PDA

View Full Version : Core units in fantasy!



King Arthur
06-06-2014, 22:45
Core units in fantasy are and always have been a vital part of our armies especially with the dawn of the horde. I was wondering whether you considered core a tax? Why you think this? And what army and models do you play with so as to maximize their efficiency e.g. I in all my armies use core as a the base of my army often my armies are based around them. My warriors are always based around a couple of units of halberd khorne warriors, my wood elves a block of glade guard and my Brets the cavalry lots of core cavalry, almost in all my armies core will make up to at least 50% of my army.

Ultimate Life Form
06-06-2014, 23:14
It really depends on the army. With Bretonnians and WoC it's easy to go heavy on Core and have a lot of fun. I do the same for Skaven. However a lot of books have rather weak/overcosted Core choices whose power is vastly overshadowed by the juicy Special and Rare choices. Or, if we take Lizardmen or Tomb Kings for example, there are actually only a few Core Units. A bit boring, especially at larger games. So there are good reasons to Keep Core at 25%.

CountUlrich
06-06-2014, 23:18
Depends on your army. Vc/tk core is absolutely a tax, empire state troops are a tax but knights are strong. Dwarves very strong core. But of cojrse you don't see it as a tax playing warriors. Now go build a vc list that is 50% core and still competitive ...

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

bigbiggles
06-06-2014, 23:19
Vampires definitely have a core tax. Everything is just tar pits or chaff

EvanM
06-06-2014, 23:22
a lot of people literally divide their points by 4 and say hmm this is how much core I should have..

special units cost more per model, sure, but its usually worth the margin. As WoC, Brettonia, dwarves, Empire(ONLY with knights), skaven, and a few others, core is essential and good.

other armies hate it. comparing say high elf spearmen to phoenix guard solely by pts will make you cry. Thats why people who comp their armies usually minimize core.

I wish core was more of a fun include than an imperative. Like space marines, do you really want to play without tactical squads?? anyway.

Orchid
06-06-2014, 23:51
For my high elves I feel it's more of a tax, mostly because I love everything we have in special, whereas core-wise I don't really care.Lothern seaguard are kind of cool looking I guess...and Ellaryion reavers are good chaff, aside from that, eh...

Spiney Norman
07-06-2014, 00:41
Like everyone else here it depends on he army.
In my orcs and goblins I often have in excess of 50% of my points tied up in core (thanks to savage Bigguns being there), but in both my tomb kings and wood elves I try to keep as close to the 25% as possible.

Particularly with wood elves the gap between effectiveness of core units and special/rare choices is huge, it would be nice to want to field more core units in those armies, but there's just no incentive from the way the rules are designed.

Ultimate Life Form
07-06-2014, 00:47
Particularly with wood elves the gap between effectiveness of core units and special/rare choices is huge, it would be nice to want to field more core units in those armies, but there's just no incentive from the way the rules are designed.

Ha, now I finally recognize your avatar! :p I thought it was some kind of mangled brown mass, but it is a Wild Rider from Mars! Very pretty! :skull:

Ramius4
07-06-2014, 00:49
Core units in fantasy are and always have been a vital part of our armies especially with the dawn of the horde. I was wondering whether you considered core a tax? Why you think this? And what army and models do you play with so as to maximize their efficiency e.g. I in all my armies use core as a the base of my army often my armies are based around them. My warriors are always based around a couple of units of halberd khorne warriors, my wood elves a block of glade guard and my Brets the cavalry lots of core cavalry, almost in all my armies core will make up to at least 50% of my army.

Let's put it this way. I'll play Warriors, and purchase an entire Core army, with only a Hero as my General. YOU play an entire Core army of say... Tomb Kings or Vampire Counts, and I'll let you spend as much as you like on your characters and we'll see how it goes. I guarantee I'd crush you.

In short, not all Core is good. And they're not even close to being created equal between armies (all things being relative).

EvanM
07-06-2014, 02:44
do you think its a sign of a balanced army book edition (or just a balanced army) if the core section is good enough not to be a tax?

for instance, if Lothern sea guard were special i doubt we'd see any of them running around.

Ramius4
07-06-2014, 02:53
do you think its a sign of a balanced army book edition (or just a balanced army) if the core section is good enough not to be a tax?

I'm not sure what the distinction is that you're trying to make there.

What it really boils down to is poor internal balance. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter much what you field. And while perfect internal balance isn't possible when there are 15 very different armies out there, very very good balance is.

Plenty of other wargames out there get it right. Why can't GW seem to?

I think their biggest obstacle is an unwillingness to release updates to existing books. Rather than have a central website where the design team can post up minor tweaks to address existing balance issues, they seem content to let things be until a book is redone.

All that being said, at least 8th is nearly as bad balance-wise as it has historically been. There's very few major complaints, but we're still a long way from what I would call very good internal balance.

EvanM
07-06-2014, 03:12
I think they should put more energy and time (and money) into reworking the rules all at once, like literally write all the new books at one time and test them. Thats fricken hard, i know, but i think the players would appreciate it.

Sexiest_hero
07-06-2014, 03:50
I don't think of Core as a tax, but i never go over min if I have too, no matter how good or op the core is, I like monsters and heroes that ride monsters and even heroes who are monsters. Core is just there to make my army look like an awesome army and fight the other armies core.

EvanM
07-06-2014, 03:55
interesting point. Also it matters how comp you want your army to be.

Alltaken
07-06-2014, 12:53
Yes, for my LM, since I run mostly sauri, its a $ thing. The higher point I go, the bigger my saurus units get.

From my servoskull

danny-d-b
07-06-2014, 13:17
I do and don't

empire knights are pritty good, sadly halbaders have gone from o.k to to relient on buffs to function, which are to easly stopped

TheLionReturns
07-06-2014, 13:59
Depends on the player and the army I guess. I actually never have any trouble filling core with my wood elves. A couple of units of hagbane Glade Guard are the first thing on my list with wood elves. While the other core aren’t necessarily auto includes for me, I do value a ranked unit of some type, with Eternal Guard my preferred option while I find a unit or two of glade riders quite useful and interesting to use. Dryads are the only unit I have struggled to find a use for, but that is simply because I find Eternal Guard better.

SpanielBear
07-06-2014, 14:08
I've ended up using dryads like an expensive version of skaven slaves- a big block of troops that gets in the way and the enemy has to waste time getting rid of them. They're the cheapest unit we have (apart from un-shielded eternal guard), but they have just enough damage potential to make an opponent notice them, plus T4 and a ward to help them survive longer. For every dryad that dies, a Glade Guard lives, and that's a pretty fair trade in terms of long-term game value.

If I hadn't already owned 24 of them and had some eternal guard instead though, I don't think I'd be using them.

Minty
07-06-2014, 14:31
One of the reasons I sold my High elves was the 'core tax'. I hated the fact that they simply have no apealing Core and that it was influencing my list building.

Core units should be the core of the army, the mainstay and the majority. They should be the most iconic and central part of the army with other things hung on for a little spice.

The armies I have are all built that way.

My Bretonnians are bases around four to five lances of Knights of the Realm. Pegasus Knights as the only Special and no Rares.

My Wood Elves are built around four blocks of Glade Guard and a couple of units of Glade riders. No Special at all and sometimes a Treeman or two as the only Rares.


Depends on your army. Vc/tk core is absolutely a tax...


Vampires definitely have a core tax. Everything is just tar pits or chaff

And my Vampire army is built on the back of two units of fifty Skeletons and two units of fifty Zombies. Hexwraiths as the only Special, very occasionally Blood Knights as the only Rare.

Why? Because that's what a Vampire Counts army is, legions of corpses. They aren't a tax, they're the point of the army.

If the Core is not the point of the army then I've really no interest in that army, I think.

Those are 2k or 2.5 k lists. Under 2k my armies are typically entirely core and characters.


Core only because a tax if it's not fun (Q.V. High Elves). If people could break away from the idea of points-efficiency win-at-all-costs maximum-optimisation I think they'd have a lot more fun and armies would look a lot more like armies.

Alltaken
07-06-2014, 14:52
Minty, cant you play reavers and silver helms for your HE?

From my servoskull

CountUlrich
07-06-2014, 15:38
Minty, cant you play reavers and silver helms for your HE?

From my servoskull

This. And minty, if you are playing almost entirely core armies with VC you are not very competitive with that force.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

SpanielBear
07-06-2014, 15:43
Minty, cant you play reavers and silver helms for your HE?

From my servoskull

I dunno Alltaken, internet wisdom keeps telling me that my glade-guard are out-priced and out-shot by High Elf archers in any match-up. Which given how good my glade guard are, must mean that High Elf archers are pure distilled awesome-sauce right?

...

Right?

(No they are not. Wood Elves rule!)

Epicene
07-06-2014, 16:13
High Elves have awesome core choices. They are definitely not a tax.

Vampire Counts might not have the best core choices, but you have magic to strengthen them. I don't think it would be a fair assessment to look at them as a singular thing away from magic.

I find Empire State Troops to be a chore, not only to paint, but to game with as they often end up feeling like expensive Goblins.

EvanM
07-06-2014, 16:29
thats cuz state troops are overcosted.

4 pts base (compare them to a clanrat without shield or spear)
+1 for shield (optional)
+1 for ws 4
+1 for halberd
spear for free (exchange with hand weapon, even trade because of parrying)

so spearmen would be 4-5 pts
halberds 5 pts
swordsmen 6 pts

the "extra" point here is that you pay 1 pt for being able to take detachments....... which is no where near worth 1 pt. detachments were better in 7th. all empire infantry needs -1 pt, militia need -2 (omg they are useless), archers fine, greatswords need either -2 pts or S4 or A2, flaggellants need t4, handgunners and crossbows need -2 pts (they are good, for what they do, but they cost as much as a lvl 2 wizard in a full unit).

Alltaken
07-06-2014, 16:55
I don't think it would be a fair assessment to look at them as a singular thing away from magic.

I think you're quite wrong there. Its a very unstable phase, and as much as you can buff yourself your enemy can buff himself too. So no its totally an unfair assesment

From my servoskull

EvanM
07-06-2014, 17:04
any unit that "needs magic" to succeed is really not balanced right in the army book.

Urgat
07-06-2014, 17:17
any unit that "needs magic" to succeed is really not balanced right in the army book.

Got to agree with that one.

Generally speaking, OnG core is ok, you can do well even if you take loads. The problem is more internal: big'uns are superior to everything else. Savage orcs are superior to regular orcs, night gobs to common gobs. Wolf riders to spider riders would be true too, but spider riders are an awkward unit, which would occasionnally be better than wolves, so I'll say they're even. What gets me is that some unequality is just there "because". Night goblins can swap their gear for free, common gobs have to pay for it, just "because". Savage orcs are so cheap compared to regular orcs (when you compare effectiveness) just "because". What baffles me is the "because". Because it's obviously on purpose that night gobs get gear for free but common gobs don't. So that "because" probably has a meaning behind it. But what? What kind of logic will drive GW to make night gobs more desirable than common gobs? Selling models? On what basis? It'll work for savages, they were new, I can accept that. But gobs? Common gob minis are ancient, you'd think they might want to get rid of the stuff? Night gobs, so many people already got them because of BfSP, they won't sell more just because they made them better, really. Obviously no new common gob minis are coming in the close future, so they could have gotten rid of all the old kits over the course of 8th ed, and nobody would have really complained if a new kit was realeased for 9th ed, even if they got better rules as a form of "encouragement". So: why? Why not just make them equal as it brings absolutely nothing? It was THE edition to make common and night gobs equal.

For my ogres, the core is just nice, besides gnobblars.
I haven't played my VC in 8th ed yet.
Chaos dwarfs are good, but they're really expensive. The fact is, the whole army is like that, it's not just core, so they're in line with the other choices I guess.

Epicene
07-06-2014, 17:20
Its part of the fluff and flavor of the army. Its something I'd take into consideration with the unit when choosing them and yes, even with the pro\cons of the magic phase.

Skeletons\Zombies are a throwaway unit you replenish with magic. Isolating that synergy is an odd argument as I've never seen a Vampire army not do it.

and I still think despite the above that Empire Troops are the worst Core in the game per point :P

theJ
07-06-2014, 19:40
As with the others, it depends on the army.
With my Dwarfs, I use a hefty core, and I'm loving it.
With my Undead, I want to use lots of core, cuz' they look incredible('cept Zombies, really wish we'd get a new kit for those*), but every time I do, I know I'm going to lose because they are just. that. bad. Maybe if the magic rules were slightly more reliable, or if necromancy merely skimmed said rules rather than bow down to them, I could get them to work "as intended"(endless resilience from constantly rising back up again, slowly grinding down their foes). As it stands, the whole army just kinda needs rethinkin', me thinks... for instance, what if corpse carts and necromancers raised the dead as an ability rather than a spell(targetted for necromancers, passive aura for the carts), but could only affect "lesser" undead(I.E. no vampires or monstrous stuff). Would give reliability to the basic stuff without beefing up the elites to ludicrous levels.
With my High Elves... I just cry a bit every time I look at my list, and then go play some more Dwarfs. Weak, ugly and boring. The trifaila.

*Disclaimer; Technically, the Zombies do have a lot of character to them, they just have a very different character to the rest of the army - Zombies are goofy and non-serious, most else are grim and serious. The two styles do not mix very well.

Minty
07-06-2014, 20:40
Minty, cant you play reavers and silver helms for your HE?

This was under the old book. Not that Reavers ever should have been moved to Core (or Silver Helms ever should have been moved out of Core for the 7th ed book).


This. And minty, if you are playing almost entirely core armies with VC you are not very competitive with that force.


I bet I'm having 25% more fun than people who view a quarter of their army as 'tax' though.

Alltaken
07-06-2014, 21:48
This was under the old book. Not that Reavers ever should have been moved to Core (or Silver Helms ever should have been moved out of Core for the 7th ed book).




I bet I'm having 25% more fun than people who view a quarter of their army as 'tax' though.

In 8th you got both in core man

From my servoskull

Leogun_91
07-06-2014, 21:59
Play with a good deal more than 25% core in all my games (extreme cases excluded) and I have a couple of armies. I play more for friendly games then competitive play but I don't think I would change that otherwise either.

With my O&G most of my army tends to go on core.

With my Warriors of Chaos most of the army is core as well though that results in small numbers unless I bring my 60 war hounds.

With my Tombkings I tend to bring a unit each of skeletons, skeleton archers and chariots and that brings me above 25% by a good margin (even in the games when the archers and chariot units are small).

With my Skaven the majority of the army is clan rats with characters taking the rest (a brood horror amongst them).

With my Dwarfs I might come to break the trend as I currently have about 500pts of core and will get a big unit of hammerers that might not leave many pts left for 2k after characters, miners and machines. Might want a unit of Longbeards though.

With my zombie pirates it won't matter, it's not like they can win a battle unless my opponent tries to lose.

Alltaken
08-06-2014, 00:42
Well I tend to go about 25%too but its more about that I want different units in my army with different purposes now a days (I was a horde player), so I do it more about that than for tax reasons

From my servoskull

Drasanil
08-06-2014, 05:30
Why? Because that's what a Vampire Counts army is, legions of corpses. They aren't a tax, they're the point of the army.

If the Core is not the point of the army then I've really no interest in that army, I think.


Then why are you complaining about High Elf core? Doubly so given your mentality towards VC the core, which are genuinely viewed by almost everyone else as a tax. In the fluff High Elf armies tend to be rank upon rank of citizen levy backed up by rare and specialized units. 'The point' of High Elves is exactly spearmen and archers, it's a phalanx of citizen soldiers who can hand most professional armies their arses on a silver platter.

Trains_Get_Robbed
08-06-2014, 06:19
That's not true, High Elf armies sre mainly professional Csvalry and special troops and LSG. If you read deeply into the fluff (we've had numerous discussions on Ulthuan) Citizen Levies are really only used in times of force invasion or being stationed on duty at a post/watchtower.

High Elf core sucks still. The army has turned into a Cav bus with shooting elements ie; 6th ed. I'd rather have core that are similar to DE or WE then be stuck with the perpetually overpriced Spearmen, LSG and Reavers, as well as the lacking in clout Silverhelms and Archers. -I'd take GG or a Elfhalbred all day at elevated points cost, at least they'd do something.

NemoSD
08-06-2014, 06:20
Then why are you complaining about High Elf core? Doubly so given your mentality towards VC the core, which are genuinely viewed by almost everyone else as a tax. In the fluff High Elf armies tend to be rank upon rank of citizen levy backed up by rare and specialized units. 'The point' of High Elves is exactly spearmen and archers, it's a phalanx of citizen soldiers who can hand most professional armies their arses on a silver platter.

I wish I could actually field that list... massive hordes of spearelves and archers, with a handful of 10-15 man units of PG, Swordmasters, Knights, or White Lions.

Sexiest_hero
08-06-2014, 06:58
You can field whatever units you want against somebody who isn't a D bag.Just say "Lets have a fluffy battle, write up some fluff and go at it.

Drasanil
08-06-2014, 07:03
That's not true, High Elf armies sre mainly professional Csvalry and special troops and LSG. If you read deeply into the fluff (we've had numerous discussions on Ulthuan) Citizen Levies are really only used in times of force invasion or being stationed on duty at a post/watchtower.

Then you've clearly had numerous flawed discussions with regards to the matter on Ulthuan. The 8th edition book describes the militias as and I quote "the cornerstone of most Elven armies to this day." And they have been described as something similar in most books since as far back as I can remember.

The main troops are the levies, they are what makes the high elf army an army. Otherwise High Elves wouldn't have the number of 'professional' troops required to field anything approaching a proper army which was the entire point of instituting the levies in the first place. The professional cavalry are nobles, meaning they're rare, the light calvary are nobles from one province making them rarer still, and the elite cavalry are nobles from one of the least densely populated provinces making them even rarer. Similarly special troops are actually be quite rare themselves given they all play very specific and fairly limited roles in Ulthuan's society. White Lions are bodyguards for the Phoenix King and high level officials, Swordmasters are Ulthuan's equivalent of witch hunters/the inquisition, the Phoenix Guard are a religious order and the the Sisters over Averlorn are supposed to be noble born daughters of avelorn who are the everqueen's body guards.

The only standing professional army Ulthuan has are the sea guard numbering 10,000 thousand strong in the Lothern garisson + what ever else is needed for the sea ways Ulthuan controls. Everyone else is much rarer, to give you some perspective back in 5th at the height of HE cheese/power all the elite choices were 0-1. Meanwhile the showcased army back in 4/5th for high elves was nothing but spears and archers, a few bolt throwers and a prince on a dragon.


I wish I could actually field that list... massive hordes of spearelves and archers, with a handful of 10-15 man units of PG, Swordmasters, Knights, or White Lions.

Same here, and I would in a heart beat weren't the plastics for those units so terrible :(

EvanM
08-06-2014, 08:25
so someone said state troops are the worst core per point, and they are right.

even with undead you're unbreakable. Empire's troops just DO NOT measure up.
compare empire spearmen/halberds(admittedly the best)/swordsmen to units like clanrats, gobblins, orcs.... orcs are slightly more but get t4 and can be big uns, gobbos are cheap as dirt, clanrats have higher M and I for less pts (and higher LD if you assume 3 ranks).

so what the heck. no special rules and too many points.

so you cough and say what about detachments? just no. read the rules. no. unless youre retarded, detachments are bad. maybe getting those 5 man archer units but thats it.

Spiney Norman
08-06-2014, 09:46
Depends on the player and the army I guess. I actually never have any trouble filling core with my wood elves. A couple of units of hagbane Glade Guard are the first thing on my list with wood elves. While the other core arenít necessarily auto includes for me, I do value a ranked unit of some type, with Eternal Guard my preferred option while I find a unit or two of glade riders quite useful and interesting to use. Dryads are the only unit I have struggled to find a use for, but that is simply because I find Eternal Guard better.

The thing is all wood elf core units are either overcosted or have a serious drawback, glade guard are 1-2 pts more than they ought to be, dryads are overpriced by the same, eternal guard are probably costed about right, but they are still expensive for a T3 infantry unit by the time you get up to minim-effectiveness numbers (realistically 30+). Glade riders would be worth exploring if you didn't have to start them off the table.

Add to that that all the magic arrows other than hagbane are 1pt more than they should be (or 2 in the case of arcane bodkins) and even to fill your core percentage you are wasting a lot of points.

The problem is that every point above the minimum you spend on core is a point you can't spend in special or rare. Deepwood Scouts are fantastically good value compared to GG, they are essentially the same, but gain skirmish and scout (worth probably 3pts in my estimation) but are only 1pt more than glade guard. Equip them with hagbane arrows and you've got a very good unit indeed.

Overtninja
08-06-2014, 10:06
It's worth noting that in the last book WE core was some of the better units in the book, and WE players tended to pack a lot of core into their armies between GG and Dryads (which were, lets face it, bonkers for their points). Now, WE core is pretty average, but special and rare choices are fantastic, so you don't want to spend any more points on core than you have to. In particular, Dryads are no longer powerhouse skirmishers, GG are still good but now sport shooting attacks tailored to specific targets, making them less of the general threat they used to be (changes to GG longbow rule makes a large difference here as well), and EG got enough of a buff where they work well in many army builds - though once again with a specific purpose (stubborn block that likely dies to a man but holds in combat allowing counter-charges).

It really depends on whether or not there are special or rare choices worth spending the maximum allowable points on - some armies really don't have that option, aren't designed to do so, or lack compelling reasons to do so. Each army plays differently and has different strategies/play styles that it supports.

TheLionReturns
08-06-2014, 10:54
The thing is all wood elf core units are either overcosted or have a serious drawback, glade guard are 1-2 pts more than they ought to be, dryads are overpriced by the same, eternal guard are probably costed about right, but they are still expensive for a T3 infantry unit by the time you get up to minim-effectiveness numbers (realistically 30+). Glade riders would be worth exploring if you didn't have to start them off the table.

I agree with you about them being overcosted. For me though it is about valuing the ability they bring to my list and whether I can get that ability elsewhere.

Our options for ranked units are limited. S5 on wildwood rangers is nice, but I prefer the toughness of dryads or the ability to fight in woods of Eternal Guard when going for larger ranked units. I can of course see how these can be seen as undesirable if you don't want a ranked unit in your list.

Glade Guard versus Deepwood Scouts is a tough call, with scouts and skirmishers worth more than the 1 point premium. However, my Glade Guard are taken for early game shooting against enemy chaff, fast cavalry and war machines. Scouts and Skirmishers aren’t massively beneficial rules for this role so I go with the 1 point discount. Deepwood Scouts are a better deal, but scouts and skirmishers are a luxury I don’t need to pay for to fulfil this capability. I do use Deepwood Scouts but they perform a different role for me.

theshoveller
08-06-2014, 11:16
Let's put it this way. I'll play Warriors, and purchase an entire Core army, with only a Hero as my General. YOU play an entire Core army of say... Tomb Kings or Vampire Counts, and I'll let you spend as much as you like on your characters and we'll see how it goes. I guarantee I'd crush you.

In short, not all Core is good. And they're not even close to being created equal between armies (all things being relative).
*squints*

Promise you won't cry foul at my 30-wide archers with Khalida?

BirchbarktheAncient
08-06-2014, 12:50
Depends on your army. Vc/tk core is absolutely a tax, empire state troops are a tax but knights are strong. Dwarves very strong core. But of cojrse you don't see it as a tax playing warriors. Now go build a vc list that is 50% core and still competitive ...

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Toughness 4 ghouls with 2 attacks and poison are a tax????? Ok, then.....well, I don't consider my 50 Eternal Guard a tax being that they're stubborn with AP and LD 10 with the standard of discipline. Remember that core troops are always going to differ in strength from one army to the next. 80-100 empire halberdiers can wreck the blazes out of anything if used correctly. Skavenslaves can hold up the best units in the game in steadfast formation. Just because all core aren't equal doesn't mean that they are a tax. You have to know how to use them in conjunction with your other units.

CountUlrich
08-06-2014, 13:19
Toughness 4 ghouls with 2 attacks and poison are a tax????? Ok, then.....well, I don't consider my 50 Eternal Guard a tax being that they're stubborn with AP and LD 10 with the standard of discipline. Remember that core troops are always going to differ in strength from one army to the next. 80-100 empire halberdiers can wreck the blazes out of anything if used correctly. Skavenslaves can hold up the best units in the game in steadfast formation. Just because all core aren't equal doesn't mean that they are a tax. You have to know how to use them in conjunction with your other units.

At 10 points a model, with absoluty no defense, and dieing to a stiff breeze, yes ghouls are a tax. To tak them, you have to take 40, there is 400 points dropped on a core unit that is easily melted away. There is a reason that very few vc generals run ghouls.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Sexiest_hero
08-06-2014, 16:45
Well everybody ran ghouls last book and nobody does now, so they are a tax. but people look at tax as a bad thing, idk why.

Minty
08-06-2014, 18:20
Here's the crux of it, though.

And this isn't directed at any one poster, but it's a question I think is worth asking...

If you don't like the core of your army, do you in fact, like your army in any meaningful sense?

If the core, the most iconic, central and essential elements of the army simply leave you cold, why are you playing that army? Wouldn't you have more fun with an army which excites you?

If there isn't at least one unit in your Core section that you really love, then the army is probably just not for you. You should never force yourself to field units you don't really like and there's bound to be an army which you do like.

theunwantedbeing
08-06-2014, 18:27
If you don't like the core of your army, do you in fact, like your army in any meaningful sense?

I think most gamers wouldn't list a core unit as their armies "core".

Sexiest_hero
08-06-2014, 18:31
The core of the army for me is the general, the Core choice is usually the most expendable, Just like in real life!

CountUlrich
08-06-2014, 18:59
Here's the crux of it, though.

And this isn't directed at any one poster, but it's a question I think is worth asking...

If you don't like the core of your army, do you in fact, like your army in any meaningful sense?

If the core, the most iconic, central and essential elements of the army simply leave you cold, why are you playing that army? Wouldn't you have more fun with an army which excites you?

If there isn't at least one unit in your Core section that you really love, then the army is probably just not for you. You should never force yourself to field units you don't really like and there's bound to be an army which you do like.

I love my vampire counts army, and I love the look of the skeletons I field. I love dire wolves, who I feel are the best chaff in the game. I can also like having a competititve force though. And vc arent competitive if you spend too much on core.

Not to mention, my normal force:
1-2 blocks of skellys
0-1 block of zeds
Zombie bunker
Lots of wolves
10-15 black knights
naybe 5-7 hexies
Black coach
Terrorgheist
1-2 spirit hosts
Characters sprinkled around

... I love it all. I dont understand why you think that us not wanting to field anything over max core means we dont love the army ... 50% core army would have little variety, and no competitiveness, I dont get the fun you see in that.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

EvanM
08-06-2014, 20:44
okay 80-100 halberdiers are not gonna bust through anything ... first thats like 600 pts, second any "hits every model" spell will wreck them, third you need SO MANY support characters/wagons/spells to make them even start to measure up.

for the total pts cost, no, empire troops just cant beat chaos warriors, high elf spearmen (even though they complain about taking them, I'd pay 1 more pt per guy to get ASF ws4, shield, ld8, init boost, extra rank of attacks....) you see what I mean?

ugh. I hate when people patronize state troops.

Sexiest_hero
08-06-2014, 21:01
I Play vampires because I like blood knights, I play beastmen because I like Doom bulls. Some of us like heroes and big monsters. How does that make us like our army any less than people who like core units. It's not like those books are called Army book Zombie hordes, or Army book Skeleton chariots. They are named after their lord choices Vampires and tomb kings, beacues that's what people want to play.

theshoveller
08-06-2014, 21:08
Here's the crux of it, though.

And this isn't directed at any one poster, but it's a question I think is worth asking...

If you don't like the core of your army, do you in fact, like your army in any meaningful sense?

If the core, the most iconic, central and essential elements of the army simply leave you cold, why are you playing that army? Wouldn't you have more fun with an army which excites you?

If there isn't at least one unit in your Core section that you really love, then the army is probably just not for you. You should never force yourself to field units you don't really like and there's bound to be an army which you do like.
I chose the Empire precisely because it had Knights as core, plus I think Halberdiers and Handgunners are iconic.

Ultimate Life Form
09-06-2014, 03:47
I think most people would like their Core Units a lot better if at least they were useful in any way.

Sadly, the spectrum ranges from "beyond consideration" (anything with "swarm" in its name) through "well I gotta take something (any Elf Core), "I wish it weren't so grossly overpriced" (TK), "the Elite choices are basically identical only plain better" (Lizardmen) all the way to "plain overpowered" (Savage Orc Big 'Uns, Skaven Slaves).

Ramius4
09-06-2014, 03:51
okay 80-100 halberdiers are not gonna bust through anything ... first thats like 600 pts, second any "hits every model" spell will wreck them, third you need SO MANY support characters/wagons/spells to make them even start to measure up.

Well, my own experience with them is quite different than yours. Have you even tried them? Or just listening to what the "internet tells you"?

The very first thing I put on any Empire list are 3 units of 50 Halberdiers, and they do just fine. All I ever bother to 'buff' them with are 1 or 2 Warrior Priests in my armies that get deployed in the units that will see the most fighting. There are really very very few spells that will hit an entire unit. And I never rely on the wagons or Wizards to augment them, since those things are by nature, unreliable. Spend your points on more supporting units.

Empire is all about combined arms.

EvanM
09-06-2014, 06:13
i have played with them. I like 50 too, arch lector or WP in the unit.
halberdiers are totally fine for the pts, its the other infantry that arent... swordsmen should be 6, spearmen should get shields for free (essentially same as clanrat).

greatswords are too many pts as well, they are comparable mostly to dwarf warriors with GW who are 2 pts less (yes they get stubborn but thats only worth so much)

if you just take knights, halberds, demis, and some guns you can still do fine.

Clockwork
09-06-2014, 10:16
Here's the crux of it, though.

And this isn't directed at any one poster, but it's a question I think is worth asking...

If you don't like the core of your army, do you in fact, like your army in any meaningful sense?

If the core, the most iconic, central and essential elements of the army simply leave you cold, why are you playing that army? Wouldn't you have more fun with an army which excites you?

If there isn't at least one unit in your Core section that you really love, then the army is probably just not for you. You should never force yourself to field units you don't really like and there's bound to be an army which you do like.

That logic is a bit faulty, though, as many (if not most) people will have picked an army under a previous edition with a different book; only for the Core choices to change, and potentially the units themselves quite dramatically - but having already made the investment, would be unwilling to suddenly drop it.



greatswords are too many pts as well, they are comparable mostly to dwarf warriors with GW who are 2 pts less (yes they get stubborn but thats only worth so much)


Stubborn and Full Plate most definitely is. 11 points for that package seems quite reasonable.

Snake1311
09-06-2014, 10:33
The thing is all wood elf core units are either overcosted or have a serious drawback, glade guard are 1-2 pts more than they ought to be, dryads are overpriced by the same, eternal guard are probably costed about right, but they are still expensive for a T3 infantry unit by the time you get up to minim-effectiveness numbers (realistically 30+). Glade riders would be worth exploring if you didn't have to start them off the table.

Add to that that all the magic arrows other than hagbane are 1pt more than they should be (or 2 in the case of arcane bodkins) and even to fill your core percentage you are wasting a lot of points.

The problem is that every point above the minimum you spend on core is a point you can't spend in special or rare. Deepwood Scouts are fantastically good value compared to GG, they are essentially the same, but gain skirmish and scout (worth probably 3pts in my estimation) but are only 1pt more than glade guard. Equip them with hagbane arrows and you've got a very good unit indeed.

Wood elfs have far from the biggest core tax - they just have one now, as opposed to their core being their best selections before :)

GG lose out to scouts in a direct comparison by roughly the expected 20% inefficiency for core (i.e. if they were 20% cheaper and in special, they'd be equivalent to the scouts - in fact, quite possibly better, so the core tax is lower than usual), and dryads are horrible. But then EG provide a functionality the rest of the army doesn't have (stubborn block), as do Glade Riders (ambush).

Spiney Norman
09-06-2014, 10:45
Here's the crux of it, though.

And this isn't directed at any one poster, but it's a question I think is worth asking...

If you don't like the core of your army, do you in fact, like your army in any meaningful sense?

If the core, the most iconic, central and essential elements of the army simply leave you cold, why are you playing that army? Wouldn't you have more fun with an army which excites you?

If there isn't at least one unit in your Core section that you really love, then the army is probably just not for you. You should never force yourself to field units you don't really like and there's bound to be an army which you do like.

The effectiveness of the core units has not been a consideration for me starting any of my armies, the only things I generally consider when choosing a new army are do I like the models and do I like the character/theme/background of the army. If you choose your army based on unit effectiveness you are going to be starting a new army every time a new book is released (which is of course how GWs sales model works).


Wood elfs have far from the biggest core tax - they just have one now, as opposed to their core being their best selections before :)

GG lose out to scouts in a direct comparison by roughly the expected 20% inefficiency for core (i.e. if they were 20% cheaper and in special, they'd be equivalent to the scouts - in fact, quite possibly better, so the core tax is lower than usual), and dryads are horrible. But then EG provide a functionality the rest of the army doesn't have (stubborn block), as do Glade Riders (ambush).

Oh sure, its just been something of a culture shock to me that's all. Until this edition I'd never really viewed core allowance as 'dead points' because my other armies have usually been able to fill their 25% quota with something fairly pts efficient (night goblins, savage Orc Bigguns, TK skeleton archers, skel chariots, Saurus and skink Skirmishers, knights & Halberdiers). I've basically been taking a single GG unit with hagbane tips and an EG block keyed to be as close to the 500pt mandatory limit as possible. Why would you take a second GG unit instead of a scout unit if you didn't need to for your core requirement?

Is it really generally thought that core units should be 20% less effective than similar units in special for the same points cost? That's a terrible way to design a game, especially when some armies (O&G) have their most Overpowered unit in core.

Snake1311
09-06-2014, 11:04
Is it really generally thought that core units should be 20% less effective than similar units in special for the same points cost? That's a terrible way to design a game, especially when some armies (O&G) have their most Overpowered unit in core.

I don't know if its the thought, or if its my own observation/rule of thumb. It becomes clear in armies which have direct comparisons between core unit A and special uinit B - add about 20% cost on top of unit B and pretend its core, and the two units will often look on-par-ish. Its easier to spot in the more homogenous armies, liek dwarfs - compare warriors/longbeards to hammerers/slayers+20% for example (ironbreakers are kinda naff - you can use the test to whiff out bad special choices as well!). With high elves its Silver Helms and Dragon princes (DP don't look great with 20% on top = silver helms are above-average core) and spearmen and any elite infantry (spearmen look horrible - UP core).

Savage Orks are an outlier, for a number of reasons - its a combination of specific unit + specific equipment + specific ugprade, and there are no good elite infantry units for comparison. Mind you, if Black Orcs were core, they would be roughly equivelent as a choice to the Savages - so Savage Orks AHW Big Uns are basically equal in efficiency to specials, meaning they should have either been special or 20% more expensive.

The armies which absorb core tax well are the ones where you aren't just better off spending your 500 points of core on 400 points of specials, because your core does something unique for the army that you dont get in your specials. Like skaven slaves, or dark elf dark riders. Examples where your core does nothing your specials don't do better are dwarfs and ogres - a few less points of hammerers/irondrakes or maneaters are flat out directly better than your core.

With woodies, Glade Guard are outshined in direct comparisons, and the two ranked options compete with rangers - dryads are just bad, but EG have stubborn (meaning they are the only ranked unit which can sit in trees and take a charge - everyone else loses steadfast and legs it) so they are actually OK (if not brilliant) compared to the rangers. The one unit which would still find its way in lists even if core wasnt mandatory is the Glade Riders, because if you want ambush they are the only place to get it.

warhammerscotlandplayer
09-06-2014, 13:06
In 7th Edition High Elves Core was a tax, since 8th we have Silver Helms back and Ellyrian Reavers to choose from now. So no my army no longer has a core tax and i find balancing my army the most difficult when choosing which core to take.

HelloKitty
09-06-2014, 14:18
It saw a game over the weekend that had a game master running it for a narrative tournament.

The lists were pre built and models provided by the organizers.

It was neat seeing a chaos army that was over 50% marauder infantry and it was fighting against empire that was over 50% state troops. This one will probably never see the like again but it looked like something it would expect from an actual battle.

Banville
09-06-2014, 14:22
I have to say, I enjoy playing lots of core. That's just because the army then looks like an army, to be honest. I'm not too worried about effectiveness. Then again the ol' three blocks of a hundred zombies in a VC army or the equivalent in Skaven Slaves is probably one of the most over-powered things you could put on a table. They're game-breaking to hell and back.

Snake1311
09-06-2014, 14:44
It saw a game over the weekend that had a game master running it for a narrative tournament.

The lists were pre built and models provided by the organizers.

It was neat seeing a chaos army that was over 50% marauder infantry and it was fighting against empire that was over 50% state troops. This one will probably never see the like again but it looked like something it would expect from an actual battle.

Comp pack: "Peasanthammer". No Lords, no rares; Minimum core up to 50%.
Two buildings on table, +100 VPs for controlling each at the end of the game (encourages infantry)

^ Just ideas ;) can easily replicate that sort of feel with comp.

HelloKitty
09-06-2014, 14:50
Comp pack: "Peasanthammer". No Lords, no rares; Minimum core up to 50%.
Two buildings on table, +100 VPs for controlling each at the end of the game (encourages infantry)

^ Just ideas ;) can easily replicate that sort of feel with comp.

It likes that but wonders how badly skewed armies like chaos warriors would love this. That was what the event this one went to had to deal with and why the event organizer made set lists and provided the models.

For example, the 50% chaos marauders in the army would not have happened to any creature list building - it would have been chaos warriors instead.

theshoveller
09-06-2014, 15:21
Stubborn and Full Plate most definitely is. 11 points for that package seems quite reasonable.
Compare them with Executioners for a moment. Profile, plus ASF, plus Killing Blow, plus Murderous Prowess; minus Stubborn and -1 Armour Save. All that is worth more than a point. Greatswords should have stayed 10 points. Dwarf Warriors with Great Weapons... roughly equivalent (-1 Move, +1 Toughness, +1 Strength on the charge, +1 Leadership)... 10 points.

Snake1311
09-06-2014, 15:51
It likes that but wonders how badly skewed armies like chaos warriors would love this. That was what the event this one went to had to deal with and why the event organizer made set lists and provided the models.


Meeh, actually not much. Competitive warrior armies are all about speed; having footslogging blocks gimps the army potentially as much as others. I'd be more worried about chariot spam, but then the odd ojective here and there would take care of that.

As an army, they'd really miss their Lords and Skullcrushers too.

Yowzo
09-06-2014, 17:34
Compare them with Executioners for a moment. Profile, plus ASF, plus Killing Blow, plus Murderous Prowess; minus Stubborn and -1 Armour Save. All that is worth more than a point. Greatswords should have stayed 10 points. Dwarf Warriors with Great Weapons... roughly equivalent (-1 Move, +1 Toughness, +1 Strength on the charge, +1 Leadership)... 10 points.

Stubborn is well worth the price difference. Cheap stubborn should not exist, why do you think crown of command is comped so often on so many armies? Even on a character that can be killed, stubborn is too much of a strength to be handed out like candy.

BirchbarktheAncient
09-06-2014, 18:10
okay 80-100 halberdiers are not gonna bust through anything ... first thats like 600 pts, second any "hits every model" spell will wreck them, third you need SO MANY support characters/wagons/spells to make them even start to measure up.

for the total pts cost, no, empire troops just cant beat chaos warriors, high elf spearmen (even though they complain about taking them, I'd pay 1 more pt per guy to get ASF ws4, shield, ld8, init boost, extra rank of attacks....) you see what I mean?

ugh. I hate when people patronize state troops.

I've been using 80 halberdiers for months now and they've dropped tomb guard, nurgle halberdiers, executioners, etc.. You can't live in fear of the goofy unit killer spells. That's something you can guard against but never fully stop if they TP. Something like dwellers can easily be countered by casting Wyzzans on the unit. As for ghouls in VC, I think it's tragic that great models are not being used for fear of what some would deem, "poor stats." Ghouls are great troops if used well with zombies and puppies. However, I realize that army composition and standards vary from region to region and group to group.

EvanM
09-06-2014, 21:14
empire has the best CHOICE of support out there, but our supports still cost pts and they are necessary. Yes, compare executioners, swordmasters/white lions, hammerers, or whatever to greatswords and you will see that 11 pts is too much.

the empire army book came out very early in 8th, so its not balanced to all the new stuff.

also, you dont see state troop spam or marauder armies because they are over costed! im assuming marauders are similar to state troops in that they probably need -1 pt or some buffing special rule to see them used more often. compare compare compare all you want but when you got to tournaments, and you play against empire, tell me what you see.....
you see Inner circle knights, reiksguard, demigryphs, wagons, cannons.... no infantry. greatswords included. No ones gonna use them because theres "better" stuff for us, stuff thats admittedly undercosted, but in order to stay competitive, thats what you have to do.

theshoveller
09-06-2014, 23:07
Stubborn is well worth the price difference. Cheap stubborn should not exist, why do you think crown of command is comped so often on so many armies? Even on a character that can be killed, stubborn is too much of a strength to be handed out like candy.
You do use the Steadfast rule, right?

Yowzo
09-06-2014, 23:10
You do use the Steadfast rule, right?

You do know that steadfast only works when you have more ranks than the enemy right?

Leogun_91
10-06-2014, 00:09
You do use the Steadfast rule, right?Steadfast can be countered by enemies with more ranks or by being forced to fight in terrain. Stubborn works until the last man is slain. There is a huge difference in having a unit that can hold until enough ranks have been dropped or that can hold until every single model is killed. With a BSB nearby Stubborn troops tend to provide the latter.

EvanM
10-06-2014, 01:17
well then what your saying is be thankful that you get a steadfast tarpit throwaway suicide unit for so few pts.

yeah. no thanks. white lions are 2 more pts than Great swords, armor basically same (they get bonus to shooting), white lions get strider, s4, ASF, WS5, I5, M5 and they both have stubborn............................. thats why you see white lions in comp armies and you dont see greatswords.

WhispersofBlood
10-06-2014, 05:24
well then what your saying is be thankful that you get a steadfast tarpit throwaway suicide unit for so few pts.

yeah. no thanks. white lions are 2 more pts than Great swords, armor basically same (they get bonus to shooting), white lions get strider, s4, ASF, WS5, I5, M5 and they both have stubborn............................. thats why you see white lions in comp armies and you dont see greatswords.

White Lions have a 5+ save, Forest Strider literally does nothing for infantry except for one kind of mysterious forest. Also having a stubborn unit isn't universally equivalent. Empire can do more with a Stubborn unit than High Elves. Not to mention White Lions are a combat block that happens to be stubborn, while Greatswords are by design a Stubborn block. They shouldn't be horded and if they are you are purposely misusing them hence the lack of value you feel.

Anyway, core generally falls into a few categories.

1. Basic Infantry shooting - Bs3-4 S3-4 shots
2. Supplemental combat infantry - basic cavalry or infantry of average combat ability, useful too support your main combat blocks, flankers, or to escort your heavy hitters
3. Specific Roleplayers - Fast cav (reavers), chaff(gnoblars), etc

Generally they aren't going to be as competent as a special or rare version, but those units tend to compete with well special or rare units. But they are cheaper, letting you get more models. Generally even if they have a particular strength its not so impressive that you would feel like you are wasting them using them for a different role, using Reavers as a chaff unit or Halberdiers as a bus instead of an attacking horde formation.

Usually using a special or rare unit in such a method would be a desperation tactic in a game you have already lost control of.

EvanM
10-06-2014, 06:41
so how do you run greatswords?

I cant believe you think greatswords are balanced. As far as other armies go, if greatswords were core, MAYBE thatd be okay, but they are supposed to be elite! s4 or a better WS or just less points would be nice!
right now I think a good use of them would be to conga line them since stubborn basically = unbreakable in CC when you got a gen. and BSB nearby

Wesser
10-06-2014, 07:29
Greatswords just seem poor because all equivalents (minus Wildwood Rangers) are a lot better.

Any dwarves, Executioners, any High Elf, any Chaos guy and so forth do the job better.


That's the story of most Empire units. Each of them is pretty poor in comparison with the equivalents of most other races. The exception is 1+ cavalry (must have been a mistake that).

Greatswords can play in a few different ways to lift them up. 2 units with detachments and you've got a big piece of stubborn battleline. A big unit with a well-protected WP may still not be the equivalents of White Lions, but aren't total slouches either. This is true for most Empire units

Yowzo
10-06-2014, 08:22
I cant believe you think greatswords are balanced. As far as other armies go, if greatswords were core, MAYBE thatd be okay, but they are supposed to be elite! s4 or a better WS or just less points would be nice!
right now I think a good use of them would be to conga line them since stubborn basically = unbreakable in CC when you got a gen. and BSB nearby

You don't need the ranks, so horde them.

Add in a couple halberdier detachments (also stubborn if you keep them within distance) and you have an extremely tough nut to break so that DGKs sweep from the flanks.

Hatred (and prayers) also transfers to detachments, so a WP (AoMI, GW) is a good investment, too.

Sexiest_hero
10-06-2014, 15:07
Yup, the ole stubborn detachment line is what makes greatswords well, great.

theshoveller
10-06-2014, 15:17
Steadfast can be countered by enemies with more ranks or by being forced to fight in terrain. Stubborn works until the last man is slain. There is a huge difference in having a unit that can hold until enough ranks have been dropped or that can hold until every single model is killed. With a BSB nearby Stubborn troops tend to provide the latter.
Not at Ld 8, they don't.

Think of Stubborn as being about a valuable as having an extra rank over your opponent, then consider prices appropriately. Should a unit of Dwarf Warriors with GW be 10% bigger than a unit of Greatswords for the same points? Over a certain size, that is an extra rank, and therefore Steadfast. The ability to murder your way into not having to take a break test at all is pretty handy too.

theshoveller
10-06-2014, 15:21
You don't need the ranks, so horde them.

Add in a couple halberdier detachments (also stubborn if you keep them within distance) and you have an extremely tough nut to break so that DGKs sweep from the flanks.

Hatred (and prayers) also transfers to detachments, so a WP (AoMI, GW) is a good investment, too.
The problem with that is that you're then buying Halberdiers out of your Special allotment, which is hardly an efficient way to spend points.

Ramius4
10-06-2014, 15:27
The problem with that is that you're then buying Halberdiers out of your Special allotment, which is hardly an efficient way to spend points.

When is the last time you got even close to spending the maximum 50% of your Special allowance with Empire? :eyebrows:

That's such a non-issue, it's silly.

Yowzo
10-06-2014, 17:12
When is the last time you got even close to spending the maximum 50% of your Special allowance with Empire? :eyebrows:

That's such a non-issue, it's silly.

And it's not like empire has a problem with filling core with 1+ save knights in there.

WhispersofBlood
10-06-2014, 18:07
so how do you run greatswords?

I cant believe you think greatswords are balanced. As far as other armies go, if greatswords were core, MAYBE thatd be okay, but they are supposed to be elite! s4 or a better WS or just less points would be nice!
right now I think a good use of them would be to conga line them since stubborn basically = unbreakable in CC when you got a gen. and BSB nearby

They are probably about a point too much. They are however elite for a humans. Ws4, Ld8, 4+ armour is an elite level human infantry. You also have to understand the function of the other units in the book. Greatswords function well with the hammer available in the book. Knights, DGKs, Steam Tank don't general generate a ton of kills. So your options are push mutiple hammers in to get the job done, which leaves you vulnerable if you roll poorly. Your second option is a unit like greatswords. Ws4 gives them a better defense against only the most elite combat units, 4+ armour keeps them safe from shooting and magic missiles, and gives you a chance to save some models in combat.

On their own you can plan around them. Outside of a few spells their isn't anything the opponent can do to change their break percentage, certainty is a rare thing in war games. They can also be used to create other stubborn units something unique in the game. The main problem I see with greatswords is that the Empire Captain/General is about 20% too expensive, and that the game is extremely difficult to play as a conservative/reactionary general .


You don't need the ranks, so horde them.

Add in a couple halberdier detachments (also stubborn if you keep them within distance) and you have an extremely tough nut to break so that DGKs sweep from the flanks.

Hatred (and prayers) also transfers to detachments, so a WP (AoMI, GW) is a good investment, too.

Incorrect you don't need the ranks, so take fewer of them. Going into a horde just givens the enemy more attacks to kill you faster. You want to limit the enemies ability to kill your stubborn models, as that is the only way the enemy can be sure the units is gone. 5x4 is probably all you need, I would use the points saved to get other things. Using them as some sort of White Lions-lite is doomed to failure and probably why most people find them so poor. They aren't and never will be at that level of combat unit. They are good enough to keep themselves safe, but that's about it.

Personally I find WPs pretty mediocre, hatred is one round for one unit, would rather spend the points you used on gear, on getting a full lore (with a 2nd wizard). A cheap Warrior Priest or using the Archlector as general in a list with a Grandmaster.


Yup, the ole stubborn detachment line is what makes greatswords well, great.

A lot of support units can't consistantly kill 10 models in one round of combat, a Swordsmen cube 3x3 is actually a pretty solid defenvice unit. Small enough to zip around, and tough enough to hold up units of msu knights or even msu Mcav. 3 DGKs won't kill all 9 swordsmen in one round.

EvanM
11-06-2014, 00:11
do you even realize how hard it is to get pretty much any of the infantry units to "work"? yeah doing all that crazy stuff is fine but how about just actual working units.

maybe a GS horde wont work (take too many hits).

WhispersofBlood
11-06-2014, 00:57
do you even realize how hard it is to get pretty much any of the infantry units to "work"? yeah doing all that crazy stuff is fine but how about just actual working units.

maybe a GS horde wont work (take too many hits).

I don't know most infantry units work within the context of being infantry. The ones that don't usually are trying to be something infantry aren't, I'm talking about Chaos Warriors/Chosen, Black Guard, type units. Units with exaggerated statlines, or an excessive amount of special rules. I could see a world with 10 point Greatswords though I still don't think I would horde them though.

Yowzo
11-06-2014, 09:09
Incorrect you don't need the ranks, so take fewer of them. Going into a horde just givens the enemy more attacks to kill you faster.

And you hit back with S5. Greatswords are the only S5 infantry in the Empire book, and have plenty of readily available buffs (prayers, hurricanum, countercharge by a halberd detachment) to hit even harder.

A stubborn roadblock is only half what they do.

Shadeseraph
11-06-2014, 15:26
Back to core business...

Personally, I feel the main deal with core is that, for many armies, they are just cheaper and less effective versions of special units. Core shines when it either can compete with special (WoC, DE, O&G) or actually has specific roles to fill that no one else in the army can.

For example, I personally tend to need a minimum of 15-20 archers, 2 units of reavers and a small-medium block of silver helms with my High Elves. The archers could be effectively replaced by sisters, RBTs or shadow warriors, but the range actually gives them a niche over the sisters, they are more efficient at getting masses of S3 shooting than shadow warriors, and are more survibable than RBTs, and can host wizards. The reavers could compete with shadow warriors and eagles, but they have a solid advantage over shadow warriors in movement, and the ability to take bows or use feigned flee tactics and increased survability give them a slight edge over eagles, despite the eagles being more maneuverable. Finally, Silver Helms are the best delivery system for mounted characters, and can actually tarpit enemy core quite effectively, specially if supported. They would compete with dragon princes, but the price difference actually makes SH better on those tactics.

On the other side, spears and LSG are a bit lost. Spearmen are supposed to provide steadfast blocks and steadfast breakers, but they are still way too expensive and or fragile for their points to be used that way, compared to pretty much every other infantry unit in the book. When you can get a bow at a slightly decreased survability for a single point more...

My point is that it's not so much a point of core being worse or better than special/rare, as it is of filling a niche within the army that actually needs filling competently. Even an army with overwhelming core could have a "core tax", as long as that core doesn't fill any niche that can be better filled by special or rare units. That's when you start feeling your core is a tax.

Furthermore, there is also the point of decreasing benefits: My own core selection is more or less fixed, with some degree of versatility. That means I usually take those units at 1000-1500 pts, but do so at the 2000-2500 range, because usually that's all I really need from those roles, with maybe a small adjustment (a third unit of reavers). At 1000-1500 I'm usually over the 25% required, at 2000-2500 those units fit just right. More than that, and I start to feel the "core tax" label again, as I don't need to linearly increase those units to fill those roles.

biccat
11-06-2014, 20:21
When is the last time you got even close to spending the maximum 50% of your Special allowance with Empire? :eyebrows:

That's such a non-issue, it's silly.

I'm pretty sure his point is that if you're going to take Halberds, it's best to take them as core. No one reasonably takes more than 25% core.

Spiney Norman
12-06-2014, 00:52
When is the last time you got even close to spending the maximum 50% of your Special allowance with Empire? :eyebrows:

That's such a non-issue, it's silly.

Actually empire is one of the few armies I have seen pushing the top end of their special allowance. Once you have the almost mandatory 2-3 cannons and three tricked out units of Demi-griffs there isn't a great deal of space left.

I've seen someone field double cannons, 1x6 DGKs w/ full command and 2x3 DGK with no command at 2k, that must be pretty close to the special limit. I always found the special section to be the most congested in my Empire army, though that was largely down to my love of greatswords.

Snake1311
12-06-2014, 09:53
Actually empire is one of the few armies I have seen pushing the top end of their special allowance. Once you have the almost mandatory 2-3 cannons and three tricked out units of Demi-griffs there isn't a great deal of space left.

I've seen someone field double cannons, 1x6 DGKs w/ full command and 2x3 DGK with no command at 2k, that must be pretty close to the special limit. I always found the special section to be the most congested in my Empire army, though that was largely down to my love of greatswords.

It seems like you are doing it on purpose rather than it being the book's design though :P

You are going character light (if combined lords and heroes hit 25%ish you'd have no more space in the army anyway) and forgoing the steam tank, and going somewhat magic light (no hurricanum, war altar).

The only book where the special cap is an actual limit (meh rares, no point to herohammer) is dwarves.

Alltaken
12-06-2014, 10:52
Dude Iron drakes want a Word with you!

From my servoskull

Spiney Norman
12-06-2014, 11:04
It seems like you are doing it on purpose rather than it being the book's design though :P

You are going character light (if combined lords and heroes hit 25%ish you'd have no more space in the army anyway) and forgoing the steam tank, and going somewhat magic light (no hurricanum, war altar).

The only book where the special cap is an actual limit (meh rares, no point to herohammer) is dwarves.

If by "on purpose" you mean that I'm deliberately building the best empire army I can then yes. The steam tank is ok, but there are plenty of er easily available hard-counters out there and its one of those things you really need to field two of to make it really effective, and I'm just not into that.

If by character light you mean a single L4 and a defensive build BSB with a fairly barebones (mounted) GotE for leadership coverage then yes I go character light. I don't really see much point in taking line infantry in my competitive set up (my core section is mostly archers and core knights) and warrior priests seem rather wasted on a knight bus.

As for rare choice I occasionally bring a helblaster, but even that is becoming a rarity nowerdays. Almost all my favourite units are special, cannon, DGKs, outriders, greatswords, I think the only special unit I've never used is Reiksguard because my army is from Marienburg.

Yowzo
12-06-2014, 11:45
I've seen someone field double cannons, 1x6 DGKs w/ full command and 2x3 DGK with no command at 2k, that must be pretty close to the special limit. I always found the special section to be the most congested in my Empire army, though that was largely down to my love of greatswords.

Min-maxed lists by definition push towards the maximum allowance of certain cathegories.

theshoveller
12-06-2014, 11:45
Actually empire is one of the few armies I have seen pushing the top end of their special allowance. Once you have the almost mandatory 2-3 cannons and three tricked out units of Demi-griffs there isn't a great deal of space left.

I've seen someone field double cannons, 1x6 DGKs w/ full command and 2x3 DGK with no command at 2k, that must be pretty close to the special limit. I always found the special section to be the most congested in my Empire army, though that was largely down to my love of greatswords.
Well, quite.

I mean, we've a thread here about core units and people are saying the way to make Empire core infantry to work is to buy them out of the special allowance...

I like Knights, a lot. I think Halberdiers are actually fine (in core) and I see the use of Swordsmen, Spearmen and Archers. Free Company are simply too expensive for what they do (they're marginally less effective than Spearmen, but cost more points). Handgunners and Crossbows are not really worth it unless you're trying to build a gunline. People get upset about Swordsmen because they debuffed them (-1 Initiative) but increased their points, which felt a bit insulting. It wasn't a big issue when the book came out, but subsequent books have brought more points-efficient core units, making the Swords look worse. Greatswords have a similar problem - the only thing they really gained from the 8th edition army book was Stubborn detachments (EDIT - and the option to take a magic banner in their own right, as opposed to the halfway-house method we had in the previous book; again, not worth a full point), a mixed blessing in the context of a) how one might use detachments and b) how detachments are paid for. This did not, to my mind, necessitate a points increase. They weren't an automatic choice at 10 points (though a perfectly reasonable one), but at 11 they become less and less attractive when compared with the other things in the special allocation. I don't, like EvanM, subscribe to the theory that all is doom and gloom amongst the Empire infantry, but I do think the straightforward Empire infantry grinder has taken a knock over the course of this edition.

Snake1311
12-06-2014, 11:49
Will have to disagree on the Stank - most of the counters don't relaly take it down that easy, plus with the remainder of the army containing cannons/chickens, it means the stank is occupying them in dealing with those things. I can't think of a single matchup where the stank isnt an absolute pain in the ass if used correctly.

Character setup is definitely light, usually there is a level 2 scroll caddie present, with the level 4 taking scepter of stability if nothign else is available. That and points in the hero allowance commonly go towards a mounted Peg guy.

Even then - level 4, GotE and BSB should set you back about 450-500 points, so I'm guessing you are hitting the 50% special limit before points in a 2500ish point list?

The 50% special cap should definitely come into play more often that it does, and I'm actually kind glad to hear of it, but your setup is rather unorthodox - I'd argue sub-optimal for filth.

Wesser
12-06-2014, 12:59
Actually empire is one of the few armies I have seen pushing the top end of their special allowance. Once you have the almost mandatory 2-3 cannons and three tricked out units of Demi-griffs there isn't a great deal of space left.

I've seen someone field double cannons, 1x6 DGKs w/ full command and 2x3 DGK with no command at 2k, that must be pretty close to the special limit. I always found the special section to be the most congested in my Empire army, though that was largely down to my love of greatswords.

Yuk, you've seen people fielding a combo like that?

May his cannons explode in his face...

CountUlrich
12-06-2014, 14:02
Dude Iron drakes want a Word with you!

From my servoskull

As does the organ gun, and to a lesser extent ranger units

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
12-06-2014, 15:26
Yuk, you've seen people fielding a combo like that?

May his cannons explode in his face...

Yep, what my friend calls his "knight" list, grand master with the white cloak, L4 on a horse, BSB on a horse, 10 knights with full command, 2x 6 knights with musicians, 1x6 DGKs with full command, 2x 3 DGKs, 2 cannons and that's it.

My favourite solution is many Waywatchers, hag guard a L4 shadow wizard, sisters otThorn and wild riders to clean up.

Snake1311
12-06-2014, 15:59
Irondrakes are good if you have points left after your 'mandatory stuff', same with organ guns and rangers.

Your 'mandatory stuff' is long-ranged pressure, and effective combat blocks. I.e. cannons+GTs and Hammerers (both special). After that, the next most point-efficient investment is Gyrocopters (special again).

I.e. even though it doesn't affect all builds (but is still a common and sensible approach, unlike Spiney's friend's weird aversion to Steam Tanks :P), a way to approach building a dwarf list is getting your minimum core (25%), your characters (under 25% as no wizards - BSB and 2 runesmiths generally enough, thats 350 pts-ish), and then the rest goes towards hammerers, machines and gyrocopters - which end up hitting the 50% special cap before you take as many of them as you can and before run out of points overall.

CountUlrich
12-06-2014, 16:19
Irondrakes are good if you have points left after your 'mandatory stuff', same with organ guns and rangers.

Your 'mandatory stuff' is long-ranged pressure, and effective combat blocks. I.e. cannons+GTs and Hammerers (both special). After that, the next most point-efficient investment is Gyrocopters (special again).

I.e. even though it doesn't affect all builds (but is still a common and sensible approach, unlike Spiney's friend's weird aversion to Steam Tanks :P), a way to approach building a dwarf list is getting your minimum core (25%), your characters (under 25% as no wizards - BSB and 2 runesmiths generally enough, thats 350 pts-ish), and then the rest goes towards hammerers, machines and gyrocopters - which end up hitting the 50% special cap before you take as many of them as you can and before run out of points overall.

I couldn't disagree more:

1. Organ guns are the best warmachine we have. Depending on meta, cannon may be more important, but og >>>>>>>>>>>grudge thrower. Min 1 in pretty much any list.

2. Irondrakes depends on your tactical build, but they are essential/core to some effective builds being used presently.

3. Hammerers are not automatic. They die to a stiff breeze, and in many, many instances ironbreakers are the better special choice.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Charistoph
12-06-2014, 16:43
The only book where the special cap is an actual limit (meh rares, no point to herohammer) is dwarves.

I was going to counter with Beastmen, but the Heroes and Lords are expensive and useful enough that you can get to 75% army value quite easily with Characters and Core. And they're a list where the Rare is almost, "Why?"

Snake1311
12-06-2014, 16:44
Your opinion and approach fall under the caveat "...even though it doesn't affect all builds..." ;)

I don't think we should massively derail the thread, so will just give my 2c:

Things you said which I agree with:
- Irondrakes are core to some builds - true, I haven't used them extensively, but I've seen them used as a MVP.
- Hammerers are not automatic - true, there are builds without them, but they are definitely the best combat unit we have by far.

Things you said I disagree with:
- Organ Gun Min 1 - nope. Cannon > OG, 2nd Cannon > OG, possibly GT/3rd Cannon > OG. OG maybe > GT, if you have 3 cannons already. There is no meta where OG > 1st cannon, unless by "meta" you mean "the two guys down the club" :P
- Ironbreakers suck compared to the trusty hammerer.

Last tourney I took dwarfs to I came 13th out of 180ish, W/L of 5-1 - no OGs, no drakes, no hammerers (hence I know its true you can do without!)

Now, as I said, I did leave a caveat allowing for different approaches - however the one I described does lead to competitive lists; so I guess what I'm saying:

Some competitive min-maxed dwarf lists will hit the 50% special cap before they run out of points/slots.

to contrast with:

Empire competitive min-maxed lists will not hit the 50% special cap

- mostly because Steamtanks are awesome

Snake1311
12-06-2014, 16:46
I was going to counter with Beastmen, but the Heroes and Lords are expensive and useful enough that you can get to 75% army value quite easily with Characters and Core. And they're a list where the Rare is almost, "Why?"

Yeah, beastmen almost fall under that category when you look at their rares, until you remember the mandatory Herdstone and the bunch of hero mages doing a dance around it :D

Urgat
12-06-2014, 16:49
3. Hammerers are not automatic. They die to a stiff breeze

Lol, the things you read on internet.

HelloKitty
12-06-2014, 16:52
It reads on the internet that games workshop is going bankrupt and that it will be bought out soon and that its games are horrible.

CountUlrich
12-06-2014, 17:14
I'm not saying hamerers arent good, but they do have no defense and melt against ranged attacks. They the best option against high AS, high toughness armies/creatures ... monster mash, WoC, knight heavy empire. However, run the math hammer, ironbreakers perform far better against most elven armies, for example.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

PlasticSwap.Com
12-06-2014, 17:15
It reads on the internet that games workshop is going bankrupt and that it will be bought out soon and that its games are horrible.

It puts lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again. Once successfully harvested it becomes this.

194777

And we now know the sad truth about how hello kitty dolls are made.

More so on topic: Don't hammerers have heavy armor?

Snake1311
12-06-2014, 17:20
They aren't stubborn dude, and high elves and dark elves at least run plenty of high toughness/armoured choices - all DE combat characters, Silverhelms, DPrinces and Phoenix.

Plus the extra attack on the hammerers makes them mash even low toughness characters more effectively. And their flanks dish out double damage, which is pretty important against MSU elf builds.

Wood elves are the one matchup where ironbreakers may just be better, but considering its a matchup where you have to advance (so you fight where the WElf chooses) and IBs don't get their steadfast in woods, I'd still bank on the hammerers.

CountUlrich
12-06-2014, 17:29
They aren't stubborn dude, and high elves and dark elves at least run plenty of high toughness/armoured choices - all DE combat characters, Silverhelms, DPrinces and Phoenix.

Plus the extra attack on the hammerers makes them mash even low toughness characters more effectively. And their flanks dish out double damage, which is pretty important against MSU elf builds.

Wood elves are the one matchup where ironbreakers may just be better, but considering its a matchup where you have to advance (so you fight where the WElf chooses) and IBs don't get their steadfast in woods, I'd still bank on the hammerers.

Run the mathammer. Witch elves, for instance, might as well auto delete hammerers, whereas lose to ironbreakers. Other examples too. Ironbreakers are superior against most elven armies, and others as well.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Snake1311
12-06-2014, 17:42
I've ran the mathhammer :) witch elves are one of the few units where that is the case, and even then - Ironbreakers kill under 4 in one round of combat, Hammerers kill 7 - so get rid of that unit faster, even if they take more than double casualties per round. We're talking small WE units of 10-14, you shound't be engaging the big ones head on anyway, thats what gyrocopters are for.

Against executioners (white lions), Ironbreakers kill about 3 and take 2(3-4) casualties.
Hammerers kill 7 and take 4(6) casualties.

The increased damage output tends to outstrip the defensive capacities agasint the commonly used units.

Phoenix guard are another example where ironbreakers may look better on first glance, but in fact IBs do just over a single wound and take 2-3 back
Hammerers do 3 wounds and take 5 - better ratio.


Ironbreakers do benefit a lot more from charging, and of course benefit from shieldwall - but hammerers benefit more from hatred if you do get it (excluded from calculations here), and have the massive benefit that they can fight anything. Against each of the elf armies for example, there is a unit which can just go and sit on the ironbreakers, and then they are stuck thereforever, until they die. That is a massive drawback.

EvanM
12-06-2014, 19:49
One interesting thing I read was that you should have the elites opposite the core, so warriors with shields go well with hammerers, warriors with GW go well with IB.