A bit of a controversial topic, perhaps, but it's something I'd like to discuss with the community: the role of core, and do we really need it?
All game platforms we play seem to have an equivalent of "core" units: WFB, T9A and battleline units in AoS.
Core units seem to have two historical goals:
- Shape the design or look of an army (you don't have an army unless this is included), and through this the shape and look of the game.
- Drive up the sales, or at least we suspected it did.
Do we really need such restrictions to make an interesting game in WFB, AoS or T9A?
Antony made a big rant on it on his YouTube channel a while ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRQtutaTmKM
I'm not a big fan of his screaming, but he does make a few interesting points on the subject.
If we look at historical battles in WFB, the make-up of armies was decided by the location and resources available... not whether there were enough dreadspears available to justify fielding this many executioners.
Removing core requirements in the current state of things would probably lead to core units becoming very unpopular. I can't help but wonder if that isn't the real issue at hand. What would be needed to make units that are now core interesting? Why can't they have merit of their own? And if they don't.. what would they need to be worth it?
Personally, I wonder, if we could balance special and core by swapping the magical banner requirements: limited or no options for all elite troops and considerably freedom for units that are now core. It would allow us to tweak and tune the core units to give them a specific role, where special units already have their role and tend to be naturally proficient at it. It would make it "alright" for a general to show up with loads of dreadspears, instead of being forced to hire executioners, because they need to tackle chariots... Err?!