1. Do not make arguments based on engagements smaller than 6v6.
We are not interested in class performance and balance on scales smaller than 6v6. Period. Topics made based around such scales will be locked immediately, and posters making arguments which are based around performance at very small scales will be infracted. This rule primarily exists to keep 1on1 duelling topics out of the forum and to make it very clear that regardless of what anyone's opinion on the validity of duelling in Warhammer may be, we are not interested in dealing with it.
2. Do not restate a debunked point.
This rule is to protect against posters who believe in the maxim "All of your elegant arguments can easily be ignored." If you make a post expressing point X, and another poster debunks this post, you will be infracted if you rely on the point that was already debunked unless you yourself can argue convincingly against the other poster's analysis. An example:
Poster A wrote:
Festerbombing is valid because Sorcerers can inflict 4k damage in a single timestamp.
Poster B wrote:
That is different; a Sorcerer has to load up his damage beforehand and will lead with Chillwind and Word of Pain, giving you advance warning in which to deal with the problem.
Poster A, later wrote:
It's ridiculous to nerf Festerbombing and leave Sorcs as they are.
In this case, Poster A is restating his previous point without dealing with Poster B's criticism, and Poster A will be infracted.
3. No reciprocal adjustments, aka: Don't appeal to your mirror.
When we are balancing classes, we are doing so in isolation. That means when we are considering, for example, Witch Elf and how to address any issues the class may have, we are NOT interested in hearing about how Witch Hunter will need X buffed or Y nerfed in order to maintain mirror parity. We will address Witch Elf first, and then, when Witch Hunter comes into the frame for adjustment, address that class.
The exceptions to this rule are:
- If Witch Hunter has already been addressed.
- If the problem is exactly the same for both mirrors.
This rule applies on the realm scale as well as the class scale, and it applies bilaterally. This means that, for example, if Destruction class X is in the frame for buffs or nerfs, we are not interested in hearing about how Order class Y must immediately be buffed or nerfed to compensate or how Destruction class Z has fewer viable specs and must be buffed first. Unlike with classes, there are no exceptions to this rule when it applies to realms.
4. No strawmanning, cherry picking or Omnislashing.
Strawmanning is misrepresenting a post in a way that suits you, usually by acting as if the poster holds an opinion which they clearly do not.
Cherry picking is selecting the parts of a post you think are easier to attack, and responding to those, while ignoring those which are detrimental to your own argument.
Omnislashing is a combination of both of the above, which involves dividing a post into many very small quotes, in order to break the context of each quote, then attacking each quote by abusing the lack of context which was created.
5. No PUG arguments.
Balance is based around classes being played competently. Do not make any argument which involves disparity of skill, gear or specialization on either side. It is desirable when buffing classes or specs to avoid making them PUG killers, but a buff to an underpowered element of the game which renders it or the class more powerful against PUGs is not a problem as long as this element has valid counterplay.
6. No arguments to item procs or abilities.
Class balance (abilities, tactics, morales) both supersedes and ignores the effect of all items. Any unusual effect (proc, ability) granted by an item MUST NOT be a prerequisite for a class's viability. Do not appeal to an item proc or item ability when discussing the balance of any class.
7. Post legibly.
Your arguments must be presented concisely and with good structure. Posting an illegible wall of text or a stream of consciousness post will result in action.