Game design philosophy - what is Core?

  • New

    JDAntoine wrote:

    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.



    CariadocThorne wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    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.

    Example:
    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.
    I say a lot of things without a doubt. Sometimes they are still factually incorrect though.

    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.
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    JDAntoine wrote:

    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.



    CariadocThorne wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    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.

    Example:
    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.
    I say a lot of things without a doubt. Sometimes they are still factually incorrect though.
    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.
    Erm....


    Giladis wrote:

    The core tax is real and is there to create a tactical disbalance so that a core unit of equal points can never be better than a non-core non-specialiesd unit. It is a pure game mechanics design decision because if umits would be equally effective for their cost what would be an incentive to take any nonobligatory unit except players thematic choice.

    Players tend to use the term "core tax" to mean both of these things though, and both are true.

    The requirement to take a certain % of Core units is seen as a 'tax'.

    But also, as @Giladis said above, some Core units are overpriced for the reason stated above (even though I don't agree with the logic and think Core tax in this sense makes little sense) and so have a 'core tax' applied to what would be their proper cost.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    "You see only what the Tuatha De' allow you to see" - Queen Maeb
    Albiann - The Misted Isles, Homebrew Celtic Faction for T9A
    Full Army Book
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    EoS core are a point or two overpriced. Which adds up in units you may be taking fifty strong.
    Sure don't feel overpriced compared to Elf special choices.

    Anyway, now I know why everyone is complaining about balance. T9A instituted an actual core points tax instead of tweaking points for external balance.

    Wait, we're talking about heavy infantry here, right? Because EoS Light Infantry I haven't run the numbers on, and EoS core Knights are pretty much fine (they're one of the better heavy cav units in the game).

    Note, BTW, that EoS buffwagons weren't taken into account in my calculations either, as I was running numbers and comparing things to Vermin Swarm units and Kingdom of Equitaine peasants.


    I'll also throw in my suggestion for a fix: Up Core Minimum by 10% and 'return' game sizes to 5000. Core for armies with 20% minimum runs into not having enough points to field the three or so actual blocks you might want to field without cutting into other things. Admittedly, that just uses the "force them to take it" patch but anywho...
  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    EoS core are a point or two overpriced. Which adds up in units you may be taking fifty strong.
    Sure don't feel overpriced compared to Elf special choices.
    Anyway, now I know why everyone is complaining about balance. T9A instituted an actual core points tax instead of tweaking points for external balance.
    Wait, we're talking about heavy infantry here, right? Because EoS Light Infantry I haven't run the numbers on, and EoS core Knights are pretty much fine (they're one of the better heavy cav units in the game).

    Note, BTW, that EoS buffwagons weren't taken into account in my calculations either, as I was running numbers and comparing things to Vermin Swarm units and Kingdom of Equitaine peasants.
    I've been playing without any buff wagons. I just put a prelate in the actual unit - the hatred is the biggest buff as I almost never get the prayers off and when I do, I keep track of the dice and its negligible.
    Sometimes I'm in range of my Marshal's orders as well.

    The light infantry are ok too. Not too good in squads of 10 but in a 20 block they can inflict decent shooting damage.
  • New

    I build my lists at 5k, and I will state again what my core is at, without the 'buff wagon'.
    EoS = 33.74
    OK = 42.16
    BH = 22.94 (due to lack of models currently)
    SA = 46.8

    These are percentages, and they are model dependent, but I also feel that I do not have enough core, particularly for BH and EoS. EoS has 3 units 40-50 strong and 1 unit of 10 light infantry. I don't have enough on the field, and I would prefer to have say only 30 man units of core. I'd still run this amount of core infantry, or more. BH, I need more models and flat out want to spend more on core. I love the idea of a massed army with some big threats (not the current monster mash idea). I can have a small force with some big threats in BH, and have units behind enemy lines, all I need at that point are core and a few threats to shoot at.