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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If GHB & grand alliance allegiances do not count, it was only 9. So do they count for balance or do they not?

And yes, I was being disingenuous. It was meant as a call out to you saying only a minority of armies count for balance, which is disingenuous.

My argument is not being disingenuous. I fully acknowledged in my post that those armies not having a battletome is a problem that needs to be addressed. I also said there is room for improvement. But trying to say that all of these armies, most of which don't even have token level support, are expected to be on the same level in a competitive environment as full releases is absurd.

THAT is a straw man. I said that the simple majority of armies with allegiance abilities (that can be made powerful enough to compensate for artifact/spell diversity) should be competitive to say the game is balanced. The response was that only allegiances in battletomes matter since all others are supposed to be worse, which is saying that the vast majority of the game does not matter for balance

Once again, not what he's saying either.

And has been repeated ad naseum, that balancing at the casual level is a difficult endeavor at best, useless at worst.

Which is where I strongly disagree and 20 plus years of doing game design strongly disagrees as well. In regards to summoning its fairly easy to make summoning not destroy casual armies. Which is the problem that the entire topic is discussing.

Not how summoning is fine because tournament armies do fine against it.

But how summoning is a powerful tool that contributes to the imbalance chasm between powergamer and casual list.

And in regards solely to summoning (the topic of the thread) and nothing else that makes powergamer mathematically superior to casual, making summoning not break the game at the casual level has several options that can be worked in.

How would people feel if GW made a rule that said "If you summon a new unit, It only last for one(or two) turn'?

xking wrote:
How would people feel if GW made a rule that said "If you summon a new unit, It only last for one(or two) turn'?

It would probably have little effect. Remember most games only go to around 5 or 6 turns; plus some (like demon summoning) require you to generate points from taking actions, so you might lose one or two turns at the start to actually get to a position where you can summon. So summons are landing turns 2-3 which is about where the most meaty action takes place in the game. So summoned units would still do the most impact in those turns.

My impression is its more a question of volume and potential volume of summons rather than duration - since we have to accept that its only a valid mechanic if the summons can/will appear in time to actually contribute to the game in a meaningful way

When I was running azyr comp we had a trial rule where if you killed the summoner then their summoned entities would also disappear.

It was not very popular. It was fiddly and people felt like they were being robbed.

God, that's a loaded statement.