Switch Theme:

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Voss wrote:
If you make Wraithguard Core, then any Iyanden specific buffs that affect them will also affect Guardians, and whatever aspect warriors, rangers, etc also get the Core keyword.
You could do both. Iyanden making Wraith constructs Core wouldn't suddenly mean that Guardians/etc. would benefit from Wraith-specific abilities. It would mean that some of the more general abilities could then affect Wraith units, whilst still leaving Wraith-specific abilities for things with the right keyword.

   
Made in us
Rampaging Reaver Titan Princeps




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
If you make Wraithguard Core, then any Iyanden specific buffs that affect them will also affect Guardians, and whatever aspect warriors, rangers, etc also get the Core keyword.
You could do both. Iyanden making Wraith constructs Core wouldn't suddenly mean that Guardians/etc. would benefit from Wraith-specific abilities. It would mean that some of the more general abilities could then affect Wraith units, whilst still leaving Wraith-specific abilities for things with the right keyword.


I mean... you could.

That's creating an awful lot of unnecessary overlap for a marginal gain, and potentially a lot of unintended special cases that have to be checked.
You're effectively setting up a situation where the end result is 'Iyanden make wraithguard Core' and stratagem X is judged too powerful to use on Wraiths, so its rewritten as 'effects non-Wraith Core Infantry,' to catch the one case in the one craftworld where the Core keyword is causing problems.

Or another example- Battle Focus might be rewritten as affecting Core infantry. Is that an ability appropriate for Wraiths? Or something that would need an exemption if Wraiths are suddenly made Core?


It seems less headache inducing to assign Core only to things you want affected by those rules 100% of the time, and use the unit Keywords if you want special case abilities. Its a lot cleaner and suffers far fewer unintended consequences. [I'd hate to see the Iron hands kind of non-apology again. 'Oh, we didn't realize that players would use it like that.'

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

I think it would be more likely to have specific abilities of specific units expanded to cover unit rather than adding Core to a unit.

For example, say the Autarch Path of Command was changed to be "Re-roll Hit rolls of 1 for friendly Core <<Craftworld>> models". It would be more likely for Iyandan Craftworld Trait to say, "Iyandan Autarchs aura's also affect Iyandan Wraith Contructs" than "Iyandan Wraith Contructs gain the Core keyword.

Although that sounds much more like a Warlord Trait than anything else.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/20 03:20:28


 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





You're all making this way too complex, and GW is dumbing down not complexifying.

Plus making things CORE for these divergent yet fluffy armies is only half a solution at best. They'll still have difficulties with List Building and ObSec, and GW hasn't been interested in fixing that for several editions now. Why would they start now?

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Breton wrote:
You're all making this way too complex, and GW is dumbing down not complexifying.

Plus making things CORE for these divergent yet fluffy armies is only half a solution at best. They'll still have difficulties with List Building and ObSec, and GW hasn't been interested in fixing that for several editions now. Why would they start now?


Ah, the classic 'dumbing down' take. Probably because vehicles can shoot things slightly off to the left or right now?!?!?! right?






2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





ERJAK wrote:
Breton wrote:
You're all making this way too complex, and GW is dumbing down not complexifying.

Plus making things CORE for these divergent yet fluffy armies is only half a solution at best. They'll still have difficulties with List Building and ObSec, and GW hasn't been interested in fixing that for several editions now. Why would they start now?


Ah, the classic 'dumbing down' take. Probably because vehicles can shoot things slightly off to the left or right now?!?!?! right?







H.B.M.C has a nice picture of WHY the dumbing down, especially in regards to vehicles , is preciscly that.

Alas, for some GW can't do wrong and for some GW can't do right.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





ERJAK wrote:


Ah, the classic 'dumbing down' take. Probably because vehicles can shoot things slightly off to the left or right now?!?!?! right?


No because we have 6 or more different Captain Data Sheets because they don't trust us to modify a stat line, but if all you have is some snark and a straw man, well that's a classic take too.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: