Back in 2007, I ran a successful Combat Patrol campaign for GW Red Top. I would have continued to run more CP campaigns, but changes in my personal life made me take a much needed break from the hobby. Since that time, the core rules have changed and the CP system hasn’t really been updated officially. There have been some folks that have attempted it, but I have not seen anyone attempt a major overhaul of the CP rules.
The reason the CP rules need a major overhaul is that the dynamic of the game has changed and the old rules just don’t seem to cut it anymore. The original intention of the CP rules was to provide a gaming format that allowed for short games using much smaller forces. Using that as my foundation, I am proposing the following new version of the rule set.
Equinox’s 2010 Combat Patrol Composition Rules
+ Each army is composed of no more than 500 points
+ Each army is required to have a minimum of one troop choice.
+ Each army may have a maximum of one elite and one fast attack choice.
+ No patrol may contain HQ or heavy support choices.
+ No patrol may contain any monstrous creatures.
+ No single choice may cost 200+ points.
At its core, the system is about starting with one troop choice and building outward. Since the game is growing in terms of point costs, the CP ceiling should be raised to 500 points to account for this growth. The next major change is to disallow the use of either HQ or heavy support choices, as most of the hang-ups with the old system can be traced back to them. I am aware that this doesn’t solve all the possible hang-ups, but I do feel it makes the system simpler by just not allowing them. I think the same can also be said by limiting the number of elite and fast attack choices.
When it comes to models with 3+ wounds, I feel that an easier solution would be to not allow any models with the monstrous creature rules. By using this approach, tyranid armies now have real options when it comes to building lists for combat patrol. It also means that units like ogryns and such can be used. The balance to allowing such models is to limit the maximum point cost for a single “unit”. If someone wants to field a unit of ogryns, the most that they are fielding is 4 of them. The 200 point limit also means that terminators are not really an option for a combat patrol, thus eliminating the 2+ rule.
While I am eager to read feedback and thoughts on my proposed system, I figure I will discuss a couple trouble units that instantly come to mind. I could see someone fielding bloodcrushers in a decent size unit and being very difficult to deal with in this format. I could also see a single Vendetta/Valkyrie being a problem. I am sure there are others, but I have yet to think of one that is an automatic game winning choice.
Whilst the current combat patrols aren't great - (Tyrannids and Guard will both struggle never mind Necrons), I really think your version will make Guard almost invincible - even though I'm not a Guard player my doubles partner is and I can just see a Psyker Battle squad in a Chimera and either a Hellhound of some kind or a Valk tearing around the board almost untouchable because of the lack of Heavy Weapons. This is before you stick an Infantry Platoon somewhere with loads of heavy weapons - nice try but sorry I don't see it working.
ReplyDeleteYou can of course tailor a list to beat this one but then that would probably become weak against horde armies.
Maybe just upping the points to 500 and letting Tyranids work without Synapse would help but I feel you need to keep the 33 armour rule.
i like the idea of combat patrol and recently floated the idea of getting a fan-dex together with rules, scenarios and sample armies in (didnt get any replies grrr)
ReplyDeleteThe more i play, the more im enjoying smaller games (usually 1k) as it involves more focus and tactics, rather than just chucking everything you have down.
My only questions would be:
* is there a need to move up from 400-500pts? I know some units have got more expensive, but the general push is downwards (although cost is always upwards). I don't think the fact that GW are pushing for bigger games is itself enough of a justification for pushing up from 400-500pts.
* are transports allowed? If so is there a maximum armour score?
* no HQ? Im also not sure about this. Sure, someone can throw down a 200pt HQ choice, but that means that they are going to be pretty lonely on their side of the board (esp. if its marines or CSM). As far as i see them, the 400pt limit implicitly rules out uber-HQs.
Pangloss
ReplyDeleteTransports, and even tanks are allowed but the armour value can't be more than 33, counting front, back and one side, i.e. 12/10/11 is okay but 12/10/12 isn't
HQ is allowed in current, (but old), rules but very few people take them, as you say 200pts in one chharacter doesn't leave a lot even at 500pts for much else.
As for the points - some armies will really struggle at 400pts but may get a slight benefit from the extra 100 - Guard and 'nids are two that jump out at me.
Like you I really enjoy the smaller games.
Equinox’s 2010 Combat Patrol Composition Rules
ReplyDelete+ Each army is composed of no more than 500 points
I personally like this idea.
+ Each army is required to have a minimum of one troop choice.
Good
+ Each army may have a maximum of one elite and one fast attack choice.
Good
+ No patrol may contain HQ or heavy support choices.
Still undecided on this, not all Heavy's are vehicles, grant it most are.
+ No patrol may contain any monstrous creatures.
Good
+ No single choice may cost 200+ points.
Are you including "transports" in this? A 10 man SM Squad with Transport most of the time will be over 200 points.
I too like the smaller scale games (most of the time). For this I'll be going to a "skirmish" type of game that follows all the 40K Rules (with a wound chart)http://cursedtreasures.blogspot.com/2009/06/40k-skirmish-game-1.html Otherwise, 1000 pt games following the normal 40K rules is also fun.
One of the things that I did not mention that does play into some of the comments is the game table size. Combat Patrols are meant to be played on a 4x4. Taking that into account, such one trick pony squads as the IG psyker squad are going to be good against a static army, but anything with decent movement and CC will make short work of them. I feel this also means that the Valk becomes more of a liability as the amount of space it has to run is much smaller. I would honestly be more concerned about 3 Chimera w/ veterans armed with melta weapons as they have speed and reasonable amounts of firepower.
ReplyDelete@Pangloss – Transports are allowed, but go against the cost of the unit if dedicated so would hit the 200 point window.
@Dean – Interesting rule set. I don’t like that it changes some of the fundamental rules, but it does feel more like a true skirmish game instead of mini-40K.
OK - another issue would be the FA option. I saw on another site dealing with this that they had a homebrew rule to allow a scout squad of sentinels in a Guard army with a designated HQ. This would work fluff-wise but would go against these rules.
ReplyDeleteIm still not sure about placing artificial limits on the amount of what can be taken. if you say one HQ, one troop choice as a minimum then it really rules out uber-turbo-charged lists - i.e. you cant get 10 marines and a landraider and a HQ for 400pts. Leaving it open allows tactics and strategy to come into the planning more, i.e. you cant have a high-powered HQ and a decent number of troops, if you max out on troops then you need a stripped back HQ and vice versa (its also fluffy - would Ahriman be leading a patrol?!).
The second issue is any ideas on the missions? Ive found a few online but you would want ones for, say, ambushes, scouting etc.
this *is* a really cool idea, though.
i'll put some further thoughts over on my blog tomorrow
ReplyDelete"@Dean – Interesting rule set. I don’t like that it changes some of the fundamental rules, but it does feel more like a true skirmish game instead of mini-40K."
ReplyDeleteI agree about some of the changes he made. I'm going to only incorporate the "wound chart" when I play with my son/friends. I feel in a "skirmish" game, the wound chart is needed otherwise the game could be over in Turn 1.
@Dean - The wound chart is a cool idea, I just wonder if it makes multiple wound models really tough. That said, I would be open to playing with them as I really do think it brings a true skirmish feel to the game that CP does not.
ReplyDelete@Pangloss - The current CP rules have their own artifical limits, more so I would argue than what I am proposing. You normally build regular armies now based on an allowed number of points and "slots", correct? The current CP rules require that you ignore that standard and apply a radically different one that not only removes limitations on "slots", but requires that you determine if a unit can be fielded based on a laundry list of criteria, as opposed to clear labels that define each unit and the cost of said unit. (Make sense?)
@Pangloss (Response to the post on his blog)
ReplyDelete“*Points.” I would argue that you don’t want to go past 500 points. At 750, you are basically playing normal 40K on a reduced scale, so all the additional limitations start to make army builds very feel restrictive (unless the point is to focus purely on troops).
“*HQ.” You are still presented with the problem that most armies don’t have HQ units that are meant for such a small scale. A SM Captain or CSM Aspiring Champion are really the only two examples of HQ choices that “work” in this size game. You could explore a complex rule set, but this would make Combat Patrols more like WFB Warband rules with army specific rules. While such an approach would make for a better system, it also makes it less friendly for quick pick-up games. I do like the idea that the patrol commander is simply the model with the highest LD value.
“*3 Wounds to 2” Without adding additional rules that change the game, I don’t see a good way play with wounds on HQ models to make them playable in a CP format. The issue isn’t the extra wound, but the abilities and options that are only open to HQ choices. It is also a matter of keeping the focus on that core troop unit.
“HS & FA” I am still a firm believer that HS choices should have no place in a CP game. The two units you mention are a great example of why they should not be allowed. I feel it is far easier to not allow any HS choices than to create a complex check-n-balance system to determine which HS choices could be used.
With regards to FA, one potential solution would be to allow a player 0-2 Elite or Fast Attack, which does open up more combinations and build types, but it also opens up the system for more abuse. (0-2 meaning two fast attack or two elites, or one elite and one fast attack) I would also argue that the game is now designed to focus on troops, so making changes to allow for all Fast Attack, or all Elite for that matter, would require additional rules clarifications.
Another alternative would be to allow specific units that can be taken as a troop choice under certain condition (special character, etc) without meeting that special condition.
With regards to unique characters, I am for opening up the playing field and allowing them if they meet the other requirements. Is Gunnery Serg Harker really that scary? The unit that breaks this though is the Doom of M. In a CP game, the Doom of M is unstoppable and controls the game. So if someone wanted to point to a reason for not allowing unique units, look no further than DOOOOOOOOM!
“200 Point Restriction” I am sticking to my guns about this one until someone can give me a better solution that doesn’t require 4 lines of rules in comparison to what this one line accomplishes? The maximum squad of marines’ argument doesn’t hold water with me since you can still take a 5 man squad with a rhino/razorback. You are being denied a maximum sized squad, but so is every army with this rule. (Sorry that sounds hostile and that is not my intention) The point I am trying to make is that if the rule breaks something, I agree it needs to be amended, but I still haven’t read a response that really points to the rule being “broken”.
It really comes down to what is the intention of the rule set you are trying to develop. A lot of what I am reading sounds more like an attempt to create a true skirmish level game, similar to the one Dean reference on my site, instead of a format that allows for two players to play a quick game using a small force without radically altering what is in the core rules or any specific codex. In the end, it is all about fun, so keep posting such great stuff.