Sgt_Smudge wrote:Wyldhunt, I've done a Combat Patrol 8th Ed version too, also in Proposed Rules right here. Instead of having a Toughness cap, I put a Wounds cap in instead. That way, light vehicles and monsters could still be taken, as well as certain beefy Characters, but nothing could have over 6 Wounds, unless it was a Vehicle or Monster, and then it could have up to 10.
It meant that things like Rhinos, Chimeras and Carnifexes are viable, but not things like Hive Tyrants, Land Raiders and Leman Russes.
I also allowed units to use their
DS abilities, but would limit the ones gained through stratagems. Reason being, I wouldn't want units that pay for their
DS skills to be penalized. Instead, the larger amount of terrain should act well as a countermeasure for this.
Warlords seem okay, so long as they can only pick from a pre-set list, allowing for future-proofing. Relics too need to be banned, as do Unique Characters.
I like your setup (thanks, Manchu!), although I think we have slightly different design goals with our versions.
While part of me very much likes the idea of including carnifexes, rhinos, dreads, etc. in combat patrol, I fear that their inclusion might result in some of the less-than-ideal situations I found with Combat Patrol in 7th edition. Specifically, knowing that my opponent might bring something relatively killy and hard to bring down strongly incentivizes me to take a certain amount of dedicated anti-tank weaponry thus invalidating certain other options. So take a dreadnaught as an example. If I'm not mistaken, your setup would allow it to be included, in a game of Combat Patrol. The offensive output of a dread isn't all that bad; its shootiest shooting hits hard but probably won't wipe full squads out in hurry. Its melee is solid, but it has to reach you to use it. The issue is that in missions where the dreadnaught can be brought to bare, lists that didn't invest in a decent amount of anti-tank won't realistically be able to take out the dread. Getting a wound to stick to it with bolters, for instance, means making it take 3 saves which means wounding it 3 times which means hitting it 9 times which, assuming we're talking marines, means throwing about 14 shots at it. So you're looking at throwing about 112 dice at it if math isn't off. Obviously that's a really inefficient way to deal with a dreadnaught; you'll just take a more meltas and lascannons in case a dread shows up, right? Except how much anti-tank do you take? One melta probably won't be enough, so are we talking two tactical squads with meltas instead of plasma or flamers? A full
dev squad loaded out with missiles or lascannons?
None of which is inherently problematic except that I personally like the way Combat Patrol potentially encourages infantry-on-infantry conflicts and the use of non-standard weapon options. In Combat Patrol without dreads, my Howling Banshees finally look like a pretty okay option. But if I also have to worry about Dreads, they're suddenly finding themselves swapped out for Dark Reapers and Fire Dragons. Which to me is a bit of a shame, if only because you're replacing potentially novel choices with microcosms of standard games.
TLDR; I feel like anti tank options are pretty decent choices even when you're only facing "little stuff" while many anti-infantry options are bad choices when you might face big stuff. Therefore, I feel that the inclusion of "big stuff" reduces novel choices in a variant that exists to support faster play and novelty. But really, that's just a matter of preference.
Regarding deepstrike, I have the same concern. After doing some playtesting today, I've decided that allowing deepstrikers to move+advance in lieu of deepstriking is just too good in a game played with limited units on a small board. However, I'm worried that simply allowing units to popup and start shooting/stabbing opens up too devastating of an alpha strike. Warp spiders, for instance, hit pretty hard in a game of combat patrol. If I can deepstrike them in per normal deepstrike rules, then I can pretty reliably wipe out whatever normal infantry squad I've pointed them at. Which isn't a ton of fun for my opponent.
"Hey, here's my squad that you don't get to shoot at until after its had a chance to show up right next to you and remove one of your four or five total units from the game."
So it stinks for scouts or striking scorpions who pay for it and don't have any extra mobility to show for it (moving fast is more impressive/important on a 4x4 play area), but certain other units seem like they could make the game too one-sided with a good deepstrike. So I'm not sure what to do about that just yet.
Regarding save limitations, I've never really seen the point in limiting them in games like this, especially if you're allowing them to be improved through buffs. If a marine getting a 2+ save by standing in cover isn't a problem, then surely a terminator who has twice the durability for more than double the cost isn't a problem, right? I'm much more worried about someone buffing a Crusader blob's save with a psyker than I am of someone fielding a Phoenix Lord.
I also don't share the aversion many have to special characters. Sure, Guilliman and Celestine would break a game of Combat Patrol, but is Shadow Sun really that big a deal? Drazhar? Arjac? That said, I'm all for ban lists to deal with those particular units that do happen to break a game of Combat Patrol. But if someone wants to field Fuegan and his traveling band of Fire Dragon disciplies, well... that just sounds downright fun and fluffy!
But again, I like the direction you're going. I think we might just have slightly different objectives with our design choices.
