40K Core Units - Good for AoS Maybe?

[Sleboda]

I just read the community article on Core units in 40K. At first I thought it was just Battleline for 40K.

Nope.

I really like what they are doing as a way to help reinforce what an army "should" look like from a fluff perspective and also how it limits characters from inspiring themselves.

I'd be happy to see this come to Age of Sigmar. I'm good with anything that helps armies look "right."

 

[Grimrock]

I think "right" is pretty subjective considering the typical scale of a warhammer game. It's not like a 2000 point battle represents a full scale war, so having an army comprised of all terrorgheists or steam tanks or whatever never really bothered me from a narrative perspective. Call it a small clash between specialists groups or maybe that the game represents a small section of the wider battle raging around them. I don't see any reason to promote one view of what an army should be over another outside of considerations towards balancing the game.

That being said, I do like the idea of a few keywords being used to focus different buffs. Having a commander that specializes in leading infantry have his command ability key off 'Core' while a mounted leader keys off 'Cavalry' could be a really elegant solution and allow for more/better tools on the board. A blanket +1 to hit might be way too strong, but a +1 to hit for only 'Core' models could be a really interesting command ability for a lot of armies. Could really breathe some life into the slew of basic unexciting heroes that some armies have (Blades of Khorne for example).

[Gaz Taylor]

I quite like it for 40K as it’s such a simple change that will impact the game a lots. I’m not too sure it’s a great idea for AOS though because some armies have limited options and it could make some very silly/power lists for each alliance if you aren’t careful with the keywords.

[Kramer]

1. I’m just wondering if this is not a competitive change. So they can control it more disguised as as narrative change. 

2. after the discussion in this forum I would welcome a change. But more something along the line of ‘only 1 battleline-if counts as battleline’. And maybe changing some of the battleline units as a result. 

[hughwyeth]

It would be quite a big change for AoS considering AoS was originally about putting lots of big models on the table. Would be interested to see how they implement it. In a way, adding a similar rule and then lowering big model costs to compensate might make for a more interesting rule. But then at the same time, a load of battleline units in AoS are amongst the most powerful units anyway and don't need to be put anymore above competing units! That's not the case in 40k.

[Overread]

The problem is AoS only has Troops, Monsters, Artillery and Leaders. So that does leave us very few slots, having a "core" or just using Battleline and adjusting auras like that could be a big game changer.

 

However, right now a lot of AoS armies don't really have many options as it is. You don't really need it for Flesheaters, Daughters of Khiane or many others. We just don't have a bulk of armies with a glut of specialists and such. It might work for Stormcast, Skaven and other big armies, but AoS is honestly years off a need for this. 

So it could work for AoS, but at a practical level it would influence some armies a lot more than others. 

[Kramer]

3 hours ago, Overread said:

The problem is AoS only has Troops, Monsters, Artillery and Leaders. So that does leave us very few slots, having a "core" or just using Battleline and adjusting auras like that could be a big game changer.

 

Well if you're changing the whole 'build your army' mechanism anyway. It's the easiest thing in the world to mark things as Cavalry/Elite/Monstrous Infantry/ etc

 

[Overread]

14 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Well if you're changing the whole 'build your army' mechanism anyway. It's the easiest thing in the world to mark things as Cavalry/Elite/Monstrous Infantry/ etc

 

Oh agreed and I'd honestly like AoS to start moving toward that - create more niches as it creates more options and ideas and concepts in the game. 

[Kramer]

1 minute ago, Overread said:

Oh agreed and I'd honestly like AoS to start moving toward that - create more niches as it creates more options and ideas and concepts in the game. 

Absolutly. One of the big ones for me is the power of monsters/artillery. If i'm truly limited to one or two... it can actually be good 😅

[Overread]

Indeed plus if you create slots like cavalry you can create "anti cavalry" units as key words and features for the game. That lets you make cavalry as a concept more powerful in some instances and then create counters which in turn creates tactical niches in the army. Right now we have cavalry but there's no functional difference between cavalry and infantry

They have varied stats and cavalry might have beast attacks and such and might move faster; but there's nothing really unique to how they function

[Ganigumo]

AoS is a lot more free-form lorewise than 40k (although the idea of an Ork army having a "proper" version is a bit of a laugh)

For many factions in AoS there is no "proper" or "lore friendly" versions of armies.

A gitz army of just squigs is just as valid as one with hordes of grots. 

 

To be honest I suspect the "core" keyword is more marine centric than the article is letting on, and that the purpose is to simplify chapter/supplement rules (i.e. Bikers gain the "core" keyword in white scars). This could stretch to other armies and subfactions, but marines suffer from having the most bloated range.

[Sleboda]

12 hours ago, Grimrock said:

I think "right" is pretty subjective considering the typical scale of a warhammer game. It's not like a 2000 point battle represents a full scale war, so having an army comprised of all terrorgheists or steam tanks or whatever never really bothered me from a narrative perspective.

I understand that, and agree to a degree, which is why I put it in quotes.

Thing is, it's not like this would eliminate any options. If you want your all steam tank moments, you could still totally have them. This just rewards taking the units that are iconic/baked-into-the-fluff. It would encourage people to take armies that look like the armies from battles in Black Library novels, Battletomes, and other narrative sources.

I know there are lots of ways to enjoy this stuff, but, for me, the best movies with battles in them show vast legions of soldiers supported by other stuff, not 5 giants and 2 soldiers taking on 3 dragons and 1 soldier.

A strength of AoS is its versatility. I'm just saying that encouraging people to take armies that look like actual armies is not a bad idea.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Sleboda
Typos

[Beliman]

From what I read about Core units, It seems to be just target-limitation. 

Seems fine and AoS could do something like that:  Doesn't matter if you can field a whole lot of battleline [Big Monster Smasher] because your normal 100 points hero can't buff them.

[Malakithe]

I think it would translate a little different and be harder to use in AoS since AoS has so many strange and specialized lists that could be made. Plus the number of separate units in AoS is generally smaller then 40k so the keyword and rules wouldnt be used as often.

[Kramer]

46 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

now there are lots of ways to enjoy this stuff, but, for me, the best movies with battles in them sure vast legions of soldiers supported by other stuff, not 5 giants and 2 soldiers training on 3 dragons and 1 soldier.

A strength of AoS is it's versatility. I'm just saying that encouraging people to take armies that look like actual armies is not a bad idea.

But that’s super subjective though. I mean, you could easily have a cool narrative for any army selection. 

tour 5 giants and 3 dragons are the remnants of a bigger army that was routed and fled the field of battle. While they started out retreating with some phalanxes of infantry in the following days of the route they were picked off one by one as soon as they slowed down by their attackers. Their only hope was retreating through a mountain pass nearby. But as the remaining 5 giants and 3 dragons reached the mountains they could see the enemy was already their... stretching aching muscles they prepared for battle. 
 

or the other way around: while the bigger army was marching on the road towards their enemy, the general thought himself to be smarter than his opponent. He send his long legged giants on a flanking manoeuvre. supported by the flying dragons they moved through a swamp normal sized units couldn’t move through. It was a fine plan until the flanking force realised the mawtribes they were fighting weren’t human sized....

or bringing it back to movies and books. The ride of the Rohan (all mounted), 300 (very much elite with one screen unit vs horde), expendable (hero/monster list), the last samurai (glass cannon vs cities of sigmar) . And their are probably more. All in my mind themed armies. samurai one not so much now that I think about. But I like the comparison to much to remove it 😅

I just think GW somehow defining what is an ‘actual army’ limits my narrative freedom rather then helps building a list that matches the narrative. 

but, again. from a gameplay perspective I’m all for it. Skewed list always seem less fun to me then rounded lists. Bit less win big or lose big. 

Edited September 17, 2020 by Kramer

[Melcavuk]

AoS doesnt need the Core Mechanic, mostly because most of the specifically AoS armies are either niche to the point where core is irrelevant (a dozen or less warscrolls) or the command abilities in those armies are targetted. Core works in 40k because all their hero buffs are always on auras, Command abilities in AOS are by and large costed and targetted so dont need further limitation.

 

The only armies it would really impact would be Stormcast (remember the last time they were considered good?) Cities (whose command abilities are so specific already it'd make no difference) and Mortal Chaos (who just run marauders anyway) so it would punish armies that dont need punishing, and see no use in the competitive armies.

[RuneBrush]

I think it's a fantastic concept and really looking forward to seeing how it's used going forward. 

One thing that has struck me and the friends I've chatted to about this, is that the 40k design team seem to be using 9th edition to do a "soft-reset" on everything.  Tweaking the rules so that armies behave thematically on the tabletop and stopping players from doing things that don't make sense but are valid within the rules.

I'd love to see something like this be put in place in AoS, my worry is that it would need a pretty coordinated effort to do and some discipline not to put in counter-rules the next battletome that comes out.  I'm also not sure that AoS has the same "direction" that 40k does to get this working.  In it's 5 year life we've gone from the game being all about the heroes to it being about hordes and then all about behemoths.

[EMMachine]

I'm looking forward what the change in 40k will bring for AoS but I think most of readers could have the wrong first conclusion

For all who are not into 40k. 40k has the following subgroups inside their detachments (HQ, Elite, Core, Close Support, Heavy Support, Lords of War, Structure and Flyer), I'm acutally not sure if I have the real translation in case of Core, Close Support or Heavy Support because in German the categories are called "Standard", "Sturm" und "Unterstützung". Those are losly our Leader, Battleline, Behemoth, Artillery, others.

Now to the article. The Core Keyword they want to give is not restricted to the units in the core section as it looks like when reading the article, instead units of multiple Sections will get the core keyword (the mentioned Terminators which are Elite, Bike Squads which are Close Support).

The point of the Core Keyword is to restrict Abilities and Strategems (which are basicly our Command Abilities, but not bound to a hero).

At the moment, looking at the article it is basicly a restriction (as all keywords were before), who will be the target of an Ability. So, as a example I take a Bloodthirster of Insensate Rage. If his Command Ability would be changed that only units with the Core Keyword would be target, he, other Bloodthirsters or Heralds wouldn't be Target anymore. Instead for example only Bloodletters, Bloodcrusehers and Flesh Hounds (if those would have the Core Keyword).

Looking at AoS, many Abilities and Command Abilities are already restricted to a subfaction, so the factionrules or corerules are often the part that are not restricted to one subfaction.

So now coming back to AoS and the idea above.

It's basicly a blessing and a curse at the same time that AoS Lore is quite open in case of their armies. The closest thing of how an army of a faction should look like are basicly the Battalions.

If GW would for example change that some Abilites/Command Abilites would only affect "Battleline units" it would make more sence to take them, bringing the army maybe closer to the point how it should look like.

After we already have this thread:

 

 

Edited September 17, 2020 by EMMachine
Wrong link

[RuneBrush]

35 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

I'm acutally not sure if I have the real translation in case of Core, Close Support or Heavy Support because in German the categories are called "Standard", "Sturm" und "Unterstützung".

Your translation is almost there for Battlefield Role, it's Troop, Fast Attack & Heavy Support 😊.  You also have Dedicated Transport, but they're a special case

Your translation is certainly superior to mine into German by the way!

[EMMachine]

5 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Your translation is almost there for Battlefield Role, it's Troop, Fast Attack & Heavy Support 😊.  You also have Dedicated Transport, but they're a special case

I actually have the english books for 7-8 Edition but the time I was playing the game was more 4-6 where I used the german books, so I never really memoriesed the english terms. The "Close Support" and "Heavy Support" could actually have been a Space Marine Lore thing how Space Marines are ordered into in the companies.

9 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Your translation is certainly superior to mine into German by the way!

The reason is most likely that someone from germany has more reason to post in an english community than an english speaker to post in a german community.

Sometimes I have some translation hickups so I hope it is understandable what I write.

[Carnelian]

I don't understand what having Core as a keyword would bring to AoS. Surely the rules writers can already limit what buffs apply to which units just by using targeted keywords that already exist?

[EMMachine]

7 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

I don't understand what having Core as a keyword would bring to AoS. Surely the rules writers can already limit what buffs apply to which units just by using targeted keywords that already exist?

They exist partly. Most of the time some of the Heroes have the same keyword as the units. If we take the example with the bloodthirster from above and change the keyword to Bloodletter, we would buff Bloodletters, all Heralds, Blood Crushers as well as  the Skullcannon. If we ant this, it's okay, but if we don't want this we need another keyword to help us out.

In some cases GW doesn't really know what they want to do with the Keywords, we acutally see this with the ruling that subtitels on the warscroll are ignored in Battalions. In case of the Tzaangor Enlightened you can put the models on Foot or on Disk into the Battalion that only has the warscrolltitle in it, while they simply could have been used the Keyword in such cases instead of putting a hole into the description how the using of the Warscoll Title works.

In case of 40k it is the problem that buffs mostly work on all units of that faction, so a Space Marine Lieutenant buffs a Captain, a Tank or whatever has the same faction, so we have characters hitting on 2+ rerolling 1.

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Carnelian said:

I don't understand what having Core as a keyword would bring to AoS. Surely the rules writers can already limit what buffs apply to which units just by using targeted keywords that already exist?

I assume that Heroes that buff in Aura coudn't buff some monsters. Some deathstars that were partially being alive by some buffs shared between them would need to addapt and at the same time, that means that some Mosnter Warscrolls could be buffed without being broken for some crazy interactions.

I suppose that that all of this things could "create" new roles too.

[Neverchosen]

I think this would work in the future after the model lines have expanded, but as of now certain armies are so small already that any further restrictions would result in those armies being more homogenous on the tabletop.  

I do think the idea of Heroes not buffing themselves does feel pretty nicely flavoured. 

Edited September 17, 2020 by Neverchosen

[mojojojo101]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

I assume that Heroes that buff in Aura coudn't buff some monsters. Some deathstars that were partially being alive by some buffs shared between them would need to addapt and at the same time, that means that some Mosnter Warscrolls could be buffed without being broken for some crazy interactions.

I suppose that that all of this things could "create" new roles too.

Couldnt you do exactly the same by hust adding a sentence at the end of the ability saying that units with the MONSTER or HERO keyword do not benefit from this ability.

Fixed the 'problem' without having g to rewrite and restructure the entire game.