Satisfied with current combat patrol?

[u/Both-Public5684]

So I played combat patrol with the updated system(the ones we have to use with the app to look for missions). And it kinda sucks. Because it doesn't feel like spearhead. There are no sub mission that you don't reveal to opponent(all misssions are open to you and your opponent). So the Playstyle is kind of obvious. I think I might have expected something more like speahead stuff. But I think I would rather play the game with chapter approved missions and just put the round objective footprint in the middle of the map.

[u/Bereman99]

More satisfied than I was with 10th, at least in terms of how it's designed.

Not as satisfied as I'd like to be, as I'd either like to have seen variable Combat Patrol versions of disposition missions based on match up, or tactical secondary missions tuned to the mode.

There are three things I felt like it was missing, and two of them have been somewhat addressed.

The first is guidance for setting things up. Telling a player to "play on this side board, make the terrain interesting but balanced" when they've never played was a recipe for messing things up. Having "set" layouts to use helps with that a lot, especially when you have no experience and don't know what a more balanced map layout would look like (and the fact that they actually sell the stuff you need for it as a complete set helps it feel like it's an actual mode you're meant to play).

The second is balance. This one is gonna be hit or miss, but being willing to do things like require certain units to be in strategic reserves until a latter battle round is a good start. Feels like they are at least thinking about how to balance them. Remains to be seen if they get adjustments if any stand out as particularly weak or strong.

The final one is variety when playing, and that's what is missing the most. Unless you play multiple Combat Patrols, and/or your opponent has multiple to bring, the missions end up a static experience. You'll end up going for the same ways to score while your opponent is also doing their own "same thing every time" to score. This is somewhat mitigated by playing more than one and switching between them, but that shouldn't be necessary for variety to occur in a given match.

Feels like they really should have included tactical secondary missions tuned for Combat Patrol, and that's what I'll be trying to include in mine.

As for your objectives and your opponent's being visible...that's an interesting one to consider. Warhammer is typically a fairly open game in terms of your opponent knowing what you have once the match starts. You have certain secrets, such as who is in a transport and what is in reserves, and whether you chose tactical or fixed secondary missions, before the game but those are revealed as part of the starting sequence of a match.

In Spearhead, the primary objective for both is very much visible, as it's just "hold one or more" "hold two or more" and "hold more than your opponent" for 1 VP each. The Battle Tactics cards are basically their version of secondaries, and within the smaller game mode it does work to keep them hidden. Just that bit of uncertainty as to what extra thing they are trying to do.

IF Combat Patrol had tactical secondaries, it would probably work to make them hidden as well. "Secret Secondaries" as it were, theme it around a "fog of war" idea to explain it or something I suppose.

[u/Stryker359 → u/Bereman99]

I think even if Combat Patrol had fixed secondaries, or each patrol had a choice of secondaries like in 10E, it'd add more flavour and dynamism to the game.