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.

Karol wrote:
Considering they were talking about two books, this means the vehicle core options would have to come from the necron codex. So which necron vehicles do you think are going to get the core rules, the arks maybe?

Your assuming the article was only referring to changes in the Marine or Necron Codex, they make statements that are implying that this is coming to all new codex's so the vehicals may be in the marine codex or they might be referring to either Guard, Admech maybe even Knights.

I could see Box dreadnaughts being core but I don't see marine vehicals or artillery being core, but this is GW so we'll see how well or poorly they assign the keyword.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Umbros wrote:
...pending the execution.

Devil in the details. GW has plenty of good ideas but almost universally poor execution.

And they should be criticised if they get them wrong... which they haven't yet.

Plus tbh, specific rerolls is already a vast improvement on (near) universal rerolls.

First off if GW wanted less re-rolls I would have much preferred them to change into a more AoS approach by changing aura's into "during your command phase one unit wholly within 12" gets +1 to hit until your next command Phase"

Secondly based on Terminators getting Core I fully expect the 'usual suspects' of Aggressors/Eliminators ect to get Core. Dreads I don't know, could go either way.

 Ordana wrote:
First off if GW wanted less re-rolls I would have much preferred them to change into a more AoS approach by changing aura's into "during your command phase one unit wholly within 12" gets +1 to hit until your next command Phase"

Secondly based on Terminators getting Core I fully expect the 'usual suspects' of Aggressors/Eliminators ect to get Core. Dreads I don't know, could go either way.

Last Signals from the frontline episode says the most egregious example of OP units with rerolls are being nerfed in the codex.

So we shall see when the codex drops.

Umbros wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Umbros wrote:
...pending the execution.

Devil in the details. GW has plenty of good ideas but almost universally poor execution.

And they should be criticised if they get them wrong... which they haven't yet.

Plus tbh, specific rerolls is already a vast improvement on (near) universal rerolls.

GW hasn't been criticised?

Are you kidding?

GW get's more criticism for every pixel on their website and every letter they ever printed than Enron got for their entire accounting scandal.

Hell, GW is probably the only company in the world that get's flamed probably multiple times a day for not delivering stuff they never even announced or anticipated and were just made up by some click-bait YouTuber or blogger, lol.

Stuff like GW allegedly writing "nothing but bad, outdated rules" has become so engrained in the internetz that many dakka-ship kinda believe it without question, despite all proof to the contrary.


If anything, the problem is that people just denigrate everything and anything GW ever makes or does on principle, so differentiation is lost.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Does it seem odd to anyone else that the supposed "tank edition" is becoming increasingly hostile to tanks? Damage inflation, smaller boards, king-of-the-hill scenario design, and now no rerolls?

you gotta step back and look at what GW wants us to do with the game. their ideal scenerio are infantry forces moving up the board to capture key locations (and clash over them) with a smattering of armor for support.
when you look at the rules with that mind set, I think the rules make sense, vehicles can play agressivly without getting promptly swarmed, but the rules dischourage running 3 5 man scout squads, and a iron hands captain providing bonuses to a repulsor executioner gunline castle.

how well it achomplishes that we'll have to see (I predict Marines will be hammered by this, and guard and eldar will suddenly find they're barely impacted, just like the early chapter tactics) but thats the goal

It won't necessarily work out like this (and I guess technically its a nerf) - but removing buffs on vehicles allows them to be boosted in their base rules, or reduced in points, without having to assume they'll always be operating under the full suite of support that you can apply.

I'm not sure its going to make up for lol-meltas or more widespread damage 2 but we'll have to see.

I'd expect "core" vehicles to be ones that you wouldn't raise an eyebrow to see an entire army of. Kan Wall is a thing, I could see a lot of dreadnought-esque vehicles getting the label. On the flip side an army made up entirely of predators looks pretty whack.

And yeah, let's be frank, aesthetic and what GW perceives as iconic for an army is gonna play a lot more into the non-troop choices than competitive balance.

Sunny Side Up 792105 10930005 wrote:
GW hasn't been criticised?

Are you kidding?

GW get's more criticism for every pixel on their website and every letter they ever printed than Enron got for their entire accounting scandal.

Hell, GW is probably the only company in the world that get's flamed probably multiple times a day for not delivering stuff they never even announced or question:anticipated and were just made up by some click-bait YouTuber or blogger, lol.

.

You actualy made me check what enron is, and I don't think GW achived stuff even remotely comperable to what enron did.
List of companies that get the same flak on a daily basis spread over TV, radio, goverment reports etc
Gazprom, Yukos, Nordstream AG , Axel Springer SE and the owners of lidle/aldi . And those are the ones I remember from the bus adds articles from my way to school today.

 Blackie wrote:
I love the change. Less re-rolls = more fun!

My orks don't have a single re-rolling aura anyway and with SW the only change I see is Bjorn/Wolf Lord being unable to give the re-roll to a couple of razorbacks but if they are CORE units my lists are 100% unaffected by this change.

Nothing gamebreaking anyway. There isn't a single unit that becomes unplayable because now it doesn't have access to re-roll 1s auras.

But none of the unplayable units become playable either.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'd expect "core" vehicles to be ones that you wouldn't raise an eyebrow to see an entire army of. Kan Wall is a thing, I could see a lot of dreadnought-esque vehicles getting the label. On the flip side an army made up entirely of predators looks pretty whack.

Kan wall? That army/tactic has died in 6th, was taken out the back and shot multiple times in 7th. Kan were then slowly nurse back to being playable at all during 8th and almost got there with CA2019 before getting killed again with 9th's points hike.

I assure you kan wall has not been a thing for almost a decade.

Ice_can wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
First off if GW wanted less re-rolls I would have much preferred them to change into a more AoS approach by changing aura's into "during your command phase one unit wholly within 12" gets +1 to hit until your next command Phase"

Secondly based on Terminators getting Core I fully expect the 'usual suspects' of Aggressors/Eliminators ect to get Core. Dreads I don't know, could go either way.

Last Signals from the frontline episode says the most egregious example of OP units with rerolls are being nerfed in the codex.

So we shall see when the codex drops.

And how many times has Reece said complete BS before?
Didn't he say stuff like Stompa's being crazy good?

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'd expect "core" vehicles to be ones that you wouldn't raise an eyebrow to see an entire army of. Kan Wall is a thing, I could see a lot of dreadnought-esque vehicles getting the label. On the flip side an army made up entirely of predators looks pretty whack.

Kanz don't get any re-rolls though. The only buff they're getting from an ork HQ that could be removed (if Kanz are not CORE) is the morale buff.

Core vehicles will likely be all dedicated transports.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:


But none of the unplayable units become playable either.

Giving them re-rolls is not the way to go. An HQ that babysits tanks to make them more accurate is a stupid thing and I'm glad it's going to disappear.

 Blackie wrote:

Breton wrote:


But none of the unplayable units become playable either.

Giving them re-rolls is not the way to go. An HQ that babysits tanks to make them more accurate is a stupid thing and I'm glad it's going to disappear.

My point is if we're all about making everyone else's stuff worse, we're all going to be playing with nerf chainswords.

I don't care if the captain is sitting back with the (pick your tank) . I care that the "best" army was two captains, one with the front line, one with the whirlwinds (pick your tank) I'm far more interested in pushing more and more units into playable. I'd rather go back to some sort of table wide bonus like Rites of Battle (but more useful) that you can't double up on to push people into Libbys and Chappies. And for the love of God, please make the Chappie aura not a second rate Captain aura. You can reroll all 1's, or you can reroll only the close combat 1's. Why did GW ever think people would take a chaplain?

 Blackie wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'd expect "core" vehicles to be ones that you wouldn't raise an eyebrow to see an entire army of. Kan Wall is a thing, I could see a lot of dreadnought-esque vehicles getting the label. On the flip side an army made up entirely of predators looks pretty whack.

Kanz don't get any re-rolls though. The only buff they're getting from an ork HQ that could be removed (if Kanz are not CORE) is the morale buff.

Core vehicles will likely be all dedicated transports.
.

I hope not. we really don't need razorback parking lots

BrianDavion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Does it seem odd to anyone else that the supposed "tank edition" is becoming increasingly hostile to tanks? Damage inflation, smaller boards, king-of-the-hill scenario design, and now no rerolls?

you gotta step back and look at what GW wants us to do with the game. their ideal scenerio are infantry forces moving up the board to capture key locations (and clash over them) with a smattering of armor for support.
when you look at the rules with that mind set, I think the rules make sense, vehicles can play agressivly without getting promptly swarmed, but the rules dischourage running 3 5 man scout squads, and a iron hands captain providing bonuses to a repulsor executioner gunline castle.

how well it achomplishes that we'll have to see (I predict Marines will be hammered by this, and guard and eldar will suddenly find they're barely impacted, just like the early chapter tactics) but thats the goal

I mean guard obviously won't be. Their big command ability is already a, limited in what it affects, and b, limited to single targets. They'll reword it to "core" but what's not going to be "core" already can't be ordered - ogryns, ratlings, non-Leman Russ tanks, etc.

There's only one open-ended reroll in the whole codex and it's on a catachan-oonly named character. Their psychic power list will be dumpstered most likely (we've already seen most psychic powers are going CORE only) but that's already not much in use. Not being able to use the +1 armor save or -1 to hit power on a tank with "Eliminator-bait the Astropath" is not going to affect guard strategies, it's just kicking a dead horse.

Eldar, though? Really? You don't think, say, limiting DOOM to core-only will impact them? I feel like autarchs already aren't particularly useful, and they're for sure going to become less so.

This will certainly impact marine equivalent armies the most. But they're also the most egregious abusers of open-ended auras.

.....mm, I did just have a thought though. I'm guessing Goliath trucks won't be Core meaning there won't be a way to get the jackal alphus' buff into a squad in a transport, that's gonna change up my army comp for them.

Well, that's the bright side of our codex being probably a year away at least! Won't have to worry about that until laterrrrrrr.

 Ordana wrote:
And how many times has Reece said complete BS before?
Didn't he say stuff like Stompa's being crazy good?

Oh I'm not saying that it's definitely going to work out and they have been totally qrong before but they did atleast call out IH and IF as broken and seem to be more on point now that the playtesters seems to be a bigger collective.

Hence why I said we will have to see if this is more IH calling it correctly or as you say Stompa's are okay (aka how high are you) level of wrong.

Leman russes will be core, and I think that's it.
I don't see many more vehicles being core.

Maybe venoms.

Venoms and Raiders should be CORE, I fail to see a faction that needs their DTs being CORE more than Drukhari.

But until the codex drops who knows, maybe everything changes.

This is not necessarily no re-rolls for non-CORE.

Some characters might might sense to buff non-CORE things, eg Lord Discordant or Techmarines. Interesting new design space!

Spoletta wrote:
Leman russes will be core, and I think that's it.
I don't see many more vehicles being core.

Maybe venoms.

doubt it. Tank Commander abilities already specify LEMAN RUSS keyword.so no need for them to be core.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Leman russes will be core, and I think that's it.
I don't see many more vehicles being core.

Maybe venoms.

doubt it. Tank Commander abilities already specify LEMAN RUSS keyword.so no need for them to be core.

It makes sense actually. I can easily imagine that Tank commanders commanding themselves is on the list of things that GW doesn't like. Tank commanders will probably only command CORE vehicles.

My prediction is that 'core' will basically be all the non-character infantry, bikes and cavalry, maybe dreadnoughts. Not any tanks were they transports or not. I guess the new buggy could be 'core' as it is basically a four-wheeled attack bike. It is really not based on how essential the units are for the base identity of the faction or how common they are, it is based on whether it will feel thematically stupid to have a character standing next to them and yelling orders to them.

Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.

I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This is not necessarily no re-rolls for non-CORE.

Some characters might might sense to buff non-CORE things, eg Lord Discordant or Techmarines. Interesting new design space!

I'm certain of this.
The new nurgle character that was in the codex preview was said to buff Daemon engines. Daemon engines will not be core. Of course his stuff could be pick a unit instead of aura.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Umbros wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Umbros wrote:
...pending the execution.

Devil in the details. GW has plenty of good ideas but almost universally poor execution.

And they should be criticised if they get them wrong... which they haven't yet.

Plus tbh, specific rerolls is already a vast improvement on (near) universal rerolls.

GW hasn't been criticised?

Are you kidding?

GW get's more criticism for every pixel on their website and every letter they ever printed than Enron got for their entire accounting scandal.

Hell, GW is probably the only company in the world that get's flamed probably multiple times a day for not delivering stuff they never even announced or anticipated and were just made up by some click-bait YouTuber or blogger, lol.

Stuff like GW allegedly writing "nothing but bad, outdated rules" has become so engrained in the internetz that many dakka-ship kinda believe it without question, despite all proof to the contrary.


If anything, the problem is that people just denigrate everything and anything GW ever makes or does on principle, so differentiation is lost.

... they haven't got them wrong yet...

Seabass wrote:
Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.

I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.

But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists

We don't know what auras will even look like yet.

Consider if core benefit from reroll 1s but core troops benefit from full rerolls for example. The design space for this type of change is huge. Hope they get it right.

Breton wrote:

Why did GW ever think people would take a chaplain?

Because it buffs close combat? I don't know about SM but the SW equivalent is very good, one of the best HQs in the codex and also the cheapest one. I take it everytime.

Now also SM should have good melee dedicated units and if the player can't spam captains the chaplain could be viable maybe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:


I hope not. we really don't need razorback parking lots

We don't need buggies, dreads, speeders parking lots either.

 Ordana wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.

I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.

But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists

That or GW will finally take their dumb double shoot rules of the datasheet and over to a strategum where it always should have been.