Switch Theme:

We have waited, we have seen!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Voss wrote:
Conditional Core makes no real sense- it undermines the utility of having the concept at all.
Does it? Tanks would be Core a tank army. Scions would be Core in a Scion army.

They're not going to do 3 separate books, so unless they make all those units core regardless of army structure (which makes no sense - a Leman Russ shouldn't be "Core" in a Scion army) conditional Core would be a way of resolving that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/14 05:03:49


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

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Sasori wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.


I don't think I can really agree here. Nothing in the game does what the Nightbringer does, and I think you will always see one in a competitive list.

The Ghaz defense is absolutely strong on the unit, especially when Ghaz himself isn't exactly great at buffing Orks whereas the CTan aren't really trying to buff their army and pay just for the straight utility/offense.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
Conditional Core makes no real sense- it undermines the utility of having the concept at all.
Does it? Tanks would be Core a tank army. Scions would be Core in a Scion army.

They're not going to do 3 separate books, so unless they make all those units core regardless of army structure (which makes no sense - a Leman Russ shouldn't be "Core" in a Scion army) conditional Core would be a way of resolving that.



As Voss said you don't need <core> for that.

if you open up the necron and marine codex, core is honestly used pretty spareingly, Imperial Guard do not, have, as a general rule many Aura's (in fact the only one I could find was the Lord Comissars "use my LDR when within 6 inches" one. granted I don't have the codex so could be wrong) Scions can't order guardsmen, tank commanders can't order infantry etc.
Looking at what I can find about the Guard assuming nothing changes in their new codex beyond getting core added where approperate if tanks and scions didn't get core, the end result would be you couldn't cast psykic barrier on them or mental fortitude.

Hardly the end of the world.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in es
Wicked Wych With a Whip





Voss wrote:

That said, dark eldar (as they're currently organized) might be a messy exception to that, simply because GW has made such as mess of the 'subfactions.'
Though equally likely, I could see dark eldar having NO Core at all, just characters and strats that only affect Kabals, Cults OR Covens, but never more than one.

But I still hope that DE (and CE) just get massive overhauls to drag them out of the pits of neglect they've been summarily tossed into, making that sort of speculation moot.


I hope GW listens to you on the last part.

But we are going to have CORE in our army. Out of the 3 buffs we are using in our lists right now (we have a couple more, but can be neglected), two of them enter into the category of "no no" for GW.

- Archon buffing Ravagers (no no)
- Drazhar buffing himself (no no) and Incubi (that's fine)
- Haemonculous buffing Covens (I guess that's going to stay)

So I guess everything can get CORE (inside the subfaction restriction) but vehicles. I hope Pain and Parasite Engines get it, at least.

The Bloody Sails
 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tbh Stratagems are fine. On the whole they’re a fun mechanic and the game is more fun than it has been since 2nd for me. YMMV. Just wanted to add a counterpoint to the salt overdoses. Some Strats should be unit abilities, and the costing on some is wrong, but they generate some fun moments in our games and that’s what we’re here for.
People disliking more equipment become strats is now a "salt overdose"? Sheesh...


I’m sure you’re aware the whole thread was getting super salty but no, misrepresent my post and try and wind me up, whatever floats your boat. Anything optimistic is to be crushed lest it spread and Dakka become a positive place where talk is allowed about a hobby people *enjoy*. That would be AWFUL.

 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"
 
   
Made in us
Hacking Interventor





 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’m sure you’re aware the whole thread was getting super salty but no, misrepresent my post and try and wind me up, whatever floats your boat. Anything optimistic is to be crushed lest it spread and Dakka become a positive place where talk is allowed about a hobby people *enjoy*. That would be AWFUL.


Is sarcastically accusing people of misrepresenting you in bad faith in an argument about plastic spacemen rules, instead of merely clarifying a possible misunderstanding of your stance, really going to contribute to a positive atmosphere?

"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 CEO Kasen wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’m sure you’re aware the whole thread was getting super salty but no, misrepresent my post and try and wind me up, whatever floats your boat. Anything optimistic is to be crushed lest it spread and Dakka become a positive place where talk is allowed about a hobby people *enjoy*. That would be AWFUL.


Is sarcastically accusing people of misrepresenting you in bad faith in an argument about plastic spacemen rules, instead of merely clarifying a possible misunderstanding of your stance, really going to contribute to a positive atmosphere?


It's Jhonny.
Sarcasm is his bread and butter, let this dakkanaut be.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




yukishiro1 wrote:
 Sasori wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
C'tan are too expensive, and lose most of their value if you take more than one. I doubt you will see them in competitive lists period, but if you do, it'll be a max of one.

Las preds are terrible and completely unseen in competitive lists, so "doomstalkers are like that" (they aren't, but just going with it for the moment) doesn't seem to be a great endorsement.


I don't think I can really agree here. Nothing in the game does what the Nightbringer does, and I think you will always see one in a competitive list.


I think that's why you won't see him in a competitive list. There's a reason nothing else in the game does what he does - because that isn't a role that really needs doing IMO. Maybe in a meta with lots of knights or something, but 40k isn't generally a game where you need a 350 point melee beatstick. He feels to me like a "win harder" piece, something that will absolutely smash lists you'd beat anyway but doesn't give you a real competitive advantage against the lists you would have trouble with. Anything that can do damage in 3 or even 2 phases is a massive threat to him.

Honestly his c'tan power is probably the scariest thing about him and the main reason I'd take him, more than his melee. He puts out something like 4.5ish targeted MWs on average per turn when he's within range of it, and that's enough to be really scary to characters.


I don’t exactly get what your argument here is. Plenty of melee beatstick a are seeing play right now. Greater demons, custode terminators, space marine smash characters, deathshroud terminators, oh and Ghaz, are all popular meta choices. Also the reason why most melee beatsticks fail is because of fragility, which the nightbringer is not. You make it sound like he will fold like wet tissue paper against most armies, but I have a hard time seeing this. What lists are necrons struggling with? We where talking about the marine matchup in this thread, and he seems great there as marines don’t have many great ways to do wounds to him outside of melee and shooting (most marine lists use minimal pyskers, and many of these exist to buff). Custodes are absolutely terrified of him. Same thing with sisters of battle (which got a lot better with the melta rules change). Honestly it’s seems to me he’ll struggle more aginst lower tier armies, like Tyranids, craftworlds, and thousands sons. Demons would be bad if they had any shooting.

Also you are right that the mortal wound output he brings is a big selling point. Kills a lot of meta threats quite well.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

While highly unlikely, a Librarian Dreadnought has the ability to solo the Nightbringer in one round.

I will try this feat just for bragging rights.

   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





a_typical_hero wrote:
While highly unlikely, a Librarian Dreadnought has the ability to solo the Nightbringer in one round.

I will try this feat just for bragging rights.


The current one, or the old one?

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




Breton wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
While highly unlikely, a Librarian Dreadnought has the ability to solo the Nightbringer in one round.

I will try this feat just for bragging rights.


The current one, or the old one?


Either, in theory, the librarian dread could do 3 wounds with the storm bolter or w/e, 3 with a smite then 3 in melee.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Bugs have almost no auras, but...

What do you expect to be CORE for the nids? Because fluff wise I have no thread to follow, there is no theme to a nid army.

HQ will not be CORE, but apart from that I have no idea...
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

Dudeface wrote:
Either, in theory, the librarian dread could do 3 wounds with the storm bolter or w/e, 3 with a smite then 3 in melee.


I was thinking about the Meltagun to increase the chance during the shooting phase, but yeah.

Meltagun - d6 wounds
2x Smite - up to 2d3 wounds
Melee - 3 wounds with each attack

Not a bad threat potential for an ~150p investment. Especially since it got Character protection.

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
Bugs have almost no auras, but...

What do you expect to be CORE for the nids? Because fluff wise I have no thread to follow, there is no theme to a nid army.

HQ will not be CORE, but apart from that I have no idea...


I'd be surprised if they double up on Core on top of Synapse with Nids. They probably just stick to effects being applicable to units in synapse (e.g. the Nid Psychic Awakening weak-sauce-version of Master Artisans/Expert Crafters already does that).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
Conditional Core makes no real sense- it undermines the utility of having the concept at all.
Does it? Tanks would be Core a tank army. Scions would be Core in a Scion army.

They're not going to do 3 separate books, so unless they make all those units core regardless of army structure (which makes no sense - a Leman Russ shouldn't be "Core" in a Scion army) conditional Core would be a way of resolving that.



Again, they can do that with different keywords that work similar to Core.

The Necron Codex already does it with Destroyers and Canoptek. There're few Core units, especially compared to Marines, but there're also buff-characters, auras, etc.. that go off the Destroyer or Canoptek keywords that produce comparable effects for a mainly/all Canoptek or Destroyer army.

IG could do the same. Maybe the use the Core-keyword for your basic infantry (or change the wording of it down the line), and also introduce a different kinda-like-core-keyword to use for synergies between Tank models / Scion models, etc..

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/14 09:18:14


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'm afraid I think GW's core qualification is a case of "chuck a dart and have the players speculate if its due to fluff, due to gameplay or purely due to whim".

There is no logical reason aggressors/eradicators should be core, but centurions are not. The only argument I can see is gameplay "Uh, when we were writing this, centurions were a problem, so we wanted them nerfed." I'd expect eradicators to lose the keyword in 6-12 months on similar grounds.

With that said, many factions don't even have meaningful set of buffs to hand out. I'd expect for instance Archons to stop buffing Ravagers - but really, stripped of this, the buff is so ephemeral, you'd hope the whole thing would be redesigned. Sisters's buffing Exorcists is likely another thing to go.

I'm drawing a blank on what guard aura buffs tanks. Yarrick perhaps? Which feels like a special character rule that doesn't need a lot or reorganisation.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well, Officers and Tank Commanders giving Orders to themselves, instead of giving orders to their underlings is surely going the way of the dodo.

The idea of a Company Commander shouting into his pocket mirror to make himself run faster has always been a bit silly.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Tyel wrote:
I'm afraid I think GW's core qualification is a case of "chuck a dart and have the players speculate if its due to fluff, due to gameplay or purely due to whim".

There is no logical reason aggressors/eradicators should be core, but centurions are not. The only argument I can see is gameplay "Uh, when we were writing this, centurions were a problem, so we wanted them nerfed." I'd expect eradicators to lose the keyword in 6-12 months on similar grounds.

With that said, many factions don't even have meaningful set of buffs to hand out. I'd expect for instance Archons to stop buffing Ravagers - but really, stripped of this, the buff is so ephemeral, you'd hope the whole thing would be redesigned. Sisters's buffing Exorcists is likely another thing to go.

I'm drawing a blank on what guard aura buffs tanks. Yarrick perhaps? Which feels like a special character rule that doesn't need a lot or reorganisation.


Centurions might not have core because GW sees them as a support platform that's "not commonly used in a typical marine force" not saying I agree with it, but that's the best I can fathom it, or.... yeah this is just GW nerf hammering centurions again

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
Is sarcastically accusing people of misrepresenting you in bad faith in an argument about plastic spacemen rules, instead of merely clarifying a possible misunderstanding of your stance, really going to contribute to a positive atmosphere?
Don't worry Kasen. I made that post knowing full well the response I was going to get. You could set your watch to him.

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

 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




BrianDavion 792902 10955387 wrote:

Centurions might not have core because GW sees them as a support platform that's "not commonly used in a typical marine force" not saying I agree with it, but that's the best I can fathom it, or.... yeah this is just GW nerf hammering centurions again


But aren't dreadnoughts in both the tactical and warsuit version core? There is no way a centurion suit is more rare then a suit termintor armour for regular marines.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Tyel wrote:
I'm afraid I think GW's core qualification is a case of "chuck a dart and have the players speculate if its due to fluff, due to gameplay or purely due to whim".

There is no logical reason aggressors/eradicators should be core, but centurions are not. The only argument I can see is gameplay "Uh, when we were writing this, centurions were a problem, so we wanted them nerfed." I'd expect eradicators to lose the keyword in 6-12 months on similar grounds.

With that said, many factions don't even have meaningful set of buffs to hand out. I'd expect for instance Archons to stop buffing Ravagers - but really, stripped of this, the buff is so ephemeral, you'd hope the whole thing would be redesigned. Sisters's buffing Exorcists is likely another thing to go.

I'm drawing a blank on what guard aura buffs tanks. Yarrick perhaps? Which feels like a special character rule that doesn't need a lot or reorganisation.


There is actually one big gameplay reason for centurions not being CORE. The same for ATV not being CORE.
They are avoiding to give CORE to units whose models are over a certain point cost. They are trying to limit the maximum point cost of a unit which can benefit from CORE (which means that it can be buffed by CM).

They allow you to reach high point costs of a unit, but only if you go into high model count and start suffering from blasts.
Centurions and ATV can get close to a 300 point unit and still be unaffected by blast.
Aggressors get only up to 225 before becoming really good targets for many blast weapons.

If you keep the value of CORE units low, you mostly prevent castles. A captain needs 500 points of CORE units around him or he is useless (read: More units were better than the support he offers for his cost). This means that right now in the new codex you take a captain only if you are interested both in his fighting capabilities AND his leadership capabilities (which is a win in GW's cinematic eyes), OR if you use him as a buff bot, he needs at least 3 CORE units around him, which in 9th is close to impossible.

CM has been also priced separately. It adds the reroll of one result to a single unit. Since it costs 40 points, it means that if you don't have a 240 point unit, you were better off buying more of that unit with those 40 points.

Now, I don't know if GW thought about that when he designed this, but right now it is strangely working really elegantly.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






So, why is it CORE when it's three necrons floating on individual high-speed flying machines, but not CORE when it's three necrons sitting together operating a single much slower flying machine?

Why can an overlord issue commands from a command barge, but can't issue commands to an annihilation barge?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
Bugs have almost no auras, but...

What do you expect to be CORE for the nids? Because fluff wise I have no thread to follow, there is no theme to a nid army.

HQ will not be CORE, but apart from that I have no idea...


fluff wise it should be anything in synapse. the hive mind controls it all.

Right? Because there's no double standard that works in favor of marines here?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/14 11:15:57


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:
So, why is it CORE when it's three necrons floating on individual high-speed flying machines, but not CORE when it's three necrons sitting together operating a single much slower flying machine?

Why can an overlord issue commands from a command barge, but can't issue commands to an annihilation barge?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
Bugs have almost no auras, but...

What do you expect to be CORE for the nids? Because fluff wise I have no thread to follow, there is no theme to a nid army.

HQ will not be CORE, but apart from that I have no idea...


fluff wise it should be anything in synapse. the hive mind controls it all.

Right? Because there's no double standard that works in favor of marines here?


Because CORE for Necrons follows different logics. They have no Lt aura, captain aura, or CM buff.
Which logics? I have no idea, I don't know necrons well enough.
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
Conditional Core makes no real sense- it undermines the utility of having the concept at all.
Does it? Tanks would be Core a tank army. Scions would be Core in a Scion army.

How about instead of conditional CORE, the abilities being limited to CORE + other keyword seems like a way better solution.
You got a Scion HQ and a Catachan HQ? Ok, the Scion HQ abilities affect unites with the CORE and SCION keywords, the Catachan HQ abilities affect the units with the CORE and CATACHAN keywords.
Avoid your Catachan HQ ordering Scion units around because your warlord is a Scion, or vice versa, which makes no sense lore-wise imo.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
There is actually one big gameplay reason for centurions not being CORE. The same for ATV not being CORE.
They are avoiding to give CORE to units whose models are over a certain point cost. They are trying to limit the maximum point cost of a unit which can benefit from CORE (which means that it can be buffed by CM).

They allow you to reach high point costs of a unit, but only if you go into high model count and start suffering from blasts.
Centurions and ATV can get close to a 300 point unit and still be unaffected by blast.
Aggressors get only up to 225 before becoming really good targets for many blast weapons.

If you keep the value of CORE units low, you mostly prevent castles. A captain needs 500 points of CORE units around him or he is useless (read: More units were better than the support he offers for his cost). This means that right now in the new codex you take a captain only if you are interested both in his fighting capabilities AND his leadership capabilities (which is a win in GW's cinematic eyes), OR if you use him as a buff bot, he needs at least 3 CORE units around him, which in 9th is close to impossible.

CM has been also priced separately. It adds the reroll of one result to a single unit. Since it costs 40 points, it means that if you don't have a 240 point unit, you were better off buying more of that unit with those 40 points.

Now, I don't know if GW thought about that when he designed this, but right now it is strangely working really elegantly.


I think this is a good observation - but I feel its far too thought out to be GW's motivation

Its also a hard analysis to do, because you have to quantify some sort of "residue HQ slot filler tax" into every unit.

The CM price is an odd mix - because yes, on paper, I'm not sure its mathematically worth it.

For a regular unit hitting on 3s, the regular captain boosts damage output from 6/9->7/9. CM boosts it to 8/9. So an 8/7 damage boost. So in theory you'd need to boost a unit worth more than 280 points for the 40 points to be spent on that buff, over another model. More really - since you are not getting any resilience stats like wounds for your points.

With a minus 1 to hit this goes from 1/2->7/12->9/12, in which case you'd only need to buff 140 points. So if you can get a unit worth 200 or so its probably rational.

The counter argument I guess is that reliability has a value all its own.
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





Tyel wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
There is actually one big gameplay reason for centurions not being CORE. The same for ATV not being CORE.
They are avoiding to give CORE to units whose models are over a certain point cost. They are trying to limit the maximum point cost of a unit which can benefit from CORE (which means that it can be buffed by CM).

They allow you to reach high point costs of a unit, but only if you go into high model count and start suffering from blasts.
Centurions and ATV can get close to a 300 point unit and still be unaffected by blast.
Aggressors get only up to 225 before becoming really good targets for many blast weapons.

If you keep the value of CORE units low, you mostly prevent castles. A captain needs 500 points of CORE units around him or he is useless (read: More units were better than the support he offers for his cost). This means that right now in the new codex you take a captain only if you are interested both in his fighting capabilities AND his leadership capabilities (which is a win in GW's cinematic eyes), OR if you use him as a buff bot, he needs at least 3 CORE units around him, which in 9th is close to impossible.

CM has been also priced separately. It adds the reroll of one result to a single unit. Since it costs 40 points, it means that if you don't have a 240 point unit, you were better off buying more of that unit with those 40 points.

Now, I don't know if GW thought about that when he designed this, but right now it is strangely working really elegantly.


I think this is a good observation - but I feel its far too thought out to be GW's motivation

Its also a hard analysis to do, because you have to quantify some sort of "residue HQ slot filler tax" into every unit.

The CM price is an odd mix - because yes, on paper, I'm not sure its mathematically worth it.

For a regular unit hitting on 3s, the regular captain boosts damage output from 6/9->7/9. CM boosts it to 8/9. So an 8/7 damage boost. So in theory you'd need to boost a unit worth more than 280 points for the 40 points to be spent on that buff, over another model. More really - since you are not getting any resilience stats like wounds for your points.

With a minus 1 to hit this goes from 1/2->7/12->9/12, in which case you'd only need to buff 140 points. So if you can get a unit worth 200 or so its probably rational.

The counter argument I guess is that reliability has a value all its own.

I enjoy the math on this but did you take into account you are buffing for a potential 5 turns not just 1? Or in other words, would you pay 40 points to use CM re-rolls 5 times per game? I would.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 792902 10955387 wrote:

Centurions might not have core because GW sees them as a support platform that's "not commonly used in a typical marine force" not saying I agree with it, but that's the best I can fathom it, or.... yeah this is just GW nerf hammering centurions again


But aren't dreadnoughts in both the tactical and warsuit version core? There is no way a centurion suit is more rare then a suit termintor armour for regular marines.


Dreadnoughts are core, the Warsuit is NOT.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




BrianDavion wrote:
Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 792902 10955387 wrote:

Centurions might not have core because GW sees them as a support platform that's "not commonly used in a typical marine force" not saying I agree with it, but that's the best I can fathom it, or.... yeah this is just GW nerf hammering centurions again


But aren't dreadnoughts in both the tactical and warsuit version core? There is no way a centurion suit is more rare then a suit termintor armour for regular marines.


Dreadnoughts are core, the Warsuit is NOT.

Dreadnoughts are core for now. Likely to change.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Castozor wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
There is actually one big gameplay reason for centurions not being CORE. The same for ATV not being CORE.
They are avoiding to give CORE to units whose models are over a certain point cost. They are trying to limit the maximum point cost of a unit which can benefit from CORE (which means that it can be buffed by CM).

They allow you to reach high point costs of a unit, but only if you go into high model count and start suffering from blasts.
Centurions and ATV can get close to a 300 point unit and still be unaffected by blast.
Aggressors get only up to 225 before becoming really good targets for many blast weapons.

If you keep the value of CORE units low, you mostly prevent castles. A captain needs 500 points of CORE units around him or he is useless (read: More units were better than the support he offers for his cost). This means that right now in the new codex you take a captain only if you are interested both in his fighting capabilities AND his leadership capabilities (which is a win in GW's cinematic eyes), OR if you use him as a buff bot, he needs at least 3 CORE units around him, which in 9th is close to impossible.

CM has been also priced separately. It adds the reroll of one result to a single unit. Since it costs 40 points, it means that if you don't have a 240 point unit, you were better off buying more of that unit with those 40 points.

Now, I don't know if GW thought about that when he designed this, but right now it is strangely working really elegantly.


I think this is a good observation - but I feel its far too thought out to be GW's motivation

Its also a hard analysis to do, because you have to quantify some sort of "residue HQ slot filler tax" into every unit.

The CM price is an odd mix - because yes, on paper, I'm not sure its mathematically worth it.

For a regular unit hitting on 3s, the regular captain boosts damage output from 6/9->7/9. CM boosts it to 8/9. So an 8/7 damage boost. So in theory you'd need to boost a unit worth more than 280 points for the 40 points to be spent on that buff, over another model. More really - since you are not getting any resilience stats like wounds for your points.

With a minus 1 to hit this goes from 1/2->7/12->9/12, in which case you'd only need to buff 140 points. So if you can get a unit worth 200 or so its probably rational.

The counter argument I guess is that reliability has a value all its own.

I enjoy the math on this but did you take into account you are buffing for a potential 5 turns not just 1? Or in other words, would you pay 40 points to use CM re-rolls 5 times per game? I would.


The math is done on a per turn basis, which actually adds another point.

To make efficient use of the CM, you need that big target unit to be alive as long as your CM is alive.
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





Spoletta wrote:
Bugs have almost no auras, but...

What do you expect to be CORE for the nids? Because fluff wise I have no thread to follow, there is no theme to a nid army.

HQ will not be CORE, but apart from that I have no idea...


Gaunts, Warriors, Stealers, Lictors, Gargoyls, Raveners, maybe thropes.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Castozor wrote:
I enjoy the math on this but did you take into account you are buffing for a potential 5 turns not just 1? Or in other words, would you pay 40 points to use CM re-rolls 5 times per game? I would.


Yes the captain will hopefully survive all game and get to use CM 5 times. But your extra 40 points of "stuff" could also survive 5 turns. Or rather you could always be 40 points "up" from where you would otherwise be.

I'm going to use eradicators because they are neatly 40 points, even though in practice you get to a point of obvious overkill which is why I doubt you'd ever see 6 man squads. (Unless we somehow relive 2018 and Knights are on every table.)

You can put CM on 6 eradicators, or you could have 7 eradicators (idk, in 2 squads, which is probably better anyway...).
7 eradicators have better shooting, because (marginally), 7/6 is greater than 8/7 (the damage buff of CM). They also give you 3 extra wounds.
If the CM could *only* buff the eradicators, it would obviously be a bad ability - because as the eradicator unit suffers casualties, the buff impacts a lower number of points and having an "extra" eradicator matters more.

I.E. CM on 3 eradicators is still a 8/7 buff - i.e. 14%~. Whereas having 4 eradicators over 3 is now a 33% buff.

Now the CM can buff another unit, but that depends on there being something worthwhile to buff up. Buffing say 5 intercessors is probably quite incidental, and you'd almost certainly want the extra eradicator over that.

Basically its complicated. I don't think CM is bad - and I can imagine lists where you have 40 points left over, but due to unit sizes/detachment slots its CM or say 2 intercessors - and CM would be the better bet. But its no longer an auto-take, and may not even be optimal.

(Perhaps sadly, it probably is, because its a great buff to put on say a 3-4 strong squad of eradicators with an MM and the rest with the heavy meltas, and you want to buff that BS 4+ - but that's an eradicator problem rather than a CM problem.)
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: