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.
Ordana wrote: So that still leave the question of if Aggressors have core, but I would consider it likely considering the other units that are now confirmed.
Gee, where are those people who were quickly to say Marines would be nerfed because the 'op' units would not get Core.
I never said Eradications wouldn't get CORE. I said I wasn't sure. The point still stand that this is a nerf to marines more than other armies (that "nerfs" them into all infantry) and we'll have to wait and see (OMG BURN THE WITCH) if there's anything else in store for changes or if they screwed the pooch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/21 01:44:00
Actually if elite infantry gets <CORE> it'll probably end up nerfing non-marine factions harder than marine ones. Practically the only thing you see in competitive marines lists that looks like it won't have <CORE> is the FW dreads. The only part marines are likely to really be hurt by is losing rerolls on the characters themselves, but even that's a relatively minor part of most marines lists these days, except for BA and SW.
Particularly if <CORE> ends up being a restriction on stuff like psychic powers and stratagems too, practically every other faction in the game stands to lose more than marines.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/21 02:32:25
yukishiro1 wrote: Actually if elite infantry gets <CORE> it'll probably end up nerfing non-marine factions harder than marine ones. Practically the only thing you see in competitive marines lists that looks like it won't have <CORE> is the FW dreads.
Particularly if <CORE> ends up being a restriction on stuff like psychic powers and stratagems too, practically every other faction in the game stands to lose more than marines.
Maybe. I can't say you're wrong. I just don't know enough yet to see how this is going to turn out. There's a whole bunch of new stuff coming down the pipe that will certainly not be CORE. It wouldn't be abnormal for GW to make those awful, but at first blush with what we've seen they were pretty good rules (even when missing any special rules).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/21 02:10:13
yukishiro1 wrote: Actually if elite infantry gets <CORE> it'll probably end up nerfing non-marine factions harder than marine ones. Practically the only thing you see in competitive marines lists that looks like it won't have <CORE> is the FW dreads.
Particularly if <CORE> ends up being a restriction on stuff like psychic powers and stratagems too, practically every other faction in the game stands to lose more than marines.
you're assuming that everyone gets the same dirstinction on "core" that Marines do.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
I'm assuming what they said in their own article is vaguely accurate, yes. We're all assuming that, because if it isn't, nobody has anything to work on. Maybe <CORE> is all a big misunderstanding and it isn't even happening at all! Maybe it was a September Fools joke!
It might have been mentioned in another thread, but allowing Core CSM units to be partially linked to Chaos marks would be cool, as it could allow for more flavor. For example, I would love to have Plague Marines as troops for my Iron Warriors so that they can better hold objectives while the army's heavy firepower component does the rest.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm assuming what they said in their own article is vaguely accurate, yes. We're all assuming that, because if it isn't, nobody has anything to work on. Maybe <CORE> is all a big misunderstanding and it isn't even happening at all! Maybe it was a September Fools joke!
the article reads as
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.
I could very much see GW deciding that for some armies "tanks form part of their core!" *looks at the guard* not saying it'll happen but if the guard got a 'dex and lemen russes had the core keyword it'd not terriably shock me
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Ordana wrote: So that still leave the question of if Aggressors have core, but I would consider it likely considering the other units that are now confirmed.
Gee, where are those people who were quickly to say Marines would be nerfed because the 'op' units would not get Core.
I never said Eradications wouldn't get CORE. I said I wasn't sure. The point still stand that this is a nerf to marines more than other armies (that "nerfs" them into all infantry) and we'll have to wait and see (OMG BURN THE WITCH) if there's anything else in store for changes or if they screwed the pooch.
But is that really much of a nerf? If Brian Davian's theory holds true and CORE is applied to all infantry, bikes, and codex dreadnoughts what would loyalists really be losing? Other than fw dreads that seems to cover all their best units, and the thing about fw dreads is they don't really need any help getting their job done.
@ Yukishiro: This change seems to primarily hurt big expensive units, while helping smaller infantry types, I figured you'd dig that. Isn't that what you said you'd prefer? That expensive units be kept on the uncompetitive side?
Ordana wrote: So that still leave the question of if Aggressors have core, but I would consider it likely considering the other units that are now confirmed.
Gee, where are those people who were quickly to say Marines would be nerfed because the 'op' units would not get Core.
I never said Eradications wouldn't get CORE. I said I wasn't sure. The point still stand that this is a nerf to marines more than other armies (that "nerfs" them into all infantry) and we'll have to wait and see (OMG BURN THE WITCH) if there's anything else in store for changes or if they screwed the pooch.
But is that really much of a nerf? If Brian Davian's theory holds true and CORE is applied to all infantry, bikes, and codex dreadnoughts what would loyalists really be losing? Other than fw dreads that seems to cover all their best units, and the thing about fw dreads is they don't really need any help getting their job done.
@ Yukishiro: This change seems to primarily hurt big expensive units, while helping smaller infantry types, I figured you'd dig that. Isn't that what you said you'd prefer? That expensive units be kept on the uncompetitive side?
It'll mean that right from the start Marines aren't going to want to run "parking lot lists" which is something we've seen off and on to some extent for awhile now. In 9th edition we've had that I can recall, Gulliman/stormraven parking lot. Gulliman + Razorback Parking Lot. and the Iron Hands repulsor executioner parking lot.
GW doesn't want Marines to be a tank heavy army. they envision marines as being mostly infantry bikes and dreadnoughts moving forward under heavy fire. with a small smattering of vehicles to provide support.
their ideal list is more along the lines of
1 captain, 1 lt, 3 tac squads, 2 devestator squads, 2 bike squads, A land speeder, and a whirlwind.
basicly GW doesn't JUUST want balance. their ideal state is the armies are balanced and act like they're supposed to. If Marines are a tank gunline army, Eldar are a elite heavy infantry army, and guard are a small number of squads with heavy psyker support, then GW isn't happy. even IF in such a hypothetical situation it turns out the game is wonderfully balanced.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/09/21 03:59:38
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
^This is something about the new stuff that I do agree with. A Marine army should be about Marines. At the start of 8th it didn't surprise me that vehicles, etc. didn't get Chapter Tactics.
So, this is good. . . as long as they don't #*%k it up by offering a Relic that enables Auras to affect non-Core units. . .
BrianDavion wrote: basicly GW doesn't JUUST want balance. their ideal state is the armies are balanced and act like they're supposed to. If Marines are a tank gunline army, Eldar are a elite heavy infantry army, and guard are a small number of squads with heavy psyker support, then GW isn't happy. even IF in such a hypothetical situation it turns out the game is wonderfully balanced.
Exactly. While GW don't want *identical* lists, there's still a theme they want for their armies to have, and if the "optimal" way of playing those armies isn't with that theme, they've got an issue.
Like, one of the biggest examples of that I've seen is how Scout Squads were nearly always taken over Tacticals, even though it really should be Tacticals at the core of the army, with Scouts being the backbone on much rarer occasions - so clearly, something should have changed.
BrianDavion wrote: basicly GW doesn't JUUST want balance. their ideal state is the armies are balanced and act like they're supposed to. If Marines are a tank gunline army, Eldar are a elite heavy infantry army, and guard are a small number of squads with heavy psyker support, then GW isn't happy. even IF in such a hypothetical situation it turns out the game is wonderfully balanced.
Exactly. While GW don't want *identical* lists, there's still a theme they want for their armies to have, and if the "optimal" way of playing those armies isn't with that theme, they've got an issue.
Like, one of the biggest examples of that I've seen is how Scout Squads were nearly always taken over Tacticals, even though it really should be Tacticals at the core of the army, with Scouts being the backbone on much rarer occasions - so clearly, something should have changed.
sounds like they're moving scouts to the elites slot for 9E
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Wait and see etc - but my reading was always "we don't want a captain + lieutenant babysitting a Repulsor parking lot because while the current rules make this sensible its not very fluffy". Not quite sure why people took this and ran to the hope it would mean no buffs for anything non-troops given they explicitly said this wouldn't be the case.
So I'd expect most things to have "core" except big shooty vehicles/monsters that serve more like artillery. Really though apart from Canoness->Exorcists, and maybe some not especially competitive CSM style builds, I'm not sure it comes up outside of Marines.
Tyel wrote: Wait and see etc - but my reading was always "we don't want a captain + lieutenant babysitting a Repulsor parking lot because while the current rules make this sensible its not very fluffy". Not quite sure why people took this and ran to the hope it would mean no buffs for anything non-troops given they explicitly said this wouldn't be the case.
So I'd expect most things to have "core" except big shooty vehicles/monsters that serve more like artillery. Really though apart from Canoness->Exorcists, and maybe some not especially competitive CSM style builds, I'm not sure it comes up outside of Marines.
Some people like being disappointed... this rule got extrapolated in all the wrong ways by some folk largely so that they’ve got something new to be salty about.
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"
Super Ready wrote: I'm not surprised at how widespread Core looks to be going. That in and of itself, I was kinda expecting, especially from that article.
What I'm not such a fan of, is the idea of tying any source of 'Objective Secured' to it. I sincerely hope that such abilities are few and far between, and very limited in their scope (eg. within a 6" aura and dies if the character does).
Otherwise? If it's too prevalent, it takes something away from Troops, which makes them an unattractive prospect in a game full of fantastic Elite alternatives.
I think objective secured is already too thin. Terminators forgot how to secure an objective when they were promoted? Meganobs are now too big to do it? Just about all infantry should have objective secured. Maybe the walkers, not the vehicles.
Tyel wrote: Wait and see etc - but my reading was always "we don't want a captain + lieutenant babysitting a Repulsor parking lot because while the current rules make this sensible its not very fluffy". Not quite sure why people took this and ran to the hope it would mean no buffs for anything non-troops given they explicitly said this wouldn't be the case.
So I'd expect most things to have "core" except big shooty vehicles/monsters that serve more like artillery. Really though apart from Canoness->Exorcists, and maybe some not especially competitive CSM style builds, I'm not sure it comes up outside of Marines.
Because people are desperate to see Space Marines nerfed and sofar it looks like they actually become even better with the new codex.
Super Ready wrote: I'm not surprised at how widespread Core looks to be going. That in and of itself, I was kinda expecting, especially from that article.
What I'm not such a fan of, is the idea of tying any source of 'Objective Secured' to it. I sincerely hope that such abilities are few and far between, and very limited in their scope (eg. within a 6" aura and dies if the character does).
Otherwise? If it's too prevalent, it takes something away from Troops, which makes them an unattractive prospect in a game full of fantastic Elite alternatives.
I think objective secured is already too thin. Terminators forgot how to secure an objective when they were promoted? Meganobs are now too big to do it? Just about all infantry should have objective secured. Maybe the walkers, not the vehicles.
At which point one has to wonder what the point of the rule even is.
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.
What looks to be a nerf to marines, will be a marine buff, and non marine nerf. Marines have the most units, and many of them will get CORE. Marines have the most troop choices of all factions, and all of them will be CORE.
At which point one has to wonder what the point of the rule even is.
Well it should also be something other than model based. Power level or base point I suppose. It should be used to benefit infantry and hammer vehicle objective securing. Can you explain why 10 terminators can’t secure an objective from 1 grot? Or 15 Meganobz from 1 gaunt?
p5freak wrote: What looks to be a nerf to marines, will be a marine buff, and non marine nerf. Marines have the most units, and many of them will get CORE. Marines have the most troop choices of all factions, and all of them will be CORE.
They also have the most units that WON'T be CORE.
Marines are the army that most relies on auras. Every unit that isn't CORE is going to suffer greatly. Which vastly reduces SM's most powerful advantage: Their enormous toolkit.
p5freak wrote: What looks to be a nerf to marines, will be a marine buff, and non marine nerf. Marines have the most units, and many of them will get CORE. Marines have the most troop choices of all factions, and all of them will be CORE.
They also have the most units that WON'T be CORE.
Marines are the army that most relies on auras. Every unit that isn't CORE is going to suffer greatly. Which vastly reduces SM's most powerful advantage: Their enormous toolkit.
I think your underestimating how good many marine units are even without re-roll aura's.
Super Ready wrote: I'm not surprised at how widespread Core looks to be going. That in and of itself, I was kinda expecting, especially from that article.
What I'm not such a fan of, is the idea of tying any source of 'Objective Secured' to it. I sincerely hope that such abilities are few and far between, and very limited in their scope (eg. within a 6" aura and dies if the character does).
Otherwise? If it's too prevalent, it takes something away from Troops, which makes them an unattractive prospect in a game full of fantastic Elite alternatives.
I think objective secured is already too thin. Terminators forgot how to secure an objective when they were promoted? Meganobs are now too big to do it? Just about all infantry should have objective secured. Maybe the walkers, not the vehicles.
Why not vehicles? They've generally got bigger guns and bigger bodies and storage space to put the objective should it be transportable. It's not like the crew of a landraider COULDN'T just go grab the macguffin and leave. Obsec as a rule doesn't make sense because it's ENTIRELY a gameplay mechanic meant to make troops more useful. It exists to encourage people to build armies the way GW people think they should be built, not because it actually somehow makes sense that a grot could capture a point over a warlord titan.
If you just give it to all infantry then it's not even accomplishing it's only actual purpose(getting people to take troops) so it should be deleted.
p5freak wrote: What looks to be a nerf to marines, will be a marine buff, and non marine nerf. Marines have the most units, and many of them will get CORE. Marines have the most troop choices of all factions, and all of them will be CORE.
They also have the most units that WON'T be CORE.
Marines are the army that most relies on auras. Every unit that isn't CORE is going to suffer greatly. Which vastly reduces SM's most powerful advantage: Their enormous toolkit.
I think your underestimating how good many marine units are even without re-roll aura's.
I think you're underestimating just how much of a difference the reroll auras make for the 80% of their army that's pretty mediocre without them and underestimating just how impactful a signicant portion of their toolkit losing between 15 and 25% of their output is going to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/21 15:47:54
I think you're underestimating just how much of a difference the reroll auras make for the 80% of their army that's pretty mediocre without them and underestimating just how impactful a signicant portion of their toolkit losing between 15 and 25% of their output is going to be.
It's 30 to 35% for a CM & LT depending on targets and so on.
At which point one has to wonder what the point of the rule even is.
Well it should also be something other than model based. Power level or base point I suppose. It should be used to benefit infantry and hammer vehicle objective securing. Can you explain why 10 terminators can’t secure an objective from 1 grot? Or 15 Meganobz from 1 gaunt?
Maybe the objective is exceedingly fragile or operating it is tied to the use of very small buttons. Hence, the Terminators or Meganobz are stuck staring at the giant, unwieldy fists and claws that they're wearing while the lone grot blows raspberries at them.
More seriously, I'm just not convinced that this is something that needs to be a rule in the first place. I assume it was an attempt to make troops worth a damn, but in that case they should have had the balls to do what they did in 5e and make it that only troops can score. I know a lot of people wouldn't have appreciated that, but at least it would have been actually impactful, rather than this messy compromise.
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.
It's not going to have much impact competitively for SM as people will just switch to the better units, and the best units at the moment almost all have it anyway, so it won't impact them at all.
Casually, it will make it easier to take a bad space marine list, I guess.
If it's really only limited to auras it may end up hurting space marines equally or more than most other factions. But if this also ends up limiting strats and particularly psychic powers, just about every other faction stands to lose a lot more. Think about the impact on chaos of losing warptime on characters / spawn / big models, for example.
I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be skeptical when they find out that magically almost all of SM's best units escape the impact of the rule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/21 16:09:48
Why not vehicles? They've generally got bigger guns and bigger bodies and storage space to put the objective should it be transportable. It's not like the crew of a landraider COULDN'T just go grab the macguffin and leave. Obsec as a rule doesn't make sense because it's ENTIRELY a gameplay mechanic meant to make troops more useful. It exists to encourage people to build armies the way GW people think they should be built, not because it actually somehow makes sense that a grot could capture a point over a warlord titan.
If you just give it to all infantry then it's not even accomplishing it's only actual purpose(getting people to take troops) so it should be deleted.
because a vehicle has a job other than standing guard over a vital macguffin point. Infantry especially/even elite infantry are well versed in the concept of standing a post.
Maybe the objective is exceedingly fragile or operating it is tied to the use of very small buttons. Hence, the Terminators or Meganobz are stuck staring at the giant, unwieldy fists and claws that they're wearing while the lone grot blows raspberries at them.
More seriously, I'm just not convinced that this is something that needs to be a rule in the first place. I assume it was an attempt to make troops worth a damn, but in that case they should have had the balls to do what they did in 5e and make it that only troops can score. I know a lot of people wouldn't have appreciated that, but at least it would have been actually impactful, rather than this messy compromise.
Then they should have also kept the FOC shenanigans to move units to the troops slot for the wonky theme lists if they keep it only troops can score. And I think it’s right that anything non aircraft can score. Heck, I’d even let hoverjet score. But the infantry are used to and designed for the process. The bikers and jet bikers only slightly less so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/22 01:43:16
