Latest posts for the thread "[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?"

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

xerxeskingofking — GMT

On the assumption that the CORE keyword and associated restrictions of certain abilities to CORE units only is going to be rolled out over all codexes as they are updated, i'd be intrested to hear what everyone thinks would be/should be the CORE elements of your respective faction army lists:

since i only really have Admech, i'll start their with them:

Troops: well, both types of Skitarii are a given. The battle servitors as well, Breacher and Destroyer....which is basically our entire troops selection anyway.

Elites: if termies are CORE, then we can assume at least some types of Elite infantry should be. the choices for Admech the Secutarii (personally, not likely, as forge world), the Sicarians (possible, but im not sure they'd benefit much) or the Electro priests (given how popular they are, i'd say most likely). Another option would be some new elite footsoldiers to help shift the new Codex, though i doubt it (i'd really like a "arc rifeman" type unit, though, that'd just be cool)

Fast attack: well, we haven;t a known example of a CORE fast attack choice, but given they said that "some" vehicles are core, we might make a baseless assumption that things like bikes might be CORE. Now, the closest equivlent the admech have is the robo-cav, but i dont think they'd get CORE. if anything, i think it might be the Ironstriders and the Dragoons, since they options of the same base kit, and the "original" fast attack options for the Admech. I doubt the Pteraxii are not gonna be CORE, either,

Heavy Support: this is really the intresting one, isnt it? what sort of units are considered CORE heavy support choices? my gut makes me think that SM Devastators are/should be CORE, but admech dont really have a equivalent option. The Dunecrawler is right out becuase we know SM tanks are not CORE, and the Kastellen Dakabots are not likely either. i think we may simply not have any CORE Heavy support options.

so, what are your thoughts on the CORE units of your own factions?

edit: accidently quoted myself when editing, silly of me.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

BrianDavion — GMT

I play Marines so I'm going to take a guess here, rewind the clock and go back to the dawn of 8th edition and Marine codex 8.0. remember when Marines only got chapter tactics on their infantry bikes and dreads? thats because GW considers those three unit types to be the "core" of Marine lists. so I expect core units will be the infantry bikes and dreadnoughts.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Sgt_Smudge — GMT

Regarding AdMech - I don't think Ironstriders and Sydonians would be core, but I do think that the Kastellans would.

The cavalry and pteraxii are a mystery to me.

I think it'll be anything non-vehicle, monstrous creature, or single model unit, generally speaking, that gets Core.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Super Ready — GMT

I'm with Brian on walkers being considered the Core vehicle units - that, and maybe certain Guard tanks like Chimeras or Leman Russes.

Eldar, I'm thinking Aspect Warriors for sure but I'd be intrigued to see if Wraith units are Core too. I sure hope so, because Wraiths needing Seer attention is super-fluffy.
Daemons almost seem too obvious, because pretty much every god has infantry (obviously Core), fancy-schmancy cavalry and supporting units (probably still Core), big monsters (obviously not), and buff characters (obviously not). When you boil each god's options down to their function, there's really not that much deviation between them, just in their effectiveness.
Tau should be interesting, the smaller battlesuits could go one way or the other.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Sgt_Smudge — GMT

On the Leman Russ front, I don't see them getting Core, but will still get access to their orders and suchlike, just through different keyword stuff.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

BrianDavion — GMT

I suspect that "core" will vary from army to army. dreadnoughts might be core to marines, but that doesn't mean sentinals will be classed as core for guard. just for example.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

harlokin — GMT

I think that Taloi are a good candidate for a CORE Heavy Support unit.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl — GMT

Every SORORITAS unit except for the Exorcist or the characters I expect to be core.
And then maybe some of the characters, like the simulacrum, too?
None of the non-SORORITAS from the Sob Codex, though.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Vilehydra — GMT

A better way to work at it might also be what units you think AREN'T going to be Core. For marines - the repulsor executioner has been confirmed.

On top of that I'd guess: Land Raiders, Vindicators, Predators, Repulsor, Leviathan, TFC, Whirlwinds, Contemptors, Invictors.

Things that might-have-core-but-I-hope-they-don't: Aggressors, Bladeguard, Eradicators, Eliminators, Devs.

Essentially for marines, I hope that specialist units and the big pricey units aren't core.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

CEO Kasen — GMT

For Chaos, this feels like a place where Marks could come into play; Maybe Lords and Princes inspire those with the same Marks. It doesn't quite gel that Lord Blooddeath Dogshank's exhortations of MURDER THEM RIGHT IN THE BLOOD inspire Klaxesh of the Fondled Thigh to greater feats of precison duelling.

Maybe some subfactions, like Black Legion or Word Bearers, get looser restrictions on this, or that this is an advantage to having your buffer HQs stay Undivided. Maybe Cult Marines are considered Core or not depending on whether or not your subfaction can take them as Troops.

Baselessly speculating:

Likely:
CSM
Cultists
Cult marines (Share mark w/buffer?)
Chosen
Terminators
Havocs
Raptors
Bikers
Warp Talons

On the fence:
Oblits/Mutilators
Possessed

Almost Certainly Not:
Vehicles
Daemon engines(That's what Discolords are for)

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

DarknessEternal — GMT

For CWE, it's going to be Guardians only.

100% guarantee.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Voss — GMT

CEO Kasen wrote:
For Chaos, this feels like a place where Marks could come into play; Maybe Lords and Princes inspire those with the same Marks. It doesn't quite gel that Lord Blooddeath Dogshank's exhortations of MURDER THEM RIGHT IN THE BLOOD inspire Klaxesh of the Fondled Thigh to greater feats of precison duelling.

Maybe some subfactions, like Black Legion or Word Bearers, get looser restrictions on this, or that this is an advantage to having your buffer HQs stay Undivided. Maybe Cult Marines are considered Core or not depending on whether or not your subfaction can take them as Troops.

Baselessly speculating:

Likely:
CSM
Cultists
Cult marines (Share mark w/buffer?)
Chosen
Terminators
Havocs
Raptors
Bikers
Warp Talons

I'm skeptical of cultists, just because they've spent so much effort hacking them out of almost every possible benefit for being in the army list. Legion traits, a lot of strats, etc.
The benefit to them being NOT core is also that they can finally drop the point cost back down to where should be.

I'm not entirely sold on things 'unlocking' core. That feels like a step away from their keyword system (its too easy to make that really muddy), and what happens when the 'unlocking model' dies? Do unrelated commanders get to buff them as they've been made core? That doesn't seem to fit.

I can see something _similar_ to core happen with marks (which is what the mark keyword should have done in the first place). Basically a Khorne lord has a special buff that effects other Khorne models, separate from whatever he may or may not give to Core models. That keeps non-core models separate while allowing them to benefit from someone appropriate.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

H.B.M.C. — GMT

DarknessEternal wrote:
For CWE, it's going to be Guardians only.

100% guarantee.

That's obviously not going to be true...

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Sgt. Cortez — GMT

For Death Guard: Plague Marines, Terminators, hopefully Helbrutes. Everything else is uncertain, but I hope Possessed and Spawn, too.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Breton — GMT

They’re going to have a theme for CORE.

I’m guessing most if not all non-character infantry.
Vehicles which are at least a couple of:
Iconic
Walkers
Super fast
Super slow
Only sort of a vehicle
Already mediocre.

SM Dreads are an iconic Walker.

TFC are slow, only sort of a vehicle, and sort of mediocre.

War walkers, wraithguard.

Penitent engines

Landspeeders

Kans and Dreads

Sentinels

Support weapons

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Dolnikan — GMT

For my Harlequins, I would guess Troopes and maybe bikes/transports. Which basically is the whole noncharacter army because there really isn't much there.

For Guard it's a little more complicated, but at the very least Infantry Squads/Scions (Conscripts might actually be left out), and then Veterans, Command Squads, Special Weapon Squads for Elites, in Fast Attack I'd say perhaps Sentinels and Hellhounds. In Heavy Heavy Weapons Squads and Russes. Although things might be switched up as well. Not that we have much in the way of Auras, but still.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Breton — GMT

Dolnikan wrote:
For my Harlequins, I would guess Troopes and maybe bikes/transports. Which basically is the whole noncharacter army because there really isn't much there.

For Guard it's a little more complicated, but at the very least Infantry Squads/Scions (Conscripts might actually be left out), and then Veterans, Command Squads, Special Weapon Squads for Elites, in Fast Attack I'd say perhaps Sentinels and Hellhounds. In Heavy Heavy Weapons Squads and Russes. Although things might be switched up as well. Not that we have much in the way of Auras, but still.

With less powerful auras we may see more of them. GW does love to recycle an idea that works for one out to everyone.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Spoletta — GMT

IMHO only the troops and the most iconic units will get CORE. Also, the amount of CORE units in the army will be somewhat proportional to the total amount of available datasheets. Smaller factions will have less CORE options.

So for my armies it would look like this:

Tyranids:

Termagants
Hormagaunts
Warriors
Genestealers
Gargoyles
Raveners
Carnifici
Not sure about rippers

Sisters:

Sisters
Celestials
(Yes, sisters will suffer a lot from this change)

Thousand Sons:

Rubrics
Tzangoors
Scarab Occults

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Not Online!!! — GMT

BrianDavion wrote:
I play Marines so I'm going to take a guess here, rewind the clock and go back to the dawn of 8th edition and Marine codex 8.0. remember when Marines only got chapter tactics on their infantry bikes and dreads? thats because GW considers those three unit types to be the "core" of Marine lists. so I expect core units will be the infantry bikes and dreadnoughts.

That's actually a pretty interesting observation, especially because the same is in place for CSM.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

mrFickle — GMT

They put something out about not being able to have you units hang back with a character and retain buffs. So even though they are infantry I wouldn’t have expected a devestator squad to be core. More support.

GW want you to get your units moving forward and capture objectives and engage in melees

So o think that will be the logic and I think there will be a lot of people complaining about units that don’t have the core word.

Of course in your SM supplements you will have things like raven wing and deathwing that will have their own buff auras so will be an interesting mix. Especially in the DA case when all. Characters are part of the deathwing (except maybe the raven wing??)

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

BrianDavion — GMT

Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I play Marines so I'm going to take a guess here, rewind the clock and go back to the dawn of 8th edition and Marine codex 8.0. remember when Marines only got chapter tactics on their infantry bikes and dreads? thats because GW considers those three unit types to be the "core" of Marine lists. so I expect core units will be the infantry bikes and dreadnoughts.

That's actually a pretty interesting observation, especially because the same is in place for CSM.

Yeah, you actually saw it with a lot of the original codices, and even when custodes got a codex GW returned to it (in fairness with custodes they where proably terrified of 6++ land raiders or something) so with some armies GW clearly has an idea that certin types of units should be the ones that make up the core of the army

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Pyroalchi — GMT

Regarding IG:

as far as I know the "auras" are:
Morale:
Commissars summary execution
WL trait Draconian Disciplinarian
Mordian WL Iron Disciplin
Color Sergeant kell
Command squad regimental standard

Movement
Tallarn WL trait Swift attacker
WL trait Implacable Determination

rerolls:
WL trait old grudges
Yarick
Master of ordnance
Harker

more attacks:
Ministorum Priest
Straken

So when I look at this I would say:
Infantry squads, Conscripts, Special weapons teams, heavy weapons teams should definitly be core, as the sources of the morale buffs, movement buffs as well as # of attack buffs are explicitly meant for them in the lore (especially the commissar aura should definitly work on conscripts). I think CC, PC and command squad should not be core, as they are commanding.
I'm not completely sure with the scions. On the one hand they are trained together with the commissars etc. in the schola progenium, on the other hand lore wise they usually don't need additional inspiration or encouragement to do their job.

On the vehicle side: if they want to stick closely to the lore Chimeras should definitly be core, as they seem to make up the bulk of the motor pool. Maybe also sentinels and the normal Russ. And unless it is reworded, the Master of ordnance would be pretty pointless if Wyverns, Manticors and Basilisks would not be core, so those also.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Not Online!!! — GMT

BrianDavion wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I play Marines so I'm going to take a guess here, rewind the clock and go back to the dawn of 8th edition and Marine codex 8.0. remember when Marines only got chapter tactics on their infantry bikes and dreads? thats because GW considers those three unit types to be the "core" of Marine lists. so I expect core units will be the infantry bikes and dreadnoughts.

That's actually a pretty interesting observation, especially because the same is in place for CSM.

Yeah, you actually saw it with a lot of the original codices, and even when custodes got a codex GW returned to it (in fairness with custodes they where proably terrified of 6++ land raiders or something) so with some armies GW clearly has an idea that certin types of units should be the ones that make up the core of the army

It would lend credence aswell , to the theory that SM2.0 with the expansion of the traits system into vehicles on top of doctrines were an expermiment terribly gone wrong.
Considering that neither SoB nor PA later on jumped on that band wagon.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Spoletta — GMT

Well, sisters have "doctrines" and traits on vehicles.
What they lack are the super doctrines and customizable traits.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

BrianDavion — GMT

Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I play Marines so I'm going to take a guess here, rewind the clock and go back to the dawn of 8th edition and Marine codex 8.0. remember when Marines only got chapter tactics on their infantry bikes and dreads? thats because GW considers those three unit types to be the "core" of Marine lists. so I expect core units will be the infantry bikes and dreadnoughts.

That's actually a pretty interesting observation, especially because the same is in place for CSM.

Yeah, you actually saw it with a lot of the original codices, and even when custodes got a codex GW returned to it (in fairness with custodes they where proably terrified of 6++ land raiders or something) so with some armies GW clearly has an idea that certin types of units should be the ones that make up the core of the army

It would lend credence aswell , to the theory that SM2.0 with the expansion of the traits system into vehicles on top of doctrines were an expermiment terribly gone wrong.
Considering that neither SoB nor PA later on jumped on that band wagon.

extending "chapter tactics" to vehicles was first done to eldar and Imperial Guard. I don't anyone ever felt that marine chapter tactics being applied to a predator was horriably broken. the Altioc "chapter tactic" applying to their fliers on the other hand....

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

the_scotsman — GMT

Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I play Marines so I'm going to take a guess here, rewind the clock and go back to the dawn of 8th edition and Marine codex 8.0. remember when Marines only got chapter tactics on their infantry bikes and dreads? thats because GW considers those three unit types to be the "core" of Marine lists. so I expect core units will be the infantry bikes and dreadnoughts.

That's actually a pretty interesting observation, especially because the same is in place for CSM.

Yeah, you actually saw it with a lot of the original codices, and even when custodes got a codex GW returned to it (in fairness with custodes they where proably terrified of 6++ land raiders or something) so with some armies GW clearly has an idea that certin types of units should be the ones that make up the core of the army

It would lend credence aswell , to the theory that SM2.0 with the expansion of the traits system into vehicles on top of doctrines were an expermiment terribly gone wrong.
Considering that neither SoB nor PA later on jumped on that band wagon.

Do sisters vehicles not now get order benefits?

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

BrianDavion — GMT

the_scotsman wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I play Marines so I'm going to take a guess here, rewind the clock and go back to the dawn of 8th edition and Marine codex 8.0. remember when Marines only got chapter tactics on their infantry bikes and dreads? thats because GW considers those three unit types to be the "core" of Marine lists. so I expect core units will be the infantry bikes and dreadnoughts.

That's actually a pretty interesting observation, especially because the same is in place for CSM.

Yeah, you actually saw it with a lot of the original codices, and even when custodes got a codex GW returned to it (in fairness with custodes they where proably terrified of 6++ land raiders or something) so with some armies GW clearly has an idea that certin types of units should be the ones that make up the core of the army

It would lend credence aswell , to the theory that SM2.0 with the expansion of the traits system into vehicles on top of doctrines were an expermiment terribly gone wrong.
Considering that neither SoB nor PA later on jumped on that band wagon.

Do sisters vehicles not now get order benefits?

they do. perhaps he's thinking "super doctrines" for some odd reason?

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Sgt. Cortez — GMT

It would be a good way for CSM if they connected CORE to marks and/or legions. They could also disconnect it from Troops. I mean, GW tried since 6th edition to make Cult units Elites, in 6th and 7th they were only allowed as troops if they had the same marks as the warlord, in Traitor legions CSM got special rules to basically be pretty close to Plague Marines/ Berzerkers and so on, in 8th edition they tried to make Noise Marines and Berzerkers elites even for World Eaters/ EC but luckily that backfired and they had to adjust.
Maybe they'll try again, make them elites but allow for WE and EC to make their Cult units CORE at least. That way there's a place for CSM and Cult units in the legions.

Also iconic units: Raptors for Nightlords, Daemon engines and Havocs for Iron Warriors (Oblits, too? Could be too much), Cultists only for Alpha Legion (but they could benefit from Apostles in every legion), Possessed for Word Bearers, Chosen for Black Legion. If they're cool Daemon units can be CORE in Word Bearers armies, that would be pretty awesome.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Not Online!!! — GMT

Spoiler:

I meant more not to the same extent as the SM traits were.

F.e. the IG codex did early on cover vehicles, but more often with a seperate trait which only applied to vehicles, or by having a general trait that applied to both, and whilest that was far from perfect cough catachans cough, it was better then the certainly more excessive traits of sm 2.0

I guess i should've written that it was an experiment in regards to how many traits and faction specific rules apply to all units in an army that went wrong, which would've been more accurate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It would be a good way for CSM if they connected CORE to marks and/or legions. They could also disconnect it from Troops. I mean, GW tried since 6th edition to make Cult units Elites, in 6th and 7th they were only allowed as troops if they had the same marks as the warlord, in Traitor legions CSM got special rules to basically be pretty close to Plague Marines/ Berzerkers and so on, in 8th edition they tried to make Noise Marines and Berzerkers elites even for World Eaters/ EC but luckily that backfired and they had to adjust.
Maybe they'll try again, make them elites but allow for WE and EC to make their Cult units CORE at least. That way there's a place for CSM and Cult units in the legions.

Also iconic units: Raptors for Nightlords, Daemon engines and Havocs for Iron Warriors (Oblits, too? Could be too much), Cultists only for Alpha Legion (but they could benefit from Apostles in every legion), Possessed for Word Bearers, Chosen for Black Legion. If they're cool Daemon units can be CORE in Word Bearers armies, that would be pretty awesome.

It would allow for more thematic builds something most CSM players want since, well 3.5, or indeed the Legion supplement if they came into the hobby later on.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Kanluwen — GMT

For AdMech:
-Skitarii of all flavors(Serberys, Pteraxii, Vanguard, Rangers, Sicarian) PLUS Sydonian Dragoons, Ironstrider Ballistarii, and Onager Dunecrawlers.

That would leave the Skorpius and Archaeopters out while giving the units that are supposed to be 'iconic' for a Skitarii force a bit of new life.

-Electropriests(both types)

-Kataphron and maybe Kastellans.
I put Kataphron but I'm hoping that they'll add the 'Mindlock' rule to them, making it so they get a bit better with a Techpriest within a certain distance of them.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Sgt. Cortez — GMT

Not Online!!! wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It would be a good way for CSM if they connected CORE to marks and/or legions. They could also disconnect it from Troops. I mean, GW tried since 6th edition to make Cult units Elites, in 6th and 7th they were only allowed as troops if they had the same marks as the warlord, in Traitor legions CSM got special rules to basically be pretty close to Plague Marines/ Berzerkers and so on, in 8th edition they tried to make Noise Marines and Berzerkers elites even for World Eaters/ EC but luckily that backfired and they had to adjust.
Maybe they'll try again, make them elites but allow for WE and EC to make their Cult units CORE at least. That way there's a place for CSM and Cult units in the legions.

Also iconic units: Raptors for Nightlords, Daemon engines and Havocs for Iron Warriors (Oblits, too? Could be too much), Cultists only for Alpha Legion (but they could benefit from Apostles in every legion), Possessed for Word Bearers, Chosen for Black Legion. If they're cool Daemon units can be CORE in Word Bearers armies, that would be pretty awesome.

It would allow for more thematic builds something most CSM players want since, well 3.5, or indeed the Legion supplement if they came into the hobby later on.

The downside is, in typical GW fashion they could give you fluffy CORE units but then say: for NL and Iron Warriors these only work when you don't take any marks on your units

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Not Online!!! — GMT

IW is iffy with the no mark rule considering not all are as ardently anti mark.

That said it'd make sense for NL.

And if the rules compensate for such a lack of marks then it would not be an issue, but at that point that is wishlisting and we should wait to see if gw fails at yet another new keyword-mechanic they seem to implement or not.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Kanluwen — GMT

There is no indication that "Core" will be used for any of the unique unit styled stuff you've mentioned and I feel like some people might be building the mechanism up too much already.

This is all we know:

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.

In the case of the first two books, Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Necrons many Elite units such as Terminator Squads and Lychguard, as well as Fast Attack units like Bike Squads and Tomb Blades, have the Core keyword. Even some Vehicles will be Core units too, where appropriate.

The indicator seems to be that Core units will be fairly wide in scope. Units like Berzerkers, etc will probably not get Core...but will get some kind of mechanism relating to Khorne units.
Assuming they aren't getting a World Eaters/Emperor's Children codex within the next few years that is.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Crazyterran — GMT

For Marines I have a feeling it will be anything that can make up a battle company + vets (Termies, Stern/Van/Bladeguard, etc) but sans characters. Also probably not on Rhinos and Razorbacks.

Maybe Leman Russ Commanders will get a special rule saying they can treat Leman Russ vehicles as if they had core for the purposes of their orders and/or auras.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?g

Gadzilla666 — GMT

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Spoiler:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It would be a good way for CSM if they connected CORE to marks and/or legions. They could also disconnect it from Troops. I mean, GW tried since 6th edition to make Cult units Elites, in 6th and 7th they were only allowed as troops if they had the same marks as the warlord, in Traitor legions CSM got special rules to basically be pretty close to Plague Marines/ Berzerkers and so on, in 8th edition they tried to make Noise Marines and Berzerkers elites even for World Eaters/ EC but luckily that backfired and they had to adjust.
Maybe they'll try again, make them elites but allow for WE and EC to make their Cult units CORE at least. That way there's a place for CSM and Cult units in the legions.

Also iconic units: Raptors for Nightlords, Daemon engines and Havocs for Iron Warriors (Oblits, too? Could be too much), Cultists only for Alpha Legion (but they could benefit from Apostles in every legion), Possessed for Word Bearers, Chosen for Black Legion. If they're cool Daemon units can be CORE in Word Bearers armies, that would be pretty awesome.

It would allow for more thematic builds something most CSM players want since, well 3.5, or indeed the Legion supplement if they came into the hobby later on.

The downside is, in typical GW fashion they could give you fluffy CORE units but then say: for NL and Iron Warriors these only work when you don't take any marks on your units

That would make complete sense for Night Lords. They have been depicted as dismissive of the chaos gods and any who worship them or the Corpse God as weaklings and fools since the 2nd edition Chaos codex. In 3.5 they were prohibited from taking any marks except for undivided, and raptors were the same, meaning they were unusable by the cult legions because those legions required all units to carry the mark of their particular god. Allowing Night Lords to take marks and cult troops is a byproduct of the watering down of the legions identities that started with the 4th edition codex and I would personally love it if gw would return them to their previous portrayal as godless and nihilistic, as it is one of the reasons I was originally drawn to them.

Though that is all moot for this discussion anyway, as I'm sure raptors will be a CORE unit for the legions.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Niiai — GMT

Without knowing more I would assume that non-vehicles non-character models can be considered core.

They called out characters and tansk not getting the benefits for core, so those perimiters would fit within that.

Further speculations would be that something could be included in: Very bad characters. Vehicles that are very flimsy (ridgerunners) or have human characteristics (dreadnoughts). Also you could exclude very elite infantery (Terminators.) But all of this is speculation.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Daedalus81 — GMT

A loooot of personal biases in here and probably a lot of disappointed people when this launches.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?g

Sgt. Cortez — GMT

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Spoiler:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It would be a good way for CSM if they connected CORE to marks and/or legions. They could also disconnect it from Troops. I mean, GW tried since 6th edition to make Cult units Elites, in 6th and 7th they were only allowed as troops if they had the same marks as the warlord, in Traitor legions CSM got special rules to basically be pretty close to Plague Marines/ Berzerkers and so on, in 8th edition they tried to make Noise Marines and Berzerkers elites even for World Eaters/ EC but luckily that backfired and they had to adjust.
Maybe they'll try again, make them elites but allow for WE and EC to make their Cult units CORE at least. That way there's a place for CSM and Cult units in the legions.

Also iconic units: Raptors for Nightlords, Daemon engines and Havocs for Iron Warriors (Oblits, too? Could be too much), Cultists only for Alpha Legion (but they could benefit from Apostles in every legion), Possessed for Word Bearers, Chosen for Black Legion. If they're cool Daemon units can be CORE in Word Bearers armies, that would be pretty awesome.

It would allow for more thematic builds something most CSM players want since, well 3.5, or indeed the Legion supplement if they came into the hobby later on.

The downside is, in typical GW fashion they could give you fluffy CORE units but then say: for NL and Iron Warriors these only work when you don't take any marks on your units

That would make complete sense for Night Lords. They have been depicted as dismissive of the chaos gods and any who worship them or the Corpse God as weaklings and fools since the 2nd edition Chaos codex. In 3.5 they were prohibited from taking any marks except for undivided, and raptors were the same, meaning they were unusable by the cult legions because those legions required all units to carry the mark of their particular god. Allowing Night Lords to take marks and cult troops is a byproduct of the watering down of the legions identities that started with the 4th edition codex and I would personally love it if gw would return them to their previous portrayal as godless and nihilistic, as it is one of the reasons I was originally drawn to them.

Though that is all moot for this discussion anyway, as I'm sure raptors will be a CORE unit for the legions.

Of course it would be very fluffy but what I was trying to hint at is that GW usually made marks and corresponding rules pretty strong so that legions without them could hardly compensate.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Stormonu — GMT

H.B.M.C. wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
For CWE, it's going to be Guardians only.

100% guarantee.
That's obviously not going to be true...

For Eldar, I suspect Guardians, Dire Avengers and Wraithguard (Eldar version of Terminators). I'd be surprised if the various Aspects were CORE, but if some were I'd suspect Scorpions, Banshees and Swooping Hawks would be likely candidates. Possibly Wraithlord, if Marine Dreadnoughts get CORE.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?g

Gadzilla666 — GMT

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Spoiler:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
It would be a good way for CSM if they connected CORE to marks and/or legions. They could also disconnect it from Troops. I mean, GW tried since 6th edition to make Cult units Elites, in 6th and 7th they were only allowed as troops if they had the same marks as the warlord, in Traitor legions CSM got special rules to basically be pretty close to Plague Marines/ Berzerkers and so on, in 8th edition they tried to make Noise Marines and Berzerkers elites even for World Eaters/ EC but luckily that backfired and they had to adjust.
Maybe they'll try again, make them elites but allow for WE and EC to make their Cult units CORE at least. That way there's a place for CSM and Cult units in the legions.

Also iconic units: Raptors for Nightlords, Daemon engines and Havocs for Iron Warriors (Oblits, too? Could be too much), Cultists only for Alpha Legion (but they could benefit from Apostles in every legion), Possessed for Word Bearers, Chosen for Black Legion. If they're cool Daemon units can be CORE in Word Bearers armies, that would be pretty awesome.

It would allow for more thematic builds something most CSM players want since, well 3.5, or indeed the Legion supplement if they came into the hobby later on.

The downside is, in typical GW fashion they could give you fluffy CORE units but then say: for NL and Iron Warriors these only work when you don't take any marks on your units

That would make complete sense for Night Lords. They have been depicted as dismissive of the chaos gods and any who worship them or the Corpse God as weaklings and fools since the 2nd edition Chaos codex. In 3.5 they were prohibited from taking any marks except for undivided, and raptors were the same, meaning they were unusable by the cult legions because those legions required all units to carry the mark of their particular god. Allowing Night Lords to take marks and cult troops is a byproduct of the watering down of the legions identities that started with the 4th edition codex and I would personally love it if gw would return them to their previous portrayal as godless and nihilistic, as it is one of the reasons I was originally drawn to them.

Though that is all moot for this discussion anyway, as I'm sure raptors will be a CORE unit for the legions.

Of course it would be very fluffy but what I was trying to hint at is that GW usually made marks and corresponding rules pretty strong so that legions without them could hardly compensate.

Well they could finally recognize that and give strong rules for Undivided. They have already possibly unwittingly done just that for Night Lords: staying Undivided so that you can take Icons of Vengeance on key units makes for a considerable boost in the number of targets those units can benefit from Prey On The Weak with.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Lord Clinto — GMT

I wouldn't be surprised if certain characters granted "core" status to units too.

Ex: IG Tank Commanders granting the "Core" keyword to LRBT (and variants) while within X"

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

blaktoof — GMT

Non marines will get "core" too.

It will effect non marine armies much less, especially xenos.

Most xenos aura buffs are very limited in what they effect already, and are unlikely to add the core tag, for example there is no point in say Kaptain Badrukks flash git re-roll 1s having the core keyword added to the rule, because it already only effects 1 unit type.

The core aura/trait/etc. thing is mostly going to effect SM and to an extent CSM players, xenos will see it hit them in things like stratagems to the same extent that SM and CSM players will get hit.

This is something that is mostly going to to effect "the most powerful auras" which are things that give bonuses to a large group of units, like SM buffs which just effect every unit with the same chapter keyword for example. People are getting carried away thinking that all auras will have the word CORE added to what it effects, which is not the case- and counter to what was posted on warhammer community.

So yeah non marines will get core, but it won't change much.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

greatbigtree — GMT

For Guard...

Leman Russ (Maybe just Battle Tank and Demolisher)
Basilisk

Infantry Squads
Scions
(NOT Conscripts)

(NOT Sentinels - lore wise they’re the he barely tolerated mavericks)
Maybe Evil Mutt tanks, but probably not.

Maybe Vets...

I can’t see anything else, being “auxiliaries” or weirdos.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Pyroalchi — GMT

@ greatbigtree: Of course it depends what exactly counts as aura etc. but I still think that conscripts should not be excluded (fluffwise) from profiting of the presence of a Commissar or a Priest. That's basically what keeps those guys functioning in the lore. And on the tabletop it seems to be pretty similar, take away the moral buffs and conscripts become even worse than they are.
But I'm open to be convinced otherwise. What is your argument against them being core? To represent their poor training?

Edit: on the other hand I still have a hard time seeing Scions as core... they are highly elites, even though they occupy a troop slot. And lore wise they are not really the guys that have to be kept together by a commissar. Maybe in a pure Scion detachment but otherwise... That's just my opinion of course

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Ice_can — GMT

Why do people think a comissars aura is "one of the most powerful buffing aura's"? Like seriously who is actually playing comissars since they and conscripts got nerfed? Okay we don't know what they will do in the 9th edition codex but I doubt it'll be as oppressive as my 5 man aggressors will reroll all hits and 1's to wound because.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Breton — GMT

blaktoof wrote:
Non marines will get "core" too.

It will effect non marine armies much less, especially xenos..

Unless they give other armies more auras. By now I’m pretty used to beta testing things that go to marines as a whole, then other armies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

greatbigtree wrote:
For Guard...

(NOT Sentinels - lore wise they’re the he barely tolerated mavericks)
.

I think Sentinels have been scoring units like LR are now in the past not? If Dreads get it I’m almost positive Sentinels get it. I could even see Sentinels getting it before Dreads.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Pyroalchi — GMT

Ice_can wrote:
Why do people think a comissars aura is "one of the most powerful buffing aura's"? Like seriously who is actually playing comissars since they and conscripts got nerfed? Okay we don't know what they will do in the 9th edition codex but I doubt it'll be as oppressive as my 5 man aggressors will reroll all hits and 1's to wound because.

I might have been misunderstood. I don't think that the commissar aura is in any way strong (with the new moral rules it's even worth less). It's just a very iconic and fluffy one for guard. And I personally think from a fluff perspective it makes a lot of sense for Conscripts and Infantry Squads (less so for Scions).
Nontheless a Conscript unit with a comissar has a much better chance to pass their moral role and don't have to roll for attrition. That's what I meant with "conscripts would be even worse". It does not make them super strong, but at least it increases their survivability a little bit.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Ice_can — GMT

Pyroalchi wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Why do people think a comissars aura is "one of the most powerful buffing aura's"? Like seriously who is actually playing comissars since they and conscripts got nerfed? Okay we don't know what they will do in the 9th edition codex but I doubt it'll be as oppressive as my 5 man aggressors will reroll all hits and 1's to wound because.

I might have been misunderstood. I don't think that the commissar aura is in any way strong (with the new moral rules it's even worth less). It's just a very iconic and fluffy one for guard. And I personally think from a fluff perspective it makes a lot of sense for Conscripts and Infantry Squads (less so for Scions).
Nontheless a Conscript unit with a comissar has a much better chance to pass their moral role and don't have to roll for attrition. That's what I meant with "conscripts would be even worse". It does not make them super strong, but at least it increases their survivability a little bit.

The point is GW specifically call it out as being a change affecting the most powerful buffing aura's not every aura.
Hence why I am 90% sure it wont effect either Tau or Knights as their aura's are either 1 time use, keyword locked Targeted. The only exception is the Etherials aura and you can't take them as enclaves anyway.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

greatbigtree — GMT

@ Pyroalchi:

Regarding Conscripts, I'm pretty sure GW figured out that they screwed up with the rules for Conscripts vs Infantry Squads. I think they're trying to push Conscripts out of the game, and denying them access to the Commissar's Aura (one of only 4 I can think of...) would make them all but unplayable. I agree that they basically *need* a Commissar to make them work, but I think GW's trying to squeeze them out of the game. More of a gut feeling than a reasoned argument.

I think Scions will be core because of the Scion codex of yesteryear. I think they (GW) do want them to be playable as a Stand-Alone force. They do have Regiments, they are certainly less common than Guardsmen, but probably outnumber Space Marines by 1000 to 1, at least. I think they're a "Core" in their own regard.

That said, I can think of Commissars, Priests, Master of Ordnance, and Sergeant Harker that can give Auras in the Guard. The closest to game breaking is Harker and he's only available to Catachans.

Sentinels might have had an "ObSec" like ability in the Emeperor's Talon formation... I'm not sure. I can't think of a single aura that would affect them, except Harker. Plus... I don't think GW sees the FA slot as being "Core" to the IG's identity. Nor elites, really. I think GW sees IG as poor ground-pounders slowly slugging their way forwards, with tanks for support. *SLOW* tanks. Not fast tanks, like Hellhounds.

Again, not that I agree with the ideas they appear to have, but that's my observation and expectation.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Stormonu — GMT

Lord Clinto wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if certain characters granted "core" status to units too.

Ex: IG Tank Commanders granting the "Core" keyword to LRBT (and variants) while within X"

I hope that won't be the case and instead they simply affect a unit or two (I don't want Tank Commanders giving rerolls to IG infantry, for example, because tanks were made "CORE" - I'd rather they only give rerolls to actual tanks).

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

greatbigtree — GMT

Specific to IG, we tend to use orders rather than Auras, though that may change in time of course.

Right now Infantry can order other Infantry, and Russ can order other Russ, and that's baked in limitations.

Harker giving reroll 1's to nearby Catachan units is about as abusive as our Auras get... and I do abuse that.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Kanluwen — GMT

greatbigtree wrote:
Specific to IG, we tend to use orders rather than Auras, though that may change in time of course.

Right now Infantry can order other Infantry, and Russ can order other Russ, and that's baked in limitations.

For clarity's sake, because I'm absolutely positive someone will start thinking this is how it works and complain about Guard in a later thread:
Right now?
Officers(which are Infantry keyworded) can Order units of the same as themselves. They cannot Order vehicles nor can they Order anything with the Auxilia(Ogryn, Bullgryn, Ratlings) keyword nor can they use an Order on Militarum Tempestus or anything that is not the same .
Leman Russ Tank Commanders can use their Tank Orders on Leman Russ from the same .
Tempestor Primes(Scion Officers) can only Order Militarum Tempestus Infantry: meaning Scions and Scion Command Squads.

Then there's the whole bit about Vox-Casters, which are specific to a small number(Infantry Squad, Veteran Squad, Scion Squad, Scion and Command Squads) of units and have a two stage requirement(must be within 3" of a Vox-Caster on the Officer's side of things to issue the Order and the targeted unit must have a Vox-Caster) to be issued an Order via a Vox-Caster.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormonu wrote:
Lord Clinto wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if certain characters granted "core" status to units too.

Ex: IG Tank Commanders granting the "Core" keyword to LRBT (and variants) while within X"

I hope that won't be the case and instead they simply affect a unit or two (I don't want Tank Commanders giving rerolls to IG infantry, for example, because tanks were made "CORE" - I'd rather they only give rerolls to actual tanks).

I'd honestly be okay with Tank Commanders starting to be able to issue Orders to Infantry. Armoured/Mechanized Regiments do exist after all. It would actually be kind of interesting to have Tank Commanders and Infantry Commanders being able to Order Tanks or Infantry and each having a special Order intended for the other.

Something like Tank Commanders being able to issue a reworked "Move, Move, Move!" to Infantry Squads that are within a certain distance of friendly LRBTs while Infantry Commanders get to issue a reworked "Bring It Down!" to LRBTs?

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Nibbler — GMT

I could imagine, that the core keyword can be distributed dynamicaly (in a way). Let's say, I take a Farseer on bike as a warlord - let windriders get the core keyword
I take a spiritseer - Wraith Units gain the core keyword

The force is led by a Fireblade - Fire Warrriors and non battle suit units gain the core keyword

(you get the idea, I think...) I have to admit, that will be even harder to balance, as the number of possible variations increases extremely. But it also would open a lot of new build possibilities and enable each player to play his favourite faction with his individual playstyle...

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

NinthMusketeer — GMT

I think Tyranids will more or less be that units with a 60mm base or smaller are core (bar characters of course). Even caenifex make sense as core since it would help distinguish them as pseudo-biggies.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Breton — GMT

Nibbler wrote:
I could imagine, that the core keyword can be distributed dynamicaly (in a way). Let's say, I take a Farseer on bike as a warlord - let windriders get the core keyword
I take a spiritseer - Wraith Units gain the core keyword

The force is led by a Fireblade - Fire Warrriors and non battle suit units gain the core keyword

(you get the idea, I think...) I have to admit, that will be even harder to balance, as the number of possible variations increases extremely. But it also would open a lot of new build possibilities and enable each player to play his favourite faction with his individual playstyle...

They did something similar with Troops/ObSec a few editions back that got me to buy a Dark Angels RW/DW combi-wing army. Then they dumped it and haven't brought it back since. GW does love to recycle, but I wouldn't count on this. Plus why do it for CORE and not Troops/ObSec for these units/wonky armies?

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

BrianDavion — GMT

Nibbler wrote:
I could imagine, that the core keyword can be distributed dynamicaly (in a way). Let's say, I take a Farseer on bike as a warlord - let windriders get the core keyword
I take a spiritseer - Wraith Units gain the core keyword

The force is led by a Fireblade - Fire Warrriors and non battle suit units gain the core keyword

(you get the idea, I think...) I have to admit, that will be even harder to balance, as the number of possible variations increases extremely. But it also would open a lot of new build possibilities and enable each player to play his favourite faction with his individual playstyle...

or simply gives the farseerer on bike a rule that allows it for the purpose of it's buffs etc to treat eldar bike units as if they where core,

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

alextroy — GMT

I think that any sort of Core unlocking mechanic is just fanciful wish-listing. There is little point in adding a restriction and then making lots of ways around the restriction. Instead, I expect the rules will key off of existing keywords rather than expanding which units are Core.

For example, I don't think Spirtseers will make Wraith units Core. They will have abilities that target Wraith units. It doesn't make sense that a theoretical ability of a Farseer that only affects Core units will suddenly work on Wraith units because you dragged a Spiritseer with you.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

H.B.M.C. — GMT

What about army types unlocking Core then, like Iyanden making Wraithguard Core?

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Voss — GMT

alextroy wrote:
I think that any sort of Core unlocking mechanic is just fanciful wish-listing. There is little point in adding a restriction and then making lots of ways around the restriction. Instead, I expect the rules will key off of existing keywords rather than expanding which units are Core.

For example, I don't think Spirtseers will make Wraith units Core. They will have abilities that target Wraith units. It doesn't make sense that a theoretical ability of a Farseer that only affects Core units will suddenly work on Wraith units because you dragged a Spiritseer with you.

I agree. I think people are overthinking the scope of keywords, at least in the way GW uses them.
And in general, making keywords mutable makes them less useful, and vastly complicates abilities, as you then have to consider what if that grants does something to a unit excluded form Core, but now that unit is suddenly within the set of Core units? Doing this basically negates the point of adding the Core keyword in the first place.

In particularly, its important for people to realize Core doesn't mean Troops or anything else. Its an entirely separate keyword that is completely independent. Like a lot of keywords it does nothing on its own, its just a hook for other rules.

@HBMC- that creates the same problems. The better solution is just to have any theoretical Iyanden abilities specifically affect Spirit Host* units. That way there isn't any unintentional effects. If you make Wraithguard Core, then any Iyanden specific buffs that affect them will also affect Guardians, and whatever aspect warriors, rangers, etc also get the Core keyword. That'd be weird.
If you just want Iyanden Wraithguard units affected, you'd use the Wraithguard keyword.

* I only have Xenos 1 and not the eldar codex, and Spirit Host was the keyword used for all Wraith units. If they changed it to Wraith, it makes little difference.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Tyran — GMT

Tyranids likely will be:

Termagants
Hormagaunts
Rippers
Tyranid Warriors
Genestealers
Gargoyles
Raveners
Carnifexes

Also because Tyranid auras are already unit specific (with the obvious exception of Synapse), I expect that it will have no effect on our auras, an even on stratagems it is iffy as most are unit specific.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

H.B.M.C. — GMT

Voss wrote:
If you make Wraithguard Core, then any Iyanden specific buffs that affect them will also affect Guardians, and whatever aspect warriors, rangers, etc also get the Core keyword.

You could do both. Iyanden making Wraith constructs Core wouldn't suddenly mean that Guardians/etc. would benefit from Wraith-specific abilities. It would mean that some of the more general abilities could then affect Wraith units, whilst still leaving Wraith-specific abilities for things with the right keyword.

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Voss — GMT

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Voss wrote:
If you make Wraithguard Core, then any Iyanden specific buffs that affect them will also affect Guardians, and whatever aspect warriors, rangers, etc also get the Core keyword.
You could do both. Iyanden making Wraith constructs Core wouldn't suddenly mean that Guardians/etc. would benefit from Wraith-specific abilities. It would mean that some of the more general abilities could then affect Wraith units, whilst still leaving Wraith-specific abilities for things with the right keyword.

I mean... you could.

That's creating an awful lot of unnecessary overlap for a marginal gain, and potentially a lot of unintended special cases that have to be checked.
You're effectively setting up a situation where the end result is 'Iyanden make wraithguard Core' and stratagem X is judged too powerful to use on Wraiths, so its rewritten as 'effects non-Wraith Core Infantry,' to catch the one case in the one craftworld where the Core keyword is causing problems.

Or another example- Battle Focus might be rewritten as affecting Core infantry. Is that an ability appropriate for Wraiths? Or something that would need an exemption if Wraiths are suddenly made Core?

It seems less headache inducing to assign Core only to things you want affected by those rules 100% of the time, and use the unit Keywords if you want special case abilities. Its a lot cleaner and suffers far fewer unintended consequences. [I'd hate to see the Iron hands kind of non-apology again. 'Oh, we didn't realize that players would use it like that.'

Re:[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

alextroy — GMT

I think it would be more likely to have specific abilities of specific units expanded to cover unit rather than adding Core to a unit.

For example, say the Autarch Path of Command was changed to be "Re-roll Hit rolls of 1 for friendly Core <> models". It would be more likely for Iyandan Craftworld Trait to say, "Iyandan Autarchs aura's also affect Iyandan Wraith Contructs" than "Iyandan Wraith Contructs gain the Core keyword.

Although that sounds much more like a Warlord Trait than anything else.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Breton — GMT

You're all making this way too complex, and GW is dumbing down not complexifying.

Plus making things CORE for these divergent yet fluffy armies is only half a solution at best. They'll still have difficulties with List Building and ObSec, and GW hasn't been interested in fixing that for several editions now. Why would they start now?

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

ERJAK — GMT

Breton wrote:
You're all making this way too complex, and GW is dumbing down not complexifying.

Plus making things CORE for these divergent yet fluffy armies is only half a solution at best. They'll still have difficulties with List Building and ObSec, and GW hasn't been interested in fixing that for several editions now. Why would they start now?

Ah, the classic 'dumbing down' take. Probably because vehicles can shoot things slightly off to the left or right now?!?!?! right?

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Not Online!!! — GMT

ERJAK wrote:
Breton wrote:
You're all making this way too complex, and GW is dumbing down not complexifying.

Plus making things CORE for these divergent yet fluffy armies is only half a solution at best. They'll still have difficulties with List Building and ObSec, and GW hasn't been interested in fixing that for several editions now. Why would they start now?

Ah, the classic 'dumbing down' take. Probably because vehicles can shoot things slightly off to the left or right now?!?!?! right?

H.B.M.C has a nice picture of WHY the dumbing down, especially in regards to vehicles , is preciscly that.

Alas, for some GW can't do wrong and for some GW can't do right.

[specuation] Core units for non marine armies?

Breton — GMT

ERJAK wrote:

Ah, the classic 'dumbing down' take. Probably because vehicles can shoot things slightly off to the left or right now?!?!?! right?

No because we have 6 or more different Captain Data Sheets because they don't trust us to modify a stat line, but if all you have is some snark and a straw man, well that's a classic take too.