Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 auticus wrote:
But the games I enjoy feature "core tax" as backbones of the army backed up by some cool elites.

A lot of people dont want that.

They want all elites, no core, everything can exist in isolation and be a super hero or both hammer and anvil on its own.

The solution that seems to work well is to design the game such that those super-elite units can't succeed on their own. GW has always been bad about this, but it's not an impossible task. Make the dude who takes all samurai have to contend with his elite units getting flanked and wiped out, and then maybe he'll consider taking some ashigaru too to cover the flanks.

'Core tax' as I see it is when you have no reason to want those core troops, either because they don't provide a unique role or because they're relegated to speed bumps that aren't much fun to collect or play. You take them to fill a 3+ Minimum requirement on the force organization table and that's it. If a game is designed to allow those core units to hold the line and potentially beat elites with the right positioning and support, and makes them points-efficient for what they are, then they become attractive units in their own right.

Of course there will still be people who are stylistically uninterested in troop formations and want to take eight steam tanks, three dragons, and a unit of demigryph knights instead, and gets upset that such a combo is not tactically optimal- in which case rank-and-flank games are not for them.

 auticus wrote:
Core tax exists in many games I've played over the years.
But the games I enjoy feature "core tax" as backbones of the army backed up by some cool elites.

if those units are the backbones of the army, it is not a core tax, but an actual core

for GW rules, the core must be a burden and you would be better of not taking it at all but you must because the rules say so
combine this with expensive but old models and you get to the problems of those armies

Ok.. So I'm going to need some ideas about how to put a High elf dragon prince on top of this bad boy...




I hope the base is not that much of an issue...

 auticus wrote:

If people dislike the idea of core troops in 40K and WHFB then nobody is stopping them to play other games instead. Core troops are a fundamental design of both games. The day you remove core troops is the day when your army stops looking like an army.
I still can vaguely remember Eldar players writing army lists without Guardians.

Yeah I remember those days too.

But I think the discussion point is that people assume that if the Old World has core tax that that means the game will crash and burn.

Granted a lot of people that like core troops etc have long moved to other games and don't pay attention to these forums... and the people here are also in love with AOS design where they can just field armies of super elites and monsters and not have to do core tax, so it may be a bit of an echo chamber.

There's no way any of us can know the actual numbers on what people want since only GW can do that marketing and they keep that data to themselves.

Ofc that’s a brilliant argument why the games can coexist side by side. Peeps who like 1 style can play AOS, the others can play TOW, GW get their £££/$$$ either way. Took them a while, but GW now understand that if they don’t cater to a certain type of game/customer, that customer will simply look elsewhere.

MaxT wrote:

 auticus wrote:

If people dislike the idea of core troops in 40K and WHFB then nobody is stopping them to play other games instead. Core troops are a fundamental design of both games. The day you remove core troops is the day when your army stops looking like an army.
I still can vaguely remember Eldar players writing army lists without Guardians.

Yeah I remember those days too.

But I think the discussion point is that people assume that if the Old World has core tax that that means the game will crash and burn.

Granted a lot of people that like core troops etc have long moved to other games and don't pay attention to these forums... and the people here are also in love with AOS design where they can just field armies of super elites and monsters and not have to do core tax, so it may be a bit of an echo chamber.

There's no way any of us can know the actual numbers on what people want since only GW can do that marketing and they keep that data to themselves.

Ofc that’s a brilliant argument why the games can coexist side by side. Peeps who like 1 style can play AOS, the others can play TOW, GW get their £££/$$$ either way. Took them a while, but GW now understand that if they don’t cater to a certain type of game/customer, that customer will simply look elsewhere.

I agree 1000%.

 auticus wrote:

MaxT wrote:

 auticus wrote:

If people dislike the idea of core troops in 40K and WHFB then nobody is stopping them to play other games instead. Core troops are a fundamental design of both games. The day you remove core troops is the day when your army stops looking like an army.
I still can vaguely remember Eldar players writing army lists without Guardians.

Yeah I remember those days too.

But I think the discussion point is that people assume that if the Old World has core tax that that means the game will crash and burn.

Granted a lot of people that like core troops etc have long moved to other games and don't pay attention to these forums... and the people here are also in love with AOS design where they can just field armies of super elites and monsters and not have to do core tax, so it may be a bit of an echo chamber.

There's no way any of us can know the actual numbers on what people want since only GW can do that marketing and they keep that data to themselves.

Ofc that’s a brilliant argument why the games can coexist side by side. Peeps who like 1 style can play AOS, the others can play TOW, GW get their £££/$$$ either way. Took them a while, but GW now understand that if they don’t cater to a certain type of game/customer, that customer will simply look elsewhere.

I agree 1000%.

Exactly. Exalted.

 Argive wrote:
Ok.. So I'm going to need some ideas about how to put a High elf dragon prince on top of this bad boy...




I hope the base is not that much of an issue...

So... bland.....

Looks like Scar from lion king and the bad dragonheart cgi had a toothless baby that they named "Boremy."

 kodos wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Core tax exists in many games I've played over the years.
But the games I enjoy feature "core tax" as backbones of the army backed up by some cool elites.

if those units are the backbones of the army, it is not a core tax, but an actual core

for GW rules, the core must be a burden and you would be better of not taking it at all but you must because the rules say so
combine this with expensive but old models and you get to the problems of those armies

Every army I've built and run since the start of 6th had 5 Core regiments in it before I touched anything else, and I know I wasn't the only one doing that.

Depending on the army, your core choices can be small and elite looking. For example, an elf army taking light cav as their core choice and building on it with other cav or flying monsters. Not every army consists of massive infantry blobs. If they make rules that balance cav vs infantry, and they don't incentivize having half your army in one unit, it will be fine. They also need to look at scoring and terrain a bit and update those.

they don't incentivize having half your army in one unit

Really all they'd have to do is publish missions with multiple objectives.

Of course, then the player base would have to actually use those missions instead of battle line/the watchtower, which... I don't think I've ever heard of!

Rihgu wrote:

they don't incentivize having half your army in one unit

Really all they'd have to do is publish missions with multiple objectives.

Of course, then the player base would have to actually use those missions instead of battle line/the watchtower, which... I don't think I've ever heard of!

It's not a real Old World experience if you don't have two mirrored hills in the deployment zones, one forest in the center and the goal is to kill as many models as possible

But yes, to get round the core tax all you have to do is make core interesting, but that'd make them too Superhero-y.

 Las wrote:

So... bland.....

Looks like Scar from lion king and the bad dragonheart cgi had a toothless baby that they named "Boremy."

I love it. The twin tailed comet on the chest just makes me happy for some reason. I could see an elf surfing the back with some reins. It'd be a fun project for someone for sure.

Rihgu wrote:

they don't incentivize having half your army in one unit

Really all they'd have to do is publish missions with multiple objectives.

Of course, then the player base would have to actually use those missions instead of battle line/the watchtower, which... I don't think I've ever heard of!

Thats exactly my thoughts!

 Just Tony wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Core tax exists in many games I've played over the years.
But the games I enjoy feature "core tax" as backbones of the army backed up by some cool elites.

if those units are the backbones of the army, it is not a core tax, but an actual core

for GW rules, the core must be a burden and you would be better of not taking it at all but you must because the rules say so
combine this with expensive but old models and you get to the problems of those armies

Every army I've built and run since the start of 6th had 5 Core regiments in it before I touched anything else, and I know I wasn't the only one doing that.

6th was an Edition were this worked really well, same as 4th/5th 40k
pure core armies could do well, but this changed over time to what we have now

 Strg Alt wrote:

If people dislike the idea of core troops in 40K and WHFB then nobody is stopping them to play other games instead. Core troops are a fundamental design of both games. The day you remove core troops is the day when your army stops looking like an army.

40k had no mandatory core units for two editions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Las wrote:

So... bland.....

Looks like Scar from lion king and the bad dragonheart cgi had a toothless baby that they named "Boremy."

I love it. The twin tailed comet on the chest just makes me happy for some reason. I could see an elf surfing the back with some reins. It'd be a fun project for someone for sure.

Im sorry but that is incorrect. A high backed chair is desired, nay, compulsory
Also, will need to scrub out the twin star comet (which I just noticed). I hope its painted one rather then sculpted

 Argive wrote:

Im sorry but that is incorrect. A high backed chair is desired, nay, compulsory

It's probably also needed to draw the eye to the teeny tiny elf on top of that massive dragon. I'm still trying to figure out which angle would showcase the rider properly. The way the head and the left wing are positioned, they'll likely obscure that part of the model from a good 120°. It is tempting to give it a try, however, even if it means that I have to sculpt a different neck and attach a new head to it.

This pose might work better in conjunction with a rider:

I've always felt that adding a human/elf/orc on top of a dragon decreased it's combat potential if anything, instead of improving it.

The dragon needs someone atop chillin in ahigh backed chair, jabbing with a pointy stick to tell it which people to burn

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Las wrote:

So... bland.....

Looks like Scar from lion king and the bad dragonheart cgi had a toothless baby that they named "Boremy."

I love it. The twin tailed comet on the chest just makes me happy for some reason. I could see an elf surfing the back with some reins. It'd be a fun project for someone for sure.

Not gonna lie, I'm seriously considering one to finally make Naestra & Arahan happen.

 Argive wrote:
Ok.. So I'm going to need some ideas about how to put a High elf dragon prince on top of this bad boy...




I hope the base is not that much of an issue...

Display? because he ain't gonna fit on a monster base...

Cronch wrote:
I've always felt that adding a human/elf/orc on top of a dragon decreased it's combat potential if anything, instead of improving it.

The dragon should just hold its rider in one paw to use it as the handle/hilt of its "dagger" (the rider's lance) and stab enemies that way.

Ranged attack: Throw Rider

 Argive wrote:
Ok.. So I'm going to need some ideas about how to put a High elf dragon prince on top of this bad boy...




I hope the base is not that much of an issue...

Give it a high elf baby carrier like the Dreadknight .

 Bosskelot wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Won't happen, people actually buy Age of Sigmar minis and don't overwhelmingly gak on everything released for it.

Lumineth, Kruleboyz, Idoneth, Kharadron, Bonereapers and any new Stormcast get a load of gak thrown at them by the AOS community.

The most well-received universally liked bunch of new models for AOS recently was Soulblight who basically just kept all of the Vampire Counts aesthetics and stayed deliberately restrained outside of the Centaur Vamps.

Only people I saw gaking on those things were WHFB/TOW fans, not AoS fans. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Both the Kruleboyz and the Stormcast in particular seemed to have received nothing but love from the AoS community (whereas in TOW facebook group it was just a lot of hate). The only disappointment I've seen expressed towards Kruleboyz was basically on a rules/gameplay basis because they aren't part of the existing Orruk factions, but sculpt wise they have been well received by AoS fans, whereas WHFB fans have unironically gone about complaining about how awful the sculpts are and how weird the proportions are and how inferior they are to their Chad WHFB minis, apparently completely unaware that the entire mini range is based on OG WHFB Orcs. I also have a screenshot of one dude on the TOW facebook group who went from "these models are awesome, this game is gonna rock" to "oh, just saw that these minis are for Age of Sigmar, they look like gak" in a matter of minutes.

Bonereapers get hate from bitter Tomb Kings fanbois, and Lumineth from High Elves fanbois (and people who hate Kangaroos). Kharadron angered dwarf fans who want short dudes with big bushy beards who live in dark holes and have an unhealthy fixation with precious metals and stone. etc.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Only people I saw gaking on those things were WHFB/TOW fans, not AoS fans. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Only thing I see is confirmation bias. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Bonereapers got some pushback, but they were a very original design and they were also a surprise when everyone was expecting a more traditional skeleton army. Esp since up to that point that's basically what Nagash used - regular skeletons.

Ossiarchs are one of those "we were never there until we were and then we were always there" kind things.

It's a shame because I really love them and I really hope that GW gets around to releasing more for them. They are such a unique take and have such huge creative potential!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Only people I saw gaking on those things were WHFB/TOW fans, not AoS fans. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Only thing I see is confirmation bias. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Same.

I've seen/expressed love for Kruleboyz, saw a lot of initial love for Lumenith (though that largely went away in the face of Cow-Avatar-Outback land), Ossiarch fans seem to have nothing to do with either AoS or WHFB, but rather aging fans of He-Man, and most of the Overlords complaints I've seen are about the airboats, not that they're non-dwarfy.

Kharadron Overlords are the only AoS army I like, they're well sculpted and don't look like bowling balls with feet. They work in a high fantasy/steam punk setting.

If they never blew up WHFB I would be inclined to collect some at a skirmish level and possibly even try AoS.

But as a replacement for the entire WHFB Dwarf army? No, it goes too far. We will see how TOW is handled, much of the bad blood can go away over night. (the pricing issues won't)

Voss wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Only people I saw gaking on those things were WHFB/TOW fans, not AoS fans. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Only thing I see is confirmation bias. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Same.

I've seen/expressed love for Kruleboyz, saw a lot of initial love for Lumenith (though that largely went away in the face of Cow-Avatar-Outback land), Ossiarch fans seem to have nothing to do with either AoS or WHFB, but rather aging fans of He-Man, and most of the Overlords complaints I've seen are about the airboats, not that they're non-dwarfy.

I've seen a certain amount of love and hate for everything, but attributing those feelings to specific groups of fans ranges somewhere between a subjective and likely biased observation based on tiny sample sizes, and a complete guess.

As a WHFB fan, there's plenty of models I like in AoS, but I have no interest in AoS itself so I'm not going to buy them unless I can adapt them to a game I am interested in playing.

But that's just me, when people start talking about what WHFB players in general love/hate and what AoS players in general love/hate I find it hard to imagine they've taken a representative cross section of the community's opinions to come to those conclusions.