Metawatch article highlighting the total lack of balance

[NinthMusketeer]

54 minutes ago, Saxon said:

What i do not get is that there is all this talk of long term goals and strategies in regards to GW's progress moving forward. Surely game maintenance would form part of this long term strategy to ensure the community negative noise remains at a low level. You look at 40k where they appear to have really pulled their socks up in light of serious noise about 8th edition. 

This does not gel well with intentionally creating poor rules which upsets part of their customer base. I feel like deliberate imbalance to push sales is a short term win and a long term loss. 

To use your analogy regarding dice, it would be like getting paid $10/day to rearrange dice but if you do it randomly and drop a few on the floor on the way, by the end of the week you'll only be getting $7.

I should retract my previous arguments somewhat and say they are focused on AoS, because I only have half a grip on the insanity of 40k rules development right now. I also completely agree that by allowing imbalance/low-quality rules to continue as they do there is a sacrifice of long term gain for short term results.

But I do want to give GW credit where it is deserved; over the past few years the number of options in building armies for AoS have skyrocketed but (IMO) balance has remained roughly at the same level overall. That is an improvement in a manner of speaking, at a sufficient rate that increasing options did not drag down balance.

[Saxon]

5 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I should retract my previous arguments somewhat and say they are focused on AoS, because I only have half a grip on the insanity of 40k rules development right now. I also completely agree that by allowing imbalance/low-quality rules to continue as they do there is a sacrifice of long term gain for short term results.

But I do want to give GW credit where it is deserved; over the past few years the number of options in building armies for AoS have skyrocketed but (IMO) balance has remained roughly at the same level overall. That is an improvement in a manner of speaking, at a sufficient rate that increasing options did not drag down balance.

You have a very positive view i will give you that. 

I struggle to give them credit when they appear to have absolutely no control over power creep resulting in significant nerfs which do a disservice to people buying their products. 

[NinthMusketeer]

It helps that I transitioned from playing in tournaments to judging them. Having a metaphorical 'bird's eye view' to the carnage makes it seem smaller, if that makes sense. Also we always do narrative leagues at my FLGS so I get to see AoS at its best rather than it's worst.

[EnixLHQ]

Wow, this thread exploded. That's good. Discussion is good.

I don't have a ton I can bring to this thread, but I can offer something. A couple of things.

First, I'm a guy who has gone all in on a faction that ended up not to be a meta-strong army. I did it for the love of the models and aesthetic before I learned about how they stood as an army against others. I figured out how to play my army before my friends really did and that gave me a sense of strength, as well. It all came together in this sublime endorphin boost; beautiful models, a fun game system, and competitive chances each game. At least at first.

I'm exclusively a Nighthaunt/Legion of Grief player with over 8k points in nearly 300 models. All but 3 painted. It's fair to say I've invested time, money, and a lot of emotion into this game and, specifically, this faction. So when it started becoming apparent that NH were not played much, regarded highly, or even generally respected, my reaction was to ask why. Why was my faction maligned? Why can't I make them perform better? Why was everyone's solution to buy a new faction and leave this one behind? Why did no one seem to care?

When my friends caught up on the rules and really learned their armies, I started getting stomped. Simple mistakes became game-losing. Hell, a bad deployment became game-losing. And my reaction to this was to study, study from tournament data, from faction reviews, from interviews, from asking players and winners, and from cornering a couple rules writers online. I ended up writing my guide which really helped my chances at winning, but it was a considerable effort.

Do we expect everyone to put in this kind of effort? Should they have to? Yes, but only if they aren't meta?

I can speak from personal experience how hard it is to still love the game and the people who have a hand in shaping it when I have seen nothing or very little in the way of addressing playability. It's disheartening to see evidence that money dictates their actions. Even though NH still sells a lot of models it's to the hobbyists instead of the players, and that seems to actually reinforce the idea GW won't address things until they see money in it.

Second, who here has had the fortune to interact with GW? I have. They have a very uniform way of addressing the questions I've asked. "Play what you like" is by far the most repeated phrase, followed closely by "do you best and have fun." They have been dealing with this for a while, and I know they hear what everyone has to say, but I also think they can only do so much. I believe they bring up our concerns in their meetings, but I'd not be surprised if a governing board makes the final choice.

[Greybeard86]

2 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

When my friends caught up on the rules and really learned their armies, I started getting stomped.

I can speak from personal experience how hard it is to still love the game and the people who have a hand in shaping it when I have seen nothing or very little in the way of addressing playability. It's disheartening to see evidence that money dictates their actions. Even though NH still sells a lot of models it's to the hobbyists instead of the players, and that seems to actually reinforce the idea GW won't address things until they see money in it.

Second, who here has had the fortune to interact with GW? I have. They have a very uniform way of addressing the questions I've asked. "Play what you like" is by far the most repeated phrase, followed closely by "do you best and have fun." They have been dealing with this for a while, and I know they hear what everyone has to say, but I also think they can only do so much. I believe they bring up our concerns in their meetings, but I'd not be surprised if a governing board makes the final choice.

This here is one of the reasons why balance matters, even if you are not playing in tournaments.

Lots of people who are more familiar than me with the intricacies of competitive play have highlighted odd rules decisions, obviously imbalanced, that don’t get addressed for months.

Let me give you an example, the rise and fall of petrifex:

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/07/aos-no-bones-about-it-thoughts-on-the-petrifex-elite-nerf.html
 

Controversial from the beginning, it proved to be very dominant. Then, one day, GW turned around and nerfed it. Now, as the article says, other sub factions look more appealing. Was that an accident? Is it some weird interaction they couldn’t account for? Seems obvious to me. But look, not all is lost! Some of the models in OBR saw point reductions, maybe those are the competitive option now!

Right, but I need to prove that GW was consciously switching the meta around to get people to switch and buy their armies. If only I had a statement to that effect:

The change to the Petrifex Elite is intended to encourage players to explore the other options that the Ossiarch Bonereapers battletome presents

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/20/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-july-2020-update-now-live/

 

So, they release something that is internally and externally imbalanced, people flock to it, then they nerf it to have people try other options. This seems exactly the story I have been telling.

[Kasper]

2 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

Second, who here has had the fortune to interact with GW? I have. They have a very uniform way of addressing the questions I've asked. "Play what you like" is by far the most repeated phrase, followed closely by "do you best and have fun." They have been dealing with this for a while, and I know they hear what everyone has to say, but I also think they can only do so much. I believe they bring up our concerns in their meetings, but I'd not be surprised if a governing board makes the final choice.

Ultimately I dont think GW intended Warhammer to be this super competitive thing. People twist and turn every little rule sentence in an attempt to squeeze out a slight edge at any given time. Armies are finetuned to the extreme. I think it is clear by their responses that Warhammer was meant to be a reasonable game with reasonable rules to be had between two dudes that had collected an army and wanted something more once their miniatures were painted.

[NinthMusketeer]

Or they release a battletome with an ability that is extremely OP because they are bad at rules design, then nerf that OP element after getting feedback in an honest attempt to improve balance. It became obvious enough that even developers inept at balance could see it. And what are OBR players exploring? Alternate sub-factions, using the same models, no purchase required.

If I was asked to nerf OBR dominance without invalidating the armies people already had, that is exactly what I would do. They made a decision that specifically does NOT force OBR players to buy new units. The units that were good are still good. They notably did not nerf the most OP ones.

That example supports my conclusion better than yours, Greybeard.

Edit: And I should probably pre-empt these;

-Claiming my argument is bad faith does not make it true.

-People who sell their armies to buy new ones aren't big sales generators. The people who buy those armies off other players would have had to buy new models if the used ones weren't available.

Edited October 27, 2020 by NinthMusketeer

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Think this we're veering off track now folks and starting to take snipes at each other.

Reminder that:

• we're all entitled to our own views
• GW is the only one who knows why certain decisions are made (the rest is guesswork)
• avoid discussing politics on TGA

[Greybeard86]

I do not think it does. Post PE nerf, there was a big outflow of players abandoning the army (second hand OBR models more available, and it is not me saying it). The only doubt left is whether internal balance was affected. I am not savvy enough about the intricacies of it, so I’m going to borrow from the thread on OBR here in TGA and one of its most active tournament players posting in it. Don’t know, I find it hard to believe that internal balance was not affected across models.

osted September 6

In my opinion, during the Petrifex era we had more options. I was one of the players of the Katakros-Crawlers list, but you can also use Nagash and riders, Katakros+Arkhan+Golithzars, or most of the models without Katakros.

Now... or you´re playing some list like stalliarch or crematorians, or you´re going to focus on Katakros (like me) forgetting other options. Yes, we´re going to see (probably) more sub-factions, but less variety... In my opinion, ofc.

 

EDIT: Claiming that somehow my opinions are absurd to the level of "GW caused Brexit" is bad faith. Let's sort it out among ourselves without getting mods in, I am convinced we can have a rational discussion without resorting to biting sarcasm.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Greybeard86

[Marcvs]

1 hour ago, Kasper said:

Ultimately I dont think GW intended Warhammer to be this super competitive thing. People twist and turn every little rule sentence in an attempt to squeeze out a slight edge at any given time. Armies are finetuned to the extreme. I think it is clear by their responses that Warhammer was meant to be a reasonable game with reasonable rules to be had between two dudes that had collected an army and wanted something more once their miniatures were painted.

I think this is a (common) misconception, that is, that balance only matters in competitive settings or for tournament players.

I would actually argue that is the complete opposite.

Competitive players can do their research and ultimately have the possibility to know what is "strong" at any given moment. Then they can make informed decision about a) buying into the new "strong" army; b) tailoring to counter the new "strong" army or (my approach) c) manage their expectations concerning their army and set their goals accordingly. As such, although they might be frustrated by the shifting of the meta, they have the tools to take that into account and find their pleasure in the game.

On the other hand, "casual" players will not have done any research (why would they?). This will generate extremely frustrating and negative experiences when someone has spent time and care (and money) on their army and this has zero chances of playing even a moderately fair game against the armies of their mates, because they happened (again, without any research or malice) to like salamanders, lord kroak, pink horrors, or stuff like that. This, I would say, is a much bigger problem for the health of something which presents itself as a game.

[Greybeard86]

10 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

That's where the actual intent comes in. Yes they are bad[...]

 they obviously generate sales from crappy balance as well.

This is the part that I cannot understand. You acknowledge that they stand to win from "crappy balance" and "switching metas". However, somehow, for you:

• A) they "leave it up to chance and bad rule writing randomness".

is more believable than:

• B) they make a concerted effort to switch metas.

We are talking about a large corporation here, do you think they will not make a concerted effort to make more money and instead leave it up to chance?Don't you think there are game designers in the market competent enough to understand the IG consequences of their decisions? And that somehow the industry's dominant company wouldn't be able to find and hire such people?

In my opinion, it takes a far greater leap of faith to accept A) than B).

As others are saying here, balance in games is important not only for tournament play, but also more generally for all types of players. Switching metas affect us all and, given that this is not simply a video game with an army selection screen, it is not a positive thing for those with time, effort, and money invested in their collections.

[Kasper]

29 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

I think this is a (common) misconception, that is, that balance only matters in competitive settings or for tournament players.

I would actually argue that is the complete opposite.

Competitive players can do their research and ultimately have the possibility to know what is "strong" at any given moment. Then they can make informed decision about a) buying into the new "strong" army; b) tailoring to counter the new "strong" army or (my approach) c) manage their expectations concerning their army and set their goals accordingly. As such, although they might be frustrated by the shifting of the meta, they have the tools to take that into account and find their pleasure in the game.

On the other hand, "casual" players will not have done any research (why would they?). This will generate extremely frustrating and negative experiences when someone has spent time and care (and money) on their army and this has zero chances of playing even a moderately fair game against the armies of their mates, because they happened (again, without any research or malice) to like salamanders, lord kroak, pink horrors, or stuff like that. This, I would say, is a much bigger problem for the health of something which presents itself as a game.

I dont think it is at all.

I have 2 groups of friends that I play with - One is VERY competitive and participates in pretty much any tournament that is available in our country and the neighbouring countries. They want to play and practice against hyper competitive lists because they play AoS to participate in tournaments.

On the other hand I have a "fun night club" where people arent nearly as good at the game and dont have the same kind of knowledge of the rules etc. People take all kind of fun lists that arent tuned to the max.

The difference between these two kind of groups is massive. Balance is not a concern in the second group because people dont care or arent good enough at making some of the absurd synergies work, which you usually see in the competitive lists. People bring whatever they want and just have a good time throwing dice while drinking beer. In the competitive group we discuss all kinds of (IMO) absurd wording of rules in case it might give someone an edge.

From my own personal experience balance does not matter anywhere near as much when you play "casually" because you naturally wont run into the absurd situations. In the casual group we have Tzeentch players refusing to cast spells unless stuff is in range of said spells, because they believe it was abusing the rules. They self-regulate things and focus on RAI in their mind. The competitive players exclusively play RAW which causes all kind of ****** situations because I personally believe GW didnt intend for people to dissect every single rule sentence. 

[JackStreicher]

The answer might also be more simplistic:

They‘re still writing rules as they‘ve done it for 20 years. Balance was never even a focus, rules are meant to be interesting and fun. There‘s also barely any communication among people working on different Battletomes.

The system has worked so far, why change it? (A Change involves costs and effort).

[Marcvs]

10 minutes ago, Kasper said:

I dont think it is at all.

I have 2 groups of friends that I play with - One is VERY competitive and participates in pretty much any tournament that is available in our country and the neighbouring countries. They want to play and practice against hyper competitive lists because they play AoS to participate in tournaments.

On the other hand I have a "fun night club" where people arent nearly as good at the game and dont have the same kind of knowledge of the rules etc. People take all kind of fun lists that arent tuned to the max.

The difference between these two kind of groups is massive. Balance is not a concern in the second group because people dont care or arent good enough at making some of the absurd synergies work, which you usually see in the competitive lists. People bring whatever they want and just have a good time throwing dice while drinking beer. In the competitive group we discuss all kinds of (IMO) absurd wording of rules in case it might give someone an edge.

From my own personal experience balance does not matter anywhere near as much when you play "casually" because you naturally wont run into the absurd situations. In the casual group we have Tzeentch players refusing to cast spells unless stuff is in range of said spells, because they believe it was abusing the rules. They self-regulate things and focus on RAI in their mind. The competitive players exclusively play RAW which causes all kind of ****** situations because I personally believe GW didnt intend for people to dissect every single rule sentence. 

Thanks for sharing your different experience. I stand by my previous considerations, but I am happy to see that your casual group managed to find their balance. At my club the "casual" AoS scene has suffered a lot the past year (pre-lockdown and post-lockdown) when people "lucked" upon one of the new "strong" things, leading to players stopping to play -on both sides, cause people also didn't like not being able to play with their new toys after finding out how OP they were. These were not "absurd" situations, it was just what happens when 2000pts of melee stormcast eternals meet 2000 points of pink horrors and flamers (no optimization, no changehost, just their warscrolls)

I am strongly against the argument for self-regulation and house ruling, because it makes it very hard to play games with people you don't already know and shifts the burden to the consumers. This doesn't mean I am against the practice, just against invoking it to say "all is fine with the balance, you can just do the balance yourself".

[NinthMusketeer]

55 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

This is the part that I cannot understand. You acknowledge that they stand to win from "crappy balance" and "switching metas". However, somehow, for you:

• A) they "leave it up to chance and bad rule writing randomness".

is more believable than:

• B) they make a concerted effort to switch metas.

We are talking about a large corporation here, do you think they will not make a concerted effort to make more money and instead leave it up to chance?Don't you think there are game designers in the market competent enough to understand the IG consequences of their decisions? And that somehow the industry's dominant company wouldn't be able to find and hire such people?

In my opinion, it takes a far greater leap of faith to accept A) than B).

As others are saying here, balance in games is important not only for tournament play, but also more generally for all types of players. Switching metas affect us all and, given that this is not simply a video game with an army selection screen, it is not a positive thing for those with time, effort, and money invested in their collections.

I don't understand why you believe they would go through specific effort to achieve the same result. Say a person was offered $10 to do some task, but also offered $10 to not do it. Why are you assuming they would volunteer to put in work when they could receive the same reward without doing the work? That doesn't make sense at all.

Can you provide evidence to back your theory? Something, anything, that cannot be explained by them being bad at balancing?

Edited October 27, 2020 by NinthMusketeer

[Greybeard86]

40 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I don't understand why you believe they would go through specific effort to achieve the same result. Say a person was offered $10 to do some task, but also offered $10 to not do it. Why are you assuming they would volunteer to put in work when they could receive the same reward without doing the work? That doesn't make sense at all.

Because surely they stand to win more from planning how they do it than being "lazy" about it. For example, oftentimes some of the more offensive outliers last for a while. But why did they decide to have an X months nerf and buff cycle? Why not X/2, or X/4?

They have a wealth of data on sales and the full schedule of their releases in front of them. They have the capacity to analyze them, and to make informed decisions. Why on earth wouldn't they do that? Large companies routinely analyze these sort of things, I refuse to believe that GW isn't doing it.

40 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Can you provide evidence to back your theory? Something, anything, that cannot be explained by them being bad at balancing?

Well, we both agree that the "meta switches" benefit them, and that they do indeed happen. I have given you examples from another system (40k) in which they simply exchange abilities between units within armies (wulfen and thunderwolves). I have given you  a direct quote from Warcom stating that they nerfed an ability "to open play from other options".

Why don't we change this, why don't you tell me what sort of evidence you need to be convinced?

[Joseph Mackay]

On 10/26/2020 at 6:05 AM, NinthMusketeer said:

I have an honest question for those who believe this is all intentional by GW:

Theoretically speaking, if the shifting meta was actually NOT intentional, the crazy balance shifts simply due to some combination of apathy and ineptitude, how would you know? What would you expect to see if this were all unintentional, or at least due to intentional disregard?

As long as gw still sell physical books? I have become used to expecting them to do nothing about imbalances, because heavily faq/errata your brand new book is something they refuse to do and they’d rather wait until the next edition to fix it (some minor issues have been fixed, but usually it’s a case of too little too late. The change to Petrifex Elite for example, had that occurred in the 2-week post-release faq/errata then the complaints and backlash would have been huge). In some countries, I imagine a major errata within a few weeks of release could be justification for refunds and/or lawsuits which they obviously don’t want to deal with either.

I have two very strong opinions on how to somewhat fix balance issues, neither of which gw will do because shareholders say money is more important.
Firstly, all books for an edition should be written at the same time. This stops the ‘accidental’ powercreep created when the writers come up with a new rule mechanic halfway through an edition meaning the earlier books get left behind (eg the first Sylvaneth battletome which introduced Allegiance Abilities, Flesh-Eaters 2019 and Battleline If monsters etc).
Second, is moving the rules to digital only. It allows them to fix any issues that come up instantly and not having to worry about invalidating your $83nz battletome. It also removes the print time issues (such as how the GHB is written so far in advance of when it gets released)

[NinthMusketeer]

30 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

Because surely they stand to win more from planning how they do it than being "lazy" about it. For example, oftentimes some of the more offensive outliers last for a while. But why did they decide to have an X months nerf and buff cycle? Why not X/2, or X/4?

They have a wealth of data on sales and the full schedule of their releases in front of them. They have the capacity to analyze them, and to make informed decisions. Why on earth wouldn't they do that? Large companies routinely analyze these sort of things, I refuse to believe that GW isn't doing it.

Well, we both agree that the "meta switches" benefit them, and that they do indeed happen. I have given you examples from another system (40k) in which they simply exchange abilities between units within armies (wulfen and thunderwolves). I have given you  a direct quote from Warcom stating that they nerfed an ability "to open play from other options".

Why don't we change this, why don't you tell me what sort of evidence you need to be convinced?

Doing additional analysis and figuring out how to ideally move things around the meta would cost money. It is time and effort they would need to spend, which they can just... not. And do they stand to win more? How much more? More than the cost of doing it? And can you back that up with evidence?

And I am getting a bit frustrated here because never, in this entire thread, have you provided a single piece of evidence that cannot be explained with incompetence. No, a 40k example doesn't count. Maybe they do intentional balance shifts in 40k, I don't know. No, someone saying they made a change to make more options viable doesn't fly, that is literally what balancing is. Povide me SOMETHING to show that you aren't just trolling me with nothing to stand on. Any piece of evidence that trying to balance things but being bad at it does not explain.

Edited October 27, 2020 by NinthMusketeer

[Greybeard86]

5 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Doing additional analysis and figuring out how to ideally move things around the meta would cost money. It is time and effort they would need to spend, which they can just... not. And do they stand to win more? How much more? More than the cost of doing it? And can you back that up with evidence?

Large corporations perform "business intelligence" analysis, either with internal teams / departments or hiring external help (or a combination). There is the proven belief that through data analysis and good planning one can make more money that "just not putting in the time and effort". I am sure many of us here can give you examples in our own professional life of such exercises for companies in many sectors (banks, phone companies, netflix, you name it).

Honestly, thinking that GW doesn't do such things is what is "unfounded"; i'd be really weird.

5 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

And I am getting a bit frustrated here because never, in this entire thread, have you provided a single piece of evidence that cannot be explained with incompetence. No, a 40k example doesn't count. Maybe they do intentional balance shifts in 40k, I don't know. I am talking AoS, provide me SOMETHING to show that you aren't just trolling me with nothing to stand on. Any piece of evidence that trying to balance things but being bad at it does not explain.

This is because you are looking for proof where you won't find any. Any rule change can be explained by "but they realized it was imbalanced and changed it", and any bad rule can be justified saying "they just didn't understand how good/bad it was".

What I think we should be looking for is: what explanation is more appropriate given what we have seen regarding meta shifts and what we know regarding how large corporations work?

[NinthMusketeer]

You can't do it. Ugh, I should have known better.

Edited October 27, 2020 by NinthMusketeer

[Marcvs]

3 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

What I think we should be looking for is: what explanation is more appropriate given what we have seen regarding meta shifts and what we know regarding how large corporations work?

I think this is the point where some nuance might help furthering the discussion.

So, while it is normal that financial reasons are the ultimate driver of all corporate choices this does not translate automatically in: they change the "meta" to increase sales of X.

My attempt at identifying their motives would be more like: a certain state of the meta (too static, too unbalanced) is bad for sales, so they have a financial interest in actively trying to modify it. This might lead to the introduction of new unbalances and a lot of those are probably more the result of incompetence (and penny pinching, as in, not hiring enough internal playtesters, so again, financial reasons) than of outright strategies. Creating "strong" units/armies is a way to push sales, but is only one of many (creating hype is another, see the wonderful work they have done with the Gargants), so I would still conclude that it's only part of what influences rules decisions.

That being said this

Quote

You can't do it. Ugh, I should have known better.

is an impossible standard of proof (proving intention) so it doesn't really help any conversation. Have you any proof of their incompetence? Because surely their market results don't point to that either.

[Greybeard86]

4 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

I think this is the point where some nuance might help furthering the discussion.

So, while it is normal that financial reasons are the ultimate driver of all corporate choices this does not translate automatically in: they change the "meta" to increase sales of X.

My attempt at identifying their motives would be more like: a certain state of the meta (too static, too unbalanced) is bad for sales, so they have a financial interest in actively trying to modify it.

That is it. They do make a big show of changes in rules that will allow you to play either a new set of models, or revisit and old set that is now more viable than ever. It is all over warcom, I don't think I need to quote any more examples (I already out up the petrifex elite example).

4 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

This might lead to the introduction of new unbalances and a lot of those are probably more the result of incompetence (and penny pinching, as in, not hiring enough internal playtesters, so again, financial reasons) than of outright strategies. Creating "strong" units/armies is a way to push sales, but is only one of many (creating hype is another, see the wonderful work they have done with the Gargants), so I would still conclude that it's only part of what influences rules decisions.

It is pretty rare to have ex GW with such information be willing to talk about it, but there is the famous example of the eldar titans (you can google it); essentially the model needed to be pushed sales wise and that's the request that came to the rule makers.

I don't think anyone is arguing that every single rule change is a concerted effort to sell a specific model. All I am saying is that, generally speaking, they take an approach consisting in changing the "spotlight" aka "meta shifts". Armies and units take turns in being "better than the rest", and somehow we always have  a strong meta. AoS has a shorter history and, let's be frank, balancing  was not a part of the earlier years.  So that limits the range of examples we can use.

Maybe we can open the conversation. If this was deliverate, one thing I would look for are examples of books in which units have been nerfed / buffed to relevance in an obvious manner. Taking something extremely good and making it mediocre, then taking something mediocre and making it very good. If this is through point costs or warscrolls, and not some unforseen rule change, then we may conclude that it was a deliverate effort to change internal balance. If the nerf / buff was "too big", then we know that the ultimate goal was not to equalize options but to keep things "imbalanced".

Can anyone provide obvious examples of the above for existing books, over the years?

 

[Beastmaster]

34 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

Large corporations perform "business intelligence" analysis, either with internal teams / departments or hiring external help (or a combination). There is the proven belief that through data analysis and good planning one can make more money that "just not putting in the time and effort". I am sure many of us here can give you examples in our own professional life of such exercises for companies in many sectors (banks, phone companies, netflix, you name it).

Honestly, thinking that GW doesn't do such things is what is "unfounded"; i'd be really weird.

This is because you are looking for proof where you won't find any. Any rule change can be explained by "but they realized it was imbalanced and changed it", and any bad rule can be justified saying "they just didn't understand how good/bad it was".

What I think we should be looking for is: what explanation is more appropriate given what we have seen regarding meta shifts and what we know regarding how large corporations work?

I find this argument quite convincing. Yes, they all do it all the time, once they grew big enough to afford it. Especially when sales are mainly driven by hype and little changes in the gaming environment, it would be insane not to analyze every data point that you can get. I make sure I do in my work.

[whispersofblood]

23 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

That‘s not what I mean:

Petrifex +1 save. Even a noob will realize that this is broken.

Changehost battallion: cheap, no tax, insane ability.

S2D: No more comment about this faction apart from: I looked at the BT and wrote in here: They don‘t deal any damage. Which in general turned out to be true.

All the utter dominance of the magicphade shenanigans 

Slaaneshs out of Order fighting 

Hearthguard Berzerkerz

The „God“ Alarielle

Bad Warscrolls in general

 

It usually needs no genius to spot the obvious ones, heck it doesn‘t even take time.

Yet there are some interactions that are harder to predict but become obvious after 3-5 games:

The Namartii issue.

Anvilgard being a one-trick pony

KO at their current state

The downgrade of Sylvaneth

etc.

Some of these aren't actually the reason these factions are poorly integrated into the game though. They are just the thing people focus on, which highlights how hard a job balancing is.

PE: the problem was actually the +1 rend and +1 save. It skewed the dmg equation too much especially considering the meta at the time.

Changehost: is broken because the underlying ability is one of the most important aspects of the game. It really just shouldn't exist, DoT is plenty fast. I don't think you can unit tax it, or price it at a place that it's taken. Maybe if it just let d3 redeploys or something.

S2D: In retrospect were a victim of release order and being overpriced. I think price drops and meta shifts have improved the book. But, yes they also have a lot of strategic redundancy and people are resistant to marauders as the primary combat unit.

Magic: Isn't generally dominant. But factions that have a high magic phase dmg potential absolutely have a large advantage over factions with limited damage projection. This has always (pre-dating AoS) been a problem, but I don't think it's to do with those magic phases and more to do with how they construct factions in general. Orruk Warclans is an amazing book, hyper-flexible and meta responsive. GSG, HoS aren't quite there.

Activation manipulation: was definitely an interesting and interactive solution to the teleport/run charge meta of 2018/19. And, introduced a new stratic risk to the game. It gets a thumbs up from me. 

HoS: The problem with HoS is the designers for whatever reason loaded everything onto the KoS. Which skewed all the books good intentions. If they had given the +1 to locus rolls to the other heroes instead of the Greater Daemons, the book would have been far better and a real tension between depravity generation and activation manipulation but alas now it's basically a swamp combat army that includes no hedonites units. 

Personally I think all the god tier units are terrible. Archaon, Morathi and Nagash get by on being very durable and playing in multiple phases. But Alarielle, Teclis, Gordrakk are just not very good from a competitive stand point. They all are generally fun to use though so there is that.

Warscrolls: Any time there is a meta beyound the creators control there will be three camps. Meta, counter-meta, other. Bad warscrolls are in the other camp. They don't do anything that a player might need a unit to do. This can be because they are just bad statistically like say Scions of the Flame. Or because there is no reason to take them like say Fiends. Because either the meta makes their specific weakness unplayable. Or simply having strategically better options makes them a non-choice (Ungors v. Goes) I think this is the harder one to manage and spot and deals with your other examples.

Also I think the interactions are too hard to spot to make it obvious. For every KoS there is a Fiends.

[JackStreicher]

@whispersofblood I wasn't talking about faction integration into the game, I was talking about obvious flaws that coul've been avoided with easy if GW was into rules quality at all.

Claiming that +1 Save and thereby putting an entire faction with massed infantry up to a 3+ save isn't "too strong" is mind baffling to me. The +1 rend was just the tip of the iceberg.