Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
broxus wrote: Correct this is coming from someone who has played against death realizing how dumb that that ring was. All the character items were designed to add flavor and make them more interesting. Not give a massive free bonus that it had given before. The ring was simply to good and I am glad to see it toned down to be much more in line with the power of all alliances items.
Thought so. Sounds like a classic case of 'this beats me so it must be OP'.
Sidenote: I have played against an opponent using the ring on a Ghould King on Terrorgheist, which as a model that heals and has a death explosion was one of the most powerful options to put the ring on. So I know what the ring can do. I have also used an army with a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon as the general that did NOT bring the ring, at a tournament no less.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/23 04:08:15
lol I used the ring when I first started and you realize how crap it is compared to the cursed book.
A monster coming back with 3 wounds isn't terribly game breaking, its not like its teleporting and charging in the same turn with a 2+ rerollable save and heals itself on a 4+. I mean something like that would be outlandish.
broxus wrote: Correct this is coming from someone who has played against death realizing how dumb that that ring was. All the character items were designed to add flavor and make them more interesting. Not give a massive free bonus that it had given before. The ring was simply to good and I am glad to see it toned down to be much more in line with the power of all alliances items.
Thought so. Sounds like a classic case of 'this beats me so it must be OP'.
Sidenote: I have played against an opponent using the ring on a Ghould King on Terrorgheist, which as a model that heals and has a death explosion was one of the most powerful options to put the ring on. So I know what the ring can do. I have also used an army with a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon as the general that did NOT bring the ring, at a tournament no less.
Dude, it's potentially 400 free points, it can be OP.
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
Dude, it's potentially 400 free points, it can be OP.
A lot of things can be OP.
Am I missing the 1-3 wound model worth 400 points?
A ghoul king on terrogheist is worth 400, if you buy him at full health. Having him come back with 1-3 wounds in a 4-6 turn game is hardly free 400 points. If he wants to heal up in safety then he may not take part for the last turn or 2, if he takes part you have a few extra wounds to do. In many games it is worthless as it only has any affect if the Ghoul king is killed, which may never have happened.
As it stands I doubt anyone will be using the ring now, why pay 400 points to bring back a 1-3 wound model, if it died. When you could just have a full health one to start with. Even the ability to have him teleport in somewhere else is probably not worth it. I can see a possible use on maybe some really awesome unique models, one you can't take 2 of, but they are likely so expensive as to also be a non starter.
If it was a free 400 points then people will still be taking it, as it will be worth the cost.
IMO the book of -1 to hit was (and is even more so now) way better. The ring was nice if you have more than 1 choice. Now it is pretty much auto exclude.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/23 11:06:50
The ring was really good with the VLOZD because you could pop the chalice of blood immediately after and get a further D6 wounds - and if a Mortis Engine was on the board a potential D3 wounds giving you anywhere between 3-12 wounds upon returning.
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/23 12:43:07
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Are you really still on about that?
Why wouldn't I be? Half of these complaints about the FAQ go away when you consider the fact they make sense from a tournament, and don't make sense otherwise. Clearly the solution then is to not treat every game like it was a tournament game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/23 14:17:38
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Are you really still on about that?
Why wouldn't I be? Half of these complaints about the FAQ go away when you consider the fact they make sense from a tournament, and don't make sense otherwise. Clearly the solution then is to not treat every game like it was a tournament game.
I'm so sorry we enjoy playing a game in a different way than you do.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/23 14:45:13
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Are you really still on about that?
Why wouldn't I be? Half of these complaints about the FAQ go away when you consider the fact they make sense from a tournament, and don't make sense otherwise. Clearly the solution then is to not treat every game like it was a tournament game.
I'm so sorry we enjoy playing a game in a different way than you do.
Nobody is saying that's a bad thing (least of all me, I've repeatedly said that I am fine with Matched Play for tournament type things), I'm saying the problems with a lot of these FAQs are only a problem if you play the game in that specific way, and the solution is to NOT do that if you don't like the FAQ changes. If you want to only play Matched Play, then you have to live with the FAQ changes that many people seem upset about; that's the tradeoff for wanting Matched Play to be the main way of playing AOS. There is an alternative, if people want to go that route instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/23 15:42:26
Wayniac wrote: I think I realized something. Hear me out here. This sounds like GW is specifically trying to balance these things *FOR TOURNAMENTS* and this feels like a veiled way to make it clear Matched Play isn't meant for everyday gaming, but specifically tournament type events. Think about it. These restrictions on like the Ring of Immortality or battalions with keywords and such, those type of things would make sense for a tournament to try and balance the playing field. All of these controversial changes that people are up in arms about *make sense when you think of it like a rules packet for a tournament*. They don't make sense when you consider them blanket rules.
Yes, yes, and thrice yes. I think that is exactly what is happening.
The same applies to Battalions - there are calls to give every Battalion a points cost and bring it into Matched Play. The trouble is, many of the Battalions are fairly sickening in Matched Play (Great Bolts springs to mind...), and should not go anywhere near a tournament. But in Narrative Play..? Perfect.
If Matched Play is channelled into a sub-set of AoS where you get all the models but other options are strictly defined, then it a) lends weight to Narrative Play where you get everything, and b) will make Matched Play mucvh tighter as you are not trying to squeeze the kitchen sink in.
I am extremely biased but I hope that is exactly what happens and matched play stays for tournaments and events and does not bleed into everyday regular gaming so you don't have to deal with this stuff. But sadly my experience is that everything will just conform to that so you may as well always be playing in tournaments or prepping for tournaments rather than have people actually talk.
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
Are you really still on about that?
Why wouldn't I be? Half of these complaints about the FAQ go away when you consider the fact they make sense from a tournament, and don't make sense otherwise. Clearly the solution then is to not treat every game like it was a tournament game.
That's not what I'm asking of course, namely the whole additional details of "Rather than have people actually talk".
As a matched play player, I hope they don't include all of the battalions. As long as all the models have point costs I think that's fine. I don't trust GW to have balanced values for all of the battalions (especially since they don't even for the ones they have), not to mention we'd have pages taken up by nothing but battalions. Stormcast have 30 battalions. 30.
To all the people who are afraid that matched points will become a monolithic de-facto required way to play the game and remove all possibility of talking to your opponents and sorting things out:
There is a simple solution to this: talk to your opponents. If you'd rather not used matched play rules , you don't have to! And if you can't summon the fortitude to hash it out with your opponents, what makes you think that you could hash it out without matched play? Heck, if your opponent likes matched play and you don't, you can come up with a compromise: used matched play points to make your army lists but use open play rules beyond that. That's totally valid!
If you are playing with a total stranger is it such a bad thing that matched play is a bit of a default? It allows you to get a game in (and hopefully break the ice a bit) without having a lot of overhead discussion ahead of time. Then maybe talk about how the game went and how you might want to play differently next time. Or if your opponent is up for something more complex on the first go through, just do that! Nothing is stopping you.
I put out a poll a bit ago on my community event page asking how we'd feel about a GM'd campaign for this summer instead of using matched play and points.
The results were 29 in favor of points and against GM, and 2 in favor of the GM and no points.
I know where I am... trying to get off of matched play is not viable or realistic.
auticus wrote: I put out a poll a bit ago on my community event page asking how we'd feel about a GM'd campaign for this summer instead of using matched play and points.
The results were 29 in favor of points and against GM, and 2 in favor of the GM and no points.
I know where I am... trying to get off of matched play is not viable or realistic.
Though TBF you couldn't get narrative games going before matched play either (as I recall).
Still, it's an awful situation to be in when people try to shoehorn a game that isn't really intended to be competitive into a competitive focused game. Everyone can play in their style, but it's really odd to see so many people want to "force" Warhammer into a competitive game when it never really was competitive even in the olden days.
Although that said, I find all you need is a handful of like-minded people to start having fun away from the "competitive" crowd. And when new players see the non-competitive group laughing and having fun and doing weird, fun scenarios and the matched play people being more serious and playing standard-looking games, chances are the new players will gravitate to the crowd that looks like they're having more fun. They might branch out or even leave later, but the best way to encourage other styles is to find at least one other person and just do it.
That's my idea, anyways. I know from the handful I've talked to at my GW, they are interested in campaigns and narrative things, not necessarily with points (although maybe just to have something other than "drop what you want). But my goal is to do something like that; find at least one person and start to play narrative style games and hopefully as new people come to the shop they will see us and want to join AOS to join our style of play not the competitive minded players (although many of those play 40k). I know for a fact if I were a new player, I'd be more likely to want to join the two people playing out a crazy scenario that's part of a mini-campaign than join the group using similarly built armies in regular battles to try and win.
Good luck auticus :(
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/23 19:03:38
auticus wrote: I put out a poll a bit ago on my community event page asking how we'd feel about a GM'd campaign for this summer instead of using matched play and points.
The results were 29 in favor of points and against GM, and 2 in favor of the GM and no points.
I know where I am... trying to get off of matched play is not viable or realistic.
Though TBF you couldn't get narrative games going before matched play either (as I recall).
We used Azyr before. But yeah GM mode has pretty much not been seen in my area publicly at events since 1998 (we had a warmaster ancients run in 2005 that was GM'd but that wasn't a mainstream game nor were the players regulars at the shop because it was primarily historical)
The campaign will run this year as it always has, its just that we have to use competitive mode to facilitate the lists.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/23 19:03:28
EnTyme wrote:I'm so sorry we enjoy playing a game in a different way than you do.
How about respect that he plays differently but others say his way of playing is the wrong way. You answer if perfect example. Why do you feel the need to belittle him in a false apology? That is why he keeps going on a bout it. He doesn't like when people are negative to his way of playing. any time he feels he needs to defend himself, someone like you comes up and re enforces that his idea is wrong.
So instead of belittling him or mocking him, just respect his decision. No where does he ever say his opinion is the correct one, or people must play his way but it's his preferred way but people need to come in and tell him he is wrong. Just like you did.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
EnTyme wrote:I'm so sorry we enjoy playing a game in a different way than you do.
How about respect that he plays differently but others say his way of playing is the wrong way. You answer if perfect example. Why do you feel the need to belittle him in a false apology? That is why he keeps going on a bout it. He doesn't like when people are negative to his way of playing. any time he feels he needs to defend himself, someone like you comes up and re enforces that his idea is wrong.
So instead of belittling him or mocking him, just respect his decision. No where does he ever say his opinion is the correct one, or people must play his way but it's his preferred way but people need to come in and tell him he is wrong. Just like you did.
Because the statement he was responding to is this:
Sometimes it strikes me as really odd the lengths people will go and accept to avoid having to actually speak to their opponent about the type of game they want
auticus wrote: I put out a poll a bit ago on my community event page asking how we'd feel about a GM'd campaign for this summer instead of using matched play and points.
The results were 29 in favor of points and against GM, and 2 in favor of the GM and no points.
I know where I am... trying to get off of matched play is not viable or realistic.
Though TBF you couldn't get narrative games going before matched play either (as I recall).
We used Azyr before. But yeah GM mode has pretty much not been seen in my area publicly at events since 1998 (we had a warmaster ancients run in 2005 that was GM'd but that wasn't a mainstream game nor were the players regulars at the shop because it was primarily historical)
The campaign will run this year as it always has, its just that we have to use competitive mode to facilitate the lists.
Holy Hammer/Holy Wars etc etc is just up the road from you. Why don't you go to some of their narrative play events. Make some new gaming buddies and invite them to play down the road at your place?
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
EnTyme wrote:I'm so sorry we enjoy playing a game in a different way than you do.
How about respect that he plays differently but others say his way of playing is the wrong way. You answer if perfect example. Why do you feel the need to belittle him in a false apology? That is why he keeps going on a bout it. He doesn't like when people are negative to his way of playing. any time he feels he needs to defend himself, someone like you comes up and re enforces that his idea is wrong.
So instead of belittling him or mocking him, just respect his decision. No where does he ever say his opinion is the correct one, or people must play his way but it's his preferred way but people need to come in and tell him he is wrong. Just like you did.
You didn't actually read the statement I was responding to, did you?
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
I don't know what Holy Hammer or Holy Wars is or where it is located.
EDIT: I see that is an event in Illinois. Bit of a drive. Our campaigns are not weekend events, they last a series of months so my bet is that we're not going to get any guys driving to participate
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/23 19:34:48
Still it's like 5 hours drive which isn't far (people in the UK drive further than that for some events). Gives you Narrative events to go to to scratch that itch, and you might have players that live closer to Louisville (equidistant would be 2 1/2 hours away, so scope for people coming to your own weekend events too).
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
I know in my case I prefer match play because I want some level of fair play. I don't need to win, I just want a chance too. I can't be the only one; that once you have agreed to a narrative game, you find yourself recreating Pickett's charge.
I've had enough of so called fluffy players who's only narrative their interested in is how much of an advantage they can get away with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/24 01:57:39
broxus wrote: Correct this is coming from someone who has played against death realizing how dumb that that ring was. All the character items were designed to add flavor and make them more interesting. Not give a massive free bonus that it had given before. The ring was simply to good and I am glad to see it toned down to be much more in line with the power of all alliances items.
Thought so. Sounds like a classic case of 'this beats me so it must be OP'.
Sidenote: I have played against an opponent using the ring on a Ghould King on Terrorgheist, which as a model that heals and has a death explosion was one of the most powerful options to put the ring on. So I know what the ring can do. I have also used an army with a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon as the general that did NOT bring the ring, at a tournament no less.
I am starting to wonder if we are even playing the same AOS game. You tell me that the GUO is undercosted at 330 points, the new Exalted GUO should be 500pts, and that the ring of immortality wasn't over the top compared to any of the other grand alliance items? I am all for the Death Alliance getting some GHB love, but between the deathless minions, ruler of the night, the ring of immortatiliy and cursed book the buffs are a little out of hand.
Sure, you can still win games against these things. However, it is greatly skewing the balance that the GHB was intended to accomplish in games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/24 03:26:35
broxus wrote: Correct this is coming from someone who has played against death realizing how dumb that that ring was. All the character items were designed to add flavor and make them more interesting. Not give a massive free bonus that it had given before. The ring was simply to good and I am glad to see it toned down to be much more in line with the power of all alliances items.
Thought so. Sounds like a classic case of 'this beats me so it must be OP'.
Sidenote: I have played against an opponent using the ring on a Ghould King on Terrorgheist, which as a model that heals and has a death explosion was one of the most powerful options to put the ring on. So I know what the ring can do. I have also used an army with a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon as the general that did NOT bring the ring, at a tournament no less.
I am starting to wonder if we are even playing the same AOS game. You tell me that the GUO is undercosted at 330 points, the new Exalted GUO should be 500pts, and that the ring of immortality wasn't over the top compared to any of the other grand alliance items? I am all for the Death Alliance getting some GHB love, but between the deathless minions, ruler of the night, the ring of immortatiliy and cursed book the buffs are a little out of hand.
Sure, you can still win games against these things. However, it is greatly skewing the balance that the GHB was intended to accomplish in games.
Honestly I just think you have a point of view very biased towards the army you use personally. I think you have not played using the things you say are overpowered, nor played against the things you say are underpowered. And FYI; I said the GUO was undercosted at 240, and that 330 was a more appropriate value.
@NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.
My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.
Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
