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.

SamusDrake wrote:
I'm assuming that a Knight player runs three Armigers or Wardogs as in the last edition, being as they're already powerful units and that 4 Armigers costs as much as a CP box anyway.

Would have been nice if GW could have clarified this today( or have I overlooked something in the article? ).

The lack of a .pdf would make me think there just isn't an option for Knights in Combat Patrol (though that could change in the future). That said I'm confused by your assumption of running three as in the last edition, noting that Combat Patrol as we know it didn't exist last edition.

So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?

Oh wait I guess it is.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?

Oh wait I guess it is.

It's a good introduction to the hobby aka giving GW all your disposable income

Or magnets I guess.

Any word on the FW sheets/points?

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?

Oh wait I guess it is.

Is this true? Which units are affected?

Voss wrote:
Who would ever build their models this way? Why would anyone suggest that new players do that to themselves?

That Chaos list reminds of me old White Dwarf "tactics" articles, where they'd talk about how one of each heavy weapon in a Dev Squad made the unit more "flexible". Keep in mind, this was in an edition where units could not split fire.

I forgot that GW is going to come to your house, watch you glue mathematically inferior bits to your figures, and then break your fingers if you don't remove those parts after playing your contractually obligated game of Combat Patrol.

Oh good... that old chestnut.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I believe thats the baby steps for the future of 40K as a game.

Warcry is the ultimate goal for their skirmish games, so it makes sense that Combat Patrol would involve set lists with set models.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
I forgot that GW is going to come to your house, watch you glue mathematically inferior bits to your figures, and then break your fingers if you don't remove those parts after playing your contractually obligated game of Combat Patrol.

You get that part of the point of combat patrol is to get people into the game, right?

So you want to get newbies involved, and teach them the basics in a way that makes them want to expand their collections.
You also want to get old players involved to teach the newbies and encourage them to be involved.

This puts up a barrier in both directions. AND leaves people wondering why they can't use the fluffy and good strats in CP for their real army. And, inexplicably, gives them different versions of army rules to learn and get wrong.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?

Oh wait I guess it is.

No they do not.

WYSIWYG is not enforced in combat patrol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
Or magnets I guess.

Or play sisters. That whole box is push fit.

 BertBert wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?

Oh wait I guess it is.

Is this true? Which units are affected?

I'm not aware of any that are not valid unit builds in main game rules. They are often built in manners that are less than optimal, but that is not the same as being invalid.

ERJAK wrote:
WYSIWYG is not enforced in combat patrol.

I would think that the vast majority of first time players, upon picking up their first box of miniatures, would build them as the instructions showed. So you get your weird combat patrol loadouts, then go on to bigger games with them.

 BertBert wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?

Oh wait I guess it is.

Is this true? Which units are affected?

I probably wouldn't normally equip a CSM Helbrute with the plasma cannon and hammer.

Dudeface wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?

Oh wait I guess it is.

Is this true? Which units are affected?

I'm not aware of any that are not valid unit builds in main game rules. They are often built in manners that are less than optimal, but that is not the same as being invalid.

The people in this thread cannot fathom the idea of taking a sub-perfection unit for any reason.

Also, I guess people that want to play non-Khorne demons can get stuffed, I guess?

At the risk of stating the obvious, Combat Patrol is designed to allow players to purchase a Combat Patrol box and play a balanced game against another Combat Patrol box. Unsurprisingly, this means a Combat Patrol force is not an optimized force. It also means if you don't have a Combat Patrol box, you don't have a Combat Patrol list. This is not some evil scheme to screw the players. Nor is it GW telling players of certain force to bugger off. It is a scheme to create a closed, balanced game over a very limited set of models. If you can't appreciate that, then Combat Patrol is not for you.

ERJAK wrote:

1. No.
2. No.
3. No, DTs are also at 6.

I guess it means it time to break out Inquisitor Krazypantsoff, more deadly than a similarly costed MM Immolator after all. And far better looking


After messing around with the army construction of 10th I feel its doable (and a relief) that there are 6 stratagems and 4 enhancements and not that much more. Hope the codexes will stay at the same size of bells and whistles as the indexes.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Like I understand that the Imperial Knights are very likely better units once points are considered

....that's the whole point though? This is about the astonishing and hilarious claim that a Stompa is appropriately costed. Yes a Stompa may be stronger than a Knight in that context, but if its points are literally double, then it should be remarkably more effective than a Knight and not just clubbing a Knight over the head (provided it even waddles across the field fast enough to hit it). Two Knights will be remarkably more effective against a variety of targets compared to a Stompa.

So you might be right to a degree. It doesn't have ORKS and so can't benefit from the Mek ( or other stuff ). It does have a 46% chance to kill two wraithknights in melee though ( not that getting there is at all possible right now ).

 Dawnbringer wrote:


The lack of a .pdf would make me think there just isn't an option for Knights in Combat Patrol (though that could change in the future). That said I'm confused by your assumption of running three as in the last edition, noting that Combat Patrol as we know it didn't exist last edition.

If you look in the Imperial Knight codex for 9th edition it details a combat patrol of three Armigers. Three Armigers pretty much made up 500 points, which was a combat patrol.

There is no Combat Patrol: Imperial Knights box, so no Imperial Knight Combat Patrol. Beside, imagine trying to balance 3 Armigers against the Combat Patrols they published.

ERJAK wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?

Oh wait I guess it is.

No they do not.

WYSIWYG is not enforced in combat patrol.

It's a good thing newbies all know that and won't build their models in the way the rules encourage then, right?

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
So let me get this straight. Combat Patrol rules force you to build your models in such a way that you later have to tear them apart and reassemble them to make them usable with the main game rules? And this is supposed to be a good introduction to the 40k hobby?

Oh wait I guess it is.

No they do not.

WYSIWYG is not enforced in combat patrol.

It's a good thing newbies all know that and won't build their models in the way the rules encourage then, right?

Noobies won't look at the rules before they start putting them together.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

It's a good thing newbies all know that and won't build their models in the way the rules encourage then, right?

I'm a noob trying out 10th as my first 40k foray, having only played a few AoS 2nd games. Honestly I'm relieved the units can just be built via the instructions. I was dreading having to research loadouts out of fear that I'd screw everything up without having rolled a single die. I also don't see WYSIWYG as an issue. If someone objects to my loadout not matching, I probably won't play with them much.

Has anyone suggested that it is an evil scheme?

 Clanan wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

It's a good thing newbies all know that and won't build their models in the way the rules encourage then, right?

I'm a noob trying out 10th as my first 40k foray, having only played a few AoS 2nd games. Honestly I'm relieved the units can just be built via the instructions. I was dreading having to research loadouts out of fear that I'd screw everything up without having rolled a single die. I also don't see WYSIWYG as an issue. If someone objects to my loadout not matching, I probably won't play with them much.

Not sure if serious...

...but just in case. I would suggest reading the core rules and researching loadouts if you want to play anything beyond Combat Patrol.

 Clanan wrote:
Honestly I'm relieved the units can just be built via the instructions.

Given the way 40k is going, that's going to be the norm moving forward.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Like I understand that the Imperial Knights are very likely better units once points are considered

....that's the whole point though? This is about the astonishing and hilarious claim that a Stompa is appropriately costed. Yes a Stompa may be stronger than a Knight in that context, but if its points are literally double, then it should be remarkably more effective than a Knight and not just clubbing a Knight over the head (provided it even waddles across the field fast enough to hit it). Two Knights will be remarkably more effective against a variety of targets compared to a Stompa.

I wouldn't be surprised if a chunk of the stompas costing is the chance it just deletes something while using the overwatch strat. It's the biggest model with the most guns so uses that stratagem better than most units.

It'd be a pretty bad feeling if even a knight or a big character unit just happened to walk in range then got it's face shot off by that stompa in the movement phase. I know it's not super likely but it could happen if the stars align.

Maybe if they gave the stompa a special rule where it can only overwatch with weapons below a certain strength they could make it much cheaper. Or maybe overwatch in the charge phase only. I dunno.

 Trickstick wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
WYSIWYG is not enforced in combat patrol.

I would think that the vast majority of first time players, upon picking up their first box of miniatures, would build them as the instructions showed. So you get your weird combat patrol loadouts, then go on to bigger games with them.

I got the Japanese version of Imperium number 21 last week with the Skitarii rangers, and it literally had only one "correct" way to build the unit even if all the options were there, with a box in a corner saying that you should ignore all the other bits. At least Imperium is about 30% cheaper than the box at official prices.

M.

ERJAK wrote:
Noobies won't look at the rules before they start putting them together.

that is why CP exist and tells you how to build the models so they will fit the CP rules

from a pure intro game point, GW again copied something other games do without understanding why those games do it

for example, other games have those "how to start" guides with building instructions followed by an army list and how to play section using the models you just build
this is great for people who don't know anything and works
but they don't use all models from the box, make clear that this is an introduction and you should chose further options on personal taste, the build options are the ones you would use in the full game as well

so the idea is great, the rest not so much and the most disappointing thing is that there was hope that we finally get a useful small scale game mode but I guess we are back to 2k or nothing