Wouldn't you say it has much more to do with the 'averageness' of the statstical norm put on Cores?
With this I mean that a typical decent Core units ranges from WS2 to 3, S3 to 4, T3 to 4, W1, I2-3, A1 etc. When you then compair that to some of the Special choices that are around that statistical norms switches to WS4 to 5, S4-5, TX, WX, A1+.
There are certainly some exceptions that have Core with I4-5, A2 and more but typically these are found in the faction who don't really like to go heavy on their Core.
This is fine. Special should be somewhat better or more unique than generic core units.
It also should vary depending on the army. This is how you get differences and flavor. And the core % doesn't need to be locked at 25% for every army. It is certainly something that can be tweaked.
I say a lot of things without a doubt. Sometimes they are still factually incorrect though.I can say without a doubt that core tax is just the percentage of army. Not an actual increase in points cost for crappy troops.Any other imbalance is just generic imbalance.
Why are rank and file spear elves no good? ...because someone complained that it was too hard to tell which models had heavy armour and which ones had light armour. That's why. Not a tax, just a complaint that was solved in the wrong direction.
In this case, that may be the intention, but it is not the reality. Many core units are simply over-priced compared to non-core in the same army. Whether this "Core tax" is intentional or not is irrelevant, its existence is very real. If the certain amount of points spent in non-core is categorically better than the same amount of points in core (and it often is), then Core Tax is real.
I believe that a large part of the problem is due to GWs failure to balance the power creep over successive generations of WFB, as S3, T3 and static CR gradually became less and less relevant as more and more units with multiple high strength attacks became common. Rules like Steadfast were a quick-fix which failed to deal with the underlying problems, while empowering elite deathstars. These issues have been inherited by T9A and not yet adequately dealt with.
Proposals such as decoupling Strength from AP and reworking static CR and rank bonuses could go a long way to resolving this, although personally I believe reworking the to-wound table is also needed.
Nope. Any overpriced core units is simply because of imbalance. Overpriced does not equal core tax.
Core tax = minimum percentage of the army. Period.
What happens when you have a special unit that is overpriced? is that now a special tax?
Of course a member of the armybook committee or rules teams can tell me I'm wrong because they deliberately increased points costs to actually make a core tax with points. But until then, its just imbalance.
If literally every single core option(or like 90% of them) was overpriced then yes, ipso de facto, there would be a points core tax.