Big FAQ?

[Kirjava13]

DoK could have some of their more egregious nonsense changed to what seems to be increasingly happening: "wholly within" and "unmodified 6". Couple that with there being some sort of counterplay or limit to prayers and we could be cooking with gas.

[Sleboda]

Didn't they already get knocked down with the shields no longer being 6+ to bounce a wound?

[Chickenbits]

The problem with "increasing the points will fix it!" is that people usually forget that all the other armies gets points increases as well, at least the better units.

Even though a point increase for stuff like witch elves and Hag queens is more than guranteed, the best units from other factions will also see an increase in points, like Enlightened for BoC, or sequitors for Stormcasts. As such, the playing field doesn't really become all that more fair, since even though the DoK players now have less witches, I also have less of *my* good units. Of course, they could give witches a massive increase, but that runs the risk of killing the army outright.

What is needed is a change to war scrolls and a change to certain "Chapters/skyports/temples" like Hag Nar. For example, the Witchbrew should be a command abillity if you ask me. Also, theese are things that could be changed in an FAQ, as we saw with Wild riders, so I understand people being dissapointed.

Also, I don't understand people being upset about Doppleganger nerf and a potential Amulet nerf. We only see like 5-6 artefacts used all the time, what's wrong with seeing some variety? 

[Vextol]

57 minutes ago, Chickenbits said:

 What is needed is a change to war scrolls and a change to certain "Chapters/skyports/temples" like Hag Nar. For example, the Witchbrew should be a command abillity if you ask me. Also, theese are things that could be changed in an FAQ, as we saw with Wild riders, so I understand people being dissapointed.

Also, I don't understand people being upset about Doppleganger nerf and a potential Amulet nerf. We only see like 5-6 artefacts used all the time, what's wrong with seeing some variety? 

I'm like the spokesperson for this it seems.  If you kill (and I don't care what anyone is saying about "just as good", GW has killed basically every artifact they've touched for the history of time) the good artifacts, you'll just have five more good artifacts that everyone will complain about until eventually they won't make any impact at all.   Your variety will become indifference.

Artifacts are some of the only things that keep this game consistently intriguing.  They are an excellent way to add variety without adding cost.  I wish people would stop begging for nerfs on things that are interesting and instead ask for validation on the garbage noone wants instead.  

[Lemon Knuckles]

1 hour ago, Vextol said:

I'm like the spokesperson for this it seems.  If you kill (and I don't care what anyone is saying about "just as good", GW has killed basically every artifact they've touched for the history of time) the good artifacts, you'll just have five more good artifacts that everyone will complain about until eventually they won't make any impact at all.   Your variety will become indifference.

Artifacts are some of the only things that keep this game consistently intriguing.  They are an excellent way to add variety without adding cost.  I wish people would stop begging for nerfs on things that are interesting and instead ask for validation on the garbage noone wants instead.  

I agree with a lot of this, but most especially the 2nd part.  People need to ask themselves if they truly think the game would be more "balanced" if instead of a few powerful and interesting artefacts seeing regular play there was a dozen similar and mediocre artefacts.  All that would do is exacerbate the inherent imbalance between factions and other game elements.  At the end of the day, for a system as fruity as AoS, there are really only two choices if you desire something like balance:  1) strip out as many of the different gameplay elements as possible to pare the system down to something that can be rightfully be balanced by the game designers (goodbye meaningful differences between factions, battletomes, warscrolls, etc.), or 2) increase the interest and possibilities of elements outside of the individual battletomes in order to increase meaningful options and meaningful choices and allow players to discover ways to create better balance for themselves.

In this sense, I agree with @Vextolthat we should be asking for more interesting artefacts to be created, rather than for nerfing the few that are truly interesting.

[angrycontra]

For me it's not the problem that there'll always be the best top 3/5 artifacts. That is completely 100% going to happen... HOWEVER... artifacts (and that one spell) such as ethereal amulet are extremely unfun to play against. I don't care if your guy has rend -3, chance to do d6 mortals every hit roll of 6, +1 to hit/wound, fly with speed boost etc. What I do care about is that I can kill your guy. That's the reason GW should never print artifacts (or spells) that give massive survivability boosts because they actually limit design space. I've seen comments where people say stuff like "noo don't nerf the amulet, my vl on zombie dragon is actually good now!" And to that I say "then have GW buff vl on zombie dragon". The game shouldn't be balanced around some stupid realm specific artifact. Why do you think they nerfed mystic shield?

Also same goes for army balance as well. Very often I see similar argument for armies "there's always gonna be top tier armies". Yeah sure, but it's not a question of whether there'll be top armies or not, it's a question of how big gap there is between the best and worst army. The smaller that gap is, the better the game is. 

[JackStreicher]

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Didn't they already get knocked down with the shields no longer being 6+ to bounce a wound?

I can‘t find any errata entry for the bladed bucklers no longer causing NWs on unmodified 6s.

[JackStreicher]

Maybe DoK aren‘t the issue but the way you can build armies since  a „balanced“ build is seldom seen in a competetive environment, spamming of the most point efficient unit is the go-to.

perhaps tournaments need a different ruleset concerning list building.

 

A different thought:

if someone is fielding 90 Witches, does this count as pay to win for 10 of them cost an absurd amount of money and you only buy that many if you really want to win while cutting down on skill? 🤔

[RuneBrush]

16 hours ago, Clanan said:

How much time is required between finishing a rulebook and seeing it printed? I wonder if the FAQ was light because GHB2019 is nearly finished. Logistically, it would be make sense to stuff the big things in the GHB if it's written around the same time-frame.

If the publication is printed in China then it takes roughly 3 months from the point it's "finished" to the point it arrived back in the UK.  Factoring potential issues in the UK ports (which may occur the early part of next year) it's highly probably that the new handbook is almost finished.

[Bosmer Nightblade]

Here's what bugs me when people say stuff like "dok are op" or "80% win ratio".

Let's unpack a few things.....

- What is dok? Every army ever to meet the faction conditions for dok? Or do you just mean lists using hagg nar?

- 80%. What lists were those? Who played them? Were there trends in the scenarios they did well in? Would that percentage come down if you took a closer look and realised some factors almost guaranteed a win regardless of the list strength? By how much?

- the tournament scene still suffers from netlisting, even if some of the best players don't do that. What if "80%" is simply reflective of "dok" being stronger than some popular lists, where those other popular lists are represented enough to give "dok" a better chance?

- tournament players are a minority, no matter how vocal. Making rules changes for everyone and adding to the stacks of paper a player needs to even show up to a game affects everyone, to temporarily appease a few in a niche setting.

- even if we accept "dok" is "op" at tournaments, that doesn't necessarily reflect the experience at stores, gaming clubs, homes etc. Maybe such casual players are "wrong" if that's the case, but rules changes affect game experience for everyone, and if you negatively affect something that the majority of players didn't have an issue with (I'm speaking hypothetically, i don't have gw's data), you just cause widespread negativity, and for what? A niche of ultra competitive players who will likely move on to the new hotness in a few months.

[stato]

19 minutes ago, Bosmer Nightblade said:

Here's what bugs me when people say stuff like "dok are op" or "80% win ratio".

Let's unpack a few things.....

- What is dok? Every army ever to meet the faction conditions for dok? Or do you just mean lists using hagg nar?

- 80%. What lists were those? Who played them? Were there trends in the scenarios they did well in? Would that percentage come down if you took a closer look and realised some factors almost guaranteed a win regardless of the list strength? By how much?

- the tournament scene still suffers from netlisting, even if some of the best players don't do that. What if "80%" is simply reflective of "dok" being stronger than some popular lists, where those other popular lists are represented enough to give "dok" a better chance?

- tournament players are a minority, no matter how vocal. Making rules changes for everyone and adding to the stacks of paper a player needs to even show up to a game affects everyone, to temporarily appease a few in a niche setting.

- even if we accept "dok" is "op" at tournaments, that doesn't necessarily reflect the experience at stores, gaming clubs, homes etc. Maybe such casual players are "wrong" if that's the case, but rules changes affect game experience for everyone, and if you negatively affect something that the majority of players didn't have an issue with (I'm speaking hypothetically, i don't have gw's data), you just cause widespread negativity, and for what? A niche of ultra competitive players who will likely move on to the new hotness in a few months.

Essentially, it doesnt matter.  What tournaments show is that its possible to use what is available to build a list to win 80% of the time.  Its GW who are doing the tweaking, they will be the ones who need to delve into that (and its easy to do as the data is available and if its not then if someone from GW asks for it then the community will provide).

We (the internet) can debate what aspects it is that makes it win, GW is the one doing the tweaking so they make the call and have lots of very good players on call who can guide them on that.....  if they want to.

 

Example: if its 'units of 30 witches' that are the problem, maybe restrict them to 20?   if its 'units of 30 witches being buffed', maybe change the buff to be wholly within, or only models within, or change the distance of the buff.  All ways you can cap the outright power of a list without impacting the average player.

[Overread]

Most games that work well are balanced at the competitive end of the game. Because at the top end of the competitive game scene the game is being played correctly by people who know what they are doing-  ergo with some degree of skill. Esp once you get to the latter tables and higher win ratios where repeat wins can be totalled up and looked at.

 

You balance the game there, where its working and being used right, and the corrections filter down to the casual end. Because at the casual end you've got people who put random units together because they look cool. They take a whole army of anti-tank units because they look cool and lose. It's not a problem with the anti tank units, its simply that they player chose to take an army that was more likely to lose than win. 

You also have a bigger range of skills, so many people can be losing not because of a problem with the army nor even composition of the army, but because they are doing silly things. They are leaving units in the open, not using terrain - heck they might not even have enough terrain on the board and ranged armies are shooting them down like crazy because there's no break in the line of sight.

 

 

So you look at the casual as extreme balance issues will still arise there, but you focus on the competitive. You build the solid rule around them being used correctly. Any balance adjustments there should only benefit the casual end as well.

 

Now issues tend to arise when corrections are big swings. When you add 10 points per Witch Aelf to try and shut down the power-house combo and suddenly invalidate taking more than a handful; when they change an attack profile from 3 attacks to 1 etc.... Ergo ideally you want to avoid big changes because those can often have a bigger negative association; esp if its related to points or the number you can take. Within reason, you don't want to be turning people away from the hobby by invalidating their army, in part or full. 

[Black Blade]

12 hours ago, Malakree said:

That said I feel like the Cloak should have been changed to "cannot be chosen as the target of melee attacks in that combat phase" since it's now one combat phase only.

As someone who was/is a bit peeved about the cloak nerf (I used it like twice, I liked that it was a thing at all) I would have been satisfied with change if this is what they did. Instead its 1/6 as good as it used to be and i still argue that it wasnt broken. 

[Nos]

Just to add the caveat that most people who were expecting “balance” seem to be doing so from the perspective of AOS primarily functioning as competitive game, whereas GW have never really stated that this is how they see it in either word or deed.

If their aim is to make models for people to buy and game with, which I believe it is, then the purpose of the FAQ is to make sure that they remove anything that makes that process off-putting, confusing or complicated. DOK might well be OP competitively speaking but GW aren’t interested in making them balanced. They’re interested in making them act like they do in the fiction. Immersion is the goal, not fairness. In that sense they are working entirely as intended at present.

[stato]

4 minutes ago, Nos said:

Just to add the caveat that most people who were expecting “balance” seem to be doing so from the perspective of AOS primarily functioning as competitive game, whereas GW have never really stated that this is how they see it in either word or deed.

If their aim is to make models for people to buy and game with, which I believe it is, then the purpose of the FAQ is to make sure that they remove anything that makes that process off-putting, confusing or complicated. DOK might well be OP competitively speaking but GW aren’t interested in making them balanced. They’re interested in making them act like they do in the fiction. Immersion is the goal, not fairness. In that sense they are working entirely as intended at present.

I certainly like it when factions function like they do in the fiction, but the stated goal of the FAQ was to use it to introduce balance, which is why there is so much discussion.

[Lemon Knuckles]

Balance means different things to different people.  For some it means something close to how fun or interactive the game feels.  For others, it means something like how comparable apples are to oranges.  For others, it means something like how diverse things are.  For still others, it means something closer to how much variance there is between faction win-rates or top finishes at major tourneys.  Just reading through this thread it's clear people are using it to point at different things.

Out of curiosity, does GW actually use the term "balance" anywhere? 

I mean, their FAQs and point chances are done with no commentary that I've seen.  Things just occasionally change... sometimes the changes seem really warranted and sometimes they seem a bit random.

In LoL, for example, where they are constantly dealing with fine-tuning balance, and deal with the same issues of having to balance game elements that perform very differently at casual levels then they do at more "pro" levels, the game designers always provide the community with a pretty decent explanation about the reasons why the tweak the things they do.

[Nos]

1 hour ago, stato said:

I certainly like it when factions function like they do in the fiction, but the stated goal of the FAQ was to use it to introduce balance, which is why there is so much discussion.

Balance doesn’t necessarily mean competitive balance. I’d suggest to most people it just means “not one sided”. That in itself can mean multiple things. For some people they mean it in the traditional competitive sense, but for quite a lot of people I think it means balance of actions taken. If you get through your phases in 5 minutes and the other guy is rolling dice in all of them for 30, that seems unfair even if it dosent actually translate to winning, because it’s a game and people involved in games want to play them, not watch the other person.

The difference between competitive meta and the average AOS gamer is that the competitive player *is* doing everything in their power to make the game one sided in their favour, which does always give me a wry smile to be honest. If that’s someones mentality and they’re talking about “balance”  within a circle that aims to create imbalance before the game even begins it suggests to me that theyre looking for assistance because they can’t win on their terms. If it’s a known fact that DOK are overpowered but permitted and someone is entering a competition where everyone wants to win, and they don’t pick the army infamous for being the most powerful , I don’t know what to tell you. If you want to win the tournament with Moonclan good on you, but it’s a deliberate handicap in an environment where people look to create them for you. 

 In my experience casual players (ie the majority that GW make money off ) are just looking to have fun and will balk at the idea of creating imbalance deliberately for that very reason.  Or alternatively if someone becomes regarded as a try hard among more casual players more interested in dominating them than playing a game, they simply don’t end up having many games in that circle anymore.

Balance is essentially self achieved among most gamers in my experience and I think this is how GW look at it. Do DOK, when picked in an atmosphere of friendly gaming,  inherently break the game? Are all of their troops so good or undercosted that they just default win regardless of what’s picked, scenario etc? They don’t. Do they play in a manner fitting their lore and therefore IP, making them a more unique and marketable product? They do. Jobs a good  ‘un.

[SwampHeart]

37 minutes ago, Nos said:

Do DOK, when picked in an atmosphere of friendly gaming,  inherently break the game?

They absolutely do - I lost 2 players in my store because of this. Both had just gotten in to AoS, one with DoK and one with KO. Both were new to tabletop gaming as a hobby and after about 3 months of play both decided to quit because of how much better DoK were than KO. The player who picked DoK was absolutely not attempting to 'create imbalance' - he was just a casual/new player who was taking logical things (unit of witches, cauldrons, hags, khinerai). But what happened was DoK did in fact break the game in a friendly gaming atmosphere - to the point where both players decided the game wasn't fun and sold their armies. 

That's why balance matters - there is this constant crowing about how tournament gamers are only a small slice, casual players don't break the game, etc. But that all ignores the fact that, outside experienced gamers, an army like DoK (or KO or most non tome armies on the other end) can quickly lead to a lot of negative play experiences. What happens if a group gets started and one guy does take DoK because he likes the army, he isn't a try hard, but he's beating his other buddies consistently and gets ostracized from the group? Was he just supposed to know what not to take? Is he supposed to buy even more new models so his friends will play him again? 

Having power gaps like what exist in AoS right now is bad for everyone not just tournament players. I can't beat DoK with KO so how am I supposed to help a new player do it? We've got a growing community at my store but I can tell you that massive gaps in army efficacy isn't a helpful recruiting tool. 

To be clear I don't think the game should only be balanced (semantics aside as its not an argument I'm interested in) around tournament play. What I am saying is that GW needs to address issues like how good DoK are (and how bad KO are) in a more timely manner because they impact more than just tournament players. 

[SwampHeart]

1 hour ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

Out of curiosity, does GW actually use the term "balance" anywhere? 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/01/29/warhammer-age-sigmar-faqs-new-model/

5th paragraph where they talk about these twice a year FAQs being used to ensure the games stays balanced. They even say 'ahead of the spring and summer tournament seasons' so clearly they are looking at tournament players as a part of the reason they drive this (despite what posters like @Nos say). 

[stato]

40 minutes ago, Nos said:

 In my experience casual players (ie the majority that GW make money off ) are just looking to have fun and will balk at the idea of creating imbalance deliberately for that very reason.  Or alternatively if someone becomes regarded as a try hard among more casual players more interested in dominating them than playing a game, they simply don’t end up having many games in that circle anymore.

I dont disagree with the majority of your post, but this comment shows lack of competitive balance in the rules design can easily lead to  “one sided” games, even a DoK army with a scattering of all the unit options will decimate a lot of armies as they cant compete against some of the things DoK can bring. 

For me personally thats happened with the latest missions, a huge swing to magic and strong heros with artefacts, and none of my factions have the ability to compete in those games (especially against Morathi, its an auto lose), compared to DoK my is now imbalanced (against) for how the game is now played.

 

[Overread]

Agreed, balance brings better experiences, esp at the casual end of the game. A very underpowered army at the competitive end is going to be just as, if not worse, at the casual end. Thing is there's this big hang up that casual and competitive are fundamentally different, which is false. They are the very same exact game, the casual vs competitive is often more a personal attitude element or even just environment (playing at home/club instead of the tournament hall). 

So very much so if the game is balanced for competitive it will be balanced, more or less, for the casual players; provided that balance is not reliant upon single compositions - ergo a single set of choices. Provided that there's variety in choice for what players can take on the battlefield (within reason) then the game is in a good position.

 

I fully agree that KO Are suffering because of how they are a no-magic army in a game that now favours magic in quite a big way. you can see how older Battletomes are not as well designed for the current game and, whilst I don't expect them soon, I can see GW revising them before a new edition lands. Just to bring them up to speed and give them, perhaps, a few new models and tricks to even things out.

[Glaurung]

Ok guys, step down from tournament play and everythng else.
Those who play DoK should just wait one, two, three seconds before opening their mouth. Just listen and follow me.
DoK have some of the best units in the game. Thats a FACT supported by numbers: if you play competitive, so that you use the units at their best, you get lists (not one, but some) that have 80% win rate. That means those units are better than others. I don't care about the "Only strong players use them", because I read it as "they cost a lot and the average tournament/competitive guy is commited to spend a lot of money" and guess why, because they are good.
If they weren't so good, you would see a lower win %. Thats a fact, it is supported by numbers: statistically, if you factor the buffs, probability and everything else, they are very good, too good, and you can't say  that numbers don't matter. This game has so many different aspects, so that I think numbers are the only thing you can use.
Period.
I don't really care about competitive however.
Let's talk about friendly games. I have a friend that plays a sub-optimal DoK list, with 10-10-20 witches. I play FEC.
He is not abusing hags (only uses the cauldron), he is not abusing 90 witches.
He plays witches, Morathi, cauldron and snake-ladies. He is happy with his list.
We played many times and I can say that I saw DoKs as too strong well before the numbers of "competitive scene" came out.
Battleline with many attacks, that has a save of 4+, deals mortal wounds when saving,  has a 5+ after save, is fast, can run and charge, rerolls 1s to hit (or all) from the third round, rerolls to wound and immune to battleshock? 
I just thought "what the hell".
He run through me. I did not know the army, and he destroyed me.
Second time, changed my list, studied the army, it happened again. In order to win, I had to play him 3 times and change my list, tailoring it to go against those witches. That's not a fact, but it was my experience, the same that everyone who "casually" plays against DoK can have.
I found the stats and the buffs that those witches can have absurd: we had the 5+ aftersave with ruler of the night and it was deemed too powerful and taken away. My ghouls have a 6+ aftersave if they are wholly within 12", but DoKs get it free, because guess what, 10 Witches cost the same as 10 ghouls. I use the ghouls as a comparison medium because I play and know them  very well.
My question was "why does this  faction gets additional rules every turn (that are always in effect, instead of round only) that are good,  gets good battlelines that are cheap, deal damage, are fast and are crazy survivable, with the correct buffs, and cost so little?"
Come on guys, really, they have so many rules, buffs and everything else that if you do a fluffy list (and many times fluffy means bringing at least some witches, as they should be there, like ghouls for FEC) and get a friendly match, you RISK to just win because of math and statistics. And this is not factoring competite play, just causal matches with friends.

I do not want the nerf hammer to destroy the faction, I really like them. But please, don't try to say they are not one of the strngest and that there are no problems in friendly matches.
Because if you play DoK and want to have fun, you have to restrict yourself to have a match with friends. And that's not good for the game, both for DoK gamers and the others...

[Dead Scribe]

Thats why a lot of people just buy the strongest units and then when they get nerfed, sell that off and buy whatever is the strongest next.  Thats also I believe an intentional sales model and why the imbalance in the game exists, but we (most of us) know that going into it.

I don't play AOS because I care about balance, because if I cared about balance there are other games I'd play instead.  I play AOS because I know I can get games and there is a monster tournament scene for it.

[stato]

4 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Thats why a lot of people just buy the strongest units and then when they get nerfed, sell that off and buy whatever is the strongest next.  Thats also I believe an intentional sales model and why the imbalance in the game exists, but we (most of us) know that going into it.

I don't play AOS because I care about balance, because if I cared about balance there are other games I'd play instead.  I play AOS because I know I can get games and there is a monster tournament scene for it.

Doesnt need perfect balance, just needs the edges knocked off, you need to be able to approach a table with a at least half thought out list and think you could have a chance regardless of what you are facing.  At the moment with the scenarios and certain overpowered unit options an average player can go to a table and know with a reasonable level of certainty that they wont stand a chance.

Im a below 50% player at tournaments, because i play for fun and dont entirely optimise my lists as i always want at least 1 or 2 personal twists, like Prosecutors in my KO list, they fly right, so make good sense as allies ;0).   Thankfully for me this means I dont face DoK in tournaments, because they are all above me in the standings  

[Overread]

5 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Thats why a lot of people just buy the strongest units and then when they get nerfed, sell that off and buy whatever is the strongest next.  Thats also I believe an intentional sales model and why the imbalance in the game exists, but we (most of us) know that going into it.

I don't play AOS because I care about balance, because if I cared about balance there are other games I'd play instead.  I play AOS because I know I can get games and there is a monster tournament scene for it.

I think the sales model wasn't intention by GW, its more accidental and situational. 

In the old day GW released a codex/battletome along with a big injection of models. That meant each launch was a huge investment for GW in terms of resources and money and time. So they marketed them strongly and had a bias reason to make sure that they were going to be good on the table. I don't think they wanted them "overpowered broken" (even though that happened sometimes) but that they wanted to make sure they were GOOD! The thing was alongside that they'd release these big launches slowly, a couple of codex a year. 
That meant a lot of armies were running around with previous rules editions and sometimes might even be two editions or more behind. That fast led to them being weaker and less populated with options in terms of model variety and choices. So the factions got weaker - this in turn mean that when it was their time for an update GW had to release even MORE models and make even more noise and make REALLY darn sure they were good to generate sales.

 

It was a business practice that had big spikes followed by long gaps and it wasn't conductive to a balanced appraoch to the game in any form. It just couldn't be done under that system; esp when each rules edition was a big swing in core rules. 

The pattern they've got now is FAR more healthy for balance approaching a more level playing field. No more is a single faction launch one of the biggest events of the year; no more are they hinging a huge block of investment on a single moment in time. They are instead spreading the load and taking an approach that aims to bolster all armies and the RANGE itself rather than the individual force. Whilst AoS is lagging, 40K is already running this and whilst there are some issues; its a big change to see that perhaps its only Grey Knights that are really suffering; as opposed to half a dozen armies. That regular updates are able to take into account player feedback; that GW can make adjustments along the way. It's a huge shift in attitude and marketing that I think GW is only just getting used too and starting to adapt with. 

 

 

 

@Glaurung I don't think many are saying that DoK are not clearly powerful, nor that KO Are clearly weaker. It's more debate on the nature of changes to come. For example many state points, I've posted that it shouldn't just be pionts but other matters. You mention buffs and a resolution could well be to state that Witches can't be under more than one spell/prayer at a time etc... Or perhaps a change to one of their temples (as there's clearly one that is better than the others). etc... Ergo its debating about alternative approachs; there's also views that balance adjustments should be slower and subtle rather than big swings. I don't think any are really saying that DoK are totally normal, just that there are different eways to approach balance which might even be instead of changing DoK; change other armies so that they are better.  Certianly if we start comparing new armies to old ones the old are faring worse and those without battletomes fair even worse than that.