Why does the game need Core troops

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

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Why does the game need Core troops

    There's been an on going discussion in several sub forums around core, core tax, #makecorenotachore

    I'm quoting my own post from WotDG forum instead of rewording the core question/idea.


    matrim wrote:

    Exalted Champion wrote:

    matrim wrote:

    Why is there a "core"? (and special to that extent)
    I get shooting, monster restrictions but why does the game need to have core /special seperation?

    What would break if army composition was made out of (core + special= regular forces); capped charecters, unlimited regular forces, capped monsters?
    Sounds interesting.But this would mean that most choices in all books needs to be changed to get in line with this idea.
    Otherwise what would be the reason to pick current core choices?

    I remember the times of 8th edition as warriors core choices was build with 3-4 chariots and maybe some warhounds.
    Currently only WotDG has a "gold" book, DL are in beta. I assume lab is the correct time to address such foundation changes. Luckily current worst scenario is there are 2 books to redo.
    The 2nd part of your question : "why would anyone pick current core units" is @Herminard crusade.

    If i get his fundamental argument correct we need to design each unit "sexy" on its own right.

    Current core/special seperation creates arbitrary limitations like; core units cannot be as good as special, core tax, chaff is not core as people will fill out their min core requirements with chaff, etc.

    A merger should see those make believe limits disappear.

    Not saying easy to do but if it's going to be tested now is the time (b4 other lab books) or wait another 5 years :girlno:
    Not sure if this was discussed many moons ago or if there will be enough interest in the topic to discus the Core in this game.
  • The army categories are supposed to represent the main troops available to a specific faction (Core), the elite troops (Special), and different branches of specialized units (war machines, monsters and so on).

    From a background point of view, things like training soldiers to an elite level, capturing and training monsters for battle and building war machines and training the crew is expensive and takes time. Hence, an army without Core is unrealistic (yes, we are in a fantasy world so technically armies could be made of anything, but the game has chosen to represent armies consisting mostly of Rank and File troops).

    From the perspective of gameplay, the answer is related to the previous point. The game has chosen to be about Rank and File fantasy battles. Not about fantasy skirmish, fantasy infiltration missions, fantasy stock trading, or whatever other thing. So armies should have a reasonable representation of Rank and File troops, some of them more elite and some of them less elite.

    The problem comes when units from Core are too expensive for their points or not able to have a meaningful contribution to fights. Then the players perceive them (correctly or not) to be a liability and the minimum Core restriction to be unfair ("why do you force me to play with useless toys"). From a background point of view, if Core can't fight/contribute, why are they the main troops in the first place? Are all the military commanders in all factions idiots who don't realize they would win every battle if they brought no Core? :P

    On the other extreme, if Core was too good then we would not see units from any other category. So Core can't be a multitask category where its units can outperform the units from other categories.

    The answer is probably that Core, Special and the Army Specific Categories have to bring different things to the table. The only requirement for Core is that it is broad enough to support different playstyles (an extreme example, if you only have 1 type of Core unit the faction becomes boring very fast) and that Core is good enough that players want to bring, at least sometimes, more than the minimum required (a different way to phrase it is that a player bringing more Core than his opponent should not be at an automatic disadvantage).

    I think the part in bold is what needs to be a goal for all new Army Books.

    Edit:

    matrim wrote:

    Current core/special seperation creates arbitrary limitations like; core units cannot be as good as special, core tax, chaff is not core as people will fill out their min core requirements with chaff, etc.

    A merger should see those make believe limits disappear.
    This is a slippery slope argument. Rules are, by definition, arbitrary limitations. If you follow your argument further, you have to start asking questions like:
    "Why are Special and other Army Specific categories different?" "Why can't I bring any combination of units I want?" "Why are units limited in size and in number of units I can bring"

    For me, the question is not why these limitations exist, but how to make them promote a good gameplay experience. A separation of Core and Special and other categories is not inherently bad or good, it depends on what exactly the separation achieves in terms of the game.
    'He opened the battered book. Bits of paper and string indicated his many bookmarks.
    "In fact, men, the general has this to say about ensuring against defeat when outnumbered, out–weaponed and outpositioned. It is..." he turned the page, "Don't Have a Battle."
    "Sounds like a clever man," said Jenkins.'
    Terry Pratchett, Jingo!

    My humble Highborn Elves army blog:
    Elendor's HE army

    The post was edited 3 times, last by elendor_f ().

  • I thought I answered this in that WotDG thread last week sometime?
    At least my answer anyway.

    Need to tag RT to get the project answer, but they are probably very busy on the update.

    You could volunteer to help run internal/external coms I guess.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • I think it's due to allowing special troops in such large sizes.

    If special infantry were limited to max 20, then core units would make more sense. They would be worse point for point in defense or killing power. But just not enough staying power in total.

    But then a lot of balance would need to change as regarding stomps, impact hits, breath weapons etc.
    #freekillerinstinct
  • Dant, I'll go over the forum to find the particular post(s)

    Eleanor F
    RnF and current "special" units aren't mutually exclusive. There are non RnF units on core and RnF units in special currently so merger has no impact there.

    If you're saying; the core (subsequently RnF) has limited use in game therefore without mandatory requirements they would not be played, than the issue is with core unit design. And that seems to be driven by the core can't be this and that mentality.

    But essentially I'm asking the same question, what does the separation provide?
  • Here's a thing:

    Imagine we made it so that basic block infantry really were the best all-round choice.


    Except there were a few units that were good against them.

    Then advance that metagame six months. Those few units that are good against basic block infantry would be maxed out in every list.


    Okay, let's make it so that basic block infantry beat everything.

    ...oops, now every other unit has been edged out.


    Plan C: Let's make every unit equally good and freely available!

    ...so basic block infantry will see play in only some lists through sheer random chance?



    I'm a big fan of letting your basic troops be good at what they do. But if you let people not take them, then some people won't take them. And that's not the game we're trying to make.

    Some armies already bend the limits of that - but allowing 0% core would break it.

    Making core interesting and useful doesn't require removing the classification.

    Background Team

  • Of all the cores available, I don’t really ‘get’ VC, and I’m rather tickled by that.

    On one hand- why play and invest into a modeling game for a faction whose bulk identity lies in the discardable.

    On the other hand, of 16 distinct armies, this one exists as a negative image of the others, where the identity is that very disposability, the lack of agency in (un)life. A certain type of person revels in the essence of tastelessness.

    In a game of ‘your boys’, VC is about not giving a hoot about your boys. I’m on the fence if that is justifiably compelling enough, or a take-it-or-leave-it brilliance.

    Certainly you can have both as a VC owner, but it takes daring imagination and skilled modeling skills to communicate that these hordes are special to you. Something not serviced by the usual assembly of quickly dry brushed skellies, and paint globbed zombies: most people I imagine just want their special vampire.

    WotDG core for life. :love:
  • @DanT

    are you referring to 'looking at any list as a total of 4500 as opposed to its individual parts or recent discussion with @Herminard? I checked back to 25 Sep. But if it is any earlier please let me know.

    @WhammeWhamme

    where did you get the idea that I suggested making core as the best all around choice or the best unit entry???

    Your plan c argument just doesn't make sense.

    But none of what you responded has anything to do with my question. I did not suggest boosting or nerfing units. I said why not merge current core and special sections.

    it is not 0% core it is unlimited (essentially 95% as I'd assume at lest 5% would be spent on the army general) core. the challenge is to design units so that people won't feel handicapped taking an army like herminard's hbe battle line list.

    Removing classification allows for removing 'core tax discussions' and designing units without thinking 'oh this is a core unit it cannot be points efficient' or any other perceptions at the very least. I believe it will open design avenues and probably open design space (no more 8 dogs core but 5 are special kinda rule bloat) and with some luck and bold decision making reduce number of entries to open space for brand new ones.


    Still yet to get an 'having core / special' separation adds this value to the game argument.

    I will tag @Giladis as DanT suggested calling someone from the red team.

    @duxbuse
    work involved is great. and it is a legitimate reason.
    Also 'if it ain't broken dont fix it' could be an excuse.

    My query is not 'change for change sake' but is this a change that will improve the game. In order to pursue such a change I'd wish to understand the benefit of status quo. (otherwise I'd be barking mad)


    To avoid any misunderstandings; I enjoy T9A very much. However, every now and then discussions around 'core tax' pop up pretty much in every sub-forum and the latest core related discussion in WotDG forum made me think about this.
  • Firstly - @matrim - I am not a crusader - I am a heretic.
    What progress I cause in these issues are not by force, but by asking questions that will make your mind grow uneasy with the answers it has.

    Secondly - merge categories? Sure. That is feasible. Let me grab quotes from @elendor_fs well formulated post to clarify my stance.

    elendor_f wrote:

    The army categories are supposed to represent the main troops available to a specific faction (Core), the elite troops (Special), and different branches of specialized units (war machines, monsters and so on).

    From a background point of view, things like training soldiers to an elite level, capturing and training monsters for battle and building war machines and training the crew is expensive and takes time. Hence, an army without Core is unrealistic (yes, we are in a fantasy world so technically armies could be made of anything, but the game has chosen to represent armies consisting mostly of Rank and File troops).

    From the perspective of gameplay, the answer is related to the previous point. The game has chosen to be about Rank and File fantasy battles. Not about fantasy skirmish, fantasy infiltration missions, fantasy stock trading, or whatever other thing. So armies should have a reasonable representation of Rank and File troops, some of them more elite and some of them less elite.

    The problem comes when units from Core are too expensive for their points or not able to have a meaningful contribution to fights. Then the players perceive them (correctly or not) to be a liability and the minimum Core restriction to be unfair ("why do you force me to play with useless toys"). From a background point of view, if Core can't fight/contribute, why are they the main troops in the first place? Are all the military commanders in all factions idiots who don't realize they would win every battle if they brought no Core? :P

    On the other extreme, if Core was too good then we would not see units from any other category. So Core can't be a multitask category where its units can outperform the units from other categories.

    The answer is probably that Core, Special and the Army Specific Categories have to bring different things to the table. The only requirement for Core is that it is broad enough to support different playstyles (an extreme example, if you only have 1 type of Core unit the faction becomes boring very fast) and that Core is good enough that players want to bring, at least sometimes, more than the minimum required (a different way to phrase it is that a player bringing more Core than his opponent should not be at an automatic disadvantage).

    I think the part in bold is what needs to be a goal for all new Army Books.

    There is core - then there is elite - then there is specialized niche troops - then there are leaders.

    To me - it is very clear that;

    - the core should offer more bulk - if I want a maximum MEATY build - this is where I will go with the most of my gold.

    Example if lots of gold was spent here: a KoE Peasant Revolt Army.

    - the elite should offer the highest total grind or frontload power - if I want maximum RAW COMBAT POWER on the table in total - this is where most of my gold will go.

    Example if lots of gold was spent here: an EoS IG brick heavy Teutonic Knight Army.

    - the specialized should offer unique features - like hyper mobility, ranged threat, monsters/chariots, tricks like scouting/vanguarding/flying and other prime qualities - these extraordinary features should all come at a cost and some of them often with a drawback (even if implementing quirks&flaws can be misused to minMAX in the design process).

    Example if lots of gold was spent here: a Sylvan Elf all light troops army with no Scoring or VC every single model can fly army with no Scoring.

    - the leaders should offer unique features and also the greatest possible concentration of force per frontage - like Inspiring Prescence, Hold Your Ground, Magic, Unique Army Features like War Cry et al. And also the various classes of cowboys. Nuff said.

    Example if lots of gold was spent here: A 7 model WDG army with no Scoring.


    ---

    I dont really think that the armybooks need any categories at all to make these builds happen. What they do need is a fair distribution of _tools_ - so that all armies have fair and available tools for a well rounded build that does fairly well against builds that lean heavily in either direction.

    @WhammeWhamme - you are not addressing his main point. Try again. I know you can do better!
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.

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

  • @matrim

    No worries, I think it was earlier than that.

    Quick repeat:
    Core is a combination of ensuring armies have a minimal rank and file component and a background driven category, showing the fluffiest units in the army. It is often tied to lower eliteness units (but this is defined contextually within each book).

    Note the key point is not that everyone would not take R&F without core, but merely that some would/could.
    This would distort the game and the meta considerably.


    As you know from elsewhere, I believe that the majority of core units should be equally as points efficient as special units.
    Before I left the project, this had become an explicit goal for the LABs. I cannot comment on whether it is still an explicit goal.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    @matrim

    No worries, I think it was earlier than that.

    Quick repeat:
    Core is a combination of ensuring armies have a minimal rank and file component and a background driven category, showing the fluffiest units in the army. It is often tied to lower eliteness units (but this is defined contextually within each book).

    Note the key point is not that everyone would not take R&F without core, but merely that some would/could.
    This would distort the game and the meta considerably.


    As you know from elsewhere, I believe that the majority of core units should be equally as points efficient as special units.
    Before I left the project, this had become an explicit goal for the LABs. I cannot comment on whether it is still an explicit goal.

    I read lower elite == cheap bulk.

    So in the most prolonged of fights - several core units should have fair bids against equal points of elites. The elites have the disadvantage of their high cost per durability - while their advantage is that they can either sustain higher quality damage with less CR bleed (like Deepwatch) or deliver higher quality damage in bursts that core can not compare to (like Envy Chosen).

    But yes - I agree.

    I am also very curious to if the goal you helped set is still an explicit goal for the LABs. Who is a good badgeholder to summon?
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.
  • Herminard wrote:

    I read lower elite == cheap bulk.
    Yes, but relative to given book (WotDG warriors should be as elite or more so than EoS imperial guard, even though one is core and other is special).

    So in the most prolonged of fights - several core units should have fair bids against equal points of elites. The elites have the disadvantage of their high cost per durability - while their advantage is that they can either sustain higher quality damage with less CR bleed (like Deepwatch) or deliver higher quality damage in bursts that core can not compare to (like Envy Chosen).
    Yes.

    I am also very curious to if the goal you helped set is still an explicit goal for the LABs. Who is a good badgeholder to summon?
    You know who the best person to summon would be. You also know that he is very busy.


    I have asked the project to recruit someone to help with RT<->community communication, but I believe that finding someone prepared to do the job who the project trusts is a sticking point.

    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • Something that seem good to me would be to force people to have a ratio of core like we currently do, but also to have a restriction that forces you to have 1 core unit for every special one.

    I find it weird to see some people play lists with 1 core unit and 5 special ones...

    Also more links between characters and units would be nice...

    Example: Queens cavalier hero on horse allows you to take 1 unit of Ryma knights as core...

    This would probably change meta a lot too...

    DL / WDG Community Support

    Playtester

  • DanT wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    I read lower elite == cheap bulk.
    Yes, but relative to given book (WotDG warriors should be as elite or more so than EoS imperial guard, even though one is core and other is special).

    So in the most prolonged of fights - several core units should have fair bids against equal points of elites. The elites have the disadvantage of their high cost per durability - while their advantage is that they can either sustain higher quality damage with less CR bleed (like Deepwatch) or deliver higher quality damage in bursts that core can not compare to (like Envy Chosen).
    Yes.

    I am also very curious to if the goal you helped set is still an explicit goal for the LABs. Who is a good badgeholder to summon?
    You know who the best person to summon would be. You also know that he is very busy.


    I have asked the project to recruit someone to help with RT<->community communication, but I believe that finding someone prepared to do the job who the project trusts is a sticking point.



    All points true.

    To emphasize my point again - within the domain of the WDG book - both Barbarians and Warriors should be most feasible ways to aquire bulk in your build - more so than buying 6 Feldrakes - as they must pay somehow for their much greater speed and hatred for flyers and whatnot.

    Follow?
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.
  • Rothulf wrote:

    Something that seem good to me would be to force people to have a ratio of core like we currently do, but also to have a restriction that forces you to have 1 core unit for every special one.

    I find it weird to see some people play lists with 1 core unit and 5 special ones...

    Also more links between characters and units would be nice...

    Example: Queens cavalier hero on horse allows you to take 1 unit of Ryma knights as core...

    This would probably change meta a lot too...

    You didnt have me in the first half, not gonna lie :)

    If you like more restrictions - make a tournament. I would play it. If it was teams. I feel that if the game is too liberal - several restrictive comps would be helllllla fun. If the game is too restrictive - people have huuuge tresholds for comps that open up new stuff.

    Can you feel the difference?

    ---

    I very much agree that sumth like a Generals Entourage would be most interesting in opening up build paths and also a great way to challenge core tax.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.
  • @Herminard
    I agree.

    And I have never said that there is zero core tax in WotDG.
    My view is that there is less than in the slim books, and that it is not large.
    I think it could still be improved further.



    Aside: Interestingly though, there is a counterforce in your feldrak example.
    I think that feldraks effectively (and implicitly because empirical balancing) receive a discount due to their inability to ever get break test re-rolls. Thus they are probably the wrong unit to make your argument with.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    @Herminard
    I agree.

    And I have never said that there is zero core tax in WotDG.
    My view is that there is less than in the slim books, and that it is not large.
    I think it could still be improved further.



    Aside: Interestingly though, there is a counterforce in your feldrak example.
    I think that feldraks effectively (and implicitly because empirical balancing) receive a discount due to their inability to ever get break test re-rolls. Thus they are probably the wrong unit to make your argument with

    Breaktests matter nuffin when you autobreak. Dont talk nonsense.

    When we reach the state where equal points of Warriors are equally desireable as 6 Feldrakes to block a Sphinx with - then we can rediscuss the level of core tax.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.
  • Herminard wrote:

    Breaktests matter nuffin when you autobreak. Dont talk nonsense.

    When we reach the state where equal points of Warriors are equally desireable as 6 Feldrakes to block a Sphinx with - then we can rediscuss the level of core tax.
    Sure. As long as we agree that instead of a sphinx we take a wide array of possible opposition and take some sort of effective average :P
    (And I am assuming you are being facetious about the break tests).
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE