View Full Version : If Core units were not compulsory

18-06-2009, 18:42
I was pondering this question a little while ago - if I didn't have to take Core units, would that affect how many I used? With my Orcs & Goblins and Ogre Kingdoms, the answer is a firm no, since in the context of the army the Core is so useful. Not that Special and Rare have their uses as they provide me with unit types I can't get otherwise, but Core is the Core of the army.

With my Warriors of Chaos, on the other hand, I am less certain. With what I have now I can't realistically field an army without a decent number of Core units, but I can't say I build my army around the Core the way I do with my other armies.

So the question to you is this:

If you did not have to take Core unit, would it affect how many you took?

Please answer according to the army you play most nowadays and use the option that you most agree with.

It would also be interesting if you would state what you voted and which army you play.

18-06-2009, 18:47
It would be the same for me, or at least very close.

I primarily play Dark Elves and I always find 3 units of Dark Riders and 3 units of Harpies useful. :cheese:

Lord Malorne
18-06-2009, 18:47
With my WoC I would likely field 2 units of marauder cavalry at almost any point level and no more (hounds are of course not counted as core) for my wood elves and O&G's I would still use them and am more than likely to field more then the minimum required, Undead I would use minimum.

18-06-2009, 18:48
For Dogs of War, the Core is central to it's composition. RoR can substitute for these units, so for the slot stakes, we're actually well placed. Uncommon, non-human units are placed in special, which are useful, but we could live without. The exception would be the Rare slots, where we have access to war-machines.

lord mekri
18-06-2009, 18:52
i would likely continue using as much core as i do now for all my armies. i tend to go 3-5 core for them as it is. they are where you get the bodies to bulk up your army, and guard you heroes. plus a nice center of core troops makes your force look like an army, and not some crack swat team.
if you didnt have to take core, we'd be back in 5th edtion. heroes, monsters, elite troops... oh crap we really are rehashing herohammer, arent we?

18-06-2009, 19:09
I mainly play Dark Elves.... spearmen, good block and good for sacrificing, crossbows, excellent shooting, dark riders - awesome all round fast cav... and harpies dont count, but i still take em for march blocking and warmachine huntin'...

I'd still take em all!

18-06-2009, 19:14
Core choices are the core of nearly any army (hence the name). My core units are always the heart of my armies.

18-06-2009, 19:20
With my Vampires depending on how I'm setting up the army I would probably field one of my mandatory cores and use the other 160 points on something else. There's lots of times when I'm forced into taking 10 ghouls or skeletons that I have no real use for.

18-06-2009, 19:22
I would keep the same amount, with my Lizards I wouldn't have enough troops if I didn;t take core.

Also I love my 2 big blocks of spear Saurus.

18-06-2009, 19:24
No, I would probably field fewer. In my Chaos army, I have two blocks of Marauders because I think filling all the core with Horsemen is a bit excessive, and I believe blocks need to be fielded in pairs. The third choice is Horsemen. If I could get away with only using two cores, however, I'd probably ditch the Marauders alltogether and use two Horsemen units.

My Dark Elf army is based around blocks of Witch Elves, with three units of Dark Riders filling out the cores. If I had a choice, I'd drop one. Two does the job well enough.

Finally, in my Tomb Kings army, I'd give my skeletal left hand to be able to ditch the mostly clueless skeletons in regards to more of the rock hard specials. ;)

18-06-2009, 19:36
I like lizardmen core choices so I would prob keep it the same..

18-06-2009, 19:38
If core was not mandatory, I'd probably take one less block of horrors... maybe. I've never considered this possibility.

If core was not mandatory, my dream of playing a Khainite Dark Elf army would be that much closer.

18-06-2009, 19:39
IMO a lot of the army's theme and feeling comes from it's core. I usually field more then 3 units with all my armies and would do so as well if they weren't compulsory.

18-06-2009, 19:48
Ogres - Same amount although I would take more Gnoblars if they dropped the 1 per unit of Bulls and 1 +1 per Hunter restrictions.

Wood Elves - Not as likely. While Glade Guard and Dryads are very nice Core units, if I could take Wardancers, Wild Riders and Waywatchers instead I would likely go that route.

The things a Dryad can do, Wardancers do better. The things Glade Guard and Scouts do Waywatchers do better. :)

18-06-2009, 19:56
Depends on the gaming environment. Ideally, I like the idea of big blocks of troops and cavalry, supported by other stuff.

But that's not the way they've been writing 7th edition, and that's not the way the game is being played. As it stands, my old favorites (clanrats, Empire state troops, etc.) are more of a liability than anything -- just points to be given away in the current environment of WFB.

So, no, if Core was not required in WFB7th, why would I take anything but STanks and heroes, with maybe a bit of support (a few pistoliers or cannons)?

18-06-2009, 20:11
Interesting question.

For my lizzies, there won't be a change. Saurus blocks with spears are amazing, it's not like there's a better unit for that same purpose. For skinks skirmishers, chameleons could be seen as an upgrade, but one of the main reasons skinks are nice is because they're pretty cheap. So no difference there.

My woodies usually won't change too much either. Tough expensive, the core units are still the cheapest stuff in the list. Playing a pure elven army, numbers can be pretty important since all of it is pretty soft to say the least.
However, I would like to play a pure Wardancer army one day...

18-06-2009, 20:14
I am having disturbing memories of 5th edition...

18-06-2009, 20:19
o&g. voted #1

i wouldn't take less core unless the limitations on special and rare were lifted or eased. in that case, it would be easier (or rather, possible) to "take less core" with o&g.

18-06-2009, 20:21
The question is really the restricittion on special and rare. I would totally take more of those if they weren't restricted.
Since I max out on those and field core secondary, I would probably not use more core (my latest army is different though, lots of core, but they're lizardmen)

18-06-2009, 20:22
For the most part, my armies wouldn't change much if core was not compulsory. Most of my armies are very core-heavy anyway.

Not having compulsory core would allow me to play some more...specialized....armies when I want a change of pace. Actually, this would be more involved with removing the special/rare restrictions, come to think of it. In my armies, I can minimize the points spent on core to get the required # of units while keeping them effective.
Perhaps I want an Ogre or Dwarf heavy DoW army, for example.

18-06-2009, 20:45
I'd have to say that I would still use atleast 2 units of marauder horseman. However, remove those from core and I would certainly vote differently!

18-06-2009, 22:41
Empire: At 2k points, I'd fill up all my special and rare choice, and still have points left for core! :P Huntsmen/Knights and at least 1 unit of state troops, I'd definitly have the 3 core...

WOC: Marauder Horsmen are almost essential, Warhounds (prolly don't count) are pretty handy, Marauders add numbers, which is important in the chaos army, and Chaos Warriors are almost as good as Chosen anyway.

You might see stranger lists out there, but for the most part core choices have their place within an army IMHO. Even today though, people can still spend maybe 200 points filling up those choices with as little as possible, so it doesn't really make that much of a difference. For VC and Demons though.... :P

18-06-2009, 22:51
As a tomb king players my regular army has 5+ units of core and so really wouldn't be affected that much.

That being said, the possibility of not having to take core units would open up new types of armies that would be interesting to try out.

18-06-2009, 23:04
No core? With my gobs? Unless you let me take as many specials as I want, well, no, can't do :p And no matter what, I need my wolves.

18-06-2009, 23:11
High Elves couldn't survive without specials.

19-06-2009, 00:07
Didnt vote because my opinion is that i wouldnt play that set of rules at all!! :p

Cats Laughing
19-06-2009, 00:09
My High Elves would drop the core choice(s) I take now like a hot potato. I'd so much rather spend my points on specials and rares.

I'd probably also field an O&G all squigs and pump wagons list for sh$%s and giggles if I didn't have to buy the NG core blocks...

But for other armies, there would need to be increases on special and rare slots for me to get rid of core.

19-06-2009, 00:53
If core were not compulsory, My DE would probably field infinite harpy hordes to support the army, rather than my compulsory core choices.

19-06-2009, 00:59
Ogres: I don't think my list would change at all. There are times when I don't even use a single Special slot in the whole army.

Lizards: I would probably still take the three I mainly take now. A block of 18 Saurus and 2 small skirmishing skinks.

19-06-2009, 01:23
If you did not have to take Core unit, would it affect how many you took?

Not at all, regardless of army. I build my armies almost exclusively based on background considerations. For instance, Skaven armies always feature lots of clanrats so even if they were not obligatory I would still field lots of them. Same with Dwarfs. Dwarf warriors are the mainstay of the army in all published literature, thus they will feature in any army I build of them. This would apply to all armies I field, even if the core choices aren't optimal. Whatever army I play I would take whatever was appropriate to the background. Customization to me comes after meeting background considerations.

Note that if I am attending 'Ardboyz or some other "Bring the Cheese" tournament then all bets are off :).

Cheers, Gary

19-06-2009, 01:50
For wood elves, I have yet to field an army with minimum core choices. All their (standard) core choices are at the very least decent.

For WoC, I generally take and would otherwise take 3 units of core troops in 2k. 2 units of horsemen is essential IMO and at least 1 unit of marauders to bunker my mages is also needed. Not to mention the hounds...

Necromancy Black
19-06-2009, 01:56
I play lizardmen so my core is Saurus with spears and skink skirmishers. Of course I'm not dropping them :p

19-06-2009, 02:01
It really depends on the army... for some armies it would stay about the same (ogres, WE, orcs,...) while other armies that have super elites would see the points moving to their direction (vampires, dwarfs,...)

19-06-2009, 02:02
With my Mono-Slaanesh Daemons I typically run 2x 15 Daemonette units and 1x 10 Daemonette unit. If I wasn't forced to take the 3rd unit in 2k games, I would absorb the smaller unit into the others and run 2x 20 Daemonettes.

With my Warriors, I would probably keep my Core the same, as I like the hitting power of Horsemen, and Hounds have a ton of uses.

With Wood Elfs, I'd probably keep everything the same, maybe drop 1 unit of Glade Guard

19-06-2009, 02:04
I'd still field what I do now being a Dark Elf player, Corsairs and Dark Riders are vital. And the same with my High Elves, I need those blocks of Spears.

I could though see myself chucking out my Skeletons for more Grave Guard and Black Knights.

19-06-2009, 02:23
Well since only the restrictions on core are removed (special and rare are still capped) then it wouldn't effect any of my armies. My Wood Elves are already maxed for Special and Rare in most cases since I like my small elite units. My other army is Bretonnians, and really, once you have 3 - 6 Pegasi, you don't need anything else.

A lot of people seem to think that Rare and Special will be unlimited. This isn't so, if ya pay attention ;)

19-06-2009, 02:36
No. I play WOC and VC at the moment and I'm happy with the core in each.

19-06-2009, 04:26
As BoCs nothing would change really. Chariots are core anyway, beast herds are useful as are hounds. Minotaurs being the special choice that is chosen more than once can also be made into core anyway. I've always found Beasts to be core heavy.

With vampires I'd probably lower the core I had, but only by a small amount. As Ixquic said, I find myself buying a small unit of undead just because I have to even though the points would be better off somewhere else.

19-06-2009, 04:59
I play High Elves, Brettonians and OnG. I would still take a moderate ammount of Core troups. One of the most beautiful parts of the game is having huge blocks of troups on the table.

19-06-2009, 05:01
As an Empire player my entire army sometimes consists of core, minus characters or a war machine or 15.

It's really, really easy to fill core with empire. 2-3 units of shooters or nilla knights and you're done.

19-06-2009, 05:45
hmmm well seeing how all my armies got useful core i will say that id field the same amount

For daemons:
Horrors awesome.
Plaguebearers aweseome
Furies -cool

Dark elves
Spearmen - ok
dark riders good
harpies great

clanrats - pretty much a staple :P

Gorbad Ironclaw
19-06-2009, 06:46
For my Dark Elves and VC armies, not really. I bring more than the compulsory core choices anyway because I actually like there core units and find them useful.

However with High Elves if I didn't had to bring core choices I probably never would. All the interesting useful stuff is in the other categories, they are the one army I feel really got shafted with core choices.

Literally every other army I've made up lists for I've wanted to at least take some core. Looking at the High Elf list it's more like then I'll take my mandatory two units of archers and move on to the interesting parts of the book.

19-06-2009, 07:06
Without mandatory core units, you have 5th edition.

19-06-2009, 07:15
Fore me all it would change is having to take 3 core units at 2k. Although I do play empire, and my provence is Stirland, so I'm bound to have lots of not very well armed troops. I'm using lots of archers (which are core) so its not really much off a difference. Now what about the special, and rare choices? (for your average army [excluding high elves]) Say core is 0+ special is 1-5 and rare is 1-3. Now with this in mind, I'd probably run 2 units of Outriders, a unit of Goldswords, 2 cannons, a STank, and a heckfire rocketbattery. I still think core is a major part of the empire, and I'd never go into batter with out my River Patrol, and Jeathjack huntsmen.

19-06-2009, 07:29
playing dark elves i often take a few amount of power dice umm i mean spearmen but the rest is filled up with dark riders i dont find the spearmen much useful for anything except for bating frenzy or just sending units off to nowhere land i would very much dig it if we had the whole 2 core unit requirment like HE

19-06-2009, 07:34
It very much depends on what army, like some have said.

My Bretonnians have several units of KotR and some Man-at-Arms and Bowmen.

My Empire and Dwarfs don't leave home without some (actually a lot of) infantry.

With my High Elves, I'm not so certain. I haven't played them in quite some time. Since Silver Helms have become Special, I would probably say fewer. But since HE don't need 3 Core in 2000 points, only 2, this should affect much.

Nephilim of Sin
19-06-2009, 07:42
I would still have the same, I would just view them more as 'cannon-fodder'. Playing Orcs, I tend to go large on Core choices, since only a few of our special and rare choices can be expensive (same when I play all gobbos, or a mixture of both).

With Dwarves, I love Longbeards and Thunderers, and it just doesn't seem like a 'real' Dwarf army to me without a unit of Warriors. I could basically say the same about every army I have.

Now, if what we were referring to was something more along the lines of 4th/5th, where you had a lot more choice, then I think things would depend on the way I wanted to theme my army, because you could truly do that in previous editions.

The Red Scourge
19-06-2009, 07:59
This would depend highly on the army - and points level. My WoC would probably like to get rid of their horsemen for sacrificial dogs instead - so many more skulls to give to the skull lord.

My Wood Elves would laugh at any such suggestion - and then have a love-in in a bed of flowers :)

My VC would wonder how to make a shambling skeletal horde without shambling skeletal skeletons... And then progress to become a spectral horde and go "wooo-ooooh!" in the night.

19-06-2009, 08:20
Dwarf warriors are solid enough as with the thunderers and Quarrellers

With O&G again cant go wrong with Orcs 6pts choppa and shield!


Warlord Ghazak Gazhkull
19-06-2009, 09:29
I would still field the same amount of core( I play OnG), I like the core.


Da GoBBo
19-06-2009, 10:39
My current O&G list uses 12 core units allready, my black orc list 3+ core units at 1000+ points, so no. If I could field more special choices though I would drop some cores in my current builds. You just can't seem to have enough special units in an O&G army. I wish you could fill rare choices with specials.

With my wood elves I use 5 cores at 1000+ points and do fine with my special choises. I haven't touched their rares so far.

19-06-2009, 10:48
Voted No

Brets -> 1 put 2 units of knights errant, 2 x KotR, 1 x questing knights and a unit of pegs in a 2K army so why give up my (relatively) cheep knights

WoC -> Cheep Static res units (4 point maurader) or flankers

Lizards -> theres a reason why the put the points of skinks up. :P

19-06-2009, 12:50
I voted no aswell. I play O&G so Orcs are pretty integral to most of my battleplans.

I do think however considering how many useful options there are in the special section that if I could take as many special units as I wanted it would reduce the amount of core I took in most games.

Gazak Blacktoof
19-06-2009, 13:33
I've been using my tomb kings most recently and I voted that I'd maintain my current levels of core choices.

I usually fill my special and rare choices with any army I play so I couldn't take any less core even if I wanted to. However, even with unlimited rare and special choices I think I'd still want to take core units because they can perform in a number of roles that the other units can't. Skeleton warriors provide the only "low" cost option for large numbers of wounds and the only way to get a reasonable number of bow shots.

Chariots are also a core choice and provide the only real long range charge deterrent as the "heavy" horse are a complete joke.

19-06-2009, 13:38
Voted No.
I like my core. There what differenciates my army from others. Elites tend do act the same with every army...

19-06-2009, 13:59
I'd run big blocks of GG instead of ghouls/skeletons in my VC army. I'd load up on stegadons and not worry about the 3 obligatory skink skimisher units in my lizardmen army.

Pawksatawny Phil
19-06-2009, 14:06
I voted no.

My VC need the static CR in order to survive.

19-06-2009, 14:07
Chaos mortals - I would likely take 1 less core
Wood elves - I would have 3 or more
Empire - I would have likely much more then 3

Overall I dont think it would affect that much

19-06-2009, 17:33
I was going to say it depends on the army and go into describing how it looks like for each of my armies, but realised answer is no - for different reasons. Some armies, like Bretonnians and especially Chaos Dwarfs are too dependent on their cores. Artillery battery supported by bull centaurs and slave orks or group of questors with some trebuchets, squires and single units of Pegasi, Grail Knights and pilgrims won't work without Chaos Dwarfs or core Knights. My other armies (Orcs and Goblins and Dark Elves) could work wihout core choices, but have cheap core fast cavalary, too good not to take it.

If I were playing High Elves answer would probably look differently.

19-06-2009, 17:52
I think this is an interesting question, but as you pointed out, it really depends on the army. With my VC, the core is a vital part of the battle plan and the theme, and is very useful. With my WoC, I find myself feeling the same as you. I take them because it is competitive to field them, but do not build my army around them like I would my VC.

Since we are limited to only our main army, my answer was No. But if considered all my armies, the answer could change.

"-playing khorne since 2005, now with 100% more magic! thanks GW."

LOL Thanks IkuTurso!

Sheena Easton
19-06-2009, 20:26
I'm a firm believer that the core of the army should be the basic troopers otherwise known as the "core" troops and be supported by the more elite troops (Special & Rare) so I'd probably use the same.

However, if I went back to playing with High Elves, I'd make the all Reaver army I've always wanted to make but never got round to.

Von Wibble
19-06-2009, 22:28
High elves - definately would lose core. I might take some spearmen though.

Wood elves/dark elves/empire - little effect. Core are easily filled out and for the elven armies very useful. For empire they provide shooting from handgunners, a good base of infantry from swordsmen, and archers and vanilla knights have their uses.

Tomb Kings - No change. Skeletons and chariots are very good, and although often considered a bad choice I do have uses for light horse also.

Tbh unless the non compulsory core included no limits on specials I can't see any armies except Daemons and High Elves changing in any way. Maybe a Pestilens themed skaven force with lots of plague monk blocks.

20-06-2009, 00:04
For my wood elves I wouldn't change at all, especially not if we didn't get additional special/rare slots as well. Wood Elves have very good core.

In fact, I can only imagine a few armies where I might skimp on core: High Elves, Daemons, WoC... off the top of my head that's probably it.

For high elves I might still take archers, but maybe not.

For daemons, it depends on the army. If going WAAC combat focused I'd probably take no core at all and just load up on flesh hounds and flamers.

For WoC, I might still take marauder horse but I'd be tempted to just load up on a ton of chaos knights and doggies. Again, for a WAAC list.

For friendly lists, I wouldn't skimp on core for any list.

Chicago Slim
20-06-2009, 00:46
Yeah, agreed on High Elves, only because they have such limited Core options (literally, archers or spears).

For Beasts, O&G, even WE I'd stick to my current Core plans-- I tend to never field the same army twice, though, so having versatility in the Core choices makes me happy.

20-06-2009, 02:26
I would completely ditch core. I would run minotaurs and a beast lord.

20-06-2009, 15:48
As a HE player I'd ditch it all (GW basically admitted the issue by reducing the requirement in the first place).

TK I don't think it would effect my choice, some times I wish I had another special slot, but normally I can build the army I want.

I don't think it it would make any difference to the Dwarfs at all.

Spike Fiend
20-06-2009, 16:05
I'd most possibly field as many as I do now (more than necessary). It makes the army look more 'realistic', if you can say it in that way...

20-06-2009, 16:47
With my empire army I'd take a couple of small knight units and leave the rest of core untouched. Fill the rest with artillery, cavalry and highly mobile characters. Massive outrider units of death would make an appearance.

Recent army books have been terrible for empire infantry, they're just useless cattle for the slaughter now... not powerful enough to kill much, way too expensive to make a horde army out of.

20-06-2009, 16:50
For my orcs i sometimes field nothing but core units, as well as characters of course :)

But you do get a choice of eight core units, including two light cavalry options

20-06-2009, 17:26
My Bretonnian list wouldn't be affected, I love my core.
Lizardmen probably wont be affected much either because the core has nice cost effective infantry.

20-06-2009, 20:48
Well, my VC list would probabl feature alot more Black Knights and Wraiths, lol.

My Daemons... well I've always thought a army of Seekers would look great on the battlefield ;)