The State of the Game

[Beliman]

41 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

So...if you roll a 2 and your opponent has a -1 save debuff you still save?

Yes. You need to score a 1+ after all modificators.

But if the enemy has -2 rend, your roll of 2 become 0 (in 3.0, not in 2.0) so your save roll is no success anymore.

[NauticalSoup]

1 hour ago, CommissarRotke said:

So...if you roll a 2 and your opponent has a -1 save debuff you still save?

That's exactly right! Since it's modified to a 1, and you save on a 1. And if you roll a 2 and your opponent has a -2 rend, then it's modified to a 0 and goes through.

And if you roll that natural 1 you fail, even though it would have passed, because of the extra rule that says natural 1s always fail regardless of all other factors.

Edit: didn't see @Beliman post before me oops

Edited March 14, 2022 by NauticalSoup

[Painbringer]

I have played just a handful of games in 3.0 (and watched a bunch of battle reports), but I feel like some of the issues with the latest edition were obvious since the moment the rules were released.

My biggest complaint is that the most of the new rules that were introduced with this edition were not the rules the game actually needed. They do make a game more complex, but it’s a shallow complexity (as someone already stated earlier). The only significant change (and the one that I do like) is the new scoring system and introduction of Battle tactics. Hero Actions, rampages, new command abilities - we could live without all that. 

I think that LOS and targeting rules are bad - in my opinion, the lack of restrictions/abstractions was really bad for the game and the overall enjoyment (at least in my case). WH40K did a pretty good job with the new LoS/targeting rules and different types of cover. I expected that AoS would do the same - instead, we got abilities and rules no one asked for.

Mortal Wounds are way too common (to the point that they do not feel special anymore) and some armies have hard time dealing with them. There should be other mechanics for interacting with enemy models - the ability on Allopex, that prevents unit to pile in, is a good example. Another example would be abilities that stop or reduce movement - imagine if Sylvaneth woods prevented models from moving or charging more than 1”, because they become entangled in the magical vines, roots and branches. Instead, they deal Mortal Wounds. 

Also, I do not like the constant updates. I have nothing against some point adjustments every now and then, but now new rules or warscrolls are being introduced with these updates and with the White Dwarf as well. I disliked this in Warmachine (and I played it competitively for a long time) and that game ended up with a never-ending cycle of army updates (which, I hope, won’t happen to GW games). I truly do not believe that Matched Play and tournaments should be the primary driver for rules changes. The more I think of it, it seems to me that Path to Glory and Crusade are the “pure” ways to experience the game - not Matched play. I really do not expect perfect balance, nor do I believe it is achievable - but I am tired of competitive aspect of the game dictating everything. This is especially the case when the friendly list you play with your friends suddenly becomes hit because of the changes that were introduced in order to prevent some powerful tournament-level combo. By all means, some truly degenerate combinations  probably should be fixed, but I think that what we have right now is not good for the game. It’s a mess, that becomes more complex with all these adjustments.
 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Painbringer

[Lord Krungharr]

3 hours ago, Beliman said:

Yes. You need to score a 1+ after all modificators.

But if the enemy has -2 rend, your roll of 2 become 0 (in 3.0, not in 2.0) so your save roll is no success anymore.

Ah ha, now I see.  Woulda been more clear if they gave the Bastiladon a 2+, ignore rend-1 or something.  

[zilberfrid]

3 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:

Ah ha, now I see.  Woulda been more clear if they gave the Bastiladon a 2+, ignore rend-1 or something.  

It's a lot better than the bug of 2.0 that required mortals.

[Kaizennus]

After following this topic for the week I think one thing that has become increasingly clear is that it is really hard to balance the enjoyment of the game for the different play groups/styles.

For example, I've seen a lot of comments about how some players don't like the extra complexity of the game, and these players usually play less regularly (this is not an attack on that, just an observation. I imagine most players only play once every month or two).

On the other hand, there are players like myself who feel the game is actually not complex "enough", and would like to see more sophisticated terrain rules, battle plans, etc.

It's a tough balance. Players who want to pick up and play every now and then are going to prefer a simpler rule set, while those who play weekly will probably find more enjoyment in a more complex game.

It makes me wonder if that is part of the reason why 40K has such a stronger online presence. Certainly part of it has to do with 40k being "older" and having more players, but I also think the more complicated rule set attracts players who play more regularly (and therefore are more likely to participate in online discussions). This is purely speculation though, I'd be curious to see if that matches other people's experiences.

[Kadeton]

55 minutes ago, Kaizennus said:

I've seen a lot of comments about how some players don't like the extra complexity of the game, and these players usually play less regularly (this is not an attack on that, just an observation. I imagine most players only play once every month or two).

On the other hand, there are players like myself who feel the game is actually not complex "enough", and would like to see more sophisticated terrain rules, battle plans, etc.

This is true to some extent, but I think what's more important to people is that the complexity is in the right places to suit their taste. Wargamers tend to have a very high tolerance for complexity overall, but some rules feel like they're just wasting your time, while others add genuine value.

For instance, I enjoy the extra stuff - heroic actions, monstrous rampages, etc - that 3rd edition layered on top of the core. I'd like those systems to be more complex, even, because I find them fun but there's often only one obvious choice. But rules like a unit always being able to re-roll misses, or changing a weapon's Rend value based on the hit roll, or even just a unit having three or four weapon profiles - that's the complexity that I feel wastes my time, and it can get in the bin.

Some people have the opposite preferences, obviously, and it's impossible to please everyone. But I think it's worth noting that whether people are saying "The game is too complex" or "The game is too simple", what they tend to actually mean when you get into the detail is "More of the complexity I like, and less of the complexity I don't like, please."

[Kaizennus]

29 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

This is true to some extent, but I think what's more important to people is that the complexity is in the right places to suit their taste. Wargamers tend to have a very high tolerance for complexity overall, but some rules feel like they're just wasting your time, while others add genuine value.

For instance, I enjoy the extra stuff - heroic actions, monstrous rampages, etc - that 3rd edition layered on top of the core. I'd like those systems to be more complex, even, because I find them fun but there's often only one obvious choice. But rules like a unit always being able to re-roll misses, or changing a weapon's Rend value based on the hit roll, or even just a unit having three or four weapon profiles - that's the complexity that I feel wastes my time, and it can get in the bin.

Some people have the opposite preferences, obviously, and it's impossible to please everyone. But I think it's worth noting that whether people are saying "The game is too complex" or "The game is too simple", what they tend to actually mean when you get into the detail is "More of the complexity I like, and less of the complexity I don't like, please."

I agree with everything you said~
 

Another issue/difficulty is game length and how complexity affects it. Personally, I dislike the 3(+) hours it takes for a “good game” (ie: not a game where someone just crushes the other person in two turns). Like you said, rules like multi-weapon profiles, conditional re-rolls and buffs, etc all slow down the game and aren’t really fun. So even for someone like me who enjoys a deep rule set there’s also the counter-issue of game length.

Wargame rules are not an easy thing, though I guess we’d all agree that GW could do better.

[zilberfrid]

2 hours ago, Kaizennus said:

After following this topic for the week I think one thing that has become increasingly clear is that it is really hard to balance the enjoyment of the game for the different play groups/styles.

For example, I've seen a lot of comments about how some players don't like the extra complexity of the game, and these players usually play less regularly (this is not an attack on that, just an observation. I imagine most players only play once every month or two).

On the other hand, there are players like myself who feel the game is actually not complex "enough", and would like to see more sophisticated terrain rules, battle plans, etc.

It's a tough balance. Players who want to pick up and play every now and then are going to prefer a simpler rule set, while those who play weekly will probably find more enjoyment in a more complex game.

It makes me wonder if that is part of the reason why 40K has such a stronger online presence. Certainly part of it has to do with 40k being "older" and having more players, but I also think the more complicated rule set attracts players who play more regularly (and therefore are more likely to participate in online discussions). This is purely speculation though, I'd be curious to see if that matches other people's experiences.

There is complexity that helps the unit do what it can do, like the page long Ironclad warscroll, and there is complexity for complexities' sake, like drifting horses in the new coherency rules or performance based VP bookkeeping.

[RuneBrush]

8 hours ago, Painbringer said:

Also, I do not like the constant updates. I have nothing against some point adjustments every now and then, but now new rules or warscrolls are being introduced with these updates and with the White Dwarf as well. I disliked this in Warmachine (and I played it competitively for a long time) and that game ended up with a never-ending cycle of army updates (which, I hope, won’t happen to GW games). I truly do not believe that Matched Play and tournaments should be the primary driver for rules changes.

One of the challenges GW has is that in ever survey that has been put out, the vast majority of players have pushed for more frequent updates.  Now they're implementing this request, many people (myself included) have found it somewhat overwhelming and making playing the game more complicated.  It's a tricky one, people who play AoS multiple times a week are going to have a completely different view on things than somebody who plays once or twice a month.

[Koala]

7 hours ago, Kaizennus said:

[...]

It makes me wonder if that is part of the reason why 40K has such a stronger online presence. Certainly part of it has to do with 40k being "older" and having more players, but I also think the more complicated rule set attracts players who play more regularly (and therefore are more likely to participate in online discussions). This is purely speculation though, I'd be curious to see if that matches other people's experiences.

Ironically you could also argue the simplicity of AoS was what gave it its enormous success from basically nothing. After all 40k 8th Ed was clearly inspired by AoS 1.0.

 

But yeah, finding a balance between complexity and accessability is the big GW design challenge. 

And as i keep pointing out: WE vote with out wallets.

[Noserenda]

I dont think complexity attracts many players (though some, definitely) but it certainly repels them when implemented badly. No the biggest draws are always models and imagery, essentially marketing

Thats just looking at GW sales over the years, typically the most complicated games are less popular but overall 40k has always been stronger, largely due to the setting.

[Kaizennus]

7 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

I dont think complexity attracts many players (though some, definitely) but it certainly repels them when implemented badly. No the biggest draws are always models and imagery, essentially marketing

Thats just looking at GW sales over the years, typically the most complicated games are less popular but overall 40k has always been stronger, largely due to the setting.

For sure, badly implemented complexity is a total turn off for most people, especially the casual crowd.

I do think there needs to be a good balance between casual and hardcore interest however, since they do feed off each other. It’s the more active player base that generates a lot of online content and discussions (and hype), whether it’s on YouTube, Twitter, podcast, etc.

Another important distinction, I think, is that complex rules are not necessary for a competitive, strategic game. Some of, if not most, really successful games really have a beautiful simplicity to them. The “easy to learn, difficult to master” mantra holds a lot of weight IMO, and should be the goal of GW’s design philosophy.

[Ganigumo]

8 hours ago, Kaizennus said:

After following this topic for the week I think one thing that has become increasingly clear is that it is really hard to balance the enjoyment of the game for the different play groups/styles.

For example, I've seen a lot of comments about how some players don't like the extra complexity of the game, and these players usually play less regularly (this is not an attack on that, just an observation. I imagine most players only play once every month or two).

On the other hand, there are players like myself who feel the game is actually not complex "enough", and would like to see more sophisticated terrain rules, battle plans, etc.

It's a tough balance. Players who want to pick up and play every now and then are going to prefer a simpler rule set, while those who play weekly will probably find more enjoyment in a more complex game.

It makes me wonder if that is part of the reason why 40K has such a stronger online presence. Certainly part of it has to do with 40k being "older" and having more players, but I also think the more complicated rule set attracts players who play more regularly (and therefore are more likely to participate in online discussions). This is purely speculation though, I'd be curious to see if that matches other people's experiences.

There's actually a very easy way to have both, and GW basically had it with aos2. You make the core rules very simple, and put the complexity in the army books. You don't make every army complex of course, but that's what's great about that design, the players have control over how complex they want their game to be. So the player who wants a complex game can play Tzeentch/lumineth/skaven and the player who wants an easy game can play ogors/gargants.

14 hours ago, Painbringer said:

I really do not expect perfect balance, nor do I believe it is achievable - but I am tired of competitive aspect of the game dictating everything. This is especially the case when the friendly list you play with your friends suddenly becomes hit because of the changes that were introduced in order to prevent some powerful tournament-level combo. By all means, some truly degenerate combinations  probably should be fixed, but I think that what we have right now is not good for the game. It’s a mess, that becomes more complex with all these adjustments.
 

Agreed, its especially egregious with how poorly some armies perform year after year, to the point of them being hard to even take to casual friendly games, yet they seem to also dodge any significant buffs.

[Lavieth]

I have been thinking about this a little over the past few days and have been a bit hesitant to share it, because I suspect it won't be a very popular idea. I am going to preface that I fully believe that a more balanced product needs to be issued to the players. Perhaps switch to new play testers or what have you. Glaring issues don't just sneak through, but have been allowed entry for some reason. It's not for me to speculate on. But a consistent and balanced product isn't an unreasonable expectation. 

Now, onto the unpopular idea. When do we think a point is reached where the player community needs to assume a level of responsibility and accountability? At some point we may come to a realization there is just a bad attitude within the player community. I have read a lot of people talk about how certain units are not chosen in various factions because they feel that by taking them you are placing yourself at a disadvantage. In response those units are ignored in favor of the more powerful option. These kind of choices lead to silly rules that were introduced yesterday.

Sure, some units may not perform as well as others, that is obvious. However, if both players are bringing those units instead of just the "point and click" ones, I would have to assume it would lead to a better game with more diversity. More players would begin to explore the books more completely and find purposes for those lesser used units. 

Now, I am not saying you shouldn't play with your toys. I totally get that dragons are cool and an army of them is cool as an example. There is a certain level of maturity required for that type of player to recognize they may not be facilitating an enjoyable gaming experience. Unless I am reading into this thread too much, it seems the social contract for miniature war gaming has been breached. There is more emphasis on one person winning, in some cases, at all costs, rather than both players enjoying the game. I've been in this community since 5th edition and have experienced the good and the bad for over 20 years. The last 4-ish years I've noticed this seeping into the community. 

Now before people start to comment. I support you doing your hobby your way. Its why I'm mostly a hobbiest now and mainly game with friends. We get to control how our games are played. You spent your money how you wanted and invested time painting what you bought. That's great. I am happy you are here and in it. 

[NauticalSoup]

46 minutes ago, Lavieth said:

I have read a lot of people talk about how certain units are not chosen in various factions because they feel that by taking them you are placing yourself at a disadvantage. In response those units are ignored in favor of the more powerful option. These kind of choices lead to silly rules that were introduced yesterday.

I dunno man I've played a lot of wargames over the years, most of them just... you know, fix the broken stuff. Crazy, I know.

Or they do what GW does, and then die and go out of business because other people simply can't afford to be that inept without it gutting their bottom line.

I don't think some ambiguous notion of communal responsibility for GW's failures is much of a salve.

[Skreech Verminking]

6 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:

I dunno man I've played a lot of wargames over the years, most of them just... you know, fix the broken stuff. Crazy, I know.

Or they do what GW does, and then die and go out of business because other people simply can't afford to be that inept without it gutting their bottom line.

I don't think some ambiguous notion of communal responsibility for GW's failures is much of a salve.

Yet their failure hasn’t quite killed them off.

so let’s wait and hope for the best for the system.

although I’m probably going to change the system a bit till I figure out how a skaven list can beat the new deepkins.

heard one page rule ist a pretty cool system

and that fanmade 9th edition fantasy mini wargaming have been playing lately

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

55 minutes ago, Lavieth said:

Now, onto the unpopular idea. When do we think a point is reached where the player community needs to assume a level of responsibility and accountability? At some point we may come to a realization there is just a bad attitude within the player community. I have read a lot of people talk about how certain units are not chosen in various factions because they feel that by taking them you are placing yourself at a disadvantage. In response those units are ignored in favor of the more powerful option. These kind of choices lead to silly rules that were introduced yesterday.

I'm a big proponent of more awareness of the social contract of the game for people's private play groups and clubs. More communication about what you want out of the game can only make for a better experience. There is no reason you can't play all the units that are usually too bad to field if the people you play with are on board with it.

That said, the fact that you can house rule or soft ban stuff in your own play group does not absolve the people of GW from their responsibility of making a more or less balanced product. Anyone can always ignore any rules of any game they play. That does not make a game having bad rules not a problem, however.

In particular, the "canon" rules are important because they serve as a starting point for set, unspoken expectations between people. They are the base line rules of the game that people will expect you to follow unless otherwise discussed. The designers of AoS should have an ambition to make these rules as good as they can. After all, GW insists on selling us both the models and the rules. And we as players should also expect excellence in rules design from GW. They are the biggest tabletop gaming company, as well as one of the oldest and one of the most expensive. They should definitely be able to deliver a quality product.

Now, for your personal enjoyment of the game, it is probably best to not just get angry at GW and wait for them to fix everything. The company GW is setting themself up for failure on that front with their rolling battletome release model, three year edition cycle and insistence on printing rules updates mostly in physical form. For individual players, it is probably best to find a way of playing the game that they enjoy and having at it. But that doesn't mean GW gets to be immune to criticism.

[Lavieth]

21 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:

I dunno man I've played a lot of wargames over the years, most of them just... you know, fix the broken stuff. Crazy, I know.

Or they do what GW does, and then die and go out of business because other people simply can't afford to be that inept without it gutting their bottom line.

I don't think some ambiguous notion of communal responsibility for GW's failures is much of a salve.

I did state that the quality of produxt presented by Games-Workshop needs to be of a higher quality and that the players should expect as much. Providing criticism is something I would endorse on this matter in an effort for a better balanced game. When books come out with clearly questionable rules, the community should en-mass communicate with Games-Workshop to express their concerns. Perhaps instead of just seeking clarity in rules for an early FAQ the community could also request some rules to be dialed back.

One problem I see is that many gamers are more concerned with their experience to win by any means than the overall experience for both parties. We cannot say Games-Workshop needs to build a more balanced game, but then find ways to justify why players want to select mostly from the dominate units. Using dragons as an example, I would argue more people bought an army of them based on their broken rules, more so than because an army of dragons is cool. Let's be honest, how many people would have bought dragons if their rules were subpar? How many people would play an army of dragons if the rules were subpar? The community feeds the poor game designs by buying into them. There is a constant pattern that has been showcased for a number of years now. Just look at at how the "popularity" of the power factions always rises when there is a significant rules imbalance, versus the "popularity" of the factions that are clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum.

It is not fair to address the state of the game without examining how people are participating in it. We cannot just say it is a one sided affair. For whatever reason, the war game community does find it a lot easier to critique Games-Workshop for their faults in game design, but they want no accountability for exploitation of that poor game design presented to them. 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Lavieth

[pnkdth]

1 hour ago, Lavieth said:

I have been thinking about this a little over the past few days and have been a bit hesitant to share it, because I suspect it won't be a very popular idea. I am going to preface that I fully believe that a more balanced product needs to be issued to the players. Perhaps switch to new play testers or what have you. Glaring issues don't just sneak through, but have been allowed entry for some reason. It's not for me to speculate on. But a consistent and balanced product isn't an unreasonable expectation. 

Now, onto the unpopular idea. When do we think a point is reached where the player community needs to assume a level of responsibility and accountability? At some point we may come to a realization there is just a bad attitude within the player community. I have read a lot of people talk about how certain units are not chosen in various factions because they feel that by taking them you are placing yourself at a disadvantage. In response those units are ignored in favor of the more powerful option. These kind of choices lead to silly rules that were introduced yesterday.

Sure, some units may not perform as well as others, that is obvious. However, if both players are bringing those units instead of just the "point and click" ones, I would have to assume it would lead to a better game with more diversity. More players would begin to explore the books more completely and find purposes for those lesser used units. 

Now, I am not saying you shouldn't play with your toys. I totally get that dragons are cool and an army of them is cool as an example. There is a certain level of maturity required for that type of player to recognize they may not be facilitating an enjoyable gaming experience. Unless I am reading into this thread too much, it seems the social contract for miniature war gaming has been breached. There is more emphasis on one person winning, in some cases, at all costs, rather than both players enjoying the game. I've been in this community since 5th edition and have experienced the good and the bad for over 20 years. The last 4-ish years I've noticed this seeping into the community. 

Now before people start to comment. I support you doing your hobby your way. Its why I'm mostly a hobbiest now and mainly game with friends. We get to control how our games are played. You spent your money how you wanted and invested time painting what you bought. That's great. I am happy you are here and in it. 

Composition scores might be worth looking into more seriously. We got a mountain of tournament data already and contrary to the belief comp is for casuals it simply creates a more even, yet very much competitive, field. Player's riding the meta or winning through math hammer will suffer though so some egos might get bruised. Leads to much closer games though and much more varied meta.

It does require the community to stop relying on daddy GW to fix everything though. However, as we've seen GW seem neither equipped or willing to step up to the plate in a timely fashion, maybe we'll soon reach a critical mass of people who's just had enough with waiting for nothing much at all.

So while perhaps uncomfortable or unpopular, I think you're onto something.

[yukishiro1]

Community comp always loses to GW's own attempts. It only ever works when the company itself isn't filling the void at all. Like in early AOS before AOS had point values, community comp caught on because there was no alternative. As soon as GW started giving out points values, it completely fell apart. And that's not because GW's point values were better. It's just because they're official.

The community could come up with a much better handicap system than the one GW just came out with. It wouldn't matter. You'd never get enough buy-in for it, because there's an official alternative and that's always what people will gravitate towards. It's just the reality of the situation.

Right now GW is showing that it wants to be the final arbiter of its own game (see these releases, them taking over the ITC, etc) - it's just not doing a great job at it. Community comp never works in those situations historically. It only works when the company is ceding that space to others. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

2 hours ago, Lavieth said:

Unless I am reading into this thread too much, it seems the social contract for miniature war gaming has been breached

As I noted in a similar thread I’ve been away from AoS for a little bit learning 40k.  Currently I’m enrolled in the Vanguard Tactics Academy and a big reason why is the founder’s “40k the right way” ethos.  There is a huge emphasis on the social contract aspect of the game.  Making sure that there is a discussion pre-game about what the players are trying to get out of it and that goals are aligned.  Making sure throughout the game that both players are having a positive experience.

1 hour ago, Lavieth said:

One problem I see is that many gamers are more concerned with their experience to win by any means than the overall experience for both parties

What is remarkable to me is that all of this is coming from some of the most competitive players in the world.  The VT team regularly posts top-faction and top ITC rankings.  They take down tournaments on a regular basis.  All while emphasizing the quality of the gaming experience.

If “40k the right way” can gain traction than maybe “No BS AoS” has a chance too?

I know from the AoS community I built it is possible on a small scale.  I do think even without close social ties it would be possible too. 

[Ganigumo]

3 hours ago, Lavieth said:

I have been thinking about this a little over the past few days and have been a bit hesitant to share it, because I suspect it won't be a very popular idea. I am going to preface that I fully believe that a more balanced product needs to be issued to the players. Perhaps switch to new play testers or what have you. Glaring issues don't just sneak through, but have been allowed entry for some reason. It's not for me to speculate on. But a consistent and balanced product isn't an unreasonable expectation. 

Now, onto the unpopular idea. When do we think a point is reached where the player community needs to assume a level of responsibility and accountability? At some point we may come to a realization there is just a bad attitude within the player community. I have read a lot of people talk about how certain units are not chosen in various factions because they feel that by taking them you are placing yourself at a disadvantage. In response those units are ignored in favor of the more powerful option. These kind of choices lead to silly rules that were introduced yesterday.

Sure, some units may not perform as well as others, that is obvious. However, if both players are bringing those units instead of just the "point and click" ones, I would have to assume it would lead to a better game with more diversity. More players would begin to explore the books more completely and find purposes for those lesser used units. 

Now, I am not saying you shouldn't play with your toys. I totally get that dragons are cool and an army of them is cool as an example. There is a certain level of maturity required for that type of player to recognize they may not be facilitating an enjoyable gaming experience. Unless I am reading into this thread too much, it seems the social contract for miniature war gaming has been breached. There is more emphasis on one person winning, in some cases, at all costs, rather than both players enjoying the game. I've been in this community since 5th edition and have experienced the good and the bad for over 20 years. The last 4-ish years I've noticed this seeping into the community. 

Now before people start to comment. I support you doing your hobby your way. Its why I'm mostly a hobbiest now and mainly game with friends. We get to control how our games are played. You spent your money how you wanted and invested time painting what you bought. That's great. I am happy you are here and in it. 

I think the issue is the disparity, Stuff like Sylvaneth (on the low end) and Tzeentch (on the high end) can have some pretty fair matchups between them if you aim for a more casual list on the tzeentch side, but stuff like Gitz and bonesplitterz are an uphill battle unless your opponent makes an intentionally bad army.

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

1 hour ago, Lavieth said:

One problem I see is that many gamers are more concerned with their experience to win by any means than the overall experience for both parties.

Yeah, this is what rubbed me the wrong way about this balance update - it addresses win-loss rates but does nothing to address the actual experience of play.

I'm a fairly casual player, but I have a background in game development and design, so I love to engage with and think about the mechanics of the game and the experience they create in play (I follow the competitive community not because I myself plan to play in tournaments, but because the high end of the competitive community tends to be very fluent in the language of the game and can articulate gameplay problems in a way that, frankly, more casual players often can't). So when I ask for balance, it's usually as part of mitigating Negative Player Experience across the game, and this balance update doesn't meaningfully address that.

 

[CommissarRotke]

9 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

One of the challenges GW has is that in ever survey that has been put out, the vast majority of players have pushed for more frequent updates.  Now they're implementing this request, many people (myself included) have found it somewhat overwhelming and making playing the game more complicated.  It's a tricky one, people who play AoS multiple times a week are going to have a completely different view on things than somebody who plays once or twice a month.

Would your opinion on this change if all the rules were in one central, digital location that you could reference all at once? For me the overwhelming comes from having to basically track down rules because they're in multiple locations: separated FAQ PDFs, White Dwarf, Battlescrolls, and/or the app that may or may NOT be correct.