Switch Theme:

How to fix dreadnought auto-includes?  [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 us
Regular Dakkanaut




I know the problem was actually how do we make tanks worth taking.. but considering how auto-include some of the space-marine dreadnoughts have become, it seems games-workshop has solved this problem by making big-guns that can 1 shot them, making their -1 damage meaningless

The tau are packing heavy heat, but we still have eldar and astra-militarum to be updated in 9th edition rule/stat creep. Imperial guard definitely pack some heavy guns, the baneblade chasis is definitely in need of some sort of buffs, the leman-russ vanquisher cannon could also get a potential super buff, The eldar could possibly pack some extreme damage if games-workshop gives them buffs more in line with their lore. You can bet games-workshop will release 10th edition as soon as they can too, and the necrons if given buffs more in line with their lore could also pack some super damage characteristic weapons, giving them the ability to one-shot dreadnoughts as well.

I think the true horror of these high damage characteristic weapons is instead of buffing tanks, games-workshop would rather put dreadnoughts back on the menu as far as people being able to make them useless. What was making the dreadnoughts so good was definitely their new -1 damage buff being so powerful.

Really curious to see how games-workshop is going to finally start buffing tanks to make them more competitive. The 2+ save on the leman-russes is a good start, I can definitely see giving more tanks 2+ saves could help them alot, giving them a 5+/6+ save vs heavily -ap weapons while in cover is definitely something.
   
Made in ca
Enginseer with a Wrench






You understand that if they do that they will just give dreads an ability like "can only lose 4 wounds per player turn", right?
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

The answer is irrelevant because it would involve a consistent design philosophy, with all codices being written at the same time and with the same ideals, and we all know GW would sooner imbibe the entire contents of an overflowing septic tank.

The problem is that design philosophies seem to change every codex (and sometimes between with with FAQs/CA). GW solves universal problems by buffing individual units and solves problems with individual units with universal nerfs.

Then there's the endless one-upmanship. A unit is given a special rule to override the special rule that normally counters the special rule that prevents the other special rule from... etc., etc..

And, to get to the matter of the dreadnought, there's the issue that many of GW's design philosophies end up on collision courses. For example, let's make all Marines W2! Because why not? Oh, but now a lot of anti-infantry weapons are crap against the most common infantry in the game, so I guess we'd better buff them to D2. But hang on, now many of those anti-infantry weapons are also quite efficient against vehicles (because, you know, we just doubled their damage output). Well, let's give our favourite vehicles -1D (other vehicles can go screw themselves, naturally). Oh, but hang on, now we've also screwed over D2 weapons like the Autocannon that are supposed to be good against vehicles...

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




For sure one of the biggest problems with competitive play is the "auto include." This new meta games-workshop seems to be introducing to counter the buff they gave to dreadnoughts with the -1 damage buff is this being able to one-shot said dreadnoughts and make the -1 damage almost meaningless vs said "ultra-heavy" weapons

I would definitely love tanks to make it back into the competitive meta tho, something about a tank really feels grim-dark to me.

There is always the rumor-mill going where games-workshop refuses to make codices that are internally balanced, allowing them the option to continuously sell more of an army to a person as they make a weak unit strong, or a strong unit weak.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




This all leads into the greater problem with the Hobby. I personally believe WoW and GWs are to blame. Everyone can see the BiS gear on the Best players, and instantly think they deserve that gear, or deserve to be that powerful, because they paid money for the opportunity to do so. Now it's the same with 40k and other multiplayer hobbies. Just because someone laid down $2000 and put in the time to paint their army of Intercessors and Gravis, they feel they should be JUST as likely to win a major as the person who spent $4000 and meticulously researched his Meta built DE list. The point is, Necrons will never be as strong as any late game codex, nor will sub par units and lists. Because they aren't. I have to deal with that right now knowing my Custodes will likely suck for the rest of the "season" But that's ok, because I don't expect the game to be balanced around my play style of all Bikes and Terminators. If it were, it would suck for a lot of other people.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






I would remove -1 Damage and CORE, lower pts of Dreadnoughts and some other VEHICLES. Decrease Damage or number of shots of lots of anti-vehicle weapons. The options relevant to Space Marines only:

Remove CORE from Dreadnoughts and/or remove -1 Damage and/or increase pts costs of Dreadnoughts.

Add CORE to everything (except maybe CHARACTERS) and/or add -1 Damage to all VEHICLES and/or lower pts costs of non-Dreadnought VEHICLES.

The reason I don't want CORE on other tanks is that Repulsor Executioners have 4 weapon profiles that all might need to re-roll 1s, it's too tedious.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







GW doesn't nerf things when they miss the mark with making things too powerful, or we might have seen plasma get cut back instead of melta getting buffed to compensate in 9th. We'll likely see more damage reduction, more Invulnerable saves, more wounds, and higher Toughness on any new tank kits, and any of the many fifteen-year-old tank kits will remain unplayable.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Honestly, while I love my DG helbrutes, dreads just feel wrong having CORE. Take that away and you've fixed the problem.

-1 damage was a good thing because it finally made them worth taking instead of being a model that gets shot off the board T1 as an afterthought, I wouldn't take that away.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Jidmah wrote:
Honestly, while I love my DG helbrutes, dreads just feel wrong having CORE. Take that away and you've fixed the problem.

-1 damage was a good thing because it finally made them worth taking instead of being a model that gets shot off the board T1 as an afterthought, I wouldn't take that away.


It depends on which army/chapter/etc gives it core. In an Iron Hands? Space Wolves? Sure CORE sounds pretty good. Other first foundings, also - DA DW Dread?. In a DIY or newest founding from a White Dwarf? I mean its hard to find a 40K video game that doesn't have a SM Dread. Do it Family Feud Style - ask 100 players to imagine a prototypical Space Marine Army as the cover of a comic book/graphic novel etc. Those are the things (and their firstborn/primaris corrolaries) that get CORE. Tacs/Intercessors, Termies/Aggressors - for most chapters Assault Squads/Still Not Finished, Dreads/Dreads. For some who don't do the Assaults: Bikes/Bikes Speeders/Rhinos

The CORE for White Scars looks different to me than the CORE for Dark Angels, looks different than Space Wolves, looks different than Ultramarines which still looks a little but not very different than Blood Angels.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

Well, I'd drop the ''Core'' keyword.
Invictors also don't have it.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Breton wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Honestly, while I love my DG helbrutes, dreads just feel wrong having CORE. Take that away and you've fixed the problem.

-1 damage was a good thing because it finally made them worth taking instead of being a model that gets shot off the board T1 as an afterthought, I wouldn't take that away.


It depends on which army/chapter/etc gives it core. In an Iron Hands? Space Wolves? Sure CORE sounds pretty good. Other first foundings, also - DA DW Dread?. In a DIY or newest founding from a White Dwarf? I mean its hard to find a 40K video game that doesn't have a SM Dread. Do it Family Feud Style - ask 100 players to imagine a prototypical Space Marine Army as the cover of a comic book/graphic novel etc. Those are the things (and their firstborn/primaris corrolaries) that get CORE. Tacs/Intercessors, Termies/Aggressors - for most chapters Assault Squads/Still Not Finished, Dreads/Dreads. For some who don't do the Assaults: Bikes/Bikes Speeders/Rhinos

The CORE for White Scars looks different to me than the CORE for Dark Angels, looks different than Space Wolves, looks different than Ultramarines which still looks a little but not very different than Blood Angels.


CORE is not a lore mechanic, it's an abstract balancing mechanic.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Yeah but it should be...

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Jidmah wrote:

CORE is not a lore mechanic, it's an abstract balancing mechanic.


As I recall from its introduction it's supposed to sort of be both.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/16/core-units-and-characters/#:~:text=Some%20of%20you%20eagle-eyed%20readers%20out%20there%20noticed,the%20fighting%E2%80%A6%20well%2C%20core%2C%20of%20an%20army.%20 wrote:
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.


If taken to logical end points it would allow the CORE word to further encourge fluffy list building on a sept by chapter by dynasty by (and so on) basis.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






If you believe what warhammer community writes, you are a lost cause

CORE is nothing but a mechanism to prevent characters and big models to over proportionally benefit from generalist stratagems, abilities and auras.

Attaching it to lore would just make the game even worse.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/14 11:08:31


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Jidmah wrote:
If you believe what warhammer community writes, you are a lost cause

CORE is nothing but a mechanism to prevent characters and big models to over proportionally benefit from generalist stratagems, abilities and auras.

Your genetic fallacy aside, the people who make the game disagree. It is MORE than a mechanism to prevent characters and big models from benefiting from etc. etc.

Attaching it to lore would just make the game even worse.


You think the different subfactions having different CORE keyworded units based on their flavor units would make the game even worse?

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Breton wrote:
the people who make the game disagree.

Warhammer Community article writers do not make the game. You are quoting marketing nonsense as proof, they try sell EVERYTHING with a BS lore justification.

You think the different subfactions having different CORE keyworded units based on their flavor units would make the game even worse?

Yes?

You ruin the whole reason to introduce CORE in the first place when you slap it onto units that shouldn't have it.
Which is the exact reason why dread spam is being a problem right now.

CORE is nothing but a keyword that links generic buffs are to multi-model units in which are in roughly the same price range and have similar damage output. Because we all have seen how buffing 300+ points battle tanks with buffs designed for eight bolters, a heavy weapon and a special weapons didn't work out too well.

Of course, you could take CORE away from units that have it now, but that would create odd situations like helblasters not taking orders from their Chapter Master unless they are Dark Angels because reasons.

Seems like a classic instance of "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."
If you want IH to have better dreads, just write that into one of their chapter benefits instead of jumping through the extra hoop named CORE.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/14 13:22:16


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Jidmah wrote:
Breton wrote:
the people who make the game disagree.

Warhammer Community article writers do not make the game. You are quoting marketing nonsense as proof, they try sell EVERYTHING with a BS lore justification.

Other than where they disagree with your opinion, could you tell me the part of the article about the then-new keyword was wrong? And Warhammer Community is part of GW right? GW makes the games? So Warhammer Community as part of GW makes the games?


You think the different subfactions having different CORE keyworded units based on their flavor units would make the game even worse?

Yes?

You ruin the whole reason to introduce CORE in the first place when you slap it onto units that shouldn't have it.
Which is the exact reason why dread spam is being a problem right now.

CORE is nothing but a keyword that links generic buffs are to multi-model units in which are in roughly the same price range and have similar damage output. Because we all have seen how buffing 300+ points battle tanks with buffs designed for eight bolters, a heavy weapon and a special weapons didn't work out too well.

Of course, you could take CORE away from units that have it now, but that would create odd situations like helblasters not taking orders from their Chapter Master unless they are Dark Angels because reasons.
Much better to have White Scars Dreads CORE instead of White Scars Rhinos/Razorbacks/Impulsors Because reasons.

Seems like a classic instance of "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."
If you want IH to have better dreads, just write that into one of their chapter benefits instead of jumping through the extra hoop named CORE.


I don't want IH to have better dreads - I never even mentioned IH or better Dreads, so as long as you're putting words in my mouth, how about putting the right words there: I do want IH to naturally gravitate to Dreads. And wolves to Bikes and Dreads And White Scars to transports and bikes and so on. Most Space Marine books should have most of the same CORE, but each one (using UM as a base) should also trade a few for a few in the chapter supplement. I want a keyword scramble recipe for all the non-standard subfactions etc too (Combiwing, Windriders, Iyanden Wraithhost, etc) I want GW to take the same approach to list building they took the fighting the mission. The carrot instead of the stick. Especially now that everybody gets their own supplement, the more they can bend without breaking the cookie cutter, the better.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

CORE is yet another bandage, badly applied, to try and keep this utter mess of a game system alive.

Units are already assigned as HQ, Troops, Elite etc., and yet we now have CORE - which is entirely independent of the units that actually serve as the CORE of the main detachments. Because of course it is.

Not to mention, if this was to stop Characters and Vehicles benefiting from their own auras or from certain stratagems there was already a mechanism for that. We already had CHARACTER and VEHICLE keywords that could have been used to exclude those units where appropriate. But no, despite every dataslate already looking like someone ate a thesaurus and then threw up on it, the solution was obviously to add even more keywords.

Now, to be clear, if GW want to change the army-building mechanic and ditch HQ, Troops etc. in favour of LEADER, CORE, SPECIALIST or whatever the hell AoS does these days, fine. The issue is when they half-arse it by just piling on new keywords without stopping to remove the older ones, which are now redundant.

And this is to say nothing of the other crap put out in this area. Thank goodness Mandrakes have the MANDRAKE keyword. Truly there can be no other possible means to identify the only Mandrake unit in the entire codex.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






I just play OnePageRules for a much more enjoyable 40k now.

Want to buff a unit with a HQ? well the HQ has to join that unit so no chapter master buffing your whole army like in 8th.
Want to build a fluffy list that you cant do in 40k because of the detachment requirement? well none of that in OPR.
Want to have much better balance overall? well OPR does that
Want to not need to have an encyclopedic knowledge on every unit/strat/relic/warlord trait/psychic power/etc in your army? well OPR shaves down on most of that.
Want games that go faster with no downtime while your opponent pounds your ass? OPR does that
Want to give your list a big more fluff even if its not in the current codex? OPR offers a points calculator that you can use to give Fear to all your nightlords for example.

40k is just soo exhausting to play nowadays


   
Made in ca
Master Sergeant





Breton wrote:
Other than where they disagree with your opinion, could you tell me the part of the article about the then-new keyword was wrong? And Warhammer Community is part of GW right? GW makes the games? So Warhammer Community as part of GW makes the games?


You literally just accused him of arguing from fallacy.

Nobody writing WarCom has anything to do with the game, they make glorified ads. It's pretty mind boggling there are still people out there who use it as a reference for anything given their track record.
   
Made in au
Black Templar Chaplain with Hate to Spare







Not to mention, if this was to stop Characters and Vehicles benefiting from their own auras or from certain stratagems there was already a mechanism for that. We already had CHARACTER and VEHICLE keywords that could have been used to exclude those units where appropriate.

Except it's not to stop Characters and Vehicles - it's to stop whatever unit GW doesn't want getting certain buffs from getting them. Sure, all characters and most vehicles fall under that, but there are many units that are neither vehicles or characters that aren't CORE. some of which include:
* Space Marine Centurions
* Space Marine ATVs
* Servitors (no matter the faction, be it Space Marines or AdMech)
* Chaos Spawn
* Tzaangors (both the troops choice and Enlightened)
* Cultists
* the various Dark Eldar Beasts

Not to mention vehicles that are core, e.g.:
* Various flavours of Marine Dreadnoughts
* Various Helbrutes
* Sisters of Battle Paragon Warsuits

And what about Monsters? Sure, every Monster that I can think of in the 9th Edition codexes are either a CHARACTER or CORE, but what if in the future GW doesn't want certain mosters to get access to certain buffs their faction has?

A single Keyword is a lot easier than listing out a bunch of different units that are exceptions (since you also disagree with unit-specific keywords like MANDRAKE) and would require them to go back and rewrite that rule every time they add a new unit to that game that they do or don't want to benefit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/14 15:07:40


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




As I see it at least Core is just a gameplay mechanic, trying to straddle two hoops of wanting buffs like character auras and stratagems in the game - but wanting to limit their utility. Because its hard to balance "this character could buff 1000 points of stuff" and "this character could buff 100 points of stuff".

With that said I think there are certain aesthetic points - that guy GW break out for streams on the rules, I forget his name, said they didn't like seeing a Captain sitting behind 3 tanks giving RR1s as it didn't represent the sort of heroics they imagine with say Space Marines. Its not clear why doing the same with 3 Dreads should qualify. But that seems a bug rather than an intrinsic feature.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 vipoid wrote:
CORE is yet another bandage, badly applied, to try and keep this utter mess of a game system alive.

Units are already assigned as HQ, Troops, Elite etc., and yet we now have CORE - which is entirely independent of the units that actually serve as the CORE of the main detachments. Because of course it is.
CORE has potential even in the current army building. If CORE is sufficiently incentivized- CORE gets ObSec not Troops, CORE is used to differentiate the subfactions so they play differently, that kind of thing.

Not to mention, if this was to stop Characters and Vehicles benefiting from their own auras or from certain stratagems there was already a mechanism for that. We already had CHARACTER and VEHICLE keywords that could have been used to exclude those units where appropriate. But no, despite every dataslate already looking like someone ate a thesaurus and then threw up on it, the solution was obviously to add even more keywords.
- CORE doesn't replace the other keywords, its a cross-keyword multiplier that is then potentially divided by another keyword. CORE INFANTRY etc.

Now, to be clear, if GW want to change the army-building mechanic and ditch HQ, Troops etc. in favour of LEADER, CORE, SPECIALIST or whatever the hell AoS does these days, fine. The issue is when they half-arse it by just piling on new keywords without stopping to remove the older ones, which are now redundant.

And this is to say nothing of the other crap put out in this area. Thank goodness Mandrakes have the MANDRAKE keyword. Truly there can be no other possible means to identify the only Mandrake unit in the entire codex.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Except it's not to stop Characters and Vehicles - it's to stop whatever unit GW doesn't want getting certain buffs from getting them. Sure, all characters and most vehicles fall under that, but there are many units that are neither vehicles or characters that aren't CORE. some of which include:
* Space Marine Centurions
* Space Marine ATVs
* Servitors (no matter the faction, be it Space Marines or AdMech)
* Chaos Spawn
* Tzaangors (both the troops choice and Enlightened)
* Cultists
* the various Dark Eldar Beasts


Yes because heaven forbid DE beasts be playable.

I mean, looking at the above, I'm certainly not thinking 'Well thank goodness for this rule. Truly it is adding incalculable value to the game by bringing an end to the scourge of Servitor armies!'

Though, perhaps a better suggestion still would be to not fill the game with aura-stacking bs in the first place. Then you wouldn't need a way to add exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions etc.. It's not like it adds any great tactical choices to the game.


 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And what about Monsters? Sure, every Monster that I can think of in the 9th Edition codexes are either a CHARACTER or CORE, but what if in the future GW doesn't want certain mosters to get access to certain buffs their faction has?


Then they could, I don't know, make use of the MONSTER keyword...?


 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

A single Keyword is a lot easier than listing out a bunch of different units that are exceptions (since you also disagree with unit-specific keywords like MANDRAKE) and would require them to go back and rewrite that rule every time they add a new unit to that game that they do or don't want to benefit.


So then why do we have both? Why do we have keywords that supposedly exist so that we don't need single-unit keywords, and yet we then have single-unit keywords anyway?

I think you're missing my point. As I said, I don't object to the idea of using 'CORE' for the benefit of auras (as above, I think the game would be better off it auras were removed altogether but that's a separate argument). The issue is the fact that they still keep all the other identifiers that should really by made redundant by CORE. Again, if they want to use CORE, surely that should form part of the army-building mechanic, rather than HQ, Elites, Troops etc.?


Breton wrote:
CORE doesn't replace the other keywords, its a cross-keyword multiplier that is then potentially divided by another keyword. CORE INFANTRY etc.


Yes, that's one of the issues I was raising. GW just keeps stacking more and more keywords on units and then barely using them.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah the "Core" thing seems awfully arbitrary and based in neither lore nor balance.

Servitors were not unbalanced enough to break the game, yet they did not receive the Core keyword for, presumably, lore reasons...

... only, in the lore, the Servitors are arguably more key (one might say, more 'core') to the Adeptus Mechanics war-engine than Skitarii themselves. After all, if you just winked every Servitor out of existence, I'm pretty sure the Admech war engine would shutter to an absolute standstill.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think the way GW is doing this is the right way to go. -1dmg (to minimum 1) on all vehicles and monsters should be the norm, not the exception. Doing so bakes in a clear divide between "model with lots of wounds" and "tank/monster". It puts dmg 2 weapons in an interesting spot where they are extra effective at killing heavy infantry, but are not also the right tool for killing big stuff.

Having your big guns have enough damage that they just punch through the tank in a couple shots, with some able to do it in a single blast, is also just fine. It makes these low-volume weapons great against tanks and monsters and characters standing in the open, while being bad at targeting little things.

Ideally, you have different categories of weapons to handle different categories of enemies. You do not want 1 weapon able to handle multiple categories of enemies. Remember how prolific dmg 2 high strength, high AP, and high volume weapons were last edition? They were the right answer vs EVERYTHING, and that wasn't good.

These big boom guns may seem terrifying, sure, but it makes room at the bottom of the food chain for chaff to have an important role.


Now we just need to get similar fixes for close combat. And if a unit should do everything, then it needs the split profiles of Smash and Sweep as well.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






Yeah, never take anything said in Warhammer Community as gospel on rules, design intent or anything else besides good vibes and advertising. That department is not talking with nor with the voice of the studio on the subject.

As for the CORE keyword by Robin Cruddance in charge of the rules writers, White Dwarf 470:

"
In ninth edition codexes we have introduced a new keyword: CORE. This keyword has caused some confusion in some gaming groups as they try and ascribe what units should and shouldn't have this keyword based on their understanding of the lore for any given faction. The reason such thinking often creates confusion is that it is not a keyword borne from the background at all. The CORE keyword exists only to faciliate certain rules interactions and, as with any other keyword, allows us to tag certain units with certain rules. [...] It is purely a gaming consideration as to whether a unit has CORE or not. While we found many Space Marine Aura abilities were a bit too oppressive when applied to, say, three Repulsor Executioners, we did not find during playtesting that Dreadnoughts felt overbearing if they also benefitted from these rules. As such, we chose not to give CORE to Repulsor Executioners but we did attach it to Dreadnoughts.

Part of the reason we chose CORE as the name of this keyword was exactly because we thought it was a faction-agnostic term that didn't have any descriptive connotations, unlike the 'unit-type' keywords or <Choose Your Own> sub-faction keywords discussed above, which are fairly descriptively tied to the models themselves or the paint schemes given to them. We thought CORE sounded vague enough while still sounding cool, but it really could have been anything and it could have been different from book to book, but we though a simple single word would be best. The keyword is attached to certain datasheets for pure rules-mechanics reasons and considerations.
"

So there. Never trust WarCom when they write words. Pictures are usually trustworthy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/15 11:38:00


#ConvertEverything blog with loyalist Death Guard in true and Epic scales. Also Titans and killer robots! C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Thank you so much for this Sherrypie.

I guess some people look like complete fools now.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Jidmah wrote:
Thank you so much for this Sherrypie.

I guess some people look like complete fools now.


Does that contradict the quote I pulled?

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






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.


The CORE keyword exists only to faciliate certain rules interactions and, as with any other keyword, allows us to tag certain units with certain rules. [...] It is purely a gaming consideration as to whether a unit has CORE or not.


Either it is meant to represent which units form the CORE of an army or it is meant to disallow certain units from benefitting from Auras to make them easier to balance. In any case, the balance failed, which is why we have this thread. The only fools are the game designers who cannot balance their game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/15 15:54:57


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: