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.

I have not seen most armies. SW, nids and GSC. Nids is old codex, so no core.

In SW every infantry unit except Wulfen and servos are core. Beast are not core. Most dreadnought are, but not wulfen. Bikes are core.

In GSC all non character infantry, except abberants and genestealers are core. No vehicles.

Necron got a huuuuuge core units update. Drukhari lost it on pain engines.

My question is what are the design philosophies regarding core? I do not mind that SM can give re roll castles to dreadnoughts. It is cool design, especially with the plasma redemtors. But I see no logic to it. In GSC it anoys me that abberants and genestealers are not core. The codex has so few datasheets as it is. Your choise for core synergies are neoohytes, acolytes, hybrids and jackals. Mind you Accolytes carried their 8th edition codex on their back, so they are versatile. But the design constrains feels very abritray.

Thoughts?

Look at release SM where almost all infantry is Core.

Look at release Necrons with almost no core

Realise the design is completely arbitrary, shrug at just another bad design decision by GW without rime or reason and move on with life.

White Dwarf 470 has an explanation from Robin Cruddace. Core is a game design abstraction to allow the granting and withholding of auras, rules etc. It gives the designers another lever. He states that there is no lore reason behind assigning Core to one model over another.

Granting Core much more liberally to Necrons a little while back shows that mechanism in effect, as does taking it from the Talos.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
White Dwarf 470 has an explanation from Robin Cruddace. Core is a game design abstraction to allow the granting and withholding of auras, rules etc. It gives the designers another lever. He states that there is no lore reason behind assigning Core to one model over another.

Granting Core much more liberally to Necrons a little while back shows that mechanism in effect, as does taking it from the Talos.

Thanks, now I hate Cruddace even more.

 Sim-Life wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
White Dwarf 470 has an explanation from Robin Cruddace. Core is a game design abstraction to allow the granting and withholding of auras, rules etc. It gives the designers another lever. He states that there is no lore reason behind assigning Core to one model over another.

Granting Core much more liberally to Necrons a little while back shows that mechanism in effect, as does taking it from the Talos.

Thanks, now I hate Cruddace even more.

So you hate someone for game design decisions? You might want to get that checked.

Here is GW explaining it while 9th was being previewed.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/16/core-units-and-characters/

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.

Presumably, the necron core was limited, as skorpek units, in the lore, are literally insane, and probably wouldn't follow orders well. Same reason wulfin don't have core, as they are wild berserkers.

Ah. Recursion. The best kind of definition. A thing is always itself, and itself is that thing.
Its almost like not defining anything at all.

Voss wrote:
Ah. Recursion. The best kind of definition. A thing is always itself, and itself is that thing.
Its almost like not defining anything at all.

I read between the lines and its a carrot for using the units they want you to use. What they think a ____ Army looks like.

Core is best defined as all the units GW wants an army's basic abilities to work on. They have shown themselves to be willing to give and take Core as necessary to balance units via access to those basic abilities.

Ironstrider Engines were a bit too good with access to the Core abilities. They lose Core.
Destroyer Cult and Canoptek units are a bit bad without access to the Core abilities. They gain Core.
Pain Engines were a bit too good with access to the Core abilities. They lose Core.

And so the wheel will continue to turn. Maybe tomorrow they will decide Dreadnoughts are gaining too much from Core abilities and the will lose Core.

Core is just another layer of rules heaped on top of the pile in an attempt to fix character auras, which were an attempt to fix character abilities not transferring to units after the removal of Independent Character rules.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
White Dwarf 470 has an explanation from Robin Cruddace. Core is a game design abstraction to allow the granting and withholding of auras, rules etc. It gives the designers another lever. He states that there is no lore reason behind assigning Core to one model over another.

Granting Core much more liberally to Necrons a little while back shows that mechanism in effect, as does taking it from the Talos.

Thanks, now I hate Cruddace even more.

So you hate someone for game design decisions? You might want to get that checked.

You don't understand hyperbole for effect or deliberately misinterpret statements for points on the internet? You might want to get that checked.

Though it is a terrible design decision and the man shouldn't have a job designing the biggest tabletop game in the world if this is how he approaches it.

Why is it a terrible design choice? It seems like a reasonably sensible evolution based on what happened in 8th to me.

I guess the argument could be "buff auras should be hurled into the sea" but I'm not convinced that's a great decision.

Whether GW do it well is a debate - but its clear buffs have different values depending on what can be buffed. So limiting those options is a good lever to have. Its similar to (although perhaps with similar problems) why using stratagems on big units should cost more than small ones.

Tyel wrote:
Why is it a terrible design choice? It seems like a reasonably sensible evolution based on what happened in 8th to me.

I guess the argument could be "buff auras should be hurled into the sea" but I'm not convinced that's a great decision.

Whether GW do it well is a debate - but its clear buffs have different values depending on what can be buffed. So limiting those options is a good lever to have. Its similar to (although perhaps with similar problems) why using stratagems on big units should cost more than small ones.

I feel the aura part needs trimming back, making a Lieutenant or w/e pick 1 unit for a turn seems far easier to balance around.

Edit: in conjunction with core.

I think there is room to criticise the general concept of efficiency auras as they are actually hard to balance, especially across different game sizes. It wouldn't hurt the game at all if they remove all efficiency auras in 10th edition. They can keep auras for things like leadership, but anything that changes the mathermatical killing or surviving power (and therefore the efficiency of a unit) can be replaced with targetted single unit buffs in my opinion. Much easier to assign a points value to.

Tyel wrote:
Whether GW do it well is a debate - but its clear buffs have different values depending on what can be buffed. So limiting those options is a good lever to have. Its similar to (although perhaps with similar problems) why using stratagems on big units should cost more than small ones.

This is GW games in a nutshell. Plenty of interesting ideas implemented poorly. With their classic mid season design philosophy shift(s).

CORE is somewhat reasonable and Chronos/Talos losing it is a good decision, as was the decision to remove it from Ad Mech Las Chickens. As will be the decision to remove it from Broadsides in hopefully a few months.

At he same time it is bad fluff in some factions. Necrons being the prime example, they have Nobles & Warriors, Crypteks & Canoptek constructs and the Destroyer cult. It would have made much more sense to have 3 groups, they could have even called them CORE1, CORE2, CORE3 if they wanted to. I can live with what they done now by just adding CORE to a bunch of units.

I'm also not too happy with CORE on dreads, compare that design choice in two factions:
Death Guard have CORE on Helbrutes and FW Contemptors. It is just about ok. You can take 6 dreads with CORE and then have them castle up around 2/3 buff characters, but the poor weapon options on the Helbrute, the limited variety of good weapon options on the Contemptor and the limited number of other units in the codex that can also benefit from ranged CORE buffs (Blightlords shooting mainly AP0 bolters) keeps things under control.
Space Marines have CORE on FW Contemptors, non FW Contemptors, Dreadnoughts, Ironclads, Venerables, Redemptors. So now you can take 18 dreads (obviously you can't due to points) and then have them castle up around 2/3 buff characters, with a huge variety of weapon options to pick from and a huge variety of other units in the codex that can also benefit from ranged CORE buffs.

Dudeface wrote:


I feel the aura part needs trimming back, making a Lieutenant or w/e pick 1 unit for a turn seems far easier to balance around.

Edit: in conjunction with core.

So you're saying Hive Fleet Gorgon should have to choose only one CORE unit to re-roll 1's to wound per turn?

Does only one CORE unit per turn get Ancient Doom, Battle Focus, or the Path of Command?

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I feel the aura part needs trimming back, making a Lieutenant or w/e pick 1 unit for a turn seems far easier to balance around.

Edit: in conjunction with core.

So you're saying Hive Fleet Gorgon should have to choose only one CORE unit to re-roll 1's to wound per turn?

Does only one CORE unit per turn get Ancient Doom, Battle Focus, or the Path of Command?

We're talking about unit Auras, not sub-faction traits.

Tyel wrote:
Why is it a terrible design choice? It seems like a reasonably sensible evolution based on what happened in 8th to me.

I guess the argument could be "buff auras should be hurled into the sea" but I'm not convinced that's a great decision.

Whether GW do it well is a debate - but its clear buffs have different values depending on what can be buffed. So limiting those options is a good lever to have. Its similar to (although perhaps with similar problems) why using stratagems on big units should cost more than small ones.

Because when you design a game and something in it doesn't work you don't just slap more rules onto it and hope that makes it work, you modifiy or remove the offending rule and figure out something better. What worse is that by his own admission it's not a thematic choice, it's a mechanical one and 40k is fundamentally thematic game. Warmachine did auras fine by tying them to appropriate resource costs, once per game effects and solo models specific to the unit it buffed so its not like auras can't work in a wargame. Not to mention having the Core word at all is redundant because all models have a bunch of keywords anyway. All that needed to be done was restrict auras to more specific keywords instead of general ones (like have a a SM Captain's aura only effect <Tactical> Space Marines instead of <Astartes&gt.

Cruddace needs to learn to kill his darlings.

sanguine40k wrote:

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I feel the aura part needs trimming back, making a Lieutenant or w/e pick 1 unit for a turn seems far easier to balance around.

Edit: in conjunction with core.

So you're saying Hive Fleet Gorgon should have to choose only one CORE unit to re-roll 1's to wound per turn?

Does only one CORE unit per turn get Ancient Doom, Battle Focus, or the Path of Command?

We're talking about unit Auras, not sub-faction traits.

Yup, if anything ever pointed out we ha e too many layers of needless perks and buffs, this is it.

Maybe 'core' is there for narrative players, to denote what should make up ~75% of your list?

So you and your opponent can make a video batrep of a scenario that accurately reflects the reality of 40k?

 carldooley wrote:
Maybe 'core' is there for narrative players, to denote what should make up ~75% of your list?

So you and your opponent can make a video batrep of a scenario that accurately reflects the reality of 40k?

I mean, to turn it on its head: maybe core is there for competitive players as a meaningless keyword to limit what gets buffs so you can build some 7cp wombo-combo around it and film a batrep that reflects the reality of playing 40k.

 carldooley wrote:
Maybe 'core' is there for narrative players, to denote what should make up ~75% of your list?

So you and your opponent can make a video batrep of a scenario that accurately reflects the reality of 40k?

Core is a game design abstraction to allow the granting and withholding of auras, rules etc. It gives the designers another lever. He(Cruddace) states that there is no lore reason behind assigning Core to one model over another.

 carldooley wrote:
Maybe 'core' is there for narrative players, to denote what should make up ~75% of your list?

So you and your opponent can make a video batrep of a scenario that accurately reflects the reality of 40k?

It blatantly isn't. Its a tag for game mechanics to trigger off of.

What you're talking about is (theoretically) the 'troops' category on the org chart. Though thats been messed with in so many ways it doesn't have much meaning
It wasn't named the same, but used to be a 25% minimum to a maximum of 'everything but the point cost of 1 character'

EightFoldPath wrote:At he same time it is bad fluff in some factions. Necrons being the prime example, they have Nobles & Warriors, Crypteks & Canoptek constructs and the Destroyer cult. It would have made much more sense to have 3 groups, they could have even called them CORE1, CORE2, CORE3 if they wanted to. I can live with what they done now by just adding CORE to a bunch of units.

They did do that. There was Core, Destroyer Cult, and Canoptek. That ended up not working very well, so they expanded Core to some of the Destroyer Cult and Canoptek units.

Sim-Life wrote:Because when you design a game and something in it doesn't work you don't just slap more rules onto it and hope that makes it work, you modifiy or remove the offending rule and figure out something better. What worse is that by his own admission it's not a thematic choice, it's a mechanical one and 40k is fundamentally thematic game. Warmachine did auras fine by tying them to appropriate resource costs, once per game effects and solo models specific to the unit it buffed so its not like auras can't work in a wargame. Not to mention having the Core word at all is redundant because all models have a bunch of keywords anyway. All that needed to be done was restrict auras to more specific keywords instead of general ones (like have a a SM Captain's aura only effect <Tactical> Space Marines instead of <Astartes&gt.

There are samples of highly specific Aura, like Drazhars Incubi aura. However other Auras would require a ridiculous number of keywords to properly affect all the necessary units without a meaningless keyword like Core. Core is a lot better than an aura that works on Intercessors, Inflitrator Squads, Incursor Squads, Tactical Squads, and all the other Troops units in the various Space Marine Chapters.

 alextroy wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:Because when you design a game and something in it doesn't work you don't just slap more rules onto it and hope that makes it work, you modifiy or remove the offending rule and figure out something better. What worse is that by his own admission it's not a thematic choice, it's a mechanical one and 40k is fundamentally thematic game. Warmachine did auras fine by tying them to appropriate resource costs, once per game effects and solo models specific to the unit it buffed so its not like auras can't work in a wargame. Not to mention having the Core word at all is redundant because all models have a bunch of keywords anyway. All that needed to be done was restrict auras to more specific keywords instead of general ones (like have a a SM Captain's aura only effect <Tactical> Space Marines instead of <Astartes&gt.

There are samples of highly specific Aura, like Drazhars Incubi aura. However other Auras would require a ridiculous number of keywords to properly affect all the necessary units without a meaningless keyword like Core. Core is a lot better than an aura that works on Intercessors, Inflitrator Squads, Incursor Squads, Tactical Squads, and all the other Troops units in the various Space Marine Chapters.

This is one of those times when a poster decides to base their argument on someone making an off the cuff rules change to use as an example then just plugging it wholesale into the current game without changing anything else and in doing so doesn't actually address the point.

The argument isn't that the rules should be changed to what I suggested specifically. It's that there are more elegant, thematic and streamlined ways that auras could have been implemented that didn't require a keyword that exists for the sole reason that Cruddace made a mechanic that didn't work (that exists in other games and actually works) and tried to fix it by introducing a new mechanic, rather than just fixing the initial problem.

Another thought I just had, I was wondering why Solo auras in WmH worked but not 40k and realised its because GW made all their aura characters untargetable and their auras are all "unit within". Take away aura givers Character rules and change the rules to "models within" and it'd be a whole different kettle of fish.

So you're saying you don't want to have a discussion about why your off the cuff suggestion was not as workable as you made it sound? You don't want to hear arguments as to why Core as a keyword isn't as bad as you seem to be making it?

I ask because that I all I did. I presented a counter argument to your argument. Keyword exist as a limiting/targeting factor for various game rules. I'm not saying Core is perfect, but it also isn't a sign of bad game design.

Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me. No more.



Oh wait….that was “What is love” by Haddaway.

As you were.

I am fine with Core. The initial attribution of Core to Necrons was not a great start, but that is not a knock against the mechanic. Now, unlike (apparently) many of those who post in 40K General Discussion I am not a game designer but I do play 40K. As a player I think that Core has been a useful design lever. Is it always done "correctly?" Probably not. Why do Attack Bikes have it but ATVs do not? As someone who already had a bunch of Attack Bikes I am happy with the decision, but it certainly torpedoes the "GW makes rules to sell new models" idea.

Still, I appreciate that the studio can decide/adjust which models get to benefit from buffs and which do not. Space Marine tanks don't cluster around infantry Captains now, unlike their Chaos counterparts for the moment. It actually makes the tanks play like tanks (but who am I kidding - nobody takes Space Marine tanks!)

To use a practical example, the application of Core to Auras stopped the Sammael in Sableclaw and three Ravenwing Talonmaster death ball of mutual-buffing. I used it at the end of 8th/start of 9th, but to be honest I don't miss it. Too much rerolling! Leaders buffing squads near them, though, makes sense. Its Lieutenant Stahler and his 9-2 buff from Squad Leader. Buffing themselves and each other? Not so much. Chapter Master auras can still go to Characters, but it is much more selective.

Anyway. As a player, I appreciate that the designers have another way to balance the game.

 alextroy wrote:
So you're saying you don't want to have a discussion about why your off the cuff suggestion was not as workable as you made it sound? You don't want to hear arguments as to why Core as a keyword isn't as bad as you seem to be making it?

I ask because that I all I did. I presented a counter argument to your argument. Keyword exist as a limiting/targeting factor for various game rules. I'm not saying Core is perfect, but it also isn't a sign of bad game design.

Do I want to have a tangent discussion unrelated to the topic? No. Your counter argument wasn't actually a counter to the argument, it was a counter to the suggestion. And even after I explained specifically the argument was you're still trying to argue a tangent, not the point. All you said was "well I think Core is okay" without explaining why.

If you don't want to have a tangent discussion, don't make tangent comments

As for Core, it's doing exactly what it is supposed to do. The entire rules structure of 8th/9th Edition is built around Keywords. Core is a general purpose Keyword that allows them to lock in a wide variety of Aura and Stratagems to a wide variety of units. Aura X affects Core Infantry nits efficiently identifies the units it impacts without needing to make a long list of Keywords that bloats the rules text.

 alextroy wrote:
If you don't want to have a tangent discussion, don't make tangent comments

As for Core, it's doing exactly what it is supposed to do. The entire rules structure of 8th/9th Edition is built around Keywords. Core is a general purpose Keyword that allows them to lock in a wide variety of Aura and Stratagems to a wide variety of units. Aura X affects Core Infantry nits efficiently identifies the units it impacts without needing to make a long list of Keywords that bloats the rules text.

I agree CORE works pretty well, and I also agree GW is pretty bad at common sense. Veteran Intercessors/Assorted Terminators/Assorted Aspect Warriors/Assorted Walkers piloted by.. a trooper/etc. are so veteran they forgot how to secure objectives.