The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
p.s. - The description of the Warlord Trait (the actual rules text is not provided) indicates that Core units have to be within an aura of the Captain to gain the Obsec (assuming they are not already Troops that have it of course).
Is it? If CORE is spread around too freely doesn't that defeat its purpose of limiting the number of units that can benefit from things like reroll auras and certain powerful strategems and other stackable buffs?
Or another way to look at it - Primaris infantry types you'd expect to be core (veteran unit/troops unit/bike unit/heavy support unit) all got what was expected.
I feel like the idea behind Core wasn't originally an attempt to nerf rerolls, but more like just an excuse to not camp your characters behind long range vehicles and make them lead closer to the front. The fact that seemingly almost all infantry seems to get the keyword reinforces this theory imo. While it is cool to try to make your HQs a little more active, I think it's safe to say it's probably not what most people wanted :/
BroodSpawn wrote: Or another way to look at it - Primaris infantry types you'd expect to be core (veteran unit/troops unit/bike unit/heavy support unit) all got what was expected.
Guys, they literally talk about and give examples here:
The Core keyword is used to identify units that form the fighting… well, core, of an army. These are most commonly represented by units of line infantry, though this doesn’t mean it’s exclusive to Troops, nor just Infantry.
In the case of the first two books, Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Necrons many Elite units such as Terminator Squads and Lychguard, as well as Fast Attack units like Bike Squads and Tomb Blades, have the Core keyword. Even some Vehicles will be Core units too, where appropriate.
I'm not surprised at how widespread Core looks to be going. That in and of itself, I was kinda expecting, especially from that article.
What I'm not such a fan of, is the idea of tying any source of 'Objective Secured' to it. I sincerely hope that such abilities are few and far between, and very limited in their scope (eg. within a 6" aura and dies if the character does).
Otherwise? If it's too prevalent, it takes something away from Troops, which makes them an unattractive prospect in a game full of fantastic Elite alternatives.
My confusion is that the article that talks about CORE units mentioned Captains sitting in the back baby-sitting tanks as something they wanted to avoid, but then they're giving CORE to anything that isn't a tank. Couldn't they have just made the auras work on non-vehicle models?
I've said this before but it bears repeating, in space marine codex 8.0 the only units that had access to chapter tactics where infantry bikes and dreadnoughts. my money is THOSE are what GW see as marine core troops.
Core is essentially a way to prevent the unintended interactions eg Leviathans. Anyone expecting it to not apply to the bulk of a Marine force was kidding themselves.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
The Warlord trait in the battle report affecting Core troops indicates that more benefits than just Aura buffs will only apply to Core units. I won't be surprised if many Stratagems/Doctrines/Canticles etc only apply to Core troops.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: Core is essentially a way to prevent the unintended interactions eg Leviathans. Anyone expecting it to not apply to the bulk of a Marine force was kidding themselves.
Agreed. I hope that most FW Dreads etc do not get the Core label, for example, while the standard book ones do.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
AnomanderRake wrote: My confusion is that the article that talks about CORE units mentioned Captains sitting in the back baby-sitting tanks as something they wanted to avoid, but then they're giving CORE to anything that isn't a tank. Couldn't they have just made the auras work on non-vehicle models?
They get more control and fine tuning here. plus it sounds like they might finally be working on the non standard armies getting ObSec with a strat to give CORE ObSec. White Scar Bikers, Ravenwing (Bikers if not more), Deathwing will be able to get ObSec through CORE - Eldar's Wild Rider Army may be able to get it that way too.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Can I ask where you read that please, looking through the battle report and I can't see reference to bladeguard nor eradicators as core. Page 44 suggests the opposite where they say the skorpekh destroyers were withing charge range of the last Eradicator, then say they wanted to focus down the last of the core units targeting the outriders and intercessors.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
Not necessarily, at least for the fluffy fun lists. Assuming the report of a Strat to give CORE Objective Secured it opens up more varieties of lists. I'm waiting for the codex and supplement to be sure, but I'm already pretty much planning on painting some Heavy Intercessors in Deathwing livery for my Combi-wing and finally getting to play that again. The whole list, or most of it, could be ObSec between bikers, Termies, a couple Heavy Intercessor Squads potentially for troops, and with any luck at all - Speeders. If you're willing to give up the Battalion or don't need it, it gets even easier. White Scar Bikers are back, with Rhino Rush-style support. I expect the 7th Ed Formations to inspire more than a few lists as well. We probably won't get the Monty Haul bonus rules, but a lot of those combos were already decent. If they DO bring back some Formation Detachments its just more likely.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Can I ask where you read that please, looking through the battle report and I can't see reference to bladeguard nor eradicators as core. Page 44 suggests the opposite where they say the skorpekh destroyers were withing charge range of the last Eradicator, then say they wanted to focus down the last of the core units targeting the outriders and intercessors.
Page 32 - the player states that "all my Core units gain Objective Secured if they are near my Warlord...That means all five of my units..." Her five Units in the list are Bladeguard Veterans, two units of Assault Intecessors, a unit of Outriders and a unit of Eradicators. I'm making an inference here, which I realize is not as ironclad as a list of Core units.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Can I ask where you read that please, looking through the battle report and I can't see reference to bladeguard nor eradicators as core. Page 44 suggests the opposite where they say the skorpekh destroyers were withing charge range of the last Eradicator, then say they wanted to focus down the last of the core units targeting the outriders and intercessors.
Page 32 - the player states that "all my Core units gain Objective Secured if they are near my Warlord...That means all five of my units..." Her five Units in the list are Bladeguard Veterans, two units of Assault Intecessors, a unit of Outriders and a unit of Eradicators. I'm making an inference here, which I realize is not as ironclad as a list of Core units.
Ah yes I see it, I'm kind of annoyed they haven't just directly addressed core etc in the articles. They tiptoed with half references far too much.
JohnnyHell wrote: Core is essentially a way to prevent the unintended interactions eg Leviathans. Anyone expecting it to not apply to the bulk of a Marine force was kidding themselves.
That could be. By making CORE a keyword added to datasheets you could avoid situations where some strategems or abilities that target DREADNOUGHTS (or some other keyword, such as VEHICLE) are perfectly fine on certain units with that keyword but OP on others. A strategem could be worded "targeted <CORE> <DREADNOUGHT>" for instance. If something is suddenly having unintended interactions with CORE abilities you can simply remove the keyword from the datasheet in an errata.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
Not necessarily, at least for the fluffy fun lists.
Gonna stop you right there.
Yeah, fluff lists don't care about stuff like this, they're about theme and following the narrative. The actual power of the list is of course very low down on the priority list if not outright irrelevant.
Any list that's trying to be competitive will have to contend with the possibility(and it is just a possibility, we have no idea how big of an advantage CORE will actually end up being. It could be that it's only moderately impactful or it could essentially 'delete' units that don't have it. No way to know until the book is released and test games start happening.) that anything lacking CORE is no longer able to compete. Even if you're just trying to pwn your buddies face down at the FLGS and not trying to win LVO or Adepticon.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Page 32 - the player states that "all my Core units gain Objective Secured if they are near my Warlord...That means all five of my units..." Her five Units in the list are Bladeguard Veterans, two units of Assault Intecessors, a unit of Outriders and a unit of Eradicators. I'm making an inference here, which I realize is not as ironclad as a list of Core units.
Well that's depressing. If it's only in range of the Warlord, or worse one turn and in range of the warlord, all that variety this could have opened up is back in the bin.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Right...something has to tip the balance. You can't cost up CORE, because they may not have the buffs. But you could cost down vehicles, because their buffs are a known entity. And given that spells and strats are getting this treatment the variables get even smaller.
Yeah, fluff lists don't care about stuff like this, they're about theme and following the narrative. The actual power of the list is of course very low down on the priority list if not outright irrelevant.
Potentially, but not always. It's possible to make fluffy and competitive lists. Or has been in the past. And this could have gone a long way towards making those fluffy lists competitive. It doesn't sound like it will anymore, but it could have.
Any list that's trying to be competitive will have to contend with the possibility(and it is just a possibility, we have no idea how big of an advantage CORE will actually end up being. It could be that it's only moderately impactful or it could essentially 'delete' units that don't have it. No way to know until the book is released and test games start happening.) that anything lacking CORE is no longer able to compete. Even if you're just trying to pwn your buddies face down at the FLGS and not trying to win LVO or Adepticon.
I'm now confused. If fluffy lists using CORE don't matter, but CORE could delete any unit that doesn't have CORE because you have to have CORE to be competitive? What exactly are you arguing here?
JohnnyHell wrote: Core is essentially a way to prevent the unintended interactions eg Leviathans. Anyone expecting it to not apply to the bulk of a Marine force was kidding themselves.
That could be. By making CORE a keyword added to datasheets you could avoid situations where some strategems or abilities that target DREADNOUGHTS (or some other keyword, such as VEHICLE) are perfectly fine on certain units with that keyword but OP on others. A strategem could be worded "targeted <CORE> <DREADNOUGHT>" for instance. If something is suddenly having unintended interactions with CORE abilities you can simply remove the keyword from the datasheet in an errata.
Totally. A very easy fix for unintended stuff without a convoluted FAQ.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Because CORE pertains to more than just character auras. There is a strategem in the Silver Templars rules that applies only to CORE units. It is likely that the same will be true for many psychic powers, litanys, prayers, etc. A unit without the CORE keyword will need to be inherently better than those with it to compete with them for inclusion in a list.
As I said when the rule was initially previewed, the impact will 100% depend on whether they have the balls to not give it out like candy to all the best space marine units.
Giving it to gravis largely defeats the purpose and just makes those units even better than the vehicle alternatives. And if aggressors have it, so much for reducing the ridiculous amount of rerolls.
If the info in WD is accurate, it looks like GW may have once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
yukishiro1 wrote: As I said when the rule was initially previewed, the impact will 100% depend on whether they have the balls to not give it out like candy to all the best space marine units.
Giving it to gravis largely defeats the purpose and just makes those units even better than the vehicle alternatives. And if aggressors have it, so much for reducing the ridiculous amount of rerolls.
If the info in WD is accurate, it looks like GW may have once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s not designed to stop the good infantry getting buffs. It’s to exclude stuff. Think of the inverse of what you’re thinking the rule does. It’s not given to so much as omitted from stuff.
Yeah, fluff lists don't care about stuff like this, they're about theme and following the narrative. The actual power of the list is of course very low down on the priority list if not outright irrelevant.
Potentially, but not always. It's possible to make fluffy and competitive lists. Or has been in the past. And this could have gone a long way towards making those fluffy lists competitive. It doesn't sound like it will anymore, but it could have.
Any list that's trying to be competitive will have to contend with the possibility(and it is just a possibility, we have no idea how big of an advantage CORE will actually end up being. It could be that it's only moderately impactful or it could essentially 'delete' units that don't have it. No way to know until the book is released and test games start happening.) that anything lacking CORE is no longer able to compete. Even if you're just trying to pwn your buddies face down at the FLGS and not trying to win LVO or Adepticon.
I'm now confused. If fluffy lists using CORE don't matter, but CORE could delete any unit that doesn't have CORE because you have to have CORE to be competitive? What exactly are you arguing here?
1. It's not scoffing in this case. Building fluffy fun lists is fine, it's worrying about how competitive those lists are that's silly. Nothing the rules do either way is going to effect building a fluffy fun list.
2. It is possible to make fluffy and competitive lists but generally speaking one or the other is done by accident. If you're out to make a competitive list, the fact that it's fluffy is more of a fun side benefit than an actual consideration. If you're out to make a fluffy list, the fact that it's competitive is usually at least somewhat accidental (and can be actively detrimental if the group you're playing fluff games with aren't quite so lucky) not a core consideration. Trying to do both almost always ends up sacrificing one side in favor of the other at least little bit.
3. You completely missed the word 'competitive' at the beginning there. CORE could theoretically see models shelved for COMPETITIVE armies because it causes some units to just be flat out better than others thanks to character buffs.
Fluff armies are largely unaffected by rules changes of any kind. CORE won't change that any more than the salamander super mortal wounds combo did.
yukishiro1 wrote: As I said when the rule was initially previewed, the impact will 100% depend on whether they have the balls to not give it out like candy to all the best space marine units.
Giving it to gravis largely defeats the purpose and just makes those units even better than the vehicle alternatives. And if aggressors have it, so much for reducing the ridiculous amount of rerolls.
If the info in WD is accurate, it looks like GW may have once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s not designed to stop the good infantry getting buffs. It’s to exclude stuff. Think of the inverse of what you’re thinking the rule does. It’s not given to so much as omitted from stuff.
Right...and if you don't exclude the stuff that abuses rerolls most currently, and that are the biggest problem units in the codex, it's a change that just makes the strong stronger. The last thing the space marine codex needed was to make gravis specialist units even stronger relative to everything else.
If gravis specialists get core it's a change that just makes things worse, not better. All it'll do is wreck the internal balance of the codex, and we'll see even more aggressors with full rerolls clogging up the game, not less.
Nobody but noobs cared about 3x repulsor executioners getting hit rerolls, that was a comparatively weak space marine build that got dumpstered by a decent player with a decent list. Aggressors with rerolls are 10x the problem for the game that repulsors or dreads with rerolls are.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Because CORE pertains to more than just character auras. There is a strategem in the Silver Templars rules that applies only to CORE units. It is likely that the same will be true for many psychic powers, litanys, prayers, etc. A unit without the CORE keyword will need to be inherently better than those with it to compete with them for inclusion in a list.
as I said my gut feeling is "core" will apply, for space marines to infantry dreads and bikes. and if so GW WANTS that to be the lion's share of our army, with tanks etc being something we take in only a handful of cases to play a very specific role.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Because CORE pertains to more than just character auras. There is a strategem in the Silver Templars rules that applies only to CORE units. It is likely that the same will be true for many psychic powers, litanys, prayers, etc. A unit without the CORE keyword will need to be inherently better than those with it to compete with them for inclusion in a list.
as I said my gut feeling is "core" will apply, for space marines to infantry dreads and bikes. and if so GW WANTS that to be the lion's share of our army, with tanks etc being something we take in only a handful of cases to play a very specific role.
And I would say you're right. But the CORE keyword will probably not be given out 100% to units in those categories. For instance, I doubt if all fw dreadnoughts will have it. That's the reason for its creation. It isn't about inclusion, but the exclusion of units from things that affect CORE units.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Because CORE pertains to more than just character auras. There is a strategem in the Silver Templars rules that applies only to CORE units. It is likely that the same will be true for many psychic powers, litanys, prayers, etc. A unit without the CORE keyword will need to be inherently better than those with it to compete with them for inclusion in a list.
as I said my gut feeling is "core" will apply, for space marines to infantry dreads and bikes. and if so GW WANTS that to be the lion's share of our army, with tanks etc being something we take in only a handful of cases to play a very specific role.
And I would say you're right. But the CORE keyword will probably not be given out 100% to units in those categories. For instance, I doubt if all fw dreadnoughts will have it. That's the reason for its creation. It isn't about inclusion, but the exclusion of units from things that affect CORE units.
Ohhh joy, yet another way for GW to exclude Forgeworld models from viability by back handed keywords just what will ve brilliant for balance.
Glad to see they have so little faith in themselves to not forget about the units they arw writing the dang rules for.
yukishiro1 wrote: As I said when the rule was initially previewed, the impact will 100% depend on whether they have the balls to not give it out like candy to all the best space marine units.
Giving it to gravis largely defeats the purpose and just makes those units even better than the vehicle alternatives. And if aggressors have it, so much for reducing the ridiculous amount of rerolls.
If the info in WD is accurate, it looks like GW may have once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s not designed to stop the good infantry getting buffs. It’s to exclude stuff. Think of the inverse of what you’re thinking the rule does. It’s not given to so much as omitted from stuff.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Because CORE pertains to more than just character auras. There is a strategem in the Silver Templars rules that applies only to CORE units. It is likely that the same will be true for many psychic powers, litanys, prayers, etc. A unit without the CORE keyword will need to be inherently better than those with it to compete with them for inclusion in a list.
as I said my gut feeling is "core" will apply, for space marines to infantry dreads and bikes. and if so GW WANTS that to be the lion's share of our army, with tanks etc being something we take in only a handful of cases to play a very specific role.
And I would say you're right. But the CORE keyword will probably not be given out 100% to units in those categories. For instance, I doubt if all fw dreadnoughts will have it. That's the reason for its creation. It isn't about inclusion, but the exclusion of units from things that affect CORE units.
Ohhh joy, yet another way for GW to exclude Forgeworld models from viability by back handed keywords just what will ve brilliant for balance.
Glad to see they have so little faith in themselves to not forget about the units they arw writing the dang rules for.
Or, conversely, they could give non-CORE units, such as fw units, strong enough rules that they don't need buffs to be competitive. The fw dreads arguably already have that: does something that hits on 2s really need rerolls? Just another reason I can't wait to see the Imperial Armour Compendium.
Denegaar wrote:I was afraid Heavy Support units could be excluded of CORE, but seeing Gravis getting it, I guess Talos and Cronos will have it too.
Maybe they just want to exclude Heavy Vehicles and HQs.
Depends, do you consider a landspeeder a heavy vehicle? Because from the leaked datasheet it appears the new landspeeder doesn't have the CORE keyword.
yukishiro1 wrote: As I said when the rule was initially previewed, the impact will 100% depend on whether they have the balls to not give it out like candy to all the best space marine units.
Giving it to gravis largely defeats the purpose and just makes those units even better than the vehicle alternatives. And if aggressors have it, so much for reducing the ridiculous amount of rerolls.
If the info in WD is accurate, it looks like GW may have once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s not designed to stop the good infantry getting buffs. It’s to exclude stuff. Think of the inverse of what you’re thinking the rule does. It’s not given to so much as omitted from stuff.
Right...and if you don't exclude the stuff that abuses rerolls most currently, and that are the biggest problem units in the codex, it's a change that just makes the strong stronger. The last thing the space marine codex needed was to make gravis specialist units even stronger relative to everything else.
If gravis specialists get core it's a change that just makes things worse, not better. All it'll do is wreck the internal balance of the codex, and we'll see even more aggressors with full rerolls clogging up the game, not less.
Nobody but noobs cared about 3x repulsor executioners getting hit rerolls, that was a comparatively weak space marine build that got dumpstered by a decent player with a decent list. Aggressors with rerolls are 10x the problem for the game that repulsors or dreads with rerolls are.
How is that a change of Gravis things get rerolls? Everything would have had rerolls if not for the incoming Core keyword. I don’t think your argument makes sense as they were always gonna get rerolls.
If the point of the change was to nerf tanks and dreads while keeping gravis at its current level, it's a bad change that does more damage than it solves. The last thing space marines needed was even more incentive to ditch the vehicles for more gravis squads.
It's also a change that will hurt space marines less than every other faction, ironically, as space marines rely the least on the things likely to be impacted if the WD article is accurate.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing they don't want gamers to buy less profit margin resin models yes they are. It's about selling more what gives more procits. Aka plastic
Or they're trying to prevent the nonsense of priceless relic units suddenly becoming the 'go-to' again.
They're literally coming out with a new FW book. If they wanted to tune down FW stuff, they would just use the book to do it.
This seems to be about pushing people even further in the direction of the current top lists, i.e. a bunch of elite infantry/bikes with few or no vehicles. In other words, the strong get stronger.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing they don't want gamers to buy less profit margin resin models yes they are. It's about selling more what gives more procits. Aka plastic
Or they're trying to prevent the nonsense of priceless relic units suddenly becoming the 'go-to' again.
Well if the main studio hadn't made a pigs ear out of CA 2020 points with a bit more brain power and a lot less Ctrl+C Crtl+V they wouldn't have to fix their own ups so often.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing they don't want gamers to buy less profit margin resin models yes they are. It's about selling more what gives more procits. Aka plastic
Or they're trying to prevent the nonsense of priceless relic units suddenly becoming the 'go-to' again.
Wouldn't a simple 0-1 rule for such units be a better fix for that than massive price hikes?
JohnnyHell wrote:Sorry, you don’t consider practically auto-hitting Captains and Leviathans going away to be a good change? I... ok.
Exactly, anything that hits on 2s doesn't need rerolls. Do people just want to stop using dice?
JohnnyHell wrote: Sorry, you don’t consider practically auto-hitting Captains and Leviathans going away to be a good change? I... ok.
Not if you still have auto-hitting aggressors. All it means is you'll have even more of those aggressors, and even more waiting around 10 minutes while your opponent rolls and rerolls literally hundreds of dice for a single 5-man unit.
Giving a relative buff to what are already the strongest units in the strongest codex by toning down their competition is not a positive change for the game from a balance perspective.
To summarize:
1. If elite infantry like gravis get <CORE> this doesn't actually significantly reduce the amount of rerolls in the game, because the biggest offenders still have them.
2. It doesn't improve game balance, because the strongest units aren't impacted. In fact it reduces game balance by giving these already strongest units a relative buff they didn't need.
So we have a change to rerolls that neither improves game balance nor addresses the buckets of dice being rerolled. So what's the point?
JohnnyHell wrote: Sorry, you don’t consider practically auto-hitting Captains and Leviathans going away to be a good change? I... ok.
Not if you still have auto-hitting aggressors. All it means is you'll have even more of those aggressors, and even more waiting around 10 minutes while your opponent rolls and rerolls literally hundreds of dice for a single 5-man unit.
Giving a relative buff to what are already the strongest units in the strongest codex by toning down their competition is not a positive change for the game from a balance perspective.
To summarize:
1. If elite infantry like gravis get <CORE> this doesn't actually significantly reduce the amount of rerolls in the game, because the biggest offenders still have them.
2. It doesn't improve game balance, because the strongest units aren't impacted. In fact it reduces game balance by giving these already strongest units a relative buff they didn't need.
So we have a change to rerolls that neither improves game balance nor addresses the buckets of dice being rerolled. So what's the point?
Adding the concept of Core units and placing restrictions on auras and perhaps other things is a good thing for balance. It gives the designers another lever. It does tone down Space Marines - Chapter Master buffed Leviathans and Repulser Executioners are certainly a thing. That's quite a bit of dice-rerolling turned off. Characters pretty much auto-hitting is (soon to be was) a thing. These are reigned in. We will see how Aggressors fare. I assume that they will be Core, but we don't know (at least I don't think that we do) what is happening to their datasheets.
We will see what happens to Salamander Aggressors - lots of scope for a targeted nerf.
Anyhoo - I am glad that it looks like my Hellblasters will still be able to Supercharge with a chance of a re-roll 1s if I put my Master with them.
Levers are only worth what the person pulling them is. GW has plenty of levers to pull already, and it's not like they're pulling them correctly right now. Giving someone who doesn't know how to pull the levers another lever to pull is just as likely to hurt things as help them.
I mean if your point is "just wait and see, maybe this time it'll be different and it comes together just right" sure, that's theoretically possible. But giving core to specialist elite infantry doesn't feel like a smart move based on how the game is now, both in terms of game balance and in terms of wanting to reduce the amount of rerolls overall.
JohnnyHell wrote: Sorry, you don’t consider practically auto-hitting Captains and Leviathans going away to be a good change? I... ok.
Not if you still have auto-hitting aggressors. All it means is you'll have even more of those aggressors, and even more waiting around 10 minutes while your opponent rolls and rerolls literally hundreds of dice for a single 5-man unit.
Giving a relative buff to what are already the strongest units in the strongest codex by toning down their competition is not a positive change for the game from a balance perspective.
To summarize:
1. If elite infantry like gravis get <CORE> this doesn't actually significantly reduce the amount of rerolls in the game, because the biggest offenders still have them.
2. It doesn't improve game balance, because the strongest units aren't impacted. In fact it reduces game balance by giving these already strongest units a relative buff they didn't need.
So we have a change to rerolls that neither improves game balance nor addresses the buckets of dice being rerolled. So what's the point?
I think you keep ignoring the point and repeating yourself about Aggressors.
No more practically auto-hitting (2s rerolling 1s) characters and accidental FW Uber units is the point. That expressly reduces buckets of rerolls (20-shot Storm Cannon Leviathans) to not just hit, but to Wound in some cases as well, because Lieutenants are restricted. It creates moments where heroes miss or fail to wound rather than point and click. It opens up some risk of failure again. It doesn’t do what you want it to do but that in no way makes it pointless. I don’t magically own 9 Eradicators because my Leviathan isn’t as good. Not every game is a top table tourney bought-the-army-specially-for-this game.
Aggressors being super good is not solely a function of rerolls, and they already have rerolls. They’re not auto-hitting (unless Flamer ones). So nothing has changed but some other too-good options were curtailed. If you expected Elite and HS infantry options to not get Core you had the wrong idea of what Core was supposed to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Levers are only worth what the person pulling them is. GW has plenty of levers to pull already, and it's not like they're pulling them correctly right now. Giving someone who doesn't know how to pull the levers another lever to pull is just as likely to hurt things as help them.
I mean if your point is "just wait and see, maybe this time it'll be different and it comes together just right" sure, that's theoretically possible. But giving core to specialist elite infantry doesn't feel like a smart move based on how the game is now, both in terms of game balance and in terms of wanting to reduce the amount of rerolls overall.
Again, Elite infantry are not being ‘given’ Core. They functionally were already. They’re just not having it taken away.
CommanderWalrus wrote: I feel like the idea behind Core wasn't originally an attempt to nerf rerolls, but more like just an excuse to not camp your characters behind long range vehicles and make them lead closer to the front. The fact that seemingly almost all infantry seems to get the keyword reinforces this theory imo. While it is cool to try to make your HQs a little more active, I think it's safe to say it's probably not what most people wanted :/
I think the problem is that - like so many of GW's """fixes""", it's just a bandaid.
It's like when they limited Crisis Commanders to 1-per-detachment rather than fixing Crisis Suits, or raised the price of CSM Cultists rather than fixing CSMs.
It doesn't fix the underlying issues.
For example, the Archon wasn't buffing Ravagers because his aura was super-awsome for them. He was buffing Ravagers because he sucked at everything else. His aura affected barely anything to begin with (least of all melee units), his own weapons and wargear sucked badly, he had no mobility options, and both DE transports could generally only take him by substituting an entire 5-man squad.
Hence, making the Archon's aura won't make him better further forward, it will just mean he can't perform the only role his crap rules allowed for.
Now, maybe, maybe this problem will be solved in the actual codex, but given that GW have put zero effort into DE for a decade, you'll forgive me if I'm not optimistic.
My overall point, though, is that this fix seems feels more like a panicky, mid-edition errata than an actual core mechanic (ironically). It seems like a better solution would have involved taking a serious look at auras in general, and preferably removing or replacing them entirely. But instead we have this rather messy-looking compromise.
Early days, I know, but I fear I must remain very dubious as to how well this mechanic will work.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Maybe Ravagers might even move around the battlefield now instead of parking with an Archon?
Whilst it would be nice, the current rules don't provide a whole lot of incentive to actually move them, even if they weren't shackled to an Archon intent on reciting Vect's amateur poetry to them.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Maybe Ravagers might even move around the battlefield now instead of parking with an Archon?
Whilst it would be nice, the current rules don't provide a whole lot of incentive to actually move them, even if they weren't shackled to an Archon intent on reciting Vect's amateur poetry to them.
Can't argue with that, although now they don't lose anything by repositioning. I find myself moving my Predators around more in 9th due to the presence of Obscuring Terrain and the absence of a movement-based penalty to shooting. I haven't played my Drukhari yet.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is it? If CORE is spread around too freely doesn't that defeat its purpose of limiting the number of units that can benefit from things like reroll auras and certain powerful strategems and other stackable buffs?
Of course it does, but does this surprise you?
Games Workshop - Great ideas!
Also Games Workshop - Terrible application!
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is it? If CORE is spread around too freely doesn't that defeat its purpose of limiting the number of units that can benefit from things like reroll auras and certain powerful strategems and other stackable buffs?
Of course it does, but does this surprise you?
Games Workshop - Great ideas!
Also Games Workshop - Terrible application!
No, it doesn't. Still, I had hope for a while that we would see less rerolling. Guess rerolls are the only way gw can think of to make characters seem like leaders in the current rule set.
Ordana wrote: So that still leave the question of if Aggressors have core, but I would consider it likely considering the other units that are now confirmed.
Gee, where are those people who were quickly to say Marines would be nerfed because the 'op' units would not get Core.
I never said Eradications wouldn't get CORE. I said I wasn't sure. The point still stand that this is a nerf to marines more than other armies (that "nerfs" them into all infantry) and we'll have to wait and see (OMG BURN THE WITCH) if there's anything else in store for changes or if they screwed the pooch.
Actually if elite infantry gets <CORE> it'll probably end up nerfing non-marine factions harder than marine ones. Practically the only thing you see in competitive marines lists that looks like it won't have <CORE> is the FW dreads. The only part marines are likely to really be hurt by is losing rerolls on the characters themselves, but even that's a relatively minor part of most marines lists these days, except for BA and SW.
Particularly if <CORE> ends up being a restriction on stuff like psychic powers and stratagems too, practically every other faction in the game stands to lose more than marines.
yukishiro1 wrote: Actually if elite infantry gets <CORE> it'll probably end up nerfing non-marine factions harder than marine ones. Practically the only thing you see in competitive marines lists that looks like it won't have <CORE> is the FW dreads.
Particularly if <CORE> ends up being a restriction on stuff like psychic powers and stratagems too, practically every other faction in the game stands to lose more than marines.
Maybe. I can't say you're wrong. I just don't know enough yet to see how this is going to turn out. There's a whole bunch of new stuff coming down the pipe that will certainly not be CORE. It wouldn't be abnormal for GW to make those awful, but at first blush with what we've seen they were pretty good rules (even when missing any special rules).
yukishiro1 wrote: Actually if elite infantry gets <CORE> it'll probably end up nerfing non-marine factions harder than marine ones. Practically the only thing you see in competitive marines lists that looks like it won't have <CORE> is the FW dreads.
Particularly if <CORE> ends up being a restriction on stuff like psychic powers and stratagems too, practically every other faction in the game stands to lose more than marines.
you're assuming that everyone gets the same dirstinction on "core" that Marines do.
I'm assuming what they said in their own article is vaguely accurate, yes. We're all assuming that, because if it isn't, nobody has anything to work on. Maybe <CORE> is all a big misunderstanding and it isn't even happening at all! Maybe it was a September Fools joke!
It might have been mentioned in another thread, but allowing Core CSM units to be partially linked to Chaos marks would be cool, as it could allow for more flavor. For example, I would love to have Plague Marines as troops for my Iron Warriors so that they can better hold objectives while the army's heavy firepower component does the rest.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm assuming what they said in their own article is vaguely accurate, yes. We're all assuming that, because if it isn't, nobody has anything to work on. Maybe <CORE> is all a big misunderstanding and it isn't even happening at all! Maybe it was a September Fools joke!
the article reads as
The Core keyword is used to identify units that form the fighting… well, core, of an army. These are most commonly represented by units of line infantry, though this doesn’t mean it’s exclusive to Troops, nor just Infantry.
I could very much see GW deciding that for some armies "tanks form part of their core!" *looks at the guard* not saying it'll happen but if the guard got a 'dex and lemen russes had the core keyword it'd not terriably shock me
Ordana wrote: So that still leave the question of if Aggressors have core, but I would consider it likely considering the other units that are now confirmed.
Gee, where are those people who were quickly to say Marines would be nerfed because the 'op' units would not get Core.
I never said Eradications wouldn't get CORE. I said I wasn't sure. The point still stand that this is a nerf to marines more than other armies (that "nerfs" them into all infantry) and we'll have to wait and see (OMG BURN THE WITCH) if there's anything else in store for changes or if they screwed the pooch.
But is that really much of a nerf? If Brian Davian's theory holds true and CORE is applied to all infantry, bikes, and codex dreadnoughts what would loyalists really be losing? Other than fw dreads that seems to cover all their best units, and the thing about fw dreads is they don't really need any help getting their job done.
@ Yukishiro: This change seems to primarily hurt big expensive units, while helping smaller infantry types, I figured you'd dig that. Isn't that what you said you'd prefer? That expensive units be kept on the uncompetitive side?
Ordana wrote: So that still leave the question of if Aggressors have core, but I would consider it likely considering the other units that are now confirmed.
Gee, where are those people who were quickly to say Marines would be nerfed because the 'op' units would not get Core.
I never said Eradications wouldn't get CORE. I said I wasn't sure. The point still stand that this is a nerf to marines more than other armies (that "nerfs" them into all infantry) and we'll have to wait and see (OMG BURN THE WITCH) if there's anything else in store for changes or if they screwed the pooch.
But is that really much of a nerf? If Brian Davian's theory holds true and CORE is applied to all infantry, bikes, and codex dreadnoughts what would loyalists really be losing? Other than fw dreads that seems to cover all their best units, and the thing about fw dreads is they don't really need any help getting their job done.
@ Yukishiro: This change seems to primarily hurt big expensive units, while helping smaller infantry types, I figured you'd dig that. Isn't that what you said you'd prefer? That expensive units be kept on the uncompetitive side?
It'll mean that right from the start Marines aren't going to want to run "parking lot lists" which is something we've seen off and on to some extent for awhile now. In 9th edition we've had that I can recall, Gulliman/stormraven parking lot. Gulliman + Razorback Parking Lot. and the Iron Hands repulsor executioner parking lot.
GW doesn't want Marines to be a tank heavy army. they envision marines as being mostly infantry bikes and dreadnoughts moving forward under heavy fire. with a small smattering of vehicles to provide support.
their ideal list is more along the lines of
1 captain, 1 lt, 3 tac squads, 2 devestator squads, 2 bike squads, A land speeder, and a whirlwind.
basicly GW doesn't JUUST want balance. their ideal state is the armies are balanced and act like they're supposed to. If Marines are a tank gunline army, Eldar are a elite heavy infantry army, and guard are a small number of squads with heavy psyker support, then GW isn't happy. even IF in such a hypothetical situation it turns out the game is wonderfully balanced.
^This is something about the new stuff that I do agree with. A Marine army should be about Marines. At the start of 8th it didn't surprise me that vehicles, etc. didn't get Chapter Tactics.
So, this is good. . . as long as they don't #*%k it up by offering a Relic that enables Auras to affect non-Core units. . .
BrianDavion wrote: basicly GW doesn't JUUST want balance. their ideal state is the armies are balanced and act like they're supposed to. If Marines are a tank gunline army, Eldar are a elite heavy infantry army, and guard are a small number of squads with heavy psyker support, then GW isn't happy. even IF in such a hypothetical situation it turns out the game is wonderfully balanced.
Exactly. While GW don't want *identical* lists, there's still a theme they want for their armies to have, and if the "optimal" way of playing those armies isn't with that theme, they've got an issue.
Like, one of the biggest examples of that I've seen is how Scout Squads were nearly always taken over Tacticals, even though it really should be Tacticals at the core of the army, with Scouts being the backbone on much rarer occasions - so clearly, something should have changed.
BrianDavion wrote: basicly GW doesn't JUUST want balance. their ideal state is the armies are balanced and act like they're supposed to. If Marines are a tank gunline army, Eldar are a elite heavy infantry army, and guard are a small number of squads with heavy psyker support, then GW isn't happy. even IF in such a hypothetical situation it turns out the game is wonderfully balanced.
Exactly. While GW don't want *identical* lists, there's still a theme they want for their armies to have, and if the "optimal" way of playing those armies isn't with that theme, they've got an issue.
Like, one of the biggest examples of that I've seen is how Scout Squads were nearly always taken over Tacticals, even though it really should be Tacticals at the core of the army, with Scouts being the backbone on much rarer occasions - so clearly, something should have changed.
sounds like they're moving scouts to the elites slot for 9E
Wait and see etc - but my reading was always "we don't want a captain + lieutenant babysitting a Repulsor parking lot because while the current rules make this sensible its not very fluffy". Not quite sure why people took this and ran to the hope it would mean no buffs for anything non-troops given they explicitly said this wouldn't be the case.
So I'd expect most things to have "core" except big shooty vehicles/monsters that serve more like artillery. Really though apart from Canoness->Exorcists, and maybe some not especially competitive CSM style builds, I'm not sure it comes up outside of Marines.
Tyel wrote: Wait and see etc - but my reading was always "we don't want a captain + lieutenant babysitting a Repulsor parking lot because while the current rules make this sensible its not very fluffy". Not quite sure why people took this and ran to the hope it would mean no buffs for anything non-troops given they explicitly said this wouldn't be the case.
So I'd expect most things to have "core" except big shooty vehicles/monsters that serve more like artillery. Really though apart from Canoness->Exorcists, and maybe some not especially competitive CSM style builds, I'm not sure it comes up outside of Marines.
Some people like being disappointed... this rule got extrapolated in all the wrong ways by some folk largely so that they’ve got something new to be salty about.
Super Ready wrote: I'm not surprised at how widespread Core looks to be going. That in and of itself, I was kinda expecting, especially from that article.
What I'm not such a fan of, is the idea of tying any source of 'Objective Secured' to it. I sincerely hope that such abilities are few and far between, and very limited in their scope (eg. within a 6" aura and dies if the character does).
Otherwise? If it's too prevalent, it takes something away from Troops, which makes them an unattractive prospect in a game full of fantastic Elite alternatives.
I think objective secured is already too thin. Terminators forgot how to secure an objective when they were promoted? Meganobs are now too big to do it? Just about all infantry should have objective secured. Maybe the walkers, not the vehicles.
Tyel wrote: Wait and see etc - but my reading was always "we don't want a captain + lieutenant babysitting a Repulsor parking lot because while the current rules make this sensible its not very fluffy". Not quite sure why people took this and ran to the hope it would mean no buffs for anything non-troops given they explicitly said this wouldn't be the case.
So I'd expect most things to have "core" except big shooty vehicles/monsters that serve more like artillery. Really though apart from Canoness->Exorcists, and maybe some not especially competitive CSM style builds, I'm not sure it comes up outside of Marines.
Because people are desperate to see Space Marines nerfed and sofar it looks like they actually become even better with the new codex.
Super Ready wrote: I'm not surprised at how widespread Core looks to be going. That in and of itself, I was kinda expecting, especially from that article.
What I'm not such a fan of, is the idea of tying any source of 'Objective Secured' to it. I sincerely hope that such abilities are few and far between, and very limited in their scope (eg. within a 6" aura and dies if the character does).
Otherwise? If it's too prevalent, it takes something away from Troops, which makes them an unattractive prospect in a game full of fantastic Elite alternatives.
I think objective secured is already too thin. Terminators forgot how to secure an objective when they were promoted? Meganobs are now too big to do it? Just about all infantry should have objective secured. Maybe the walkers, not the vehicles.
At which point one has to wonder what the point of the rule even is.
What looks to be a nerf to marines, will be a marine buff, and non marine nerf. Marines have the most units, and many of them will get CORE. Marines have the most troop choices of all factions, and all of them will be CORE.
At which point one has to wonder what the point of the rule even is.
Well it should also be something other than model based. Power level or base point I suppose. It should be used to benefit infantry and hammer vehicle objective securing. Can you explain why 10 terminators can’t secure an objective from 1 grot? Or 15 Meganobz from 1 gaunt?
p5freak wrote: What looks to be a nerf to marines, will be a marine buff, and non marine nerf. Marines have the most units, and many of them will get CORE. Marines have the most troop choices of all factions, and all of them will be CORE.
They also have the most units that WON'T be CORE.
Marines are the army that most relies on auras. Every unit that isn't CORE is going to suffer greatly. Which vastly reduces SM's most powerful advantage: Their enormous toolkit.
p5freak wrote: What looks to be a nerf to marines, will be a marine buff, and non marine nerf. Marines have the most units, and many of them will get CORE. Marines have the most troop choices of all factions, and all of them will be CORE.
They also have the most units that WON'T be CORE.
Marines are the army that most relies on auras. Every unit that isn't CORE is going to suffer greatly. Which vastly reduces SM's most powerful advantage: Their enormous toolkit.
I think your underestimating how good many marine units are even without re-roll aura's.
Super Ready wrote: I'm not surprised at how widespread Core looks to be going. That in and of itself, I was kinda expecting, especially from that article.
What I'm not such a fan of, is the idea of tying any source of 'Objective Secured' to it. I sincerely hope that such abilities are few and far between, and very limited in their scope (eg. within a 6" aura and dies if the character does).
Otherwise? If it's too prevalent, it takes something away from Troops, which makes them an unattractive prospect in a game full of fantastic Elite alternatives.
I think objective secured is already too thin. Terminators forgot how to secure an objective when they were promoted? Meganobs are now too big to do it? Just about all infantry should have objective secured. Maybe the walkers, not the vehicles.
Why not vehicles? They've generally got bigger guns and bigger bodies and storage space to put the objective should it be transportable. It's not like the crew of a landraider COULDN'T just go grab the macguffin and leave. Obsec as a rule doesn't make sense because it's ENTIRELY a gameplay mechanic meant to make troops more useful. It exists to encourage people to build armies the way GW people think they should be built, not because it actually somehow makes sense that a grot could capture a point over a warlord titan.
If you just give it to all infantry then it's not even accomplishing it's only actual purpose(getting people to take troops) so it should be deleted.
p5freak wrote: What looks to be a nerf to marines, will be a marine buff, and non marine nerf. Marines have the most units, and many of them will get CORE. Marines have the most troop choices of all factions, and all of them will be CORE.
They also have the most units that WON'T be CORE.
Marines are the army that most relies on auras. Every unit that isn't CORE is going to suffer greatly. Which vastly reduces SM's most powerful advantage: Their enormous toolkit.
I think your underestimating how good many marine units are even without re-roll aura's.
I think you're underestimating just how much of a difference the reroll auras make for the 80% of their army that's pretty mediocre without them and underestimating just how impactful a signicant portion of their toolkit losing between 15 and 25% of their output is going to be.
I think you're underestimating just how much of a difference the reroll auras make for the 80% of their army that's pretty mediocre without them and underestimating just how impactful a signicant portion of their toolkit losing between 15 and 25% of their output is going to be.
It's 30 to 35% for a CM & LT depending on targets and so on.
At which point one has to wonder what the point of the rule even is.
Well it should also be something other than model based. Power level or base point I suppose. It should be used to benefit infantry and hammer vehicle objective securing. Can you explain why 10 terminators can’t secure an objective from 1 grot? Or 15 Meganobz from 1 gaunt?
Maybe the objective is exceedingly fragile or operating it is tied to the use of very small buttons. Hence, the Terminators or Meganobz are stuck staring at the giant, unwieldy fists and claws that they're wearing while the lone grot blows raspberries at them.
More seriously, I'm just not convinced that this is something that needs to be a rule in the first place. I assume it was an attempt to make troops worth a damn, but in that case they should have had the balls to do what they did in 5e and make it that only troops can score. I know a lot of people wouldn't have appreciated that, but at least it would have been actually impactful, rather than this messy compromise.
It's not going to have much impact competitively for SM as people will just switch to the better units, and the best units at the moment almost all have it anyway, so it won't impact them at all.
Casually, it will make it easier to take a bad space marine list, I guess.
If it's really only limited to auras it may end up hurting space marines equally or more than most other factions. But if this also ends up limiting strats and particularly psychic powers, just about every other faction stands to lose a lot more. Think about the impact on chaos of losing warptime on characters / spawn / big models, for example.
I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be skeptical when they find out that magically almost all of SM's best units escape the impact of the rule.
Why not vehicles? They've generally got bigger guns and bigger bodies and storage space to put the objective should it be transportable. It's not like the crew of a landraider COULDN'T just go grab the macguffin and leave. Obsec as a rule doesn't make sense because it's ENTIRELY a gameplay mechanic meant to make troops more useful. It exists to encourage people to build armies the way GW people think they should be built, not because it actually somehow makes sense that a grot could capture a point over a warlord titan.
If you just give it to all infantry then it's not even accomplishing it's only actual purpose(getting people to take troops) so it should be deleted.
because a vehicle has a job other than standing guard over a vital macguffin point. Infantry especially/even elite infantry are well versed in the concept of standing a post.
Maybe the objective is exceedingly fragile or operating it is tied to the use of very small buttons. Hence, the Terminators or Meganobz are stuck staring at the giant, unwieldy fists and claws that they're wearing while the lone grot blows raspberries at them.
More seriously, I'm just not convinced that this is something that needs to be a rule in the first place. I assume it was an attempt to make troops worth a damn, but in that case they should have had the balls to do what they did in 5e and make it that only troops can score. I know a lot of people wouldn't have appreciated that, but at least it would have been actually impactful, rather than this messy compromise.
Then they should have also kept the FOC shenanigans to move units to the troops slot for the wonky theme lists if they keep it only troops can score. And I think it’s right that anything non aircraft can score. Heck, I’d even let hoverjet score. But the infantry are used to and designed for the process. The bikers and jet bikers only slightly less so.
p5freak wrote: As i was expecting, every SM unit got CORE, except characters, vehicles that arent dreads, and centurions. Thats ~8/10.
Now, lets look at necrons. Their CORE units are : Warriors, immortals, tomb blades, lychguard, deathmarks. Thats ~1/10.
Maybe though, just maybe, some of their auras work off different keywords than CORE? GW have different rules levers to pull now.
Necrons have a good system. Specialist units get specialist characters that support them in both a thematic and rules interesting way.
Space marines get everyone working on all the buffs because reasons. GW feels marine players aren't smart enough to handle splitting specialist units into their own keywords and giving them their own support or something. You could easily do the same thing along the same thematic lines. Split marines between core, vanguard, first company, and fire support. Core is all your intercessors and your bikes, first company is all the vets, the termies, and possibly the dreadnoughts. Fire support is devastators, centurions and all the aggressor armored units except the heavy intercessor. Vanguard is the same stuff as it is right now. then you give each one their own captain that gives out buffs to them and not the other sections. They already have half a dozen captain datasheets. And the chapter master can hand out a generalized buff for all the things he does now to reflect being in over all command. Boom, thematic breakup of different sections in the space marine army. You can even start shifting what each support character does for their specific keyword group.
p5freak wrote: As i was expecting, every SM unit got CORE, except characters, vehicles that arent dreads, and centurions. Thats ~8/10.
Now, lets look at necrons. Their CORE units are : Warriors, immortals, tomb blades, lychguard, deathmarks. Thats ~1/10.
Necrons don't work around the CORE keyword in the same way that marines do.
Really ? Necron auras affect CORE units. MWBD only affects CORE units. A HQ unit buffs a CORE unit, sounds very marine like to me.
necrons have destroyer lords that buff destoyrers etc. they work differantly from marines, that doesn't mean it's bad. how everything interacts together is going to really be whats important here, we won't know how it all interacts until we're looking at starts etc
ups so often.
