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.
yukishiro1 wrote: As I said when the rule was initially previewed, the impact will 100% depend on whether they have the balls to not give it out like candy to all the best space marine units.
Giving it to gravis largely defeats the purpose and just makes those units even better than the vehicle alternatives. And if aggressors have it, so much for reducing the ridiculous amount of rerolls.
If the info in WD is accurate, it looks like GW may have once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s not designed to stop the good infantry getting buffs. It’s to exclude stuff. Think of the inverse of what you’re thinking the rule does. It’s not given to so much as omitted from stuff.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Yeah, fluff lists don't care about stuff like this, they're about theme and following the narrative. The actual power of the list is of course very low down on the priority list if not outright irrelevant.
Potentially, but not always. It's possible to make fluffy and competitive lists. Or has been in the past. And this could have gone a long way towards making those fluffy lists competitive. It doesn't sound like it will anymore, but it could have.
Any list that's trying to be competitive will have to contend with the possibility(and it is just a possibility, we have no idea how big of an advantage CORE will actually end up being. It could be that it's only moderately impactful or it could essentially 'delete' units that don't have it. No way to know until the book is released and test games start happening.) that anything lacking CORE is no longer able to compete. Even if you're just trying to pwn your buddies face down at the FLGS and not trying to win LVO or Adepticon.
I'm now confused. If fluffy lists using CORE don't matter, but CORE could delete any unit that doesn't have CORE because you have to have CORE to be competitive? What exactly are you arguing here?
1. It's not scoffing in this case. Building fluffy fun lists is fine, it's worrying about how competitive those lists are that's silly. Nothing the rules do either way is going to effect building a fluffy fun list.
2. It is possible to make fluffy and competitive lists but generally speaking one or the other is done by accident. If you're out to make a competitive list, the fact that it's fluffy is more of a fun side benefit than an actual consideration. If you're out to make a fluffy list, the fact that it's competitive is usually at least somewhat accidental (and can be actively detrimental if the group you're playing fluff games with aren't quite so lucky) not a core consideration. Trying to do both almost always ends up sacrificing one side in favor of the other at least little bit.
3. You completely missed the word 'competitive' at the beginning there. CORE could theoretically see models shelved for COMPETITIVE armies because it causes some units to just be flat out better than others thanks to character buffs.
Fluff armies are largely unaffected by rules changes of any kind. CORE won't change that any more than the salamander super mortal wounds combo did.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/20 17:24:09
yukishiro1 wrote: As I said when the rule was initially previewed, the impact will 100% depend on whether they have the balls to not give it out like candy to all the best space marine units.
Giving it to gravis largely defeats the purpose and just makes those units even better than the vehicle alternatives. And if aggressors have it, so much for reducing the ridiculous amount of rerolls.
If the info in WD is accurate, it looks like GW may have once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s not designed to stop the good infantry getting buffs. It’s to exclude stuff. Think of the inverse of what you’re thinking the rule does. It’s not given to so much as omitted from stuff.
Right...and if you don't exclude the stuff that abuses rerolls most currently, and that are the biggest problem units in the codex, it's a change that just makes the strong stronger. The last thing the space marine codex needed was to make gravis specialist units even stronger relative to everything else.
If gravis specialists get core it's a change that just makes things worse, not better. All it'll do is wreck the internal balance of the codex, and we'll see even more aggressors with full rerolls clogging up the game, not less.
Nobody but noobs cared about 3x repulsor executioners getting hit rerolls, that was a comparatively weak space marine build that got dumpstered by a decent player with a decent list. Aggressors with rerolls are 10x the problem for the game that repulsors or dreads with rerolls are.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/20 17:33:22
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Because CORE pertains to more than just character auras. There is a strategem in the Silver Templars rules that applies only to CORE units. It is likely that the same will be true for many psychic powers, litanys, prayers, etc. A unit without the CORE keyword will need to be inherently better than those with it to compete with them for inclusion in a list.
as I said my gut feeling is "core" will apply, for space marines to infantry dreads and bikes. and if so GW WANTS that to be the lion's share of our army, with tanks etc being something we take in only a handful of cases to play a very specific role.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Because CORE pertains to more than just character auras. There is a strategem in the Silver Templars rules that applies only to CORE units. It is likely that the same will be true for many psychic powers, litanys, prayers, etc. A unit without the CORE keyword will need to be inherently better than those with it to compete with them for inclusion in a list.
as I said my gut feeling is "core" will apply, for space marines to infantry dreads and bikes. and if so GW WANTS that to be the lion's share of our army, with tanks etc being something we take in only a handful of cases to play a very specific role.
And I would say you're right. But the CORE keyword will probably not be given out 100% to units in those categories. For instance, I doubt if all fw dreadnoughts will have it. That's the reason for its creation. It isn't about inclusion, but the exclusion of units from things that affect CORE units.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Because CORE pertains to more than just character auras. There is a strategem in the Silver Templars rules that applies only to CORE units. It is likely that the same will be true for many psychic powers, litanys, prayers, etc. A unit without the CORE keyword will need to be inherently better than those with it to compete with them for inclusion in a list.
as I said my gut feeling is "core" will apply, for space marines to infantry dreads and bikes. and if so GW WANTS that to be the lion's share of our army, with tanks etc being something we take in only a handful of cases to play a very specific role.
And I would say you're right. But the CORE keyword will probably not be given out 100% to units in those categories. For instance, I doubt if all fw dreadnoughts will have it. That's the reason for its creation. It isn't about inclusion, but the exclusion of units from things that affect CORE units.
Ohhh joy, yet another way for GW to exclude Forgeworld models from viability by back handed keywords just what will ve brilliant for balance.
Glad to see they have so little faith in themselves to not forget about the units they arw writing the dang rules for.
yukishiro1 wrote: As I said when the rule was initially previewed, the impact will 100% depend on whether they have the balls to not give it out like candy to all the best space marine units.
Giving it to gravis largely defeats the purpose and just makes those units even better than the vehicle alternatives. And if aggressors have it, so much for reducing the ridiculous amount of rerolls.
If the info in WD is accurate, it looks like GW may have once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s not designed to stop the good infantry getting buffs. It’s to exclude stuff. Think of the inverse of what you’re thinking the rule does. It’s not given to so much as omitted from stuff.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: The battle report in the latest WD refers to Bladeguard Veteran, Assault Intercessors, Outriders and Eradicators as Core units. The Space Marine player is using the new Codex and refers to a Warlord Trait that gives Core units Objective Secured.
So it would seem that the Core label will be granted quite widely. This is good!
Eh. It just cements Eradicators as the go to unless there is also something else that changes.
Either there's more to this picture or there will be a lot of unused models in the book.
why will there be tons of unused models?
Because basically anything that doesn't have CORE will have to be 10%ish(depending on the army and the likelyhood of most units being able to benefit from 2 or more buff auras) better baseline than anything that DOES have CORE to acccount for the additional bonuses being core allows for.
For example, if bladeguard vets have core but assault terminators don't have core(unlikely but illustrative), assault terminators have to be at least moderately better without buff characters than bladeguard vets are without buff characters to balance out how good bladeguard are WITH buff characters.
It's an opportunity cost though. What about if you don't take a captain/lieutenants? Why would you even bother with core if they're 10% more expensive because of a buff you don't have?
Because CORE pertains to more than just character auras. There is a strategem in the Silver Templars rules that applies only to CORE units. It is likely that the same will be true for many psychic powers, litanys, prayers, etc. A unit without the CORE keyword will need to be inherently better than those with it to compete with them for inclusion in a list.
as I said my gut feeling is "core" will apply, for space marines to infantry dreads and bikes. and if so GW WANTS that to be the lion's share of our army, with tanks etc being something we take in only a handful of cases to play a very specific role.
And I would say you're right. But the CORE keyword will probably not be given out 100% to units in those categories. For instance, I doubt if all fw dreadnoughts will have it. That's the reason for its creation. It isn't about inclusion, but the exclusion of units from things that affect CORE units.
Ohhh joy, yet another way for GW to exclude Forgeworld models from viability by back handed keywords just what will ve brilliant for balance.
Glad to see they have so little faith in themselves to not forget about the units they arw writing the dang rules for.
Or, conversely, they could give non-CORE units, such as fw units, strong enough rules that they don't need buffs to be competitive. The fw dreads arguably already have that: does something that hits on 2s really need rerolls? Just another reason I can't wait to see the Imperial Armour Compendium.
Denegaar wrote:I was afraid Heavy Support units could be excluded of CORE, but seeing Gravis getting it, I guess Talos and Cronos will have it too.
Maybe they just want to exclude Heavy Vehicles and HQs.
Depends, do you consider a landspeeder a heavy vehicle? Because from the leaked datasheet it appears the new landspeeder doesn't have the CORE keyword.
yukishiro1 wrote: As I said when the rule was initially previewed, the impact will 100% depend on whether they have the balls to not give it out like candy to all the best space marine units.
Giving it to gravis largely defeats the purpose and just makes those units even better than the vehicle alternatives. And if aggressors have it, so much for reducing the ridiculous amount of rerolls.
If the info in WD is accurate, it looks like GW may have once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It’s not designed to stop the good infantry getting buffs. It’s to exclude stuff. Think of the inverse of what you’re thinking the rule does. It’s not given to so much as omitted from stuff.
Right...and if you don't exclude the stuff that abuses rerolls most currently, and that are the biggest problem units in the codex, it's a change that just makes the strong stronger. The last thing the space marine codex needed was to make gravis specialist units even stronger relative to everything else.
If gravis specialists get core it's a change that just makes things worse, not better. All it'll do is wreck the internal balance of the codex, and we'll see even more aggressors with full rerolls clogging up the game, not less.
Nobody but noobs cared about 3x repulsor executioners getting hit rerolls, that was a comparatively weak space marine build that got dumpstered by a decent player with a decent list. Aggressors with rerolls are 10x the problem for the game that repulsors or dreads with rerolls are.
How is that a change of Gravis things get rerolls? Everything would have had rerolls if not for the incoming Core keyword. I don’t think your argument makes sense as they were always gonna get rerolls.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
If the point of the change was to nerf tanks and dreads while keeping gravis at its current level, it's a bad change that does more damage than it solves. The last thing space marines needed was even more incentive to ditch the vehicles for more gravis squads.
It's also a change that will hurt space marines less than every other faction, ironically, as space marines rely the least on the things likely to be impacted if the WD article is accurate.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing they don't want gamers to buy less profit margin resin models yes they are. It's about selling more what gives more procits. Aka plastic
Or they're trying to prevent the nonsense of priceless relic units suddenly becoming the 'go-to' again.
They're literally coming out with a new FW book. If they wanted to tune down FW stuff, they would just use the book to do it.
This seems to be about pushing people even further in the direction of the current top lists, i.e. a bunch of elite infantry/bikes with few or no vehicles. In other words, the strong get stronger.
tneva82 wrote: Seeing they don't want gamers to buy less profit margin resin models yes they are. It's about selling more what gives more procits. Aka plastic
Or they're trying to prevent the nonsense of priceless relic units suddenly becoming the 'go-to' again.
Well if the main studio hadn't made a pigs ear out of CA 2020 points with a bit more brain power and a lot less Ctrl+C Crtl+V they wouldn't have to fix their own ups so often.
Sorry, you don’t consider practically auto-hitting Captains and Leviathans going away to be a good change? I... ok.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
tneva82 wrote: Seeing they don't want gamers to buy less profit margin resin models yes they are. It's about selling more what gives more procits. Aka plastic
Or they're trying to prevent the nonsense of priceless relic units suddenly becoming the 'go-to' again.
Wouldn't a simple 0-1 rule for such units be a better fix for that than massive price hikes?
JohnnyHell wrote:Sorry, you don’t consider practically auto-hitting Captains and Leviathans going away to be a good change? I... ok.
Exactly, anything that hits on 2s doesn't need rerolls. Do people just want to stop using dice?
JohnnyHell wrote: Sorry, you don’t consider practically auto-hitting Captains and Leviathans going away to be a good change? I... ok.
Not if you still have auto-hitting aggressors. All it means is you'll have even more of those aggressors, and even more waiting around 10 minutes while your opponent rolls and rerolls literally hundreds of dice for a single 5-man unit.
Giving a relative buff to what are already the strongest units in the strongest codex by toning down their competition is not a positive change for the game from a balance perspective.
To summarize:
1. If elite infantry like gravis get <CORE> this doesn't actually significantly reduce the amount of rerolls in the game, because the biggest offenders still have them.
2. It doesn't improve game balance, because the strongest units aren't impacted. In fact it reduces game balance by giving these already strongest units a relative buff they didn't need.
So we have a change to rerolls that neither improves game balance nor addresses the buckets of dice being rerolled. So what's the point?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/20 19:33:41
JohnnyHell wrote: Sorry, you don’t consider practically auto-hitting Captains and Leviathans going away to be a good change? I... ok.
Not if you still have auto-hitting aggressors. All it means is you'll have even more of those aggressors, and even more waiting around 10 minutes while your opponent rolls and rerolls literally hundreds of dice for a single 5-man unit.
Giving a relative buff to what are already the strongest units in the strongest codex by toning down their competition is not a positive change for the game from a balance perspective.
To summarize:
1. If elite infantry like gravis get <CORE> this doesn't actually significantly reduce the amount of rerolls in the game, because the biggest offenders still have them.
2. It doesn't improve game balance, because the strongest units aren't impacted. In fact it reduces game balance by giving these already strongest units a relative buff they didn't need.
So we have a change to rerolls that neither improves game balance nor addresses the buckets of dice being rerolled. So what's the point?
Adding the concept of Core units and placing restrictions on auras and perhaps other things is a good thing for balance. It gives the designers another lever. It does tone down Space Marines - Chapter Master buffed Leviathans and Repulser Executioners are certainly a thing. That's quite a bit of dice-rerolling turned off. Characters pretty much auto-hitting is (soon to be was) a thing. These are reigned in. We will see how Aggressors fare. I assume that they will be Core, but we don't know (at least I don't think that we do) what is happening to their datasheets.
We will see what happens to Salamander Aggressors - lots of scope for a targeted nerf.
Anyhoo - I am glad that it looks like my Hellblasters will still be able to Supercharge with a chance of a re-roll 1s if I put my Master with them.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
Levers are only worth what the person pulling them is. GW has plenty of levers to pull already, and it's not like they're pulling them correctly right now. Giving someone who doesn't know how to pull the levers another lever to pull is just as likely to hurt things as help them.
I mean if your point is "just wait and see, maybe this time it'll be different and it comes together just right" sure, that's theoretically possible. But giving core to specialist elite infantry doesn't feel like a smart move based on how the game is now, both in terms of game balance and in terms of wanting to reduce the amount of rerolls overall.
JohnnyHell wrote: Sorry, you don’t consider practically auto-hitting Captains and Leviathans going away to be a good change? I... ok.
Not if you still have auto-hitting aggressors. All it means is you'll have even more of those aggressors, and even more waiting around 10 minutes while your opponent rolls and rerolls literally hundreds of dice for a single 5-man unit.
Giving a relative buff to what are already the strongest units in the strongest codex by toning down their competition is not a positive change for the game from a balance perspective.
To summarize:
1. If elite infantry like gravis get <CORE> this doesn't actually significantly reduce the amount of rerolls in the game, because the biggest offenders still have them.
2. It doesn't improve game balance, because the strongest units aren't impacted. In fact it reduces game balance by giving these already strongest units a relative buff they didn't need.
So we have a change to rerolls that neither improves game balance nor addresses the buckets of dice being rerolled. So what's the point?
I think you keep ignoring the point and repeating yourself about Aggressors.
No more practically auto-hitting (2s rerolling 1s) characters and accidental FW Uber units is the point. That expressly reduces buckets of rerolls (20-shot Storm Cannon Leviathans) to not just hit, but to Wound in some cases as well, because Lieutenants are restricted. It creates moments where heroes miss or fail to wound rather than point and click. It opens up some risk of failure again. It doesn’t do what you want it to do but that in no way makes it pointless. I don’t magically own 9 Eradicators because my Leviathan isn’t as good. Not every game is a top table tourney bought-the-army-specially-for-this game.
Aggressors being super good is not solely a function of rerolls, and they already have rerolls. They’re not auto-hitting (unless Flamer ones). So nothing has changed but some other too-good options were curtailed. If you expected Elite and HS infantry options to not get Core you had the wrong idea of what Core was supposed to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Levers are only worth what the person pulling them is. GW has plenty of levers to pull already, and it's not like they're pulling them correctly right now. Giving someone who doesn't know how to pull the levers another lever to pull is just as likely to hurt things as help them.
I mean if your point is "just wait and see, maybe this time it'll be different and it comes together just right" sure, that's theoretically possible. But giving core to specialist elite infantry doesn't feel like a smart move based on how the game is now, both in terms of game balance and in terms of wanting to reduce the amount of rerolls overall.
Again, Elite infantry are not being ‘given’ Core. They functionally were already. They’re just not having it taken away.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/20 21:56:08
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
CommanderWalrus wrote: I feel like the idea behind Core wasn't originally an attempt to nerf rerolls, but more like just an excuse to not camp your characters behind long range vehicles and make them lead closer to the front. The fact that seemingly almost all infantry seems to get the keyword reinforces this theory imo. While it is cool to try to make your HQs a little more active, I think it's safe to say it's probably not what most people wanted :/
I think the problem is that - like so many of GW's """fixes""", it's just a bandaid.
It's like when they limited Crisis Commanders to 1-per-detachment rather than fixing Crisis Suits, or raised the price of CSM Cultists rather than fixing CSMs.
It doesn't fix the underlying issues.
For example, the Archon wasn't buffing Ravagers because his aura was super-awsome for them. He was buffing Ravagers because he sucked at everything else. His aura affected barely anything to begin with (least of all melee units), his own weapons and wargear sucked badly, he had no mobility options, and both DE transports could generally only take him by substituting an entire 5-man squad.
Hence, making the Archon's aura won't make him better further forward, it will just mean he can't perform the only role his crap rules allowed for.
Now, maybe, maybe this problem will be solved in the actual codex, but given that GW have put zero effort into DE for a decade, you'll forgive me if I'm not optimistic.
My overall point, though, is that this fix seems feels more like a panicky, mid-edition errata than an actual core mechanic (ironically). It seems like a better solution would have involved taking a serious look at auras in general, and preferably removing or replacing them entirely. But instead we have this rather messy-looking compromise.
Early days, I know, but I fear I must remain very dubious as to how well this mechanic will work.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
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.
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.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Maybe Ravagers might even move around the battlefield now instead of parking with an Archon?
Whilst it would be nice, the current rules don't provide a whole lot of incentive to actually move them, even if they weren't shackled to an Archon intent on reciting Vect's amateur poetry to them.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
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.
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.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Maybe Ravagers might even move around the battlefield now instead of parking with an Archon?
Whilst it would be nice, the current rules don't provide a whole lot of incentive to actually move them, even if they weren't shackled to an Archon intent on reciting Vect's amateur poetry to them.
Can't argue with that, although now they don't lose anything by repositioning. I find myself moving my Predators around more in 9th due to the presence of Obscuring Terrain and the absence of a movement-based penalty to shooting. I haven't played my Drukhari yet.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is it? If CORE is spread around too freely doesn't that defeat its purpose of limiting the number of units that can benefit from things like reroll auras and certain powerful strategems and other stackable buffs?
Of course it does, but does this surprise you?
Games Workshop - Great ideas!
Also Games Workshop - Terrible application!
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is it? If CORE is spread around too freely doesn't that defeat its purpose of limiting the number of units that can benefit from things like reroll auras and certain powerful strategems and other stackable buffs?
Of course it does, but does this surprise you?
Games Workshop - Great ideas!
Also Games Workshop - Terrible application!
No, it doesn't. Still, I had hope for a while that we would see less rerolling. Guess rerolls are the only way gw can think of to make characters seem like leaders in the current rule set.
The Bloody Sails 
ups so often.
