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.

Tycho wrote:

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.

Yep. That I think is the one big question mark right now. The design philosophy has, thus far been applied inconsistently both internally, as well as externally. It will be interesting to see how it gets applied going forward. Will DG Demon engines get CORE? If Dreads and Eradicators got it, the DG demon engines should probably get it as well, but if we look at some things in the 'Cron dex it makes me wonder if they will, or if they will just create a new aura to get around not giving them core. From what we've seen so far, I can see them backing off of this core thing pretty quickly. I actually think it's a good idea, but I'm not sure how well it's going to work given how they've applied it so far.

For the record, I think the 'Cron dex probably comes closer to getting it "right" so far. In terms of the over-all game, it feels like the 'cron dex is more how I'd like the rest of the books to go. We shall see I suppose.

yeah, I'm sure it will be.

SM Standard: everything gets to be core. It's perfectly lore-friendly for you to be able to powergame successor chapter traits and get absolutely everything from a codex chapter of your choice.

Everyone Else Standard: Only Ork Boyz are core, every ability buff stratagem and psychic power in the codex gets changed to CORE only. Fielding non-boyz units breaks the lore of the orks, who are 99.999% boyz.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
LOL, doomstalkers OP?

You mean that unit that has a D6 shot, D6 damage gun? just one of them?

Yeah, that's the kind of reliability that just SCREAMS "Tournament Unit" isn't it?

Nothing like rolling that D6 for your unit's shots that you now cannot reroll, and getting a 1. Whoops, 140pts of model is shooting 1 lascannon this turn, hahahahaah!

It is blast so that is something. It all averages out and sometimes it does excessive damage. It's always str 10 and ap-5 though so it's really not any more random that lesser weapons. It's not OP but for 140 points it is a top tier unit.

Frankly, I would be amazed if the doomstalker saw significant play competitively. Compared to a piece like an Onager Dunecrawler with NL, the amount of reliability that you gain from having easily accessible rerolls to hit and min-3 damage is well worth the drop from D6 hits to D3, and we haven't seen a lot of those tearing it up in competitive play either. Stacking a large amount of points into something that you have to also buff to make it reliable, screen to keep it from being tied up, and at the end of the day you STILL might just get voip'd out of existence by one of several hyperefficient suicide antitank units running around in the current meta...it just doesn't seem like a unit you'd bring to the board to do your tank killing.

Not when you've got the supreme reliability of CHARACTER-protected, damage-capped t7 4++ ctan with apocalyptically powerful antitank capabilities in the same arsenal.

Do you have a different definition of "Top Tier" than I'm using here? in my eyes for something to be top tier, I'd say it'd be "something I'd consider taking in a tournament army list." I cannot come up with a reason to take a doomstalker over a ctan for that purpose. Or heck - a Doom Scythe. For 60 more points, I get

1) An extra 10 tesla shots. Not amazing, but nice.

2) the ability to reserve for 1cp if my opponent has a unit like erads/rets waiting to instapop it, so I guarantee 1 round of shots.

3) Heavy 3 instead of d6 shots, and damage 3+d3 instead of D6.

4) cares more about line of sight than pretty much any long range antitank (can't move and shoot at full effectiveness) vs could not give less of a gak about any of that because it can basically be anywhere.

The doomstalker seems to suffer the same exact problems that cause people to consider the Vindicator unusably bad. What is the distinction there?

 Denegaar wrote:

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.

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.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Erads are a joke. No way they exist much longer than a few weeks like this. Marines stuff that is OP gets nerfed quickly. I also doubt outflank continues to exist ether. Remember turn 1 deepstrike in 8th? That didn't take long to nerf after that created so much problems.

Hmm yes, I too remember how quickly the whole last year and a half of 8th nerfed marines. Yes yes. Tell it to the world how it is Xeno.
Marines need the power level to keep up with units such as the Stompa and Squigbuggy clearly

Tycho wrote:

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.

Yep. That I think is the one big question mark right now. The design philosophy has, thus far been applied inconsistently both internally, as well as externally. It will be interesting to see how it gets applied going forward. Will DG Demon engines get CORE? If Dreads and Eradicators got it, the DG demon engines should probably get it as well, but if we look at some things in the 'Cron dex it makes me wonder if they will, or if they will just create a new aura to get around not giving them core. From what we've seen so far, I can see them backing off of this core thing pretty quickly. I actually think core is a good idea, but I'm not sure how well it's going to work given how they've applied it so far.

For the record, I think the 'Cron dex probably comes closer to getting it "right" so far. In terms of the over-all game, it feels like the 'cron dex is more how I'd like the rest of the books to go. We shall see I suppose.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Erads are a joke. No way they exist much longer than a few weeks like this. Marines stuff that is OP gets nerfed quickly. I also doubt outflank continues to exist ether. Remember turn 1 deepstrike in 8th? That didn't take long to nerf after that created so much problems.

Hmm yes, I too remember how quickly the whole last year and a half of 8th nerfed marines. Yes yes. Tell it to the world how it is Xeno.
Marines need the power level to keep up with units such as the Stompa and Squigbuggy clearly

I seem to remember supplements getting released and nerfed within a month or 2 with massive changes to how doctrines worked and then a world wide pandemic brought the game to a screeching halt. Now we are here. This Marine codex was written between 3-6 months ago and is a direct result of everything at the beginning of the year.

Aggressors nerfed
Centurions nerfed
Even Repulsor executioners nerfed (for the 4th time now) Thanks Ironhands.

It would be great if you could refute my argument with an example of some kind of lasting marine unit that is allowed to dominate for extended periods instead of making really weak personal attacks which are out of context and ironically true in the case of buggies. Stompas I only defended as being not that bad and can be played around. You know that though. So I am just humoring you with a response.

My point remains true that marine units that are over the top get fixed relatively quick compared to things like...really like any other army. Unless youre nids. Nids also get squashed pretty quickly if they have anything that works.

Isn't the new Death Guard character gw previewed supposed to buff daemon engines? If so I'd say they won't be CORE, you'd need him if you want to buff your daemon engines, similar to how loyalists need a techmarine to buff their vehicles. I could see them doing the same for the Undivided Legions with disco lords and maybe MoPs, with our infantry, bikes and dreadnoughts being CORE just like loyalists. It's not what I'd prefer though. I'd rather they return to how it was in previous editions, where loyalists needed their leaders for support, while csm didn't, because they had better base stats, and our characters were mostly just tough beat sticks.

Tycho wrote:

Spoiler:

Isn't the new Death Guard character gw previewed supposed to buff daemon engines? If so I'd say they won't be CORE, you'd need him if you want to buff your daemon engines, similar to how loyalists need a techmarine to buff their vehicles. I could see them doing the same for the Undivided Legions with disco lords and maybe MoPs, with our infantry, bikes and dreadnoughts being CORE just like loyalists. It's not what I'd prefer though. I'd rather they return to how it was in previous editions, where loyalists needed their leaders for support, while csm didn't, because they had better base stats, and our characters were mostly just tough beat sticks.

Yeah, far as I know, he is suppose to buff the engines. That's why I mentioned them "finding a way around it". I'm nervous about that character in particular because most of our DG demon engines are fast and want to go FORWARD. Looks like (form viewing the model itself - this just conjecture based on that image and GW's past history), in classic Gdubs fashion, we're getting a guy who probably only moves 4" and halves his advance rolls but will still need to be with 7" to buff anything. All for our demon engines that move 10+ inches a turn ... hopefully we get access to some kind of native warp time ....

IDK - this and the Ork things I mentioned are why I'm skeptical of "core" in general. It almost seems like maybe it was better off just being a "fix" for marine specific problems? I still like the idea of core. Just don't know how well they will execute on it as we're already seeing signs of significant inconsistencies.

Salt donkey wrote:


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.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:


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.

My point is the C'tan aren't actually very effective as melee beatsticks. Even Nightbringer (a) doesn't hit very hard for his points except against high invuln/FNP targets, and (b) has no good delivery mechanism for getting into combat in the first place. A model that only moves 8" and can't advance and charge or deep strike is pretty limited as a melee threat because it has very limited ability to choose its target. Nightbringer is only actually effective in combat if he can choose his target, because the only things he is actually good at killing for his points are stuff with high invulns or FNPs that he can negate. But if a smart opponent can just lead him on a merry chase while wearing him down over a couple turns, it doesn't really mater how good he is at killing high invuln high FNP targets, because he'll never get to.

The C'tan powers end up being a big selling point because it at least allows him to do *something* while he's getting moveblocked and screened and otherwise neutralized.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The generic outflank Strat fixes a lot of mobility issues and with that you can avoid potential mortal wound sources to avoid dying in one turn.

Voss wrote:
None of that requires Core:
Archon adds 'infantry' tag to the text of his buff.
Drazhar buff would be non character Incubi units
Haemonculus would just be <coven>


DE sub factions are a mess, but they can be worked around, if GW really wants to pursue that madnes. Daemons really have the same problem, where subfactions matter a lot more than what gets the theoretical Core tag.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The basic problem is that once a C'tan gets into combat with something it doesn't want to, it has no way to get out. It has to just sit there fighting away, because it can't fall back and charge, and it can't even fall back and cast powers. So they are prime targets for being tarpitted.

Voss wrote:

 Denegaar wrote:

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.

None of that requires Core:
Archon adds 'infantry' tag to the text of his buff.
Drazhar buff would be non character Incubi units
Haemonculus would just be <coven>

DE sub factions are a mess, but they can be worked around, if GW really wants to pursue that madnes. Daemons really have the same problem, where subfactions matter a lot more than what gets the theoretical Core tag.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You don't need 30 boyz, he won't even kill 10 grots in a round of combat on average. And 10 boyz will do the 3 wounds to him on average, and also not typically die, though you'll have to spend the 2CP to auto-pass morale. Nurglings will make him just break down and cry tears of frustration, and spawn will do the same while actually hurting him back. He literally kills 2.5 nurgling bases or spawn a round. It's pretty bad.

He's good against marines, but necrons are already strong against marines. And if they have something like primaris bikers, those are pretty good at tarpitting him too. Anything 4W or more that's cheap is a problem for him, those 1d6 strikes are so unreliable. And he doesn't cut through transhuman, so even a 5-man intercessor squad can tarpit him for 1CP.

 Sasori wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
You don't need 30 boyz, he won't even kill 10 grots in a round of combat on average. And 10 boyz will do the 3 wounds to him on average, and also not typically die, though you'll have to spend the 2CP to auto-pass morale. Nurglings will make him just break down and cry tears of frustration, and spawn will do the same while actually hurting him back. He literally kills 2.5 nurgling bases or spawn a round. It's pretty bad.

He's good against marines, but necrons are already strong against marines. And if they have something like primaris bikers, those are pretty good at tarpitting him too. Anything 4W or more that's cheap is a problem for him, those 1d6 strikes are so unreliable. And he doesn't cut through transhuman, so even a 5-man intercessor squad can tarpit him for 1CP.

I will acknowledge that there are a few bad tarpits out there for him. He does at least still get to use his powers while he is in CC, so you are still quite possible dealing a large amount amount of damage at the targets you need to. I'd also like to point out that if an opponent is able to tarpit you with Nurglings or Intercessors, then this is probably more due to a mistake on your part than a brilliant play on theirs.

That being said, unless it starts to shift, the meta is mostly marines and very elite elite armies. The Nightbringer is excellent at dealing with Custodes, Harlequins, Marines and everything in DG bar Nurglings, and it seems like a lot of the recent Deathguard lists are only taking 6-9 nurglings. We've even started to see a resurgence Ad Mech, for which the Nightbringer is very well suited for dealing with.

The Ork Mobs lists and Slaanesh daemons list, The nightbringer is not quite as well suited for.

So, I really think right now the Nightbringer is an excellent piece of tech in lists that performs fwell or the most part well against top armies. There are some matchups where it doesn't perform as well, but even then I would not be unhappy if he tarpitted a unit of 26 Daemonettes for a few turns before wiping them out.

the_scotsman wrote:
yep. it's a lot like Doctrines (and now, their equivalents sent in to help other factions Keep Up With The Joneses) and like Formations in previous editions.

What...exactly, are these rules in place to actually convey? Why does a space marine devastator with a lascannon shoot his first shot really good, and then the...laser...gets less...penetrating?

Sisters' prayers have always been represented through acts of faith, through their invuln save, etc, but now it's also like...."oh, and we also get +1" to advance and charges. Because we did pray for that too. We prayed to run good."

These are the kinds of pointless, bloaty fat rules that just get carved out of the game with every new edition shift. And nobody misses them. Remember when "free transports' was core to marines' identity? Remember when there was that dumb, bizarre drop pod+devastators+assault marines formation that did like 60 trillion different little special bonuses because GW made totally unnecessary replacements for those kits and they sold so good that they decided they had to reboot marines completely next time or they wouldn't make any money?

Dudeface wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
yep. it's a lot like Doctrines (and now, their equivalents sent in to help other factions Keep Up With The Joneses) and like Formations in previous editions.

What...exactly, are these rules in place to actually convey? Why does a space marine devastator with a lascannon shoot his first shot really good, and then the...laser...gets less...penetrating?

Sisters' prayers have always been represented through acts of faith, through their invuln save, etc, but now it's also like...."oh, and we also get +1" to advance and charges. Because we did pray for that too. We prayed to run good."

These are the kinds of pointless, bloaty fat rules that just get carved out of the game with every new edition shift. And nobody misses them. Remember when "free transports' was core to marines' identity? Remember when there was that dumb, bizarre drop pod+devastators+assault marines formation that did like 60 trillion different little special bonuses because GW made totally unnecessary replacements for those kits and they sold so good that they decided they had to reboot marines completely next time or they wouldn't make any money?

Whilst I agree in principle, the doctrines is to represent the rhythm of a marine attack, soften the big stuff up at range while moving forwards, core of the army then lays waste in bolter range followed by an assault to clear out stragglers.

The Sisters one is a little more hand wavey but its literal diving intervention iirc, loyalty (mono faction conveniently) driving them to receiving blessings for the battle via prist, holy water, golden light or w/e.

Both are nice and characterful but from a rules perspective it smacks of "we had to think of something to stop you taking allies"

 Denegaar wrote:

Voss wrote:
None of that requires Core:
Archon adds 'infantry' tag to the text of his buff.
Drazhar buff would be non character Incubi units
Haemonculus would just be <coven>


DE sub factions are a mess, but they can be worked around, if GW really wants to pursue that madnes. Daemons really have the same problem, where subfactions matter a lot more than what gets the theoretical Core tag.

I guess they can stick with the subfaction thing and skip CORE altogether, if they want. We don't have a CORE of the army anyway...

Karol wrote:
Or the buffs are going to be locked behind covens. So a wych is going to buff core wych units. Archon kabalites etc.