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.

 Sarouan wrote:

Dai wrote:
I agree that summoning only really becomes an issue if somebody intends to break it.

Not necessarily. A player isn't especially trying to break the system by using the Summoning system - he can use it because he simply finds it cool or thematic (like a necromancer raising his legions of unlife from the grave).

It becomes an issue when the other player feels like he absolutely can't do anything against it and doesn't enjoy the game at all - maybe because the scenario isn't suited but also if his army is completely unsuited against such an opponent.

Most of the time, itt's because he wasn't really aware of the Summoning possibilities before playing. Better to have a good talk before the game to make sure if some changes may be needed in the armies.

True enough. This is the issue with AoS in general really though isn't it, if you're new (particularly to wargames in general) you may want someone more experienced to hold your hand a little bit through your first few games. Of course most new players won't have all these extra units to summon in the first place but let's just assume someone throws a lot of money at a big undead army.

I do think that most of the issues that experienced players have are that they are still looking at the game through the lens of WHFB, which is perfectly understandable to be honest but I think it'll be rare for one to find a satisfying game that way.

Dai wrote:
I agree that summoning only really becomes an issue if somebody intends to break it.

This is actually the sort of reasoning I strongly disagree with. I find that if we have a game with loose limits and the idea of "don't push it to the limit and it'll be fine", it makes the game tactically unrewarding because every time I make a decision mid-game regarding summoning I am thinking "Is this a fair move or am I breaking it?"

But don't confuse me for a AoS hater because I am not at all, and the solution is simple in my eyes.

Players can push summoning to the very limits and beyond, the most horrific summoning loops and moves are all game. With one caveat,

Declare it when armies are being chosen. Don't spring anything upon the opponent unannounced mid-game, let your opponent know exactly what's coming before the very first dice is rolled. This means they can deploy for whatever you have coming and the only surprises should be your dazzling placement and superior tactical moves :-)

 Bottle wrote:

Dai wrote:
I agree that summoning only really becomes an issue if somebody intends to break it.

This is actually the sort of reasoning I strongly disagree with. I find that if we have a game with loose limits and the idea of "don't push it to the limit and it'll be fine", it makes the game tactically unrewarding because every time I make a decision mid-game regarding summoning I am thinking "Is this a fair move or am I breaking it?"

But don't confuse me for a AoS hater because I am not at all, and the solution is simple in my eyes.

Players can push summoning to the very limits and beyond, the most horrific summoning loops and moves are all game. With one caveat,

Declare it when armies are being chosen. Don't spring anything upon the opponent unannounced mid-game, let your opponent know exactly what's coming before the very first dice is rolled. This means they can deploy for whatever you have coming and the only surprises should be your dazzling placement and superior tactical moves :-)

Point taken and yep that does seem like the obvious solution and was actually how I thought it was RAW until I saw all the debate online.

Yep - that's what we've found too. Summon to your heart's content, as long as your opponent knows what might be coming.

auticus wrote:
The "if you need warscrolls to summon" debate has raged since July and there is no answer on that. Warhammer world allegedly doesn't make you have to have the warscroll and neither do a lot of GW stores make you do that, so that is not a global universal interpretation of the rule.

The answer to that is pretty simple; "Yep, got that war scroll along with all the others my army uses."

The whole 'need a war scroll' debate is simply people reckoning that summoning is unfair, which to be honest it might be, and putting limitations on it.

 Bottle wrote:

Dai wrote:
I agree that summoning only really becomes an issue if somebody intends to break it.

This is actually the sort of reasoning I strongly disagree with. I find that if we have a game with loose limits and the idea of "don't push it to the limit and it'll be fine", it makes the game tactically unrewarding because every time I make a decision mid-game regarding summoning I am thinking "Is this a fair move or am I breaking it?"

Players can push summoning to the very limits and beyond, the most horrific summoning loops and moves are all game. With one caveat,

Declare it when armies are being chosen. Don't spring anything upon the opponent unannounced mid-game, let your opponent know exactly what's coming before the very first dice is rolled. This means they can deploy for whatever you have coming and the only surprises should be your dazzling placement and superior tactical moves :-)

And that last part is what can be where it can classified as "intends to break it". Limits in this game are self-created. A person can approach a game thinking they can do one thing, but find out during the discussion that the other player may see it as "breaking it".

Continuing to approach the game as they originally intended, even after discussing it with your opponent, is where the issue lies.

In essence, you are both correct.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The whole 'need a war scroll' debate is simply people reckoning that summoning is unfair, which to be honest it might be, and putting limitations on it.

Which, to be clear, they absolutely should, but 'unit must be on the table' is absolutely the wrong restriction, because it kills most of the thematic possibilities while doing nothing about the balance problem of starting with fair armies and then one player deploying an entire extra army during the game.

Well, after reading all your comments and arguments, my understanding and appreciation of summoning has changed.
I was on the team "no restrictions" from the start but I thought you needed units deployed to be able to summon them. Not because people told me so, but because that was my understanding of the rules. I stand corrected.

I will now align myself with bottle's way of doing it, and talk about it with my opponent, like I usually do about everything else.