AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Kadeton]

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

One of the things I like about AoS is the large variety in what an army can be. I like that there is both the option of running 100+ little guys and 4 big guys in the same game. To me, that really enhances the fantasy setting of the game, where a lot of things that would not be happening in the real world can happen.

To be honest, neither of those is an 'army' in my mind. A hundred humans is barely a village. Four giants is just a bunch of lads looking for trouble. A thousand humans, fifty giants - that's the lower end of the army scale.

AoS and WHFB have never been army-scale wargames. AoS 3 is a skirmish-scale game, same as before.

[stratigo]

4 hours ago, CaptainSoup said:

Goonhammer has been posting some articles worth noting, one about coherency rules and how it's not as awful as you think and about Matched play setup and missions and what to expect from them (from the CRB anyway). It's worth a read.

https://www.goonhammer.com/ruleshammer-age-of-sigmar-3-0-coherency-rules/

https://www.goonhammer.com/age-of-sigmar-3-0-core-book-matched-play-battleplans/

Some key takeaways I've noticed is how for 25mm models you can technically still conga line as long and everyone is physically touching, and that there are different ways to legally and strategically arrange your models outside of rank and file.

As for the matched play article, a lot of the ways you gain VP revolve around attacking heroes and units while primary scoring revolves around holding objectives. It also seems that mystical terrain isn't a thing in matched play (at least from the CRB) so that's one less thing to worry about during a game.

I mean, you are still getting creative model spacing that's gonna look goofy AF on the tabletop. I agree that GW should have made 6 the cutoff and not 5

[stratigo]

4 hours ago, Beliman said:

I think that's an oversimplification. Before, we had 80% of armies using Big Blocks of infantry models to do all the work: from heavy lifting to capture objectives. Only a few monsters were relevant for the game and elite armies had a hard time to play games.

In this new edition, It seems that some monsters (not all btw...) are going to have some tools that will make them a bit stronger and some elite armies are going to have a push to compete with others.

How good this is going to be... time will tell.

I think there's gonna be some big meta shakeups with hero monster focused lists.

 

Just saying the double cabbage stonks are about to rise, invest now.   

[CaptainSoup]

7 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

This is something I have been thinking about. In my opinion, the new scoring system might be a realy boon to elite armies. Before, all elite armies without capturing shennenigans had a hard time winning the game, just because capturing and holding objectives was the only way to win. Now, it seems like nearly half the points of any given game will be available regardless of capturing. You could lose to your opponent in the objective game, but really turn the game around by playing to achieve your grand strategy and deny your opponent theirs, as well as outscoring them on battle tactics.

I think between this, the new monster abilities and the fact that monsters now capture for 5, monster mash and elite lists are look really competitive. It's probably no longer the case that a horde list has a huge advantage over an elite list simply in virtue of bringing a lot more bodies.

If big horde armies were as crazy as people say they were then it makes sense to tone down hordes and lift elites up to a point, but I feel like that's based on the assumption that those armies utilizing horde tactics can shift strategies by using other models; but what about armies who don't have that luxury? *Cough cough* Nighthaunt *Coughs up blood* For some armies all they have are large blobs of dudes and an over costed FW monster unit. In the case of Nighthaunt specifically, they were on the backfoot to begin with, so anything that hurts them hurts that much more.

That's not to say we are totally worthless however. Things that help most armies like All Out Attack help as much as anything else (something that GW is keen to keep mentioning) and we ghost bois came out mostly unscathed in the GHB points leaks, but that's a pretty small consolation prize compared to how other armies will be taking advantage of new rules that the ghosts simply won't have access to. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

8 minutes ago, CaptainSoup said:

If big horde armies were as crazy as people say they were then it makes sense to tone down hordes and lift elites up to a point, but I feel like that's based on the assumption that those armies utilizing horde tactics can shift strategies by using other models; but what about armies who don't have that luxury? *Cough cough* Nighthaunt *Coughs up blood* For some armies all they have are large blobs of dudes and an over costed FW monster unit. In the case of Nighthaunt specifically, they were on the backfoot to begin with, so anything that hurts them hurts that much more.

That's not to say we are totally worthless however. Things that help most armies like All Out Attack help as much as anything else (something that GW is keen to keep mentioning) and we ghost bois came out mostly unscathed in the GHB points leaks, but that's a pretty small consolation prize compared to how other armies will be taking advantage of new rules that the ghosts simply won't have access to. 

Nighthaunt already struggled before. Since their initial release, really. It sucks that they are now in an even worse position comparatively, but I think it's also true that GW should not let the fact that armies will temporarily be weak get in the way of making positive structural changes to the core rules.

For what it's worth, I hope Nighthaunt get an early battletome and maybe some big hero-monster soon.

[CaptainSoup]

28 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Nighthaunt already struggled before. Since their initial release, really. It sucks that they are now in an even worse position comparatively, but I think it's also true that GW should not let the fact that armies will temporarily be weak get in the way of making positive structural changes to the core rules.

For what it's worth, I hope Nighthaunt get an early battletome and maybe some big hero-monster soon.

You're right of course, but it still sucks to basically hear: "Man that sucks... ah well deal with it" lol.

With GW's track record with Nighthaunt from release to the latest preview article on them, it doesn't give me great confidence that GW will think through our new battletome, let alone give us new models. At this point though, its the only thing we have left to hope on lol. 

[Vaporlocke]

42 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Nighthaunt already struggled before. Since their initial release, really. It sucks that they are now in an even worse position comparatively, but I think it's also true that GW should not let the fact that armies will temporarily be weak get in the way of making positive structural changes to the core rules.

For what it's worth, I hope Nighthaunt get an early battletome and maybe some big hero-monster soon.

Upping the shooting and magic meta that was already at the top is a positive structural change?

 

Which horde armies were tearing up the tourney scene? Skaven? BoC? GSG? NH? Outside of Serephon skink spam (riding on an insane magic phase) most horde armies were already at the bottom and now have been pushed lower. 

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, Beliman said:

Before, we had 80% of armies using Big Blocks of infantry models to do all the work: from heavy lifting to capture objectives.

As is appropriate for a wargame. A game where armies fight against armies.

Again, I really like monsters and neat stuff and will enjoy this way to play, but I just don't think we can still think of AoS as anything "higher" than a skirmish game with these changes.

Maybe I'm wrong. Easily could be and would be happy if so, but Sons cracked the army damn, and 3.0 looks like it'll release the flood waters entirely.

 

(Which, again, is not inherently a bad thing.)

Edited June 21, 2021 by Sleboda

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

5 minutes ago, Vaporlocke said:

Upping the shooting and magic meta that was already at the top is a positive structural change?

 

Which horde armies were tearing up the tourney scene? Skaven? BoC? GSG? NH? Outside of Serephon skink spam (riding on an insane magic phase) most horde armies were already at the bottom and now have been pushed lower. 

People get really hung up on the tournament shooting/magic meta, but overall I still view the rules changes of AoS 3 positively. Monsters and small heroes gaining value is a plus in my book, since they were overall the worst types of units before. Elite and monster-heavy armies getting overall better at objective play, and gaining a secondary way to score points, as well. More interactivity in all phases and during your opponent's turn is a good change.

Endless spells got better, but they also got easier to remove, so is that really such a big buff to magic? Plus, miscast are now back, as well. Overall, it looks like a wash to me.

Unleash Hell is a strong new ability for ranged armies to play with, but it benefits mid-range shooting more overall than long range shooting, which (it seems to me) is what people mostly have a problem with. I believe that this ability uplifts armies whose shooting was previously not good enough more than it strengthens armies whose shooting was already good.

 

On the second point, maybe saying that horde lists were too strong compared to elite lists is being too sloppy, but what's definitely true is that successful armies run high body count lists more often than not.

Daughters and Seraphon both run straight up hordes with 100+ bodies on the board. Lumineth can easily run ~80 bodies. Armies that are more elite by design like Nurgle, Fyreslayers or OBR still run 60+ bodies in tournament lists.

Elite factions that put in work without body count all have some trick to achieve similar results to a high body count faction. Tzeentch has Horrors, Ogors and Sons have capturing shennenigans and FEC summons a lot of free ghouls.

What you definitely do not see a lot of lists of 30-40 bodies or whatever you'd want to call elite. It's not like just having the ability to put bodies on the board makes you good, but to me it definitely seems like there were no really good armies before that did not have the ability to do this or compensate for their shortcomings in objective play in some other way.

[Reinholt]

So after playing a game with the new coherency rules, I will say this:

MAN that is janky.

I don't think it actually changes much that matters, with one exception. Screens are slightly smaller (though not as small as one would think as if you have a truly cheap screening unit that was only going to live one turn anyways losing a bunch to coherency is no different than losing them when they get mulched in combat). However, it literally made our movement phase take more than 2x as long to sort out the new rules. It will get slightly faster as you go but instead of just "whatever here is kind of a line" now setting up screens took a much longer time. I would estimate the movement phase was >50% of the game and my main prediction is the new coherency rules are likely to make the game significantly slower as now you need to fiddle with formations way more.

Likewise, being on a 25mm is a superpower. I can fight in two ranks with them. On the other hand, 32mm models with 1" reach are absolutely shafted as you need these funky jagged formations just to fight and an opponent prepared for that can really reduce your ability to hit. So I think this may not be working as intended for GW and unless they want the game to grind to a halt and/or intend to get rid of models on 32mm bases, I would make the base weapon reach for all 32mm models 2". We literally had a 10 minute single move where tons of measuring happened to get a block of Ogor Gluttons into combat. The conclusion by my opponent is that he is putting his Gluttons in the bin and will just be running min units of Mournfangs now, which is probably not what was intended with the new coherency rules.

Third, and I think this is really the unintended part for GW, the formations look even dumber. If you thought conga lines were bad before, my battleline of Skeletons, deployed to hold an objective, were heroically charged by a group of mournfangs alternately charging straight at us sideways or at a 45 degree angle, with not a single one coming on straight, to make sure they could all fight. Formations look WEIRD when you get bigger bases in larger units just to get things into combat. Like comically weird.

So I think my conclusions are as follows on new coherency rules:

1. Game is slower
2. Formations are even jankier
3. Base size matters more than almost any other attribute for melee units >5 models (single models or min units who cares)

Probably not working as intended for GW but that's my initial read. Anyone else tried it and feels differently?

[C0deb1ue]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Nighthaunt already struggled before. Since their initial release, really. It sucks that they are now in an even worse position comparatively, but I think it's also true that GW should not let the fact that armies will temporarily be weak get in the way of making positive structural changes to the core rules.

For what it's worth, I hope Nighthaunt get an early battletome and maybe some big hero-monster soon.

The issue is that temporarily weak is years in gw time

[yukishiro1]

Yeah, the coherency change is bizarre. Taking 40k's already restrictive coherency, then doubling the restrictiveness, and then on top of THAT not adding in the ability for the second rank to strike if the first rank is close to the enemy is like a triple whammy that just feels totally unnecessary. 

The result is a lot of geometry in order to make 32mm base 1" range infantry terrible...why, exactly? 

[CaptainSoup]

46 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

People get really hung up on the tournament shooting/magic meta, but overall I still view the rules changes of AoS 3 positively. Monsters and small heroes gaining value is a plus in my book, since they were overall the worst types of units before. Elite and monster-heavy armies getting overall better at objective play, and gaining a secondary way to score points, as well. More interactivity in all phases and during your opponent's turn is a good change.

Endless spells got better, but they also got easier to remove, so is that really such a big buff to magic? Plus, miscast are now back, as well. Overall, it looks like a wash to me.

Unleash Hell is a strong new ability for ranged armies to play with, but it benefits mid-range shooting more overall than long range shooting, which (it seems to me) is what people mostly have a problem with. I believe that this ability uplifts armies whose shooting was previously not good enough more than it strengthens armies whose shooting was already good.

 

On the second point, maybe saying that horde lists were too strong compared to elite lists is being too sloppy, but what's definitely true is that successful armies run high body count lists more often than not.

Daughters and Seraphon both run straight up hordes with 100+ bodies on the board. Lumineth can easily run ~80 bodies. Armies that are more elite by design like Nurgle, Fyreslayers or OBR still run 60+ bodies in tournament lists.

Elite factions that put in work without body count all have some trick to achieve similar results to a high body count faction. Tzeentch has Horrors, Ogors and Sons have capturing shennenigans and FEC summons a lot of free ghouls.

What you definitely do not see a lot of lists of 30-40 bodies or whatever you'd want to call elite. It's not like just having the ability to put bodies on the board makes you good, but to me it definitely seems like there were no really good armies before that did not have the ability to do this or compensate for their shortcomings in objective play in some other way.

You make some interesting points which at first glance I'd agree with. However looking at the broad strokes more closely you can see cracks forming. 

My main contention is the mention of Unleash Hell and "Elite" armies utilizing horde units. By themselves it makes perfect sense, but rising tides lifts all boats. Unleash Hell does help other shooting armies that were struggling before, but it also helps those armies that weren't hurting, making the overall change a wash for the game as a whole.

The same can be said for the second point, only opposite. Restricting hordes helps rein in those elite armies taking advantage of there maxed out units which is good, but it also hurts armies that were only playable by maximizing their units. Now those same armies are worse off, so how much will the game actually change in terms of which armies are better?

All of this could could be on the pretense that 3rd edition battletomes will get huge overhauls in how they play, but if that were true then the meta is going to be pretty poor for the next couple of years until those books start trickling in. If GW's goal for 3rd edition was to help bring armies more in line power wise with each other, they have a funny way of showing it. 

[JackStreicher]

I‘d love if they added a battalion in which one unit champion gains the hero keyword which enables the champ to get artefacts ❤️

just wishful thinking though, yet the incentive for conversions would be gargantuan!

[Grimbok]

1 hour ago, Reinholt said:

So after playing a game with the new coherency rules, I will say this:

MAN that is janky.

I don't think it actually changes much that matters, with one exception. Screens are slightly smaller (though not as small as one would think as if you have a truly cheap screening unit that was only going to live one turn anyways losing a bunch to coherency is no different than losing them when they get mulched in combat). However, it literally made our movement phase take more than 2x as long to sort out the new rules. It will get slightly faster as you go but instead of just "whatever here is kind of a line" now setting up screens took a much longer time. I would estimate the movement phase was >50% of the game and my main prediction is the new coherency rules are likely to make the game significantly slower as now you need to fiddle with formations way more.

Likewise, being on a 25mm is a superpower. I can fight in two ranks with them. On the other hand, 32mm models with 1" reach are absolutely shafted as you need these funky jagged formations just to fight and an opponent prepared for that can really reduce your ability to hit. So I think this may not be working as intended for GW and unless they want the game to grind to a halt and/or intend to get rid of models on 32mm bases, I would make the base weapon reach for all 32mm models 2". We literally had a 10 minute single move where tons of measuring happened to get a block of Ogor Gluttons into combat. The conclusion by my opponent is that he is putting his Gluttons in the bin and will just be running min units of Mournfangs now, which is probably not what was intended with the new coherency rules.

Third, and I think this is really the unintended part for GW, the formations look even dumber. If you thought conga lines were bad before, my battleline of Skeletons, deployed to hold an objective, were heroically charged by a group of mournfangs alternately charging straight at us sideways or at a 45 degree angle, with not a single one coming on straight, to make sure they could all fight. Formations look WEIRD when you get bigger bases in larger units just to get things into combat. Like comically weird.

So I think my conclusions are as follows on new coherency rules:

1. Game is slower
2. Formations are even jankier
3. Base size matters more than almost any other attribute for melee units >5 models (single models or min units who cares)

Probably not working as intended for GW but that's my initial read. Anyone else tried it and feels differently?

 

Agree.

How the new coherency rules can go through design process and playtesting is just mind boggling. It singlehandedly makes this edition rules worse than the previous. Janky ******, that solves nothing. And there are many easy elegant solutions (cloud formation every model within 12” or whatever range you want being one). Absolutely no idea of base size issues, horrible ugly formations etc. 

The rest of AoS 3 is fine. Too many things stacked to my taste (do we really need hero and monster actions or more command points?), but fine...

 

Grimbok

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

38 minutes ago, CaptainSoup said:

You make some interesting points which at first glance I'd agree with. However looking at the broad strokes more closely you can see cracks forming. 

My main contention is the mention of Unleash Hell and "Elite" armies utilizing horde units. By themselves it makes perfect sense, but rising tides lifts all boats. Unleash Hell does help other shooting armies that were struggling before, but it also helps those armies that weren't hurting, making the overall change a wash for the game as a whole.

The same can be said for the second point, only opposite. Restricting hordes helps rein in those elite armies taking advantage of there maxed out units which is good, but it also hurts armies that were only playable by maximizing their units. Now those same armies are worse off, so how much will the game actually change in terms of which armies are better?

All of this could could be on the pretense that 3rd edition battletomes will get huge overhauls in how they play, but if that were true then the meta is going to be pretty poor for the next couple of years until those books start trickling in. If GW's goal for 3rd edition was to help bring armies more in line power wise with each other, they have a funny way of showing it. 

My personal belief is that GW is not trying to weaken magic and shooting as much as they are trying to give most armies the tools to interact with these phases. The same applies to objective play: It's less that the new rules weaken hordes, it's more that they give elite armies a chance to participate. In my view, the design behind the new generic commands and the decision to give out more command points as a default, new generic enhancements, stronger focus on generic endless spells and core battalions all support this idea.

[Grimrock]

2 hours ago, Reinholt said:

So I think my conclusions are as follows on new coherency rules:

1. Game is slower
2. Formations are even jankier
3. Base size matters more than almost any other attribute for melee units >5 models (single models or min units who cares)

Probably not working as intended for GW but that's my initial read. Anyone else tried it and feels differently?

The biggest impact I've felt so far is the coherency rules is in the list building stage. I still take screening units, but I just focus on taking 5 man cavalry units that I can turn sideways (which looks about as ridiculous as you might expect) or conga lining exclusively with 25ml bases. Taking big blobs of 32ml bases still happens, but I only do it with units I never expected to get damage out of in the first place (chaos warriors, plaguebearers). If I want to do damage with anything it's always coming in the form of 5 man units, small bases, or monsters. As long as I build lists like this I haven't really had too much issue with additional time fiddling with coherency because nothing in my lists care. Big units of large bases don't do damage anyway so I don't bother trying to optimize, and everything else pretty much works the same as it used to. Thankfully my armies seem to have plenty of ways to build in the new style, but I imagine it's not so easy for others. 

Edit: thinking about it, this could be exactly what GW was aiming for. As long as all armies have some way to build around the new coherency then it just means people will naturally go that route. It does nerf a huge swath of models, but ideally for GW that just means that people will go out and buy different models that aren't affected by the new rules as harshly. Ex. Nobody wants to spend 10 minutes fiddling to get gluttons to attack, so they just buy some mournfangs. You can't use bloodreavers to screen, so just buy flesh hounds instead. Sure it might mean that some people stop playing, but most will work on their lists to figure a way around it. In the end it just means more money for GW.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Grimrock

[whispersofblood]

Why does it keep getting repeated that 32mm bases fight in 1 rank? Minimag a sponsor of this very website has movement trays that let 32mm bases with 1" reach fight in two ranks. Should I start a new thread and ask for it to pinned?

[yukishiro1]

17 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Why does it keep getting repeated that 32mm bases fight in 1 rank? Minimag a sponsor of this very website has movement trays that let 32mm bases with 1" reach fight in two ranks. Should I start a new thread and ask for it to pinned?

3 hours ago, Reinholt said:

Likewise, being on a 25mm is a superpower. I can fight in two ranks with them. On the other hand, 32mm models with 1" reach are absolutely shafted as you need these funky jagged formations just to fight and an opponent prepared for that can really reduce your ability to hit.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what people say? Everyone is well aware that you can adopt gamey formations (calling that two ranks is a bit silly when the whole reason it works is precisely that the ranks are staggered, not actual ranks) that can mitigate the problems with the new coherency system in some circumstances. Please refrain from beating on straw men. 

 

Edited June 21, 2021 by yukishiro1

[whispersofblood]

4 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Why do you keep misrepresenting what people say? Everyone is well aware that you can adopt gamey formations (calling that two ranks is a bit silly when the whole reason it works is precisely that the ranks are staggered, not actual ranks) that can mitigate the problems with the new coherency system in some circumstances. Please refrain from beating on straw men. 

 

So just so we are clear your position and I assume anyone who has liked your needlessly aggressive response is; is anything other than perfectly flat rank on rank is "gamey", and therefore the coherency rules are unworkable?

Also if your position is breathlessly easy to "misrepresent" have you considered it lacks reasonable nuance or is simply so contakerous you should be duely ignored as a Duardin Longbeared?

Edited June 21, 2021 by whispersofblood

[yukishiro1]

I wasn't trying to be aggressive at all; I apologize if you mistook me using the exact same phrasing you used as aggression, it was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek commentary on how starting posts with "why do people keep doing/saying X?" is an annoying and condescending way to argue - especially when that's not even an accurate representation of what they actually said anyway. If you found it annoying and condescending, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there? 

No, that isn't my position, and I think you know it isn't my position. My "position" is what I stated, that everyone is well aware of the ways to mitigate the issues with 3.0 coherency, so no, we are not in need of your enlightenment on the subject and no, our feelings on coherency are not based upon ignorance. 

If you would like to discuss the actual rules, rather than other posters' supposed lack of knowledge, I am more than happy to do so. The point of these forums is to discuss AOS, not one another.  

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Reinholt]

47 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I wasn't trying to be aggressive at all; I apologize if you mistook me using the exact same phrasing you used as aggression, it was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek commentary on how starting posts with "why do people keep doing/saying X?" is an annoying and condescending way to argue - especially when that's not even an accurate representation of what they actually said anyway. If you found it annoying and condescending, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there? 

No, that isn't my position, and I think you know it isn't my position. My "position" is what I stated, that everyone is well aware of the ways to mitigate the issues with 3.0 coherency, so no, we are not in need of your enlightenment on the subject and no, our feelings on coherency are not based upon ignorance. 

If you would like to discuss the actual rules, rather than other posters' supposed lack of knowledge, I am more than happy to do so. The point of these forums is to discuss AOS, not one another.  

 

In a very meta sense, this whole divergence that took multiple posts is actually an excellent demonstration of my feelings on the new coherency rules, as the amount of time we got sidetracked here is pretty much the same as sorting out that 9 Ogor Glutton charge. Where, I would add, after 10 minutes of tinkering, it was concluded that yes, about half the unit had no possible way to fight no matter how it was done and the Ogor 40mm base with a 1" reach for a foot unit does produce some super weird outcomes, especially in a case where I had deliberately compacted my unit down to a 5x2 on 25mm base footprint to minimize the frontage that he had to deploy against.

The issue is ultimately not the funky formations (that's silly and dumb but really that's GW's fault for just not adopting cloud coherency), but rather that one, it's way slower because you have to do a lot more work to sort out moves, and two, base size is an actual determinative factor of power and is something that should have a points cost attached to it. As in, if I could take Ogor Gluttons on 25mm bases I would pay more points for them than the same Glutton on a 40mm base and I think GW genuinely doesn't understand this.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Reinholt

[Fred1245]

I mean...just extending coherency to 2" would do a lot to fix the issues. That's how it is in the game they stole their coherency rules from.

[Xil]

13 minutes ago, Fred1245 said:

I mean...just extending coherency to 2" would do a lot to fix the issues. That's how it is in the game they stole their coherency rules from.

This, or allow models within half an inch to a fighting model (first rank) to fight aswell. Like its done in the game they stole the coherency rules from.

[Kadeton]

9 hours ago, CaptainSoup said:

All of this could could be on the pretense that 3rd edition battletomes will get huge overhauls in how they play, but if that were true then the meta is going to be pretty poor for the next couple of years until those books start trickling in. If GW's goal for 3rd edition was to help bring armies more in line power wise with each other, they have a funny way of showing it. 

There's a strong disconnect here. Your view is based on the idea that GW undertook an edition change specifically to improve game balance, and therefore screwed it up. I think that's entirely misguided.

The core rules don't control balance, they're about establishing the fundamentals of gameplay. The purpose of an edition change isn't to shift the balance of the meta, it's to make improvements to the basic infrastructure of the game.* That will obviously have a strong effect on balance, but not necessarily a leveling out.

Balance is then addressed in the individual army rules, as they interact with the core rules. To update the game's balance, GW will need to release new battletomes, or otherwise update them through FAQs or campaign books. There will always be a period of adjustment during an edition change, where some armies (including some strong ones) get stronger and some (including some weak ones) get weaker. That's not a failure of intent in the new edition, just a natural and unavoidable consequence of any change to the rules.

* Whether or not GW failed at their goal of improving the basic mechanics is definitely still open for debate.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Kadeton