Game design philosophy - what is Core?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Have you answered our survey about your preferred game size?
More details in this news item.

  • T9A are one off games where economics doesnt matter.

    Even victory points is not a representation of economics. It is just a mechanism to decide who wins.

    If you want victory points to be a reflection of economics, then units that fled off the table, unit that were wipped out in combat have survivors - these would all be saved and regroup later for a second battle.


    Now changing the victory point system to make certain entries a different score rather than their points values is something T9A could do. Sounds interesting.


    And I cant believe someone quoted my post and called it nonsense.
    You Sir!!!! Are a do-do head!
    I shall not grace you with my intellect anymore. Good day!
    @Squirrelloid
  • Anselmus wrote:

    Only some core units are felt to be a burden. Most armies have some units/options in core everyone agrees are usable.
    Until the tax (additional points cost) is removed and that leads to a statiscal of 50% of army lists with with core composition over 25% there is and will be core tax concept.

    The one great argument I recall that this was a balance upheaval this would make. I think that it should be tried out.

    The other option for this is additional rules which compensate cost benefit ratio of core units. With scoring changed it should probably look to other venues to make this work
  • its not a balance upheaval.

    all it leads to is everyone taking elites.
    and then they will complain that their elites are crap because they cant beat X army's elites.
    then the solution will be to lift restrictions on everything.

    and then people show up with 12 steam tanks on each side.

    Many games have tried the 'unbound'. It's fine for narrative games like if you are doing war of the beard where elf and dwarf are all elites, but unbound does not hold up for competitive play.
  • Strength and Armour piercing NEED to be decoupled if you want to make Core more useful. Elites are seen as superior to core because Elites have access to Higher Strength and Better equipment (usually a great weapon).

    Because of this they are just better at killing stuff and winning combats. If strength and Armour piercing are given out depending on the weapon used and not the strength, it then solves several problems.

    1. While a higher strength means you are better at wounding, it doesn't make core troops armour pointless. Light armour and shields will now be useful for Core troops to have as their save will not be completely negated.

    2. By applying armour piercing to different weapons it can make core troops more appealing as they may be the only ones who have access to the tools to kill certain elite troops. If Halberds give -2 AP and EoS Core are the only ones who have access to it it makes them more likely to be used against elites and knights.,

    Strength should only start piercing armour at strength 7+, the rest should depend on the type of weapon used.
    Commodus Leitdorfs Modelling and Painting Blog
    "We have clearly reached the point where only rampant and unchecked stabbing can save us." -Black Mage
  • Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

    Strength and Armour piercing NEED to be decoupled if you want to make Core more useful. Elites are seen as superior to core because Elites have access to Higher Strength and Better equipment (usually a great weapon).

    Because of this they are just better at killing stuff and winning combats. If strength and Armour piercing are given out depending on the weapon used and not the strength, it then solves several problems.

    1. While a higher strength means you are better at wounding, it doesn't make core troops armour pointless. Light armour and shields will now be useful for Core troops to have as their save will not be completely negated.

    2. By applying armour piercing to different weapons it can make core troops more appealing as they may be the only ones who have access to the tools to kill certain elite troops. If Halberds give -2 AP and EoS Core are the only ones who have access to it it makes them more likely to be used against elites and knights.,

    Strength should only start piercing armour at strength 7+, the rest should depend on the type of weapon used.
    I can see the point of high Strength being problematic, since it gives a double benefit in both increasing the chance to wound, and reducing the armour save on the receiving end. I'm not sure decoupling the two is that necessary. I can't think of that many weapons that would either be awesome at cutting exposed flesh and useless against armour, or having mediocre damage-dealing power that's however largely unaffected by armour. I can think of no cases of the former, and for the latter, only highly specialized anti-knight weapons such as warhammers (the real thing with a small head, not Ghal Maraz), and maybe projectiles with small impact surfaces like crossbow bolts and firearm bullets.

    I'm thinking that maybe the game should treat toughness and armour as additive, rather than as two separate rolls. That'd save time, and would solve the double benefit of strength that currently makes low levels of armour to be of very limited use. Under the current rules, a S5 hit against a T3 guy with a 5+ save from light armour and a shield is effectively identical with a S5 hit against a naked T3 guy. If however, for instance, that light armour and shield instead counted as a +1T bonus, it'd matter.
  • What about if all units were costed purely based on their stats and equipment etc, temoving core tax, and each faction had multiple organisational structures to choose from, not only adjusting the point allowances for different categories but also which units are in each category?

    Some armies already have options to use alternative percentages, like SE Oaken crown lists gave more Forest Giants allowance, ie treefathers, and less archery and mobile units. This would just take the idea a step further.

    I also like the idea of elite units being worth more VP
  • First. and I mean none of this to be as harsh as it may sound, can we get away from the historical. This is a fantasy oriented game, and while the historical can come in, arguing it is like arguing what part of the pig ham comes from when trying to make a sandwich. We are dealing in abstracts, not pure historical data.

    Second, while decoupling strength and AP is a good idea that needs to be explored (not fought about) and discussed, it is not the focus of this topic. It supports it, sure, but arguing the point alone here isn't constructive. I have seen good arguments for it, and I would say that monsters (not MI or MC) retain strength to AP, but this is better for another thread, and I'm sure there are plenty.

    Now, Core to me, and this is opinion, is the basis/ basic stat line of the army. There are obvious exceptions with OG, OK, SA and KoE where they have "less than" units (goblins, scraplings, skinks, and peasants) but they still fill a role, and should. EoS taking spears, halberds or sword and board is an option to fill a role, even if specializing slightly. I follow more of the TVI ideal that anything that isn't core is support. If it is a block of infantry it specializes and supports the core, it is not the main battlefront. Monsters, including MI and MC in armies that have it, support core. Characters are there to support core (and the army as a whole). Everything that is not core carries a premium to a point that makes it support core, or the army as a whole, whether it's high offense, defense or just a buff platform.

    I also understand that my way of thinking about core means that the mentality of the game would have to change, or the rules would have to reflect it. I can't say how to go about this in specifics sadly, but I think it can be done.
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    I can see the point of high Strength being problematic, since it gives a double benefit in both increasing the chance to wound, and reducing the armour save on the receiving end. I'm not sure decoupling the two is that necessary. I can't think of that many weapons that would either be awesome at cutting exposed flesh and useless against armour, or having mediocre damage-dealing power that's however largely unaffected by armour. I can think of no cases of the former, and for the latter, only highly specialized anti-knight weapons such as warhammers (the real thing with a small head, not Ghal Maraz), and maybe projectiles with small impact surfaces like crossbow bolts and firearm bullets.
    I'm thinking that maybe the game should treat toughness and armour as additive, rather than as two separate rolls. That'd save time, and would solve the double benefit of strength that currently makes low levels of armour to be of very limited use. Under the current rules, a S5 hit against a T3 guy with a 5+ save from light armour and a shield is effectively identical with a S5 hit against a naked T3 guy. If however, for instance, that light armour and shield instead counted as a +1T bonus, it'd matter.

    While that is certainly is another way of doing it. Nitpicking about the exact type of weapons available on a model vs their real world counterparts is silly. It's a game, and a certain amount of abstraction is necessary. While the idea of armour type adding to toughness seems like an alternative option, it also strays too far from what most of us expect coming from Warhammer (and I loathe to cause the game to stray much farther as the last thing I want is for the game to hemorrhage more players).

    All my solution does is make this change:



    That's it. Play-testing the different types of weapons and their various armour piercing/strength would be needed. However that also ensures we can see a varierty of weapons on the field as well instead of just various combinations of "how can I get as much high strength into this army as possible".
    Commodus Leitdorfs Modelling and Painting Blog
    "We have clearly reached the point where only rampant and unchecked stabbing can save us." -Black Mage

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Commodus Leitdorf ().

  • Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    I can see the point of high Strength being problematic, since it gives a double benefit in both increasing the chance to wound, and reducing the armour save on the receiving end. I'm not sure decoupling the two is that necessary. I can't think of that many weapons that would either be awesome at cutting exposed flesh and useless against armour, or having mediocre damage-dealing power that's however largely unaffected by armour. I can think of no cases of the former, and for the latter, only highly specialized anti-knight weapons such as warhammers (the real thing with a small head, not Ghal Maraz), and maybe projectiles with small impact surfaces like crossbow bolts and firearm bullets.
    I'm thinking that maybe the game should treat toughness and armour as additive, rather than as two separate rolls. That'd save time, and would solve the double benefit of strength that currently makes low levels of armour to be of very limited use. Under the current rules, a S5 hit against a T3 guy with a 5+ save from light armour and a shield is effectively identical with a S5 hit against a naked T3 guy. If however, for instance, that light armour and shield instead counted as a +1T bonus, it'd matter.
    While that is certainly is another way of doing it. Nitpicking about the exact type of weapons available on a model vs their real world counterparts is silly. It's a game, and a certain amount of abstraction is necessary. While the idea of armour type adding to toughness seems like an alternative option, it also strays too far from what most of us except coming from Warhammer (and I loathe to cause the game to stray much farther as the last thing I want is for the game to hemorrhage more players).

    All my solution does is make this change:



    That's it. Play-testing the different types of weapons and their various armour piercing/strength would be needed. However that also ensures we can see a varierty of weapons on the field as well instead of just various combinations of "how can I get as much high strength into this army as possible".
    I highly approove this.

    Imo only Lances should have AP (2), GW's, Halberds, Spears AP(1).

    Would help greatly against the GW profileration and strengthen low armor saves.
  • Commodus Leitdorf wrote:



    All my solution does is make this change:

    That's it. Play-testing the different types of weapons and their various armour piercing/strength would be needed. However that also ensures we can see a varierty of weapons on the field as well instead of just various combinations of "how can I get as much high strength into this army as possible".
    Want to know what the WFB 1st edition table was?

    S4 = -1
    S5 = -2
    S6 = -3
    S7 = -3
    S8 = -3
    S9 = -3
    S10 = -3

    It was applied because anything beyond S6 is allready rare.
  • Personally I'm of the opinion that core should be the identity of the army.

    eg.
    KoE the identity would be the Knights and the lowly peasants and the core needs to reflect this.
    Orcs&Goblins have infantry blocks of each type, so the core needs to reflect that.
    Beast Herds have...beast herds.
    Daemon Legion have the various Daemon types.
    Both Undead races have at their heart, masses of undead infantry with the desert based undead getting chariots as well.
    and so on....

    That identity does not have to simply be the weakest options, nor does it necessarily need to be a specific unit type or for certain troop types to be restricted from being core.
    We have points and duplicate limitations a well as a percentage limit to balance out whatever it is that ends out being that core identity unit(s). We also have all the other units within the same army providing a level of counter-balance.
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Personally I'm of the opinion that core should be the identity of the army.
    Why? Even in your examples several of those factions do not revolve around them as much because their set up is to be special.

    The advantage the current format is that it allows Core to be a balancing factor to create identity.

    Sometimes identity of a faction, such as WotDG or better put WoC revolves around hierarchy and elitism. If you bend it all to Core you create something historically more recinizable but also do something Fantasy will never force you.

    Fantasy army games are very rare. I wouldnt want to see another one go.

    Removing black powder weapons is akin to making Core more important. Now it is part of full fantasy character building.
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Personally I'm of the opinion that core should be the identity of the army.
    Why? Even in your examples several of those factions do not revolve around them as much because their set up is to be special.
    You'll have to explain what you mean by that

    The advantage the current format is that it allows Core to be a balancing factor to create identity.
    It can be both

    Sometimes identity of a faction, such as WotDG or better put WoC revolves around hierarchy and elitism. If you bend it all to Core you create something historically more recinizable but also do something Fantasy will never force you.
    You're missing a bunch of words in that sentence which make it understandable I think....or I'm overly tired.
    Comments in Blue.
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    You'll have to explain what you mean by that

    It can be both
    .
    You're missing a bunch of words in that sentence which make it understandable I think....or I'm overly tired.
    Hi, what I mean by that is that you list Daemonic Legions as one of the factions who has many Core choices thus therefore is characterized by them. From the day Deamons of Chaos where made, their main appeal was the Greater Daemon, the faction with a gigantic, horrific general, the Balrog.

    If you want to increase importance of Core it can't be both. It currently is both. In the current design both Core and Special/Rare are on equal footing. In some factions Core matters a lot, in others Special/Rare matters a lot. Increasing importance of Core overall would mean a decrease of importance of Special/Rare.

    What I mean by the last sentence is that as above, increasing the importance of Core can only be done by decreasing the importance of other choices. We also see this in the factions where Core matters and is balanced well.

    - Orcs and Goblins and the Vermin Swarm are characterized by their quantities, from lore this reflects upon their army. They have very cheap and good Core choices, the focus is put on them because many of their Special and Rare choices do not have significant differences in statistical design. Meaning you get rewarded by quantity over quality.
    - Empire of Sonnstahl was the first faction to my knowledge which always rewarded the MSU appraoch and even integrated it as one of it's prime effective combat systems. Again you get rewarded by quantity if you supplement it with enough Artillery. While like most factions you have a fairly decent Special and Rare statistical window it falls into nothing when you look at the 'true elite factions'.
    - Undying Dinsasties and Vampire Covenant focus on Core because this is where their magical synergy is the highest. Again their quantities are typical for their armies and also their character.

    All factions have functional Core choices to a degree, however other than the above they do not statstically gain the same advantages when they spend the same ammount of points into Special or Rare choices. This is designed purposefully because it allows several factions to operate into a very different manner.

    What is true is that Beast Herds also likes to use their Core choices, however unlike O&G, VS, EoS, UD and VC they still have them in a much more limited supply and cannot suddenly increase that number. In addition they do not have sufficient ranged offense to keep up with factions like O&G, VS or EoS which can really dwindle their numbers.
    For practically every faction a same comparison can be made, what keeps ID and DH different from EoS is their ranged non-Core importance. What keeps HE, DE, SA, SE and many more different from O&G, VH and other Core focused factions is that they are largely Special focused factions which allows for elite statistical design.

    The moral remains, if you want to make Core more important cross factions, you will have to make Special and Rare less important cross factions. This is what removes their current character.


    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    What I meant with the Alice in Wonderland comment is, it's not an absurdistic world where literally anything can happen. It's a world with its own laws, rules and ways things work, which impose constraints on what is or isn't plausible within it. Those constraints are not the same as of the real world, but just as hard within it. That's called contextual realism and internal consistency, something the fluff-writers of T9A have specifically stated as a goal in the design philosophy documents.
    The point with the historical examples is not that things in the fantasy world should be exactly as in history. They are rather meant to show that different societies have ended up adapting different units as their "core" troops, because of the economical and sociopolitical constraints they operate under. Something which is just as true for a contextually realistic fantasy society as a real one, only that the constraints may be different. Medieval England, for instance, would be much more constrained in its ability to field dragon riders than, say, the Highborn Elves, which in turn would be much more constrained than Imperial Russia in fielding huge hordes of conscripts :D
    Well... The Warhammer Fantasy world and Ninth Age world is an absurdistic world where anything can happen and happens. This is the key essence of the Fantasy genre.
    - We don't have magic
    - We don't have fantastical humanoid races
    - We don't have monsterous races
    - Most importantly we do not have a world that is in constant full scale all nations war ;)
    The suggestions of these 4 essential things in T9A are absurdistic by themselves. The more constraints you add the less Fantastastical the world becomes and loses it's feeling with the Fantasy genre.

    Your own blend of historical and fantastical opinion is very interesting but the fact remains that things like Dragons and High Elves never excisted. The prime reason as to why many economical and sociopolitical subjects hold no value is because your working with a Fantasy world.

    All real life examples that are added to any Fantasy story line are there to make it more relatable, not more believable. It is all a Fantasy.
  • Perhaps there should be no supporting attacks outside of the fight in extra rank rule.
    Only first rank fights actively as it was before 8th edition. It is fine to refill the ranks when models die. But the lethality of combats would be reduced, and suddenly passive CR would be worth something again. At the moment against a lot of units, the 3 ranks is simply worthless, the only thing that counts is to be steadfast due to ranks, because the damage is so high.

    Stomps and thunderstomps should be taken out of the game, because only fighting in one rank would be a boost to a lot of monsters/monstrous units.

    In addition of course the AP should be separated from strength and be a thing only influenced by the weapons instead models strength.
    (note: of course some monsters should have a defined value of AP).

    Abd finally there should be a minimum size needed at the end of the game for scoring purpose. If it is not the banner any more, it should at least be a number of scoring models in the unit to be left to count as scoring.
    Make it 10 infantry, 5 cavalry, 3 monstrous infantry/cavalry...so that it is a factor in army building. Make the deditcated scoring units big enough to be able to score at the end of the game. Not 1 model out of the 10 man elite unit left, and count as full scoring.


    And regarding to the all out of war discussion.
    A thing that bothered me a lot in old warhammer, especially in end times, was the totally absurd story and background, with millions of soldiers out fighting far away from their home, loosing battle after battle, but still always having reinforcement ready at hand and it seemed, that no army out there needed food, water, new weapons etc.
    It is important that the scale of the battles and the background is something that logically would work...and not the absurd stupid thing warhammer endtimes finally delivered.