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.

Where does it say you can use the rules for units not in your army?

Units that you must not have wanted in your army as the rules above suggest since you find not deploy them, and must not want to use them.

Exceptions of course for the specific things with discreet and specific ways to enter the battle in their warscroll.

Demandread wrote:
The sticking point seems to be "fate lends a hand" has no RAW attached to it just house rules.

Especially when it says what you set up is your army. What you didn't set up is therefore not your army. Why is it assumed that you get the abilities of anything not on your army?

To me it seems more logical that "fate lends a hand" includes and currently only means "a unit not in play needs specific rules on bringing it in play to "summon" it if it is not in your army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


WARSCROLLS AND UNITS
All models are described by warscrolls, which provide all the rules for using them in the game. You will need warscrolls for the models you want to use.


"You can continue setting up units until you have set up all the units you want to fight in this battle, or have run out of space.

Units you want to use/fight are both listed here
If you did not set up the model you must have not wanted To use it...so you don't have that warscroll to use in that game.

Your last statement is false. I didn't set up my Bloodletters because I wanted to summon them later. I absolutely want to use them.

Very surprised some people are still holding to the seed unit interpretation...

Did you guys read the whole thread? It's very clear that needing a seed unit is NOT the case. If you want to houserule it like that go ahead.

My last statement follows per the rules written.

The rules that say you deploy what you want to use UNLESS you have run out of space.

Seriously...

So if i have a unit of 30 bloodletters deployed, and another unit of 20 bloodletters i kept back for summoning, what you are saying is that i obviously didnt want to use those bloodletters i didn't deploy. Do you not see, that that is absurd?

Summoning in it's very nature is about using units you didnt deploy at the start of the game. Your interpretation is invalid. If i want to summon a unit, i want to use it. I have all the warscrolls on my laptop, they don't disappear when i don't deploy a unit. You are operating completely under an assumption, not RAW. You have decided for yourself that a unit not deployed is one that the player doesn't want to use. I ask you, what use would summoning be, ever, in your interpretation? If that were the case no one could ever summon anything because they didnt deploy it at the start of the game.

Read the whole thread, if you haven't. There is overwhelming evidence for not needing a seed unit. The only point that has ever really been raised against it is "but it says you need warscrolls for models you want to use" which people have twisted in their own minds to mean that you don't have a warscroll unless you deploy a unit on the table at the start of the game. It does not say that in the rules. Anywhere. It's a pretty obvious statement that if you plan to use a model, you need its rules.

What your interpretation is, is an assumption based off of the way you have interpreted the english language to have meaning that it doesn't actually possess. You are inventing a restriction. It does not exist.

Also, just to be argumentative, the rule "Takes no part" is very clear.

Takes no part could be interpreted to mean exactly that. "Fate lends a hand" requires a very loose translation to mean "when summoned by a wizard."

Sorry you feel that way but my interpretation goes by what our 4 pages of rules says.

Suggesting that someone had not read something because they disagree with an interpretation that could be valid but requires stretching in other areas from my own is not a good faith rebuttal nor is it evidence if truth.

The three relative sentences say exactly what we all have been saying. The difference is solely one of interpretation and which parts one or more of us seem to be stressing and stretching.

As for your Strawman at the beginning of your post. Ibrlieve I have been quite clear as to why those extra 20 can summoned.

How does "you will need warscrolls for the models you want to use" mean "you need to have a duplicate seed unit deployed in order to use the summon spell for that unit"?

I mean whatever, if you really think that's what the rules are telling you then i can't help you stop seeing words that arent there. But that statement is saying nothing more than "you need warscrolls for the models you want to use."

I think your entire interpretation is a stretch. But i can see i'm not getting anywhere with you, you are refusing to see the simplistic reasoning that shows the seed unit interpretation to be invalid. I fully respect your ability to house rule it but good luck convincing anyone else that isn't houseruling it that way themselves. I'm sorry but your interpretation is not RAW, it requires sentences of rules that do not exist. The fact of the manner is that it tells you you need the models and the warscroll to summon them. It doesnt say anything that can directly support your interpretation.

Beyond showing you that the rules required to make your interpretation valid are not present, i can't really do or say anything to convince you. This hardly feels like a discussion.

Happy gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, that was a bit harsh and impolite, and certainly out of character. I apologize for rudeness, but stand by everything i said that wasnt directly rude to you.

Thank you for the apology. It is obviously a point that many are passionate and see differently on.

We disagree on the RAW because GW has unfortunately been so vague that no matter how you look at the rules they are stretched into house rules.

Bit thanks again for the apology, an I hope I am not offending you

I agree about the vagueness and would say that's probably where most of my frustration comes from, i certainly wasn't offended by you. I wish for the community's sake that these rules were more clear and expansive.

Maybe GW intentionally made the rules vague for exactly this purpose, to make rules debates mostly pointless, and army list forum threads to be mostly devoid of "that unit is no good, use unit X instead." So that everyone is essentially playing a "homebrew" version of the game doing whatever they think feels right and as a result has less rules complaints?

Probably a topic for a different thread, however.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Maybe GW intentionally made the rules vague for exactly this purpose, to make rules debates mostly pointless, and army list forum threads to be mostly devoid of "that unit is no good, use unit X instead." So that everyone is essentially playing a "homebrew" version of the game doing whatever they think feels right and as a result has less rules complaints?

That has been a prevailing theory among some. It's not like Fantasy Battles hadn't already been operating under that for quite some time now, though. I know during 7th, if you weren't willing to play by a certain tournament's rules and comp, you weren't getting a game in many areas.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Probably a topic for a different thread, however.

True enough.

Let's put it this way. I show up with 50 zombies and 50 skeletons. I could deploy them all. I deploy the skeletons and keep the zombies for summoning during the game. Are you telling me I can't summon them when I could have just deployed them and vanhelled them towards you? Logical.

Vetrel all they want to do is tell you cant do some thing to add some sense of control to their game, i should imagine that these players who argue for summoning restrictions A) would spring on you after the deployment period that you cant summon your zombies and B) would kill your your skeletons and then announce that you cant bring them back either.
They know there are so many way to get reinforcements but this one has left a gap for them to get a wedge into and quite frankly its disgusting behavior to rules lawyer some thing that was intended to be fun, all that's needed before you start the game is a conversation where you talk to your opponent about what sort of game your looking for, tell them what units you plan to summon and bring back from the dead, tell them if you have a chaos lord for a general and your going to bring in new slaves to darkness, and tell them if your going to pray for sigmarines and then you will have a happy game.

Hettar wrote:
Vetrel all they want to do is tell you cant do some thing to add some sense of control to their game, i should imagine that these players who argue for summoning restrictions A) would spring on you after the deployment period that you cant summon your zombies and B) would kill your your skeletons and then announce that you cant bring them back either.
They know there are so many way to get reinforcements but this one has left a gap for them to get a wedge into and quite frankly its disgusting behavior to rules lawyer some thing that was intended to be fun, all that's needed before you start the game is a conversation where you talk to your opponent about what sort of game your looking for, tell them what units you plan to summon and bring back from the dead, tell them if you have a chaos lord for a general and your going to bring in new slaves to darkness, and tell them if your going to pray for sigmarines and then you will have a happy game.

Way to just throw gak around without thinking for a minute that people with a differing opinion aren't pushing an ulterior motive.

Its not Gak if its true. why argue against summoning so badly if it wasn't the case.

Because it's possible they just disagree with you as to the reading of the rule.

Not because they want to ruin your fun.

I have, at minimum, 10 Daemon Prince models. I also have 4 or 5 chaos sorcerers. If we were playing a game with a set number of starting wounds on the table, wouldn't you appreciate it if I had to count one of those princes as on the table and being used to unlock the rest of them? That's pretty much how I view it. I've played 2 of the 80 wound format games. Both times I've played a Daemon Prince (8W) as a tenth of my army. And then used lords and Sorcs to summon/reserve more. And I've always treated every summoned/reserved DP as being unable to summon (due to ultimate douchebaggery being possible). I just Mark them as Khorne instead of Tzeentch so that I don't just spawn a ton of them in a single shot, let alone at all. I don't think it would be fun for my opponent. I also typically leave half at home and only bring 5 for shenanigans.

edit ; interpreted it wrongly or had to reconsider it.. sorry for bumping post.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I have, at minimum, 10 Daemon Prince models. I also have 4 or 5 chaos sorcerers. If we were playing a game with a set number of starting wounds on the table, wouldn't you appreciate it if I had to count one of those princes as on the table and being used to unlock the rest of them? That's pretty much how I view it. I've played 2 of the 80 wound format games. Both times I've played a Daemon Prince (8W) as a tenth of my army. And then used lords and Sorcs to summon/reserve more. And I've always treated every summoned/reserved DP as being unable to summon (due to ultimate douchebaggery being possible). I just Mark them as Khorne instead of Tzeentch so that I don't just spawn a ton of them in a single shot, let alone at all. I don't think it would be fun for my opponent. I also typically leave half at home and only bring 5 for shenanigans.

Except that is only an issue when you houserule a limit on wounds on the table. If I see that many daemon princes in a box to the side, I'm bringing out my chariots and cavalry to swing forward and disallow your summoning due to range limitations.

I suggest a wound cap when I play because my nearby opponents can't match my model count. My chaos force is very large, and I can flood the table. But that would take forever and be no fun for either of us. My suggested 80 wound cap allows for summoning for the armies that have it: lizards, undead, chaos, and armies that allow for reserves as well (can't remember all who can). But it also gives a starting point, and you really get forced to choose what makes it in and what doesn't.

I've only gotten two games in though: not enough to determine if it's fair or not.

First game seemed fine, second game I ended up with 5 princes running down every model in my opponent's army. So one in either direction. However, I do find the Azyr composition rules fairly balanced on paper.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I suggest a wound cap when I play because my nearby opponents can't match my model count. My chaos force is very large, and I can flood the table. But that would take forever and be no fun for either of us. My suggested 80 wound cap allows for summoning for the armies that have it: lizards, undead, chaos, and armies that allow for reserves as well (can't remember all who can). But it also gives a starting point, and you really get forced to choose what makes it in and what doesn't.

I've only gotten two games in though: not enough to determine if it's fair or not.

First game seemed fine, second game I ended up with 5 princes running down every model in my opponent's army. So one in either direction. However, I do find the Azyr composition rules fairly balanced on paper.

That's fine, but in YMDC forums, only the rules as written matter.

 mikhaila wrote:
I still think the whole argument is silly.

GW made AOS dead simple. People read to much into situations. The rules for summoning units are on the warscrolls because it was easy to put them there, rather than have lots of extra pages for summoning units. And going forward, new units that come out will have their summoning rules on their warscroll. It's for convenience, not to create convoluted summoning rules.

I agree.

I am reading the Lizard Men war scrolls because I am interested in making a Lizard Man army.

The entries for a number of units including Saurus Oldblood on Cold One, and Skinks, says all Slann Wizards know the "Summon X Unit" spell in addition to any other spells they know.

On successful casting, you set up a unit of the type summoned according to certain restrictions and it is added to your army.

I don't see how this in any ways could lead to the interpretation that you can only summon the unit if it is already on the table.

Obviously this rule is the Lizard Men rule. The rule might be different on a different war scroll.

The only specification in the rules for warscrolls is that you need the Warscrolls for the units you want to use. Makes no mention of setting them up. If you want to summon Chakax, then you're intending to use Chakax, ergo you have the Warscrolls for Chakax and your Slann therefore knows the "Summon Chakax" spell. I really don't understand how this still isnt obvious to some people.

its because they go away to Youtube and watch Mc1gamer crap, also this is a hang on from more competitive days of yonder, there work it out sooner or later.

Because some of us have made it clear by our reading oc the rules. It isn't some vast Warhammer conspiracy. It is some people with a good faith interpretation of the relevant rules.

Without clarification at this point pretty much every version is a RAI house rule built on a foundation of interpretation. Those of us discussing in good faith seem to understand that.

Hettar wrote:its because they go away to Youtube and watch Mc1gamer crap, also this is a hang on from more competitive days of yonder, there work it out sooner or later.

Never heard of him.

I thought a seed unit was required when I initially read the rules, but that was because the relationship with Warscrolls and the army in AoS is different than in WHFB. Coming from most games with an army list:

Demandread wrote:It is some people with a good faith interpretation of the relevant rules.

And we don't want to cheat any of our fellow players. We consider what is in our army to be what is available.

AoS doesn't work that way, though, and is a rather new paradigm for organized play. Of course, when we were kids playing with action figures, we did all the stuff AoS expects us to do off the cuff, so there isn't anything new to it, it just feels childish. Odd, considering one has to be mature to make the most out of an AoS game.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I agree about the vagueness and would say that's probably where most of my frustration comes from, i certainly wasn't offended by you. I wish for the community's sake that these rules were more clear and expansive.

Maybe GW intentionally made the rules vague for exactly this purpose, to make rules debates mostly pointless, and army list forum threads to be mostly devoid of "that unit is no good, use unit X instead." So that everyone is essentially playing a "homebrew" version of the game doing whatever they think feels right and as a result has less rules complaints?

Probably a topic for a different thread, however.

That is a clever idea.

Of course if GW had been considerably clearer, briefer and more precise rather than vague about rules, it would have had a much better effect on reducing these YMDC questions.

To be realistic it is another point that players will have to sort out for themselves.

We have been playing that you need a seed unit. JUST because we want the game to be and stay fun. And it has....


We also house ruled that if you want to summon a unique dude (or lady-dude) to the fight you may. But they must have already been fielded in your original "set-up" and must have already been removed from play.

I think house rules is what will make this game a fun playable game.


We also house ruled that you can't PICK a number as a result of a roll unless 13 was a possible outcome of that roll! lol