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.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Let's be fair here, when Death gets their own battle tome they WILL get their necromancy back. Sylvaneth have their own lore, Tzeentch has 2, Bonesplitta's has their own lore. So on that front it's just a waiting game.

I have played death, I've played Tomb Kings. And Sylvaneth. And wanderers. And I've dabbled in Orcs. Death seems no more reliant on their heroes then other hero-centric lists, like an Empire Gunline or an Orc combat list.

Unless you play exclusively in GW stores, there are alternative Tomb King models you know? Kings of War has some fantastic Skeleton Archers and a nice catapult, and Tabletop Minature Solutions are coming out with an Undying Dynasties range currently.

Not to mention in the teaser pictures of the Generals Handbook 2 has Tomb Kings in the same category as Death instead of in a legacy compendium, perhaps teasing a resurgence.

I would be against a change like that. The vast majority of summonable units have Bravery 10, a stat that I think many Daemon/Death players overlook. You don't have to worry about an entire Iron Orc Brute running away, or a host of Dryads fleeing instead of tarpitting like a Skeleton would. It's not that what your suggesting is unreasonable, it's that is that a buff Death and Daemons deserve on top of their already adequate regenerative abilities? I dont think it is.

Seconded the mini parts. TMS's owner may be an arrogant jerk but he does good stuff.

Its really not that hard to make a viable non-TK, non-flesh Eater death list, there's even several ways to do it. Now certainly there aren't many options but the ones that are there aren't bad. Will these builds go to tournaments and get crushed? Sure, but so will 80% of the armies out there because tournament armies are all about exploiting the OP options. Death isn't inherently flawed as a faction, it's real issue is simply a lack of content overall rather than the existing content being bad (OP models aside).

Just my two cents on summoning, I never understood why abilities like Warrior Brotherhood which allow you to hold units back and them bring them down where needed are considered amazing and yet summoning which allows you to hold units back and bring them down where needed is considered terrible by the player base.

I of course understand there are differences, Warrior Brotherhood worked with the Knight Azyros allowing you to land within 3" (note that this ability has now been removed from the Azyros but the Deepstrike rule has become a Battletrait so all Stormcast units can do this without the need for a battlion).

The differences are Stormcast now drop down on a 3+ and don't have to be within range of a wizard whereas summoned units vary in spell roll required and have to be brought in by a wizard.

The trade off is you don't have to declare your reinforcement points, meaning you can go to a 5 game tournament with a closed list and tailor your army every single battle - something no other player can do. And that is an important point to raise because Matched Play is designed with tournaments in mind. That becomes especially powerful in scenario play where you can bring on extra heroes for 3 places of power or extra bodies for the others.

So with all that said, I am categorically against summoning as a rule gaining any benefits such as bonus points or free units. But I also know that it is very thematic for Death to summon up hordes of troops. For that reason I would be happy for a Death Allegiance ability to allow for some extra summoning (perhaps bring back battleline or something else). This is what I did with my Hinterlands rules. Summoning is flat out banned but one of the Death Command Traits allows you to bring back certain slain models through the game. If this was to be incorporated into the Death Allegiance Ability the trade off would be losing Deathless Minions or anything else.

And then going round to the conversation of sniping heroes, it is definitely a facet of the game that wasn't in previous editions of WHFB (save for lucky cannonballs) and is a reason why your general either wants to be a tough character on a monster with 10+ wounds or a unit champion. Death have it better than others though with Deathless Minions and the command trait which buffs it, as well as abilities like the Necromancer to knock wounds onto nearby units.

 Bottle wrote:
Just my two cents on summoning, I never understood why abilities like Warrior Brotherhood which allow you to hold units back and them bring them down where needed are considered amazing and yet summoning which allows you to hold units back and bring them down where needed is considered terrible by the player base.

I of course understand there are differences, Warrior Brotherhood worked with the Knight Azyros allowing you to land within 3" (note that this ability has now been removed from the Azyros but the Deepstrike rule has become a Battletrait so all Stormcast units can do this without the need for a battlion).

The differences are Stormcast now drop down on a 3+ and don't have to be within range of a wizard whereas summoned units vary in spell roll required and have to be brought in by a wizard.

The trade off is you don't have to declare your reinforcement points, meaning you can go to a 5 game tournament with a closed list and tailor your army every single battle - something no other player can do. And that is an important point to raise because Matched Play is designed with tournaments in mind. That becomes especially powerful in scenario play where you can bring on extra heroes for 3 places of power or extra bodies for the others.

So with all that said, I am categorically against summoning as a rule gaining any benefits such as bonus points or free units. But I also know that it is very thematic for Death to summon up hordes of troops. For that reason I would be happy for a Death Allegiance ability to allow for some extra summoning (perhaps bring back battleline or something else). This is what I did with my Hinterlands rules. Summoning is flat out banned but one of the Death Command Traits allows you to bring back certain slain models through the game. If this was to be incorporated into the Death Allegiance Ability the trade off would be losing Deathless Minions or anything else.

And then going round to the conversation of sniping heroes, it is definitely a facet of the game that wasn't in previous editions of WHFB (save for lucky cannonballs) and is a reason why your general either wants to be a tough character on a monster with 10+ wounds or a unit champion. Death have it better than others though with Deathless Minions and the command trait which buffs it, as well as abilities like the Necromancer to knock wounds onto nearby units.

Death can't summon heroes only chaos sylvaneth and seraphim can.
And yes death probably will get necromancy back when we get a new book but oh wait that isn't happening anytime soon because gw would rather be brain dead and release more order and chaos armies

That's not right. Banshee and Cairn Wraith are summonable and great choices for that scenario.

FEC can summon heroes but there's basically zero reason to out points aside for it versus actually putting them on the field initially.

Maybe they'll change how summoning works for tournament play (aka default play).

The summer campaign I'm writing is a node/map campaign and some alterations are to summoning.

We don't put points aside. However we make it harder to summon.

8+ for true battleline
9+ for non battleline and < 8 wound heroes/monsters
10+ for 8> wound heroes/monsters

Additionally summoners can only hold a unit per how many spells they can cast so they can't just spam an entire second army like the rules before let you do.

For abilities that are not summon spells, they work on a 4+ with the same restriction of only being able to hold one unit/summoned entity on the table at a time.

I've worked with these rules for a few months and they don't overwhelm the table but are seen as more useful.

Clarification: I'm playing Chaos Dwarves this campaign and I don't summon so will be facing these rules on the receiving end.

I call this a narrative style campaign based on matched play rules with some alterations.

When I was thinking of house rules to ease in Open Play at my GW, I was going to limit summoning simply as follows:

1) No Behemoths

2) A summoned unit loses the ability to further summon (i.e you can't summon something that also has summoning, and have that summon something else)

3) To summon a unit, you have to actually have it in your army. E.g. if I had Crypt Ghouls, I could summon Crypt Ghouls, but if I don't have any Crypt Flayers, I can't summon a unit of them.

Which seems like it would curb most of the abuse, although it leaves like FEC a bit strong in that you could still summon their courtiers (assuming you had one of course as per rule #3) and have them replenish units.

I've played FEC with no matched play restrictions.

They are definitely a bit busted in that regard with no restrictions.

Wayniac wrote:
When I was thinking of house rules to ease in Open Play at my GW, I was going to limit summoning simply as follows:

1) No Behemoths

2) A summoned unit loses the ability to further summon (i.e you can't summon something that also has summoning, and have that summon something else)

3) To summon a unit, you have to actually have it in your army. E.g. if I had Crypt Ghouls, I could summon Crypt Ghouls, but if I don't have any Crypt Flayers, I can't summon a unit of them.

Which seems like it would curb most of the abuse, although it leaves like FEC a bit strong in that you could still summon their courtiers (assuming you had one of course as per rule #3) and have them replenish units.

I like the first two, but #3 never seemed like an issue for me. What's the reasoning behind it?

Anybody played that summoning requires, say, a Bravery test---roll equal or under on 2d6. Take x mortal wound for a fail plus nothing shows up.

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
When I was thinking of house rules to ease in Open Play at my GW, I was going to limit summoning simply as follows:

1) No Behemoths

2) A summoned unit loses the ability to further summon (i.e you can't summon something that also has summoning, and have that summon something else)

3) To summon a unit, you have to actually have it in your army. E.g. if I had Crypt Ghouls, I could summon Crypt Ghouls, but if I don't have any Crypt Flayers, I can't summon a unit of them.

Which seems like it would curb most of the abuse, although it leaves like FEC a bit strong in that you could still summon their courtiers (assuming you had one of course as per rule #3) and have them replenish units.

I like the first two, but #3 never seemed like an issue for me. What's the reasoning behind it?

Basically, the idea was to make summoning a way to reinforce your army, not add to it. So it removed the ability to summon strong units such as Morghasts out of the blue, but kept the overall feel of "replenishment" by allowing you to summon units you've already "paid for" since often the summoning is like only 10 models for basic units; hence this rule so you couldn't summon, for instance, Morghasts to augment your force unless you had Morghasts as part of your force already. It was an idea, I never got the chance to try it out (I realized that trying to run a freestyle league for 20+ people would have been a huge hassle in trying to balance it; I stopped at around 3 pages of house rules and said screw it let's just use matched play instead as much as I didn't want to because I constantly say how Open/Narrative play is fine and viable)

Wayniac wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
When I was thinking of house rules to ease in Open Play at my GW, I was going to limit summoning simply as follows:

1) No Behemoths

2) A summoned unit loses the ability to further summon (i.e you can't summon something that also has summoning, and have that summon something else)

3) To summon a unit, you have to actually have it in your army. E.g. if I had Crypt Ghouls, I could summon Crypt Ghouls, but if I don't have any Crypt Flayers, I can't summon a unit of them.

Which seems like it would curb most of the abuse, although it leaves like FEC a bit strong in that you could still summon their courtiers (assuming you had one of course as per rule #3) and have them replenish units.

I like the first two, but #3 never seemed like an issue for me. What's the reasoning behind it?

Basically, the idea was to make summoning a way to reinforce your army, not add to it. So it removed the ability to summon strong units such as Morghasts out of the blue, but kept the overall feel of "replenishment" by allowing you to summon units you've already "paid for" since often the summoning is like only 10 models for basic units; hence this rule so you couldn't summon, for instance, Morghasts to augment your force unless you had Morghasts as part of your force already. It was an idea, I never got the chance to try it out (I realized that trying to run a freestyle league for 20+ people would have been a huge hassle in trying to balance it; I stopped at around 3 pages of house rules and said screw it let's just use matched play instead as much as I didn't want to because I constantly say how Open/Narrative play is fine and viable)

Okay. I see your line of think now. I don't really think summoning powerful units is game breaking so long as they pay appropriately for the units. I definitely think summoned units should work differently than units that start on the board (can't summon, can't cap objectives, start to "crumble" when the unit who summoned them dies, etc.). I also think "Deep Strike" units (like the new Stormcast army ability) should have limits, too (like only coming in on a 3+).

I dont understand how people say death basic troops (like zombies) are garbage when they can be buffed to 2 attacks, 2+/3+ hitting from "2 ranks". Thats INSANE for a 6 point model. Skeletons have a similar but alternate strategy of adding attacks as opposed to +to hit. En Masse they are destructive! and if your opponent wants to focus on killing my vampire with wings (with a 3+ save because he is sitting in cover.. duh) instead of the morghasts that are going to be on your ass or the varghiests racing up the flanks...then so be it. The Necromancer even has a "look out sir" ability to prevent from being sniped! and he effectively doubles damage output. They are so inherently resitant to battleshock its insane. SO many people forget you get +1 bravery for every 10 models you have in a unit when taking battleshock test. So a block of 30 zombies is bravery 13 for battleshock purposes. You would have to lose 13 zombies in one round of combat before you even sniff losing a single model to fear. With a 5+ ward save (deathless minions is so fething good) that isnt as easy as some people in this thread make it seem.

Summoning isnt instagib autowin anymore and I guess everyone is butthurt. Being able to almost automatically drop a unit 18" in any direction whereever I want whenever I want is such an amazing tactical advantage. You can control the flow of the battle. You put what units you need where you need them.

It would be nice if death had the option to add to an existing unit with summoning. So for instance, with summon skeletons they could summon a fresh unit OR add that many models to an existing unit (provided it didn't go above it's starting size). That would allow death to have a more unique replenishment aspect as compared to other summoning factions.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It would be nice if death had the option to add to an existing unit with summoning. So for instance, with summon skeletons they could summon a fresh unit OR add that many models to an existing unit (provided it didn't go above it's starting size). That would allow death to have a more unique replenishment aspect as compared to other summoning factions.

Couldn't they add the shambling horde rule to skeletons to achieve this?

Still can't summon within 9", tough luck if the unit is in melee.

The latest Heelanhammer is a great insight into the GHB II. Apparently many units are going to get points increases. Dan mentions how good (and cheap) Kurnoth Hunters are to which Wayne jokes "Enjoy that while you can!", and when asked which unit Dan thinks is bent (undercosted), Dan picks the Hurricanum, so those 2 will likely be going up.

Both of those sound like good changes to me. The Kurnoths in particular... Those were pegged as OP, like, the same day they came out

I think we'll see Kurnoth Hunters, Thundertusks and Stormfiends go up as they are the biggest culprits in each GA (with Necropolis Knights being the Death one, already addressed). I'm sad to see the Hurricanum go up, but I guess it's because it synergises so well with stuff like Kurnoth Hunters. I hope the rest of my army sees a few drops in price (perhaps off the Steamtank for example). I don't think my army needs to be be nerfed overall as its not really very competitive haha

I hope they do something about the Sylvaneth Wyldwoods. Those things are ridiculous, because A) it's free for them, and B) they can cover the entire fething board in them.

Wayniac wrote:
I hope they do something about the Sylvaneth Wyldwoods. Those things are ridiculous, because A) it's free for them, and B) they can cover the entire fething board in them.

They're pretty easy to block or at least limit to one base if you position scenery well during set up and keep your army spread out. Remember, the Wyldwoods have to be more than 1" away from any other models or terrain features, and when summoning more than one base, they have to be withing 1" of each other. That's a pretty large footprint.

 Bottle wrote:
I think we'll see Kurnoth Hunters, Thundertusks and Stormfiends go up as they are the biggest culprits in each GA (with Necropolis Knights being the Death one, already addressed). I'm sad to see the Hurricanum go up, but I guess it's because it synergises so well with stuff like Kurnoth Hunters. I hope the rest of my army sees a few drops in price (perhaps off the Steamtank for example). I don't think my army needs to be be nerfed overall as its not really very competitive haha

Overall I'd say freeguild/humans are near the baseline that other armies should be brought too; they are competitive but lack the cheese to do well in the bigger tournament settings. With the cheese being nerfed hopefully we'll see more diversity as armies like humans, mono-god, etc. that don't actually have problems become viable. Though in regard to the original statement I'd say all the Beastclaw heroes need to go up, significantly, even/especially the stonehorns. Thundertusks have the 'holy crap' effect when one first encounters them but once you learn the game a bit better they become something that can be dealt with, stonehorns are far more difficult on that front.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I hope they do something about the Sylvaneth Wyldwoods. Those things are ridiculous, because A) it's free for them, and B) they can cover the entire fething board in them.

They're pretty easy to block or at least limit to one base if you position scenery well during set up and keep your army spread out. Remember, the Wyldwoods have to be more than 1" away from any other models or terrain features, and when summoning more than one base, they have to be withing 1" of each other. That's a pretty large footprint.

Something else is a 6x4 table should have an average of 12 pieces of terrain on it. I notice that a lot of players with wyldwood problems often aren't putting enough terrain on the board starting off.

I've written articles on BOLS about this, but yeah it seems the average table I see either in person or on reports has a very tiny amount of terrain on it, and that that is common in many places because people either don't want to afford or cannot afford or don't want to make terrain.

 auticus wrote:
I've written articles on BOLS about this, but yeah it seems the average table I see either in person or on reports has a very tiny amount of terrain on it, and that that is common in many places because people either don't want to afford or cannot afford or don't want to make terrain.

True, at my GW we are limited in terrain (only GW terrain allowed, can't make terrain) and only have certain things (mainly buildings and woods) so it's hard to have more than like 1 piece in each square, which is also what you tend to see in battle reports and such.

Should the GHII make a rule or suggestion about how many pieces of terrain should be on the board for matched play? Like 6+ d6 or 6+d3??

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I think we'll see Kurnoth Hunters, Thundertusks and Stormfiends go up as they are the biggest culprits in each GA (with Necropolis Knights being the Death one, already addressed). I'm sad to see the Hurricanum go up, but I guess it's because it synergises so well with stuff like Kurnoth Hunters. I hope the rest of my army sees a few drops in price (perhaps off the Steamtank for example). I don't think my army needs to be be nerfed overall as its not really very competitive haha

Overall I'd say freeguild/humans are near the baseline that other armies should be brought too; they are competitive but lack the cheese to do well in the bigger tournament settings. With the cheese being nerfed hopefully we'll see more diversity as armies like humans, mono-god, etc. that don't actually have problems become viable. Though in regard to the original statement I'd say all the Beastclaw heroes need to go up, significantly, even/especially the stonehorns. Thundertusks have the 'holy crap' effect when one first encounters them but once you learn the game a bit better they become something that can be dealt with, stonehorns are far more difficult on that front.

I would agree with that, when I play well my army can finish mid table at a tournament still a few things that could be dropped in price like knights and Demigryphs (and the Steamtank) with Hellstorm Rocket Batteries probably going up as well as maybe Handgunners and crossbowmen (only marginally though).

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
Should the GHII make a rule or suggestion about how many pieces of terrain should be on the board for matched play? Like 6+ d6 or 6+d3??

The core rules has a recommended random terrain allocation. Should give 1 or 2 pieces per 2x2 section, have not crunched the numbers, but looks like 7 or 8 pieces per table.

Edit: I would recommend more though.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
Should the GHII make a rule or suggestion about how many pieces of terrain should be on the board for matched play? Like 6+ d6 or 6+d3??

The core rules has a recommended random terrain allocation. Should give 1 or 2 pieces per 2x2 section, have not crunched the numbers, but looks like 7 or 8 pieces per table.

Edit: I would recommend more though.

We generally do d3 pieces of terrain per 2x2 section, minimum 8 pieces. That is if we're playing by standard terrain rules. If we're just building cool battlefields, we'll sometimes have as many as 20 pieces.

Some point decreases for Bretonnians......