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.

Right below the armour save is the the most logical place for any alternative saving throws, should have been like that on all cards.

Brickfix wrote:
Is it a reasonable assumption that the yet to be shown edition starter set is made up of the models necessary for the combat patrol game-mode? Matches the amount of models in the current starter boxes for 40k

We know the nids combat patrol contents, auspex tactics spotted a page suggesting the marine one is 5 flamer guys, 5 termies, captain and librarian, which is... underwhelming.

Edit: Honest to God... I swear I'm not on payroll, nor psychic:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/09/ways-to-play-warhammer-40000-combat-patrol-is-fast-and-fun/

Brickfix wrote:
Is it a reasonable assumption that the yet to be shown edition starter set is made up of the models necessary for the combat patrol game-mode? Matches the amount of models in the current starter boxes for 40k

It'll likely be like the 9th, and be composed of models from the Levithan set in some combination with terrain and boards.

Not sure if it's going to be 500 pts on each side worth, but that would make a ton of sense with how they are pushing Combat patrols now.

Voss wrote:

Melee weapons:
thunderhammer makes me facepalm. Hurrah for an un-consolidated weapon that brings a penalty to hit and the occasional pair of mortal wounds. That seems totally worthwhile.

I think the TH fits a role pretty well. I'll fix up all his weapons on multiple targets in a bit so we can see the full spread.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Melee weapons:
thunderhammer makes me facepalm. Hurrah for an un-consolidated weapon that brings a penalty to hit and the occasional pair of mortal wounds. That seems totally worthwhile.

I think the TH fits a role pretty well. I'll fix up all his weapons on multiple targets in a bit so we can see the full spread.

Part of my issue is the inconsistency. We have 'heavy close combat weapons' now, but sometimes I guess we don't.
Everything smaller got (reasonably) consolidated into relic weapon. But thunder hammers got one of the new ability tags just to keep them around. On characters. (Or just loyalist space marines, perhaps).

I'm very curious which profile the Obsidian Mallet chaos lord (from Blackstone Fortress) got.

Sooooo......loyalists still have power fists and lightning claws, but CSM have "Heavy melee weapons" and "Accursed weapons".

Typical.

It would be valid to say that they could have made a Heavy Chainaxe an interesting choice for CSM by way of rules like they did the TH, yes. I think there's some risk there when you have weapons on squads where it could get harder to make sure one weapon isn't the best. e.g. At first glance the PF on this captain seems underwhelming, but it could be great in the anti-elite role.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Melee weapons:
thunderhammer makes me facepalm. Hurrah for an un-consolidated weapon that brings a penalty to hit and the occasional pair of mortal wounds. That seems totally worthwhile.

I think the TH fits a role pretty well. I'll fix up all his weapons on multiple targets in a bit so we can see the full spread.

Part of my issue is the inconsistency. We have 'heavy close combat weapons' now, but sometimes I guess we don't.
Everything smaller got (reasonably) consolidated into relic weapon. But thunder hammers got one of the new ability tags just to keep them around. On characters. (Or just loyalist space marines, perhaps).

I'm very curious which the Obsidian Mallet chaos lord (from Blackstone Fortress) got.

Thunderhammer is iconic 40k though... it's there because people like it very much, and i guess that we'll see this sliding scale of granularity over the whole edition. Particularly good, or iconic, or new model stuff will remain granular, other stuff will be consolidated. Characters and Elite units get more detail, while random rabble #5 gets nothing.

 bullyboy wrote:
Shadow of chaos is interesting but also annoying that you have to keep checking for it at the start of every phase. I guess once you get used to the rule it will become more automatic.
Weird that the Keeper doesn’t have a rule for the “hand” as that is one of the options for the model. Luckily, mine are all magnetized.

I assume the options are on the back of the card (potentially with points costs), whereas the side we have seen covers everything. So not all Keepers get a 5+ FNP, only the ones who selected the shield. The one who selected the knives instead will get the extra attacks, the one who didn't select anything will only get the bare bones sword but will be cheaper, etc etc.

There will be a tipping point in the game when you get to declare "shadow" over no-man's land (and hopefully some back and forth as the opponent desperately tries to force the daemons off objectives). Presumably if the Daemons get "shadow" over the opponent's deployment zone, it's all over...

Tsagualsa wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Melee weapons:
thunderhammer makes me facepalm. Hurrah for an un-consolidated weapon that brings a penalty to hit and the occasional pair of mortal wounds. That seems totally worthwhile.

I think the TH fits a role pretty well. I'll fix up all his weapons on multiple targets in a bit so we can see the full spread.

Part of my issue is the inconsistency. We have 'heavy close combat weapons' now, but sometimes I guess we don't.
Everything smaller got (reasonably) consolidated into relic weapon. But thunder hammers got one of the new ability tags just to keep them around. On characters. (Or just loyalist space marines, perhaps).

I'm very curious which the Obsidian Mallet chaos lord (from Blackstone Fortress) got.

Thunderhammer is iconic 40k though... it's there because people like it very much, and i guess that we'll see this sliding scale of granularity over the whole edition. Particularly good, or iconic, or new model stuff will remain granular, other stuff will be consolidated. Characters and Elite units get more detail, while random rabble #5 gets nothing.

I mean... I'm specifically referencing a chaos lord (the only chaos lord model in power armor), and the first victim of 'accursed weapons' in 9th edition was Chaos Chosen. Second was Chaos Terminators. Random rabble haven't come up.

Look, I like the consolidation of weapons. Totally 100% in favor of it. But I have objections if some factions get to keep the shiny toys and/or get new rules variations in order to keep toys, and everybody else gets a hit from the whacking stick.

Its even weirder because its also happening on the same sheet. Combi-bolters are, apparently, a limited utility anti-infantry gun with drawbacks (when plasma or melta were the go-to choice for actual combi-weapons), and everything that wasn't a fist, claw or hammer became a one-size-fits-all relic weapon (which, again, I really like, but it stands out against the thunder hammer as 'exactly the same thing as power fist, but hits less often and sometimes procs mortal wounds, with the math problem left as an exercise for the reader.')

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It would be valid to say that they could have made a Heavy Chainaxe an interesting choice for CSM by way of rules like they did the TH, yes. I think there's some risk there when you have weapons on squads where it could get harder to make sure one weapon isn't the best. e.g. At first glance the PF on this captain seems underwhelming, but it could be great in the anti-elite role.

Personally, way more annoyed about lightning claws becoming "Accursed weapons". Much more iconic and long standing weapons. Plus, Night Lords = lightning claws.

But I guess that's just a continuation of problems from the current codex.

On the Accursed Weapons, and indeed all the cards we’ve seen thus far? I’d urge caution as they’re all pre-Codex.

Accursed Weapons may be a short term short hand for the time being.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the Accursed Weapons, and indeed all the cards we’ve seen thus far? I’d urge caution as they’re all pre-Codex.

Accursed Weapons may be a short term short hand for the time being.

Or it could just be that basic legionaries don’t get to have distinctive weapons and the chosen termies and/or lords will.

Not holding my breath, either way, though.

I’d like to apologise for that last sentence as it’s terribly written. But I can’t be arsed to change it now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the Accursed Weapons, and indeed all the cards we’ve seen thus far? I’d urge caution as they’re all pre-Codex.

Accursed Weapons may be a short term short hand for the time being.

Nope.
Its part of the 9th edition codex and the assembly instructions for the new kits.

Further, look at the chaos legionnaires card. It has a lot of stuff on it, not 'short term short hand.'
It has the autocannon from shadowspear (and the former combat patrol made from shadowspear) and the tome & chain-cannon options that are only available off the Kill Team sprue.
None of those things are available in the basic chaos space marine kit- in fact, had they stuck to 'what's in the box,' they wouldn't need an armory card, they could have fit everything the basic box builds on the card.
Ironically, GW actually went out of their way to include everything currently available (more, actually, since they don't seem to sell the mono-build squad with autocannon anymore).

In fact, the only reason CSM need an armory card is this squad and the Havoc _sergeant_ (who gets access to all the special weapons and melee weapons). All the other CSM units were already consolidated past the point an armory card was necessary.

Voss wrote:
I mean... I'm specifically referencing a chaos lord (the only chaos lord model in power armor), and the first victim of 'accursed weapons' in 9th edition was Chaos Chosen. Second was Chaos Terminators. Random rabble haven't come up.

Look, I like the consolidation of weapons. Totally 100% in favor of it. But I have objections if some factions get to keep the shiny toys and/or get new rules variations in order to keep toys, and everybody else gets a hit from the whacking stick.[/qoute]

Its even weirder because its also happening on the same sheet. Combi-bolters are, apparently, a limited utility anti-infantry gun with drawbacks (when plasma or melta were the go-to choice for actual combi-weapons), and everything that wasn't a fist, claw or hammer became a one-size-fits-all relic weapon (which, again, I really like, but it stands out against the thunder hammer as 'exactly the same thing as power fist, but hits less often and sometimes procs mortal wounds, with the math problem left as an exercise for the reader.')

This seems to be a general problem with the weapons we've been shown, the lack of consistency. It's also the same problem with weapons they've designated as twin-linked, such as heavy bolter on a land raider, and those that aren't; godhammer lascannon--on the same vehicle. It's completely arbitrary, and a bit irritating.

The new stats for Power fist vs Thunder Hammer are bad because they are very similar weapons now, more so than in 9th. They need more distinction to avoid falling into the camp of 'why weren't they consolidated,' other than being iconic weapons, of course.

Voss wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the Accursed Weapons, and indeed all the cards we’ve seen thus far? I’d urge caution as they’re all pre-Codex.

Accursed Weapons may be a short term short hand for the time being.

Nope.
Its part of the 9th edition codex and the assembly instructions for the new kits.

Further, look at the chaos legionnaires card. It has a lot of stuff on it, not 'short term short hand.'
It has the autocannon from shadowspear (and the former combat patrol made from shadowspear) and the tome & chain-cannon options that are only available off the Kill Team sprue.
None of those things are available in the basic chaos space marine kit- in fact, had the stuck to the box, they wouldn't need an armory card, they could have fit everything the basic box builds on the card.
Ironically, GW actually went out of their way to include everything currently available (more, actually, since they don't seem to sell the mono-build squad with autocannon anymore).

In fact, the only reason CSM need an armory card is this squad and the Havoc _sergeant_ (who gets access to all the special weapons and melee weapons). All the other CSM units were already consolidated past the point an armory card was necessary.

Yup. They even included the "just kitbash this from the Havocs kit" lascannon (which is also where I guess those autocannons will come from).

So... Am I only one that is bit mad with name of this rule?



With chaos with various names they went with words that remind of "Shadow in The Warp".

Here's the full weapon comparison. The Relic is the worst of the bunch, but it could be loadout restricted ( though the old datasheet doesn't care ). Everything else seems to have a defined role. A caveat on the TH vs W3 -- it's number would go up a bit over the powerfist since it could more easily deal with overflow.

I added a couple Heavy Chainaxe profiles -- both A5 WS3 S8 AP2 D2 -- one with Lethal Hits and one with Sustained Hits 1. The one with SH is exactly the same as the PF. The one with Lethal Hits has a slight edge over a TH when facing vehicles.

Here's my personal revelation. CSM get access to either LH or SH via pact. So making a weapon that has either of those abilities baked in is kind of pointless. So the only option would be to give it DW, but that's TH space. To me it looks like trying to distinguish it wouldn't work unless you also increased it's S or AP or some other facet that would make it far and above better than a power fist and a sort of auto-take.

I'm sure it would be possible, but it feels like you'd be walking a really fine edge.

Combat Patrol is where I think I'll get most of my 40k games in. Seems to hit that sweet spot of ease of play and not raking up too much time.

I think this mode will also be good for those of us who don't always have a lot of free time, but want to get a game in... that and a good way to collect several forces without having to invest too much.

Now to see which ones I can Cobble together from my collection.

 Sotahullu wrote:
So... Am I only one that is bit mad with name of this rule?

With chaos with various names they went with words that remind of "Shadow in The Warp".

Agreed. The name is stupid.

The more I think about Combat Patrol, the more I like it.

It stops annoying spam lists, as what you can take has already been decided for you. This feels a lot like how Wargames operate. Here is your force, here is your mission, good luck! Wargames differ as they are less about tailoring your force, but more making do with what you have at the time.

It is a toned down none core rules. So more focus on player action and less on exploiting a special rule to win.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm impressed with the amount of effort going into making the game genuinely tactically interesting.

Same here, this has been the most enjoyable faction focus so far. Shadow of Chaos and Corrupt Realspace are very fun thematic abilities. I'm looking forward to playing against it.

Such a pity the Combat patrol boxes themselves represent highly flanderised, stereotypical builds.. Astra Militarum CP is about the only one I find agreeable.. I don't think I want to be fielding any of the existing boxes to be honest.. But I admit CP in 10th isn't really aimed for someone like me.

CP would work for me if there only was a CP box I'd 100% be into.. Who knows, maybe one day such a CP box will exist (few have been close)

Did GW mention the Boarding Patrol boxes might also get converted into Combat Patrols? I seem to remember there being one or two BP's I did like..

I suppose I'm in the minority, but I kind of feel like almost every 40K faction has only about 50% models I'd bother collecting.. as many fugly units as there are good looking ones, or thereabouts

 tauist wrote:
Such a pity the Combat patrol boxes themselves represent highly flanderised, stereotypical builds. I don't think I want to be fielding any of the existing boxes to be honest.. But I admit CP in 10th isn't really aimed for someone like me.

CP would work for me if there only was a CP box I'd 100% be into.. Who knows, maybe one day such a CP box will exist (few have been close)

So what exactly is flanerised by the
Chaos Marines?
Dark Angels?
Genestealer Cult?
Adeptus Mechanicus?
Tau?
Dark Eldar?
Craftworld Eldar?

Yes the Space Wolves and the Chaos God ones are flanderised, but that is to be expected with those. The rest seem pretty good.

 tauist wrote:
Such a pity the Combat patrol boxes themselves represent highly flanderised, stereotypical builds. I don't think I want to be fielding any of the existing boxes to be honest.. But I admit CP in 10th isn't really aimed for someone like me.

CP would work for me if there only was a CP box I'd 100% be into.. Who knows, maybe one day such a CP box will exist (few have been close)

In the medium to long term a split into two versions/levels of 40k, where one has more of the scope of 2nd edition with 3-4 infantry squads and a smattering of support per side at most, and 'regular' 40k with Lords of War and other extreme stuff, is probably a good and necessary thing. They can still feed from the same core rules, but have different additional and expert-level rules. At the moment the game engine is straining to support a breadth of scope it can't realistically handle, so any step in that direction is a good one in my opinion.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Such a pity the Combat patrol boxes themselves represent highly flanderised, stereotypical builds. I don't think I want to be fielding any of the existing boxes to be honest.. But I admit CP in 10th isn't really aimed for someone like me.

CP would work for me if there only was a CP box I'd 100% be into.. Who knows, maybe one day such a CP box will exist (few have been close)

In the medium to long term a split into two versions/levels of 40k, where one has more of the scope of 2nd edition with 3-4 infantry squads and a smattering of support per side at most, and 'regular' 40k with Lords of War and other extreme stuff, is probably a good and necessary thing. They can still feed from the same core rules, but have different additional and expert-level rules. At the moment the game engine is straining to support a breadth of scope it can't realistically handle, so any step in that direction is a good one in my opinion.

Yeah, I do agree with you on that. There is not much hope of coming up with a unified system which would be as fun to play with 500 points as with 3000+ points. Combat Patrol sized games kind of need their own system (and perhaps games larger than 2000 pts as well?).

In any case, I suppose my preference in 10th will be Crusade or 1000point matched.. unless 500 points sized games with custom armies still exist?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Such a pity the Combat patrol boxes themselves represent highly flanderised, stereotypical builds. I don't think I want to be fielding any of the existing boxes to be honest.. But I admit CP in 10th isn't really aimed for someone like me.

CP would work for me if there only was a CP box I'd 100% be into.. Who knows, maybe one day such a CP box will exist (few have been close)

So what exactly is flanerised by the
Chaos Marines?
Dark Angels?
Genestealer Cult?
Adeptus Mechanicus?
Tau?
Dark Eldar?
Craftworld Eldar?

Yes the Space Wolves and the Chaos God ones are flanderised, but that is to be expected with those. The rest seem pretty good.

Ok, flanderised is not an accurate term to use here.. Let's just say my vision of the various factions does not align with GW's.. both in terms of aesthetics and "fluffyness", when it comes to these Combat Patrol boxes specifically.. Obviously YMMV

 tauist wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Such a pity the Combat patrol boxes themselves represent highly flanderised, stereotypical builds. I don't think I want to be fielding any of the existing boxes to be honest.. But I admit CP in 10th isn't really aimed for someone like me.

CP would work for me if there only was a CP box I'd 100% be into.. Who knows, maybe one day such a CP box will exist (few have been close)

In the medium to long term a split into two versions/levels of 40k, where one has more of the scope of 2nd edition with 3-4 infantry squads and a smattering of support per side at most, and 'regular' 40k with Lords of War and other extreme stuff, is probably a good and necessary thing. They can still feed from the same core rules, but have different additional and expert-level rules. At the moment the game engine is straining to support a breadth of scope it can't realistically handle, so any step in that direction is a good one in my opinion.

Yeah, I do agree with you on that. There is not much hope of coming up with a unified system which would be as fun to play with 500 points as with 3000+ points. Combat Patrol sized games kind of need their own system (and perhaps games larger than 2000 pts as well?)

IMHO they tried to soft-launch such a split several times already, with Apocalypse, but they chose the upper limit of feasible games for the place where they'd attach their new version, and thus it never caught on in the end, because most people don't have access to facilities that offer enough space and time to actually play that regularly.

The beauty with a patrol version is that you can still access the full 40k range without relying on FW superheavies or whatever, and since there are less models on the table, you can bring back some customization options, more and weirder wargear and abilities, veteran skills and such, customizable psychic powers and so on. As i said before, i see potential for some box in the style of 'Dark MilleniumÄ during the course of the edition, that brings alternative detachments, wargear etc., you could easily do that for Combat Patrol as well. Give each army several balanced patrols to chose from, so that players that have expanded their collections somewhat can use parts of it as a patrol and not literally every Tyranid patrol is the same.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 tauist wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Such a pity the Combat patrol boxes themselves represent highly flanderised, stereotypical builds. I don't think I want to be fielding any of the existing boxes to be honest.. But I admit CP in 10th isn't really aimed for someone like me.

CP would work for me if there only was a CP box I'd 100% be into.. Who knows, maybe one day such a CP box will exist (few have been close)

In the medium to long term a split into two versions/levels of 40k, where one has more of the scope of 2nd edition with 3-4 infantry squads and a smattering of support per side at most, and 'regular' 40k with Lords of War and other extreme stuff, is probably a good and necessary thing. They can still feed from the same core rules, but have different additional and expert-level rules. At the moment the game engine is straining to support a breadth of scope it can't realistically handle, so any step in that direction is a good one in my opinion.

Yeah, I do agree with you on that. There is not much hope of coming up with a unified system which would be as fun to play with 500 points as with 3000+ points. Combat Patrol sized games kind of need their own system (and perhaps games larger than 2000 pts as well?)

IMHO they tried to soft-launch such a split several times already, with Apocalypse, but they chose the upper limit of feasible games for the place where they'd attach their new version, and thus it never caught on in the end, because most people don't have access to facilities that offer enough space and time to actually play that regularly.

The beauty with a patrol version is that you can still access the full 40k range without relying on FW superheavies or whatever, and since there are less models on the table, you can bring back some customization options, more and weirder wargear and abilities, veteran skills and such, customizable psychic powers and so on. As i said before, i see potential for some box in the style of 'Dark MilleniumÄ during the course of the edition, that brings alternative detachments, wargear etc., you could easily do that for Combat Patrol as well. Give each army several balanced patrols to chose from, so that players that have expanded their collections somewhat can use parts of it as a patrol and not literally every Tyranid patrol is the same.

I see.. yes, that could certainly work! Something like 4-6 different types of Combat Patrols for each faction, I could see that faring much better..

 tauist wrote:

Spoiler:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 tauist wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Such a pity the Combat patrol boxes themselves represent highly flanderised, stereotypical builds. I don't think I want to be fielding any of the existing boxes to be honest.. But I admit CP in 10th isn't really aimed for someone like me.

CP would work for me if there only was a CP box I'd 100% be into.. Who knows, maybe one day such a CP box will exist (few have been close)

In the medium to long term a split into two versions/levels of 40k, where one has more of the scope of 2nd edition with 3-4 infantry squads and a smattering of support per side at most, and 'regular' 40k with Lords of War and other extreme stuff, is probably a good and necessary thing. They can still feed from the same core rules, but have different additional and expert-level rules. At the moment the game engine is straining to support a breadth of scope it can't realistically handle, so any step in that direction is a good one in my opinion.

Yeah, I do agree with you on that. There is not much hope of coming up with a unified system which would be as fun to play with 500 points as with 3000+ points. Combat Patrol sized games kind of need their own system (and perhaps games larger than 2000 pts as well?)

IMHO they tried to soft-launch such a split several times already, with Apocalypse, but they chose the upper limit of feasible games for the place where they'd attach their new version, and thus it never caught on in the end, because most people don't have access to facilities that offer enough space and time to actually play that regularly.

The beauty with a patrol version is that you can still access the full 40k range without relying on FW superheavies or whatever, and since there are less models on the table, you can bring back some customization options, more and weirder wargear and abilities, veteran skills and such, customizable psychic powers and so on. As i said before, i see potential for some box in the style of 'Dark MilleniumÄ during the course of the edition, that brings alternative detachments, wargear etc., you could easily do that for Combat Patrol as well. Give each army several balanced patrols to chose from, so that players that have expanded their collections somewhat can use parts of it as a patrol and not literally every Tyranid patrol is the same.

I see.. yes, that could certainly work! Something like 4-6 different types of Combat Patrols for each faction, I could see that faring much better..

I hope they actually support Combat Patrol, instead of letting it wither on the vine like so many other ideas of theirs. Since it's tied to actual product, i'm cautiously optimistic. It will be interesting what we'll see at the end of 10th, in the last 3/4 of a year they usually fill with campaign stuff and alternate modes of play.