior of a Tyrannid Bioship. A Wych Cult Arena might also be made to fit the Boarding Action rule set.
Combat Patrol with its alternate datasheets and bespoke load outs isn't compatible with Crusade, but it brings a lot of value to the game for the box sets and ease of entry. I really liked that the big box set is two full combat patrols, and that the launch box was two combat patrols +. I wish smaller starter boxes had been launched AS a Boarding Action army with suitable terrain.
Selfishly, I think Boarding Actions is the way more satisfying and rewarding game and the one I most want to see expanded on. If they'd just make it less tied to specific terrain (to make it miles more accessible), I think it might become my favorite way to play.
Combat Patrol just seems like beginner's mode 40k. Which is useful for onboarding new players, but it's ultimately just simpler 40k with fewer options. Like, Spearhead works as a standalone game. I almost want to say I'd rather just play Spearhead than get into AoS. Combat Patrol doesn't feel like a satisfying self-contained game the way Spearhead does. It feels like less complicated, less satisfying 40k.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Sorry, I can't vote on your poll - because you forgot both the Both & Neither choices.
Personally it doesn't make a difference to me which of these GW opts for. Could be one or the other, could be both, could be neither....
As far as me playing one of them?
I've no interest in CP. I view it as a waste of my time. WHY would I want to play a simplified version of an all ready too simplified game AND have all choice of what models to use stripped out to boot? No thank you.
But if GW wants to continue supporting it that's their business.
Boarding Action is a bit better. Although it has a few changes & restricts some use of units, at least it still offers choice.
As for it being terrain dependent? Since the shop I'd most likely be playing this at has 3 complete Gallowdark/BA sets, not my problem. But if it was my problem? I know multiple people with 3d printers. Or, if I must.... give me a few days & I can scratch build any BA stuff I'd ever need.
Combat patrol is unfun to play, based on what GW puts in to the boxes(which with each edition somehow becomes worse for a lot of factions), 0 options and lack of appeal for established players.
Boarding patrol is terrain dependant, but as an idea it is interesting. It is bogged down by lack of support though. HH does show that a "boarding patrol" style scenarion/setting can be interesting to play.
Both game styles suffer from the GW balance, but given options and potential way to adjust stuff, the Boarding Patrol wins out. Right now playing Combat Patrol feels like playing spearhead, only a lot of the factions have to use the all so "fun" to play Lumineth starter.
Or to paraphrase my esteemed colegue in the bouncer industry said, One is McDonalds and it is bad, and the other is your sisters cooking. She can't cook like mom or gran, in fact she can't even cook that well, but at worse her cooking at least reminds you of how good grans and moms cooking was, while McDonalds only reminds you of the taste of burned plastic.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
I like the idea of Combat Patrol in theory, but in practice, the CP boxes seem pretty naff. While the boxes should have models that you can use to make em yoour core for a given army, nowadays it feels more like GW is just cramming the boxes with the kits that sell the least and then try to shoehorn them into something that is balanced vs the other leftover kits in the range. WEAK
As much as I fancy Zone Mortalis / Boarding Actions type of games, they are more for experienced players. You cant expect a beginner to shell out for all that terrain before even having any models to play with. GW stores could perhaps be proactive in this regard, have them set up Boarding Actions game nights where players just need to bring their models
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/09 10:51:05
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
SamusDrake wrote: There is a beautiful middle ground between Combat Patrol and Boarding Actions, and 500 point games could be MUCH better.
That's true. If you took Boarding Action with its limited-but-flexible army building rules and then just subtracted the terrain-specific stuff, I think you'd have the best of both worlds. As cool as the terrain-specific rules are for Boarding Action, they're also not the main appeal for me. The main appeal is just being able to take small armies with sufficient guidelines to prevent skew from breaking the game and enough terrain to ranged units from deleting melee units before they close the gap.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
The only issue I see with Combat Patrol and the boxes that GW sells, is the dishonesty on display.
One of my friends who was interested in playing bought the Grey Knights Combat Patrol because he likes (for some reason I will never understand) the Dreadknight and the Terminators.
But according to the Combat Patrol army sheet, you cannot field both, it's an either/or proposition.
I looked it up myself and noticed a couple other boxes do this.
Why sell a "Combat Patrol" box that new players can't play with everything that comes in the box?
BorderCountess wrote: Just because you're doing something right doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing...
Lathe Biosas wrote: The only issue I see with Combat Patrol and the boxes that GW sells, is the dishonesty on display.
One of my friends who was interested in playing bought the Grey Knights Combat Patrol because he likes (for some reason I will never understand) the Dreadknight and the Terminators.
But according to the Combat Patrol army sheet, you cannot field both, it's an either/or proposition.
I looked it up myself and noticed a couple other boxes do this.
Why sell a "Combat Patrol" box that new players can't play with everything that comes in the box?
Because CP is a new game mode grafted onto old merchandise. And it needs to balance both point and monetary values. GW wants to keep a fixed box price, but juggling that with points and value is not easy.
El Torro wrote: I think that Combat Patrol as a concept is a better way to get people into 40K. Would be nice if the different Combat Patrols were more balanced against each other. That’s a challenge though if GW wants to make all Combat Patrol boxes the same price.
I'd give them an edition or two before judging the Patrol vs Patrol thing. (I think) They didn't wholesale replace all the Patrols during launch, they appear to be replacing them (if they do replace) during codex release - so most of the problematic Patrols may or may not be around still when it comes to 11th, and the new Combat Patrol System has been model-supported.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lathe Biosas wrote: Combat Patrol, with a Focus on AdMech Knights, give me a pair of Armigers and some Skitarii and we have ourselves a Combst Patrol for Imperial Knights.
Replace the Skitarii with some Cultists and now you have Chaos Knights.
Perfect. They should be all inclusive with Combat Patrol.
Most Combat Patrols are incapable of dealing with the single Medium+ Dread/Walker/Vehicle (Dreadknight, Warsuit, Impulsor, etc.) Its going to be even more lopsided with two Armigers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/09 18:38:33
That's true. If you took Boarding Action with its limited-but-flexible army building rules and then just subtracted the terrain-specific stuff, I think you'd have the best of both worlds. As cool as the terrain-specific rules are for Boarding Action, they're also not the main appeal for me. The main appeal is just being able to take small armies with sufficient guidelines to prevent skew from breaking the game and enough terrain to ranged units from deleting melee units before they close the gap.
Most Combat Patrols are incapable of dealing with the single Medium+ Dread/Walker/Vehicle (Dreadknight, Warsuit, Impulsor, etc.) Its going to be even more lopsided with two Armigers.
An Armiger leading House Militia would be the right direction. The implementation, however, would be in how the Armiger performs during the battle.
Even if they do wipe out the other side, the Armiger pilot will face terrible consequences if they return from battle alone. They are trusted to lead their people, not to see them to ruin.
Did they fail to engage that Eldar Wraithlord? Unacceptable! An Armiger is expected to earn their spurs!
The Knight player might have to withdraw from the field of battle to save what little respect remains; the Armiger must be the last to leave!
So at the end of the CP game, honour must be taken into consideration...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2025/01/09 20:04:38
Lathe Biosas wrote: The only issue I see with Combat Patrol and the boxes that GW sells, is the dishonesty on display.
One of my friends who was interested in playing bought the Grey Knights Combat Patrol because he likes (for some reason I will never understand) the Dreadknight and the Terminators.
But according to the Combat Patrol army sheet, you cannot field both, it's an either/or proposition.
I looked it up myself and noticed a couple other boxes do this.
Why sell a "Combat Patrol" box that new players can't play with everything that comes in the box?
"Balance".
Wich, apparently even with altering the rules for all the units, couldn't make both fit within their CP format. So you get the either/or choice.
Combat Patrol suffers from the fact that the armies are often very lopsided. For example, pit the Chaos Daemons box against any ranged-focused box, especially if the ranged box gets first turn, and watch the Daemons army melt.
It’s not intrinsically broken. It’s low point 40k with fixed lists. It should be easier to balance then matched play. They need to worry about lot less about unintended interactions and layered buffs.
The only sticking point is the value of all the boxes has the same price point. So elite vs. horde armies could be an issue, as you want to maintain balanced lists, but also value of product. But as you can add extra rules for the armies, lie recycling chaff units, or making the player pick between which hammer to use, I think it’s doable.
GW just needs to work on it, which I don’t think they are. I think because it’s just the intro mode, it gets a “close enough” and they’ve moved on.
I played a pair of CP games weekend before last, and they both felt reaonavly close and we had fun. SM vs Necrons, and Nids vs Custodes.
Never forget the 40k design team is so incompetent they couldn't even balance a mode with everything fixed,despite claiming it was "rigorously tested"
They do everything except properly restrict armies for low points games like the original combat patrol or "40k in 40 minutes" of yore which were actually balanced for low points games.
Combat patrol is a joke
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/25 14:48:35