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.

Strange, it should be right there on the first page of the blog. Its not yet in the comp doc, I want to finish all three before I put them in there.

Please check again with this link

Got it pal , thanks. Again I think the work you did on summoning was really good stuff. I'm thinking of using it for my next 40K event.

Haldir wrote:
Again I think the work you did on summoning was really good stuff. I'm thinking of using it for my next 40K event.

I think it could prove nice as well, the idea originally came to me from Andreas 2.0. I think we might need to tweak the points costs up and down until we reach a good value, but that can only be done from extensive playtesting.

Yes the summoning system seems to be working at the moment. The only problem I see with it right now is that it is a feature you need to use every turn, if you want it to be worth the point. It's not a huge letdown, but the Caster loses some flexibility in that no other spell is quite as good. On the other hand, with the regular summoning system, you were absolutely going to summon every turn, whereas now there is a slight chance that some other spell is more suitable for a certain situation at some point.

v0.2 of the PPC Comp Pack is up, and has gotten a facelift too

Check it out at the blog!

Attilla , I was reading the screening rules. It might not be a bad idea to consider the 50% obscured rule I mentioned in one of the threads. We don't want people trying to break the game having clan rats provide screening cover for monstrous creatures. Other than that I saw a lot of good work in there . Well done!

Haldir wrote:
Attilla , I was reading the screening rules. It might not be a bad idea to consider the 50% obscured rule I mentioned in one of the threads. We don't want people trying to break the game having clan rats provide screening cover for monstrous creatures. Other than that I saw a lot of good work in there . Well done!

I honestly thought this was the case already But if it isn't, I'm with Haldir. There would be too many nasty little tricks otherwise.

True, that's how I envision it, but its not how I've written it.

But would it not be simpler and easier to talk about base sizes instead? A smaller based nodel can not screen a larger based one.

 lobbywatson wrote:

Attilla wrote:

1) FORCE ORGANISATION
Do we need limitations to list builing? Should we go the 40k way and have a few slots for different keywords (1-3 Heroes, 0-3 Monster etc) or the old WFB way and use percentages (Up to 25% or 50% Heroes etc)? Or is there even a better alternative?

I like the percentage idea, but am also wondering if the GW suggested restrictions might not work:
1-2 Heroes
0-2 Monsters
No Hero duplication
Maybe we just add in 0-2 Warmachines?
But that kind of system then really calls into question the battalion WarScrolls, since in the start set alone, those Battalions allow the player to bring more than 2 Heroes. I feel like outlawing Battalion WarScrolls probably isn't the way to fix this, but if we are limiting the number of Heroes, how will that work with Battalion WS?
Secondly, if we are doing percentages, then how does that work with Battalion WarScrolls? Do we consider each individual choice within the Battalion to still be added into the percentage of Heroes/Monsters you can bring?
Finally, if we are going to limit Heroes/Monsters, is there any reason not to include Wizards on that list or are all Wizards also Heroes in the game so far? I've only looked at Daemons/Skaven and the new starter set so far, so I fear I might be missing something.


2) SUMMONING LIMITATIONS
So far, each summoning costs alot of points, and can only be bought as upgrades to one of your wizards. We would like to make summoning cheaper, but add that you can dispel a summon while being within 18" of the wizard OR the summoned unit.

I like dispelling from anywhere on the board, personally too, so that you don't just hide your Wizard in the back. The points cost does seem high. I'm wondering if the whole maintaining summoning thing someone else mentioned here might not be the way to go? It changes summoning from spamming more units than your opponent to just overwhelm them to choosing the right unit for the right time and having to let the first summoned unit go to summon another. I think that might actually work best.
Second point on summoning, so far in our playtesting, we've learned that summoning CORE single wound guys is a waste since those wounds count towards you being tabled, so people are only going to summon multi-wound models. With that in mind, the points cost to summon should probably be at least the cost of the lowest cost multi-wound model that can be easily summoned (i.e. on a 7+ on two dice).


3) SHOOTING INTO MELEE
The rules states you can fire freely into melee (and out of), and unless this proves to be extremely powerful we would like to keep it this way. It feels wrong, but its the rules as is... What do you guys think? Keep it as is, and make points accordingly, or keep it but limit it, or not be able to fire into melee at all?

Initially I was very concerned about shooting into/out of melee, but after a few playtest games, it became pretty clear that Ranged units locked in melee are in some serious trouble, so I don't see any reason to limit them shooting out of melee. As for shooting into Melee that they aren't involved in, it didn't seem nearly as overpowered as I thought. If you put in the plus one cover save thing, then I think this might be balanced. If you are shooting into melee, after all, with all the blades moving and such, there should be a higher chance of deflection, right? I feel like completely removing the ability to shoot into/out of melee will seriously nerf ranged units and again we should try to stay as true to the original rules as possible. I don't think this is as broken as we think it is. As others have pointed out, it's just new to us, so we are freaking out about it.
As for actually playing games, it feels super heroic and awesome when Elvish Archer guys are shooting people in combat and swinging their swords too. After all, all of the models in the game are supposed to be warriors ready to fight and die on the battlefield. Why wouldn't they be able to shoot and fight at the same time? If I were in close combat, I wouldn't lay down my hand gun to just fight hand to hand. I'd use every weapon I could to try to survive.


4) RETREATING
We think that the rules for retreating can be abused - it's far to easy to leave combat and do so without any risk. We propose that retreating can only be done in a straight line away from an enemy, and that you roll a dice for every model retreating. On every roll of 6, the unit retreating takes a mortal wound.

Since when retreating, unless if you have a special rule, you cannot shoot or charge that round, I don't feel this rule is broken and needs changed at all. Running from combat removes you from that combat that round, but your opponent can still shoot at you and/or charge you next round. Secondly, since movement+run is on average going to be MOVE+3 and MOVE plus Charge of the unit chasing you down is going to be that units MOVE+7 (2D6 roll to charge) they are pretty likely to just catch you again if you retreat, so once more, no need to nerf this, imo.

5) MEASUREMENTS
What we'd prefer is the old measuring base to base, with models put on the base they came with. For converting squares to bases, it's a simple 20mm square goes on 25mm round, 25mm square goes on 32mm round. We really hate overlapping our bases, and when measuring model to model, the larger bases becomes to much of a burden.

Base to base. --Ditto. I realize that the squares vs. round base thing might be a minor issue, but really, base size isn't that big of a deal here, is it? And overlapping bases that have actual basing work on them is simply not something we can promote. That's just a bad idea. Let's just measure base to base.

6) "SILLY" RULES
So far, the points costs in the PPC has been made from the assumption that the "silly" rules such as dancing while rolling dice, riding imaginary horses etc are always active. No need to dance if you don't want to (but kudos to you if you do!).

When I was doing calculations still for points myself (which I have discontinued to instead playtest your system since you seem to be doing pretty much exactly what I was doing, so kudos! :-D), I just assumed that all of those silly rules would auto go off. I agree that that is the best way to do it. And if you want to act like a horse or shout funny things, just like Orks in 40k shouting Waaagh!, then you go for it! Haha!

7) SCREENING AND LOOK OUT SIR
We play so that staying behind other units gives you cover, but we don't use any "Look Out Sir" rules to transfer shooting hits from heroes to units. How do you guys play, and what do you prefer?

I like cover saves of plus one, but I do NOT like Look Out Sir. The rule is just too easy to abuse. I'd cut it from 40k if I could. In fact, just not allowing Heroes/single model characters to join units seems to fix all the issues with characters in 40k. If I can't hide my super awesome Wizard in AoS in a huge unit of single wound models, then that Wizard has to protect himself. At the same time, screening seems to make sense to me. I would agree with later comments that it should likely be the 50% rule though. After all, a huge monster shouldn't get a cover save for hiding behind some Clan Rats. Haha!/b]

[b]8) ROLLS OF "1"
Although it does not say so in the rules, we play the usual that there are no auto-successes, so any rolls of 1 to hit, to wound, and armour saves are always a failure. If you buff a unit to 1+ saves, a roll of 1 is always a failure anyway. For charging, and other rolls that involve more dice to be rolled for a single test, all dice must be 1s to fail.

1's auto fail unless you have a rule for reroll. --I completely agree.[b]

[b]7) CASTING LIMITATIONS
We think that you should not be able to cast the same buffing or hexing spell twice on the same target. For example, cast Mystic Shield one time to improve save rolls, but no casting a second one on the same target to improve it even further.
On the same subject, should unbinding need line of sight to the casting wizard, or be able to be done anyway?

Agreed. Stacking the same buff/hex on the same unit is just OP. We shouldn't have large units that normally have a 5+ save running around with a 2+ because I took three wizards that are running behind them. That's just not cool. However, you should be able to cast the same spell multiple times in the same turn with different wizards. You just need different targets. So I can buff three units in my previous example, just not the same unit three separate times.
Unbinding is tough. I don't like the idea of hiding my Wizard in the back lines and having him summon in hordes of units with no repercussions. Perhaps we should drop the line of sight and the 18" and just have it be any other wizard on the board can try to unbind one spell per turn.
Secondly, have we considered any downside to casting? I haven't read through the entire rules comp pack yet, so correct me if you've done this, but what if rolling a double 1 when casting is a perils kind of like in 40k? This would at least make it so that there is some risk to your casting other than it might not go off. As is, I'm going to take a Great Unclean One every game and just summon in Hordes of Drones every turn because why not? Or just have him cast his heal friend/hurt enemy line spell every turn because there is no risk that he's going to get hurt. Maybe if you roll double 1's on a cast, the caster takes a mortal wound. Or maybe the caster loses that spell? Or maybe we make a D6 chart that you roll on if you roll double 1's. The wizard automatically suffers ONE Mortal Wound and then see chart:
1= Wizard explodes from arcane power: remove him from play.
2= Wizard's brain overloads: he forgets this spell and cannot cast it again this game.
3= Wizard randomly releases a Magic Missile at a unit within range instead of casting the spell.
4= A gust of magic wind blows: Wizard is moved D6" away from the targeted unit/area of the spell.
5= Wizard is stunned. He cannot attempt to cast/unbind a spell until after your next Hero Phase has ended.
6= Wizard sees the damage coming and can actually use his armor save to try to prevent the Wound.
Something like that? Thoughts?


I will update this first page with whatever results we get from our discussions.

Love what you all are doing here. Keep up the good work. I'll try to get more playtesting in soon.

Hello, and welcome to the PPC, coruptcopy!

Thanks for all the valuable input, I will answer them right away:

coruptcopy wrote:
1-2 Heroes
0-2 Monsters
No Hero duplication
Maybe we just add in 0-2 Warmachines?
But that kind of system then really calls into question the battalion WarScrolls.
Secondly, if we are doing percentages, then how does that work with Battalion WarScrolls?
is there any reason not to include Wizards on that list or are all Wizards also Heroes in the game so far?

I also think using Warscrolls as limits, make it harder to differentiate between elite units and "core" units. If you limit by Warscrolls, you could take Nagash in a 1500pt game, for example. I want to like the Warscroll idea, since it feels so easy and intuitive, but I think it will need many other limitations as well, making it not worth it
For percentages and battalions, it's just as you thought - you pay for each unit individually and count towards the percentage limit.
As for wizards, I think that all single model Wizards (i.e. hero wizards) have the hero keyword. There are some units that can also cast spells, but as long as we set their cost properly I hope we don't have to make an extra limit on the amount of wizards you can bring.

cc wrote:I like dispelling from anywhere on the board, personally too, so that you don't just hide your Wizard in the back. The points cost does seem high. I'm wondering if the whole maintaining summoning thing someone else mentioned here might not be the way to go?
Second point on summoning, so far in our playtesting, we've learned that summoning CORE single wound guys is a waste since those wounds count towards you being tabled, so people are only going to summon multi-wound models.

I too am starting to believe we don't need as high cost as we have to our summoning spells, since you first need to succeed, and then an enemy can pretty much always try to unbind. Will think about this some more, and if it becomes a problem we might add the summoning maintenance you talk about. We try to add as few limitations as possible, though.
We don't play using tableing rules, so can't really comment on that - we use the old, tried and tested, victory points for wiping units in combination with objective grabbing. Check out the blog for the three scenarios we play competitively.

cc wrote:
Initially I was very concerned about shooting into/out of melee, but after a few playtest games, it became pretty clear that Ranged units locked in melee are in some serious trouble. As for shooting into Melee that they aren't involved in, it didn't seem nearly as overpowered as I thought. If you put in the plus one cover save thing, then I think this might be balanced. If you are shooting into melee, after all, with all the blades moving and such, there should be a higher chance of deflection, right? I feel like completely removing the ability to shoot into/out of melee will seriously nerf ranged units and again we should try to stay as true to the original rules as possible. I don't think this is as broken as we think it is. As others have pointed out, it's just new to us, so we are freaking out about it.

Agreed, at first my group said a big NO to any kind of shooting in melee. But then we tried it because we want to play as RAW as possible...and it didn't feel that bad in the end. At the moment, we give a penalty to the hit roll for firing into or out of melee. This is so we don't have to put even higher cost to ranged units, just because they might find themselves in melee.

cc wrote:
Since when retreating, unless if you have a special rule, you cannot shoot or charge that round, I don't feel this rule is broken and needs changed at all. Running from combat removes you from that combat that round, but your opponent can still shoot at you and/or charge you next round. Secondly, since movement+run is on average going to be MOVE+3 and MOVE plus Charge of the unit chasing you down is going to be that units MOVE+7 (2D6 roll to charge) they are pretty likely to just catch you again if you retreat, so once more, no need to nerf this, imo

Also agreed. We removed this entirely. Our main concerns were that you could very easily retreat from a combat and grab an objective - but we will solve this by just putting this info in the objective scenario description instead.

cc wrote:
I like cover saves of plus one, but I do NOT like Look Out Sir. The rule is just too easy to abuse. I'd cut it from 40k if I could. In fact, just not allowing Heroes/single model characters to join units seems to fix all the issues with characters in 40k. If I can't hide my super awesome Wizard in AoS in a huge unit of single wound models, then that Wizard has to protect himself. At the same time, screening seems to make sense to me. I would agree with later comments that it should likely be the 50% rule though. After all, a huge monster shouldn't get a cover save for hiding behind some Clan Rats. Haha!/b]

Agreed, not much to add

cc wrote:
[b]Agreed. Stacking the same buff/hex on the same unit is just OP. We shouldn't have large units that normally have a 5+ save running around with a 2+ because I took three wizards that are running behind them. That's just not cool. However, you should be able to cast the same spell multiple times in the same turn with different wizards. You just need different targets. So I can buff three units in my previous example, just not the same unit three separate times.
Unbinding is tough. I don't like the idea of hiding my Wizard in the back lines and having him summon in hordes of units with no repercussions. Perhaps we should drop the line of sight and the 18" and just have it be any other wizard on the board can try to unbind one spell per turn.
Secondly, have we considered any downside to casting? I haven't read through the entire rules comp pack yet, so correct me if you've done this, but what if rolling a double 1 when casting is a perils kind of like in 40k? This would at least make it so that there is some risk to your casting other than it might not go off. As is, I'm going to take a Great Unclean One every game and just summon in Hordes of Drones every turn because why not? Or just have him cast his heal friend/hurt enemy line spell every turn because there is no risk that he's going to get hurt. Maybe if you roll double 1's on a cast, the caster takes a mortal wound. Or maybe the caster loses that spell? Or maybe we make a D6 chart that you roll on if you roll double 1's. The wizard automatically suffers ONE Mortal Wound and then see chart:
1= Wizard explodes from arcane power: remove him from play.
2= Wizard's brain overloads: he forgets this spell and cannot cast it again this game.
3= Wizard randomly releases a Magic Missile at a unit within range instead of casting the spell.
4= A gust of magic wind blows: Wizard is moved D6" away from the targeted unit/area of the spell.
5= Wizard is stunned. He cannot attempt to cast/unbind a spell until after your next Hero Phase has ended.
6= Wizard sees the damage coming and can actually use his armor save to try to prevent the Wound.
Something like that? Thoughts?

So far we have allowed multiple stacking of spells and buffs, since it is the RAW. I personally don't like it, and I hope we will come to consensus that we should limit it to one buff of the same name on the same unit. As for unbinding, I would enjoy for it to work anywhere, and not just within 18". Such a short range will mean your wizard can just hang back 18" behind your unit and buff them almost automatically. Any way we choose to do can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing points costs, though
I'm not very fond of adding a table to AoS, but if we don't "unlimit" the dispel range, we might add a "perils of the warp" danger like you suggest with the double 1:s...pretty interesting idea!

cc wrote:
Love what you all are doing here. Keep up the good work. I'll try to get more playtesting in soon.

Glad to have you with us, cc!

For stacking buffs, I already stated my mind on this
For dispelling, I think a nice "compromise" would be to keep the 18" range, but to change that the dispelling mage needs to be in range of the target or the source of the spell.
It means that a mage in the back can still protect his own allies, but would need to get into the fray to disrupt the defensive/buffing of his opponent.
Not sure however about adding an additionnal random table that could completely change the tides of the battle on a bad dice roll. A double 1 on a cast is already pretty crippling given the low number of spells cast in a turn.

Just my 2 cents here.

My friends have really gotten into AoS (One plays Skaven, and is enjoying this way more than 8th, as he actually plays this) and they wanted to try out this comp. I'll start by stating that I'm not a fan of non-official rules, regardless of the source, for anything. GW games or not, I just typically prefer to be as close to what the writers wanted. That being said, I play Tomb Kings and really love the summoning aspect of AoS. Simple, not too bad (if you're playing with friends that aren't TFG and you aren't bringing Nagash), and fun to see on the table. This PPC comp makes it so that I feel as though there's no point to summoning.

Yes, summoning is powerful without this comp. But a standard Lich Priest wasting his one spell to summon 10 Skeletons is not game breaking. So, now there's points, and you spend points on teaching your wizards the summon spells. Plus, you can unbind them from anywhere on the board. So now you'd have to invest a ton of points into using a spell, that can be unbound from anywhere. In the game I played, the only reason I actually summoned stuff successfully was because I was running Arkhan. If I hadn't brought him, I wouldn't have been able to summon anything, and therefore, have wasted "points" before the game even starts.

I'm not saying summoning wasn't broken before, as it was (this whole game is "broken" anyway). What I'm saying is, I dislike over-correcting. Now, unless you're bringing Nagash/Arkhan, summoning is a wasted expense.

Other than that, the points seemed pretty well done, I'll give it that.

Araknir wrote:
For dispelling, I think a nice "compromise" would be to keep the 18" range

I like this! If we are to put something in, I think this will be it.

krodarklorr wrote:
That being said, I play Tomb Kings and really love the summoning aspect of AoS.
Now, unless you're bringing Nagash/Arkhan, summoning is a wasted expense.

Thanks krodarklorr, it's very good to get feedback from players using the armies that summon stuff. I have begun feeling the same way when I look at the summoning costs we have. Not only do you need to cast the summon instead of for example a +1 armour save bonus on a good unit, but even if you succeed, your summoning can be dispelled. I think a decrease in summoning costs is in order, and will playtest and think about it some more. The issue is finding the right cost for it...but if it's too expensive now and too cheap in the next version, the third will possibly nail it

To comment on the 18" dispelling vs table-wide dispelling, I think leaving it at 18" (for everything) is the best option. I say this because it goes both ways; if your wizard is hanging back to stay out of dispel range, than he isn't dispelling anything cast by the opponent's wizard, and vice versa. I think this should apply to summoning as well, but add that when a summoned unit is placed, the summoner must have line of sight to the majority of the unit.

The reason I say this is it gives players tactical options. I can hide my summoner behind a building, but that will severely limit where he can put his summons. Out the open he has more freedom to place them, but is also more vulnerable.

I also agree that summoning spell costs seem a bit high right now, but perhaps rather than changing the points cost each time a summon spell is successfully cast the players rolls a d6 and multiplies it by 10, adding the resulting value to the points he can summon. This adds some variation to each spell, where at a fixed point value a player is going to figure out what is ideal for that points limit and summon said unit the majority of the time.

[edit] To clarify, that's d6x10 added to the summoning values already present, not d6x10 on its own.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
To comment on the 18" dispelling vs table-wide dispelling, I think leaving it at 18" (for everything) is the best option. I say this because it goes both ways; if your wizard is hanging back to stay out of dispel range, than he isn't dispelling anything cast by the opponent's wizard, and vice versa. I think this should apply to summoning as well, but add that when a summoned unit is placed, the summoner must have line of sight to the majority of the unit.

The reason I say this is it gives players tactical options. I can hide my summoner behind a building, but that will severely limit where he can put his summons. Out the open he has more freedom to place them, but is also more vulnerable.

I also agree that summoning spell costs seem a bit high right now, but perhaps rather than changing the points cost each time a summon spell is successfully cast the players rolls a d6 and multiplies it by 10, adding the resulting value to the points he can summon. This adds some variation to each spell, where at a fixed point value a player is going to figure out what is ideal for that points limit and summon said unit the majority of the time.

I agree with this, though a single d6 times 10 isn't going to summon much of anything. I'd say something like, 2d6+2. Minimum 4 (40 points could get a small squad of skeletons or a single model otherwise) to a maximum of 140 points (2-3 powerful models or a larger squad of skeletons)

That would be d6x10 added to the current summoning values, alone it would indeed summon very little!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That would be d6x10 added to the current summoning values, alone it would indeed summon very little!

Right, I missed that part. That's certainly okay then!

About summoning. I think we might need a new way to think about the spells if we want to make them cheaper or even free. So every spell in the game has a casting cost and an effect. The casting cost tells us how many rolls out of 36 different possibilities will cause a succesful cast. A 10+ for example has 6 different possible rolls of 36. Or a 1 in 6 chance. nos the effects of the spells can be rather hard to value, but if we used arcane bolt as a baseline I think it'll be easier. If arcane bolt was automatic it would cause 2 automatic wounds each turn on average. I would probably pay alot for that. Like 30-60 points depending on the spellcasters survivability. That price should be modified by the casting chance like 4+ should reduce a spells price by 1/5 whereas a 10+ spell should reduce a a spell by 5/6. So let's say arcane bolt bolt would cost 25 on average, and every wizard knows that spell.

So if we want summoning to be free, we need to modify the spell so that it equals an arcane bolt in worth. This might not be very realistic of you want to summon more than a few skeletons on a 4+, but on an 8+ however we might get something. 8+ should reduce a spell by a third, which meas the automatic version of the spell should be worth 75 points to match an arcane bolt. The questions is then - if you paid 75 points for a spell, how many points would be fair to summon automatically each turn. I would say about 25 points worth of miniatures which is boring . With that info, we have two possibilities - either make it harder to cast, or add a price for the spell like in the current system. But whatever we agree on, the current prices seem a little high. Especially the larger versions of the summoning spells - they are so hard to cast that their theoretical cost is insanely high.

Hope it makes sense


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I forgot to add a question about the silly rules. Aren't some of them really overpowered?

It makes perfect sense

Let's make a very inofficiell vote here to get how people feel about this:

A spell that summons 40p on a 5+, and can be dispelled from anywhere should cost what...0p, 20p, 40p, or 60p?

Think hard about it and please let me know your thoughts?

I think I would go for 20p. It seems like it's not very much, but because of all the things we have discussed, I think it's the way to go. Besides, for 20 points I would probably be more inclined to use other spells on some turns.

My thoughts on summoning is that it is a horribly broken game mechanic. But alas it's part of the game , I think the way Attilla has it in the comp now works pretty well. Remember the whole purpose of the comp is to stay as close to the original rules while maintaining some form of balance. Being able to magically add units springing from all over the board with near impunity is just silly. Come on I wouldn't even want to play that way. I'm on board with what Attila has done so far and see no reason to really tweak it.
I also feel magic buffs shouldn't be able to stack . Each unit should only be able to receive a single buff from magic , otherwise someone will find a way to break it. Also for that screening again I feel,we should amend to 50% obscured. Other than those things I think the comp in its entirety is laying the basis for a really good game. I've got FIVE 40K armies collecting dust because of 2 reasons . 1st is how ridiculous it has become and the 2nd is the excitement of what we are doing here. Had my 2nd game yesterday and was waaay more fun than I've had playing 40K in a long time. Keep up the great work guys!

FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE

Attilla wrote:
A spell that summons 40p on a 5+, and can be dispelled from anywhere should cost what...0p, 20p, 40p, or 60p?

I wouldn't pay any points for a 40-point summon simply because it would only see use when I would receive no benefits from another spell; so rarely if ever. 40 points simply isn't very much.

This is interesting, so far we have people wanting the summoning spels to be free, to cost a small amount of points, or to cost as much as possible! I will run some numbers on each spell before I change anything.

About screening, I believe base size is the way to go, where small bases cannot screen medium ones, and medium ones cannot screen large ones etc. It will be easy to write it into the rules as soon as a few more models have been re-released from GW. I'll add it for the comp pack v0.3.

I will also add a few warscrolls for regular terrain such as Woods, Hills etc for next version.

I can see the base sizes for screening working just as well. Summoning is a slippery slope as it is a broken game mechanic to begin with. I still don`t see what was wrong with how you did it originally or why it needs much tweaking.

I think it makes perfect sense to tweak summoning. Optimally, we want it to be a balanced alternative other spells. Right now I'm not sure if I would ever use a summoning wizard.

Attilla wrote:
This is interesting, so far we have people wanting the summoning spels to be free, to cost a small amount of points, or to cost as much as possible! I will run some numbers on each spell before I change anything.

To be clear, I think summoning should cost points and I like the way you have it set down already; I just think a 40-point summon would be rarely worth casting. If its a 100-point summon or another more significant value then I do feel it should cost points. As-is, I think the current costs for summon spells would be perfect if they added d6x10 to the total or reduced the purchase cost by a small margin.

Also guys I know this isn`t the thread for it. But is there anybody in NJ looking to play?

What are you doing on the Dwarf front?

I`ve got Stormcast Eternals and some high elves. I can field an easy 2,000 combined. Plus 3 tables loaded with terrain!

If anyone's interested in the next steps of the PPC, once v0.5 for every list is done:

PPC Coming Weeks