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.

I hear this a lot - and it came up when discussing Azyr Comp summoning rules yesterday that restricting summoning screws armies like lizardmen over who DEPEND on summoning to do well.

I strongly feel that this is largely vapor. How does an army NEED to summon to do well in a system that has no points (where you can deploy whatever you want) or in a system that has points and the points cost everything fairly (so summoning is basically adding extra points)

Interested in some feedback on this. Do you feel there are armies in AOS that DEPEND on summoning to do well? I don't see how its possible.

I don't even play Azyr comp and I play undead and I don't summon either and I do fine my guys come back each turn and undead don't break. While they are holding down the enemy my heroes and my elite troopers are taking them down.

The vampire hero is awesome.

Yeah, this is a bologna argument, especially in comped systems that apply their own points system to models. Just price the units according to what they do normally, then treat summoning as an alternate deployment method (as in vanilla AoS, where anything summoned during the game could have been deployed to start anyway), and everything works.

Try to allow summoning on top of regular deloyment, and it becomes nigh impossible to assign fair points costs to anything in a summoning army.

It's self defeating.

No army needs summoning. No army depends on it.

Thats my thought as well. I don't understand the mindset/logic that says summoning is needed for these armies.

Two advantages of summoning are that you can deploy your whole army, get a unit killed and summon it back, and that you could concievably move a wizard and deploy a unit by summoning much faster than deploying and moving the unit normally.

These seem to me to be bonuses rather than essential techniques for armies that can do summoning.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Two advantages of summoning are that you can deploy your whole army, get a unit killed and summon it back.

I would strongly dispute this. The summoned unit isn't the same unit, mechanically it's a new unit, a unit that both players should have been able to consider when agreeing to play the game in the first place. It is no more fair to let a player with access to summoning spells re-summon their units every time they dies than it is to let any other player just walk all their casualties back on from their board edge every time a unit dies. It might make for an interesting meatgrinder narrative scenario, but it is absolutely not the sort of thing that one should assume to be in play in any random game.

A quick side-note: Some of the most recent Battleplans have Reinforcements built into them. It clearly states that after you pick your army you can/must reserve some to one side to come on as Reinforcements as per the Battleplan rules. The Reinforcements must come on from this group that was part of the picked army.

Perhaps Summoning will go this way if/once they do V2 of the rule set.

I certainly hope we get a V2 of this ruleset. I like some of the basic ideas, but there's a lot of clunkiness and vagueness to it, and the handling of summoning and reinforcements in particular suffers from this.

 Malisteen wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Two advantages of summoning are that you can deploy your whole army, get a unit killed and summon it back.

I would strongly dispute this. The summoned unit isn't the same unit, mechanically it's a new unit, a unit that both players should have been able to consider when agreeing to play the game in the first place. It is no more fair to let a player with access to summoning spells re-summon their units every time they dies than it is to let any other player just walk all their casualties back on from their board edge every time a unit dies. It might make for an interesting meatgrinder narrative scenario, but it is absolutely not the sort of thing that one should assume to be in play in any random game.

It doesn't matter if it's a new unit or the same one. That's a semantic distinction only. It's the same models being used to represent a different unit, if you like.

It seems to me to be one of the main advantages of being able to summon. There obviously is a potential to unbalance the game, and that is why there is a penalty for summoning. But summoning is a part of the game, and I don't see a reason to automatically assume you shouldn't do it, any more than leave out or change some other capability a unit might have.

But, to get back to the topic, I don't think that this is essential to an army with summoning capability. To put it differently, an army that can summon loses a potential advantage if it is not allowed to summon, but it isn't an advantage that is crucial to being able to win games.

The rules tell you exactly which units are available to summon: The units you don't deploy are in reserve, not to participate in the game unless fate place a hand (ie via summoning, or any other explicit effect that brings new units to the table).

Unless I'm mistaken, apart from in specific scenarios, there's nothing in the rules that states that slain models and units are returned to that pool of undeployed units, and thus they are not, by default, available to be 're-summoned'. Game text does in fact go out of its way to distinguish effects that add new units or add new models to existing units outright (ie the zombie rule for turning models they kill into more zombies) from effects that restore slain models (ie the undead banners, Vlad's carstein ring, etc). Restoring slain units is not what the summoning spells do.

I cannot say much for lizards or daemons. But summoning may not be necessary for undead, but it helps a lot since a lot of undead units just do not have the resiliency as other armies. So summoning helps with that by replenishing the models, not same exact models just something to help fill in gaps.

However if undead units lack resiliency that would be reflected in their points (for point systems) or be reflected in a non points game by just taking more of them to begin with.

Honestly armies do just fine without summoning. There is no critical weakness of any summoning army that is addressed by that capability, and perhaps more importantly there is no downside built into the army to compensate for its ability to summon (unlike WHFB where undead would crumble and often had crappy stat/point ratios starting off).

As for comping, well that's a different discussion altogether. I have seen it comped well, nerfed too much, restricted too little, and every instance reinforced what I said above.

For me, setting limits on summoning seems to be the MOST important factor to have a good game.

With comp points: pay full points for all units in summoning reserve. If you plan to re-summon a unit twice, you pay twice for the points.

Vanilla AoS: Summon as much as you like but declare all summoned units before the game begins. If you plan to summon a zombie dragon, fine, but tell your opponent before the game begins to deploy in anticipation for it. If you plan to make that zombie dragon resummonable, also fine, but tell your opponent so he can deploy in anticipation for that too!

Trust me, it will make your games much more enjoyable :-)

None of my regular group use summoning much - even the Daemon player. As has been said above, 'summoning armies' in WFB had increased points, which meant you'd rarely have a 'fair' fight without summoning more units.

That said, after a couple of game-ruining experiences involving 'late deployment' of all types in AoS, we've come to the agreement that anything that could/will be joining the table later has to be on display or covered in the force discussion.
(In effect, from the start of turn 1 you're only allowed to open your figure case to put stuff in, not take stuff out)

I've no issue with going up a Deathrattler meatgrinder as long as I know that's what I'll be facing, because then I can adjust my picks accordingly. If it's a scenario based on meeting a condition other than kills, we often just look to see if you can break it with a summoning and again, adjust accordingly.

I suspect that summoning is game breaking in AoS as it hasn't been accounted for properly in the rules.

That said, a summoning capable army does not have to use it and does not pay a penalty for having the capability to use it, so it isn't a vital requirement as relates to the original topic.

It should be pointed out that there are only two SLANN WIZARDS in the game (both exclusive to the online store, one of which is a unique named hero that has been out of stock for, like, ever), and they cannot summon each other. So even though most of the Seraphon units can be summoned, they are severely limited by what can summon them - unlike chaos wizards who can summon other chaos wizards. So I don't really consider the Seraphon to be a summoning army. They can be summoned, but it feels more like an option to me rather than their definitive playstyle. I think it was just added to give Order a summoning faction to match up with the Death and Chaos factions.

Though I reserve the right to change my opinion if Lord Kroak ever comes back in stock.

The the ability to summon things that can summon more things is your make or break criteria for what qualifies as a 'summoning army', then undead don't count, either.

Ive played my Undead several times,,with Nagash a few times even and from what I can see,summoning isint "needed" by the Undead at all.

Certainly most of the easy to summon stuff is low power,but they have plenty of mid and high end stuff,just like everyone else.

One thing of note that ive seen in pretty much all games with summoning ive played(except a couple of goof off games with Nagash),the amount of summoned units that actually make it into the game is usually no more than 4...and average only a couple of units.Now this of course is from mixed force armies and not from players trying to make a full on summon spam force.

Ive yet to get my Seraphon on the table but I cant see them "needing" to summon to be powerful,they have a fine assortment of tools available.

Are you guys taking into account that to summon a unit, you need to have the wascroll of that unit in the game already? Wizards don't have the *Summon xxx* spell by default. Having the warscroll of that unit in the game you're playing is what enables it. Like, if you're playing VC, have a DEATH wizard and only 10 skeletons, you cannot summon anything else than skeletons.

The only units that can summon wascroll that are not used in the game are the Engine of the Gods and the Grey Shaman MONSTER summon. And if an Engine of the Gods summons a Slann, that Slann can only summon whatever warscroll you brought to the battle. If a Grey Shaman summons Nagash (yes it's pretty stupid), Nagash can't summon anything that is not on the battlefield or in reserve, or doesn't have the summon xxx spell.

This fact alone reduces the overpowered potential of summoning... But you can still do crazy compositions. Two Slanns and two Saurus heroes is a great example: You can summon 4 more every turn. It's insane. The new Neferata formation allows you to summon 6 Archais per turn on a roll of 6. And 3 zombie dragons. In the end the limit is how many models you have. Those kind of compositions I only play with my close friends to have fun and try to beat it.

Few month ago I had a 100 wounds game with two Engine of the Gods, Kroak, and one Slann as summoners against 9 grey Shamans, one Lord of Change, and pink horrors. The game lasted hours, summoning hordes and giant monsters on both sides at every turn. It was amazing. We (seraphons) won because we had close to a 100 skinks at the ready and spread them all over the table so the Chaos couldn't summon anymore.

Oh and you know what is hilariously overpowered? The Engine of the Gods summons a Seraphon unit. And because most units have no maximum amount of models, you can summon 15 Kroxigors at once if you want... or 65 skinks (I've done that one) and if you have the models =D

 Haechi wrote:
Are you guys taking into account that to summon a unit, you need to have the wascroll of that unit in the game already? Wizards don't have the *Summon xxx* spell by default. Having the warscroll of that unit in the game you're playing is what enables it. Like, if you're playing VC, have a DEATH wizard and only 10 skeletons, you cannot summon anything else than skeletons.

Warscrolls and Units
...You will need warscrolls for models you want to use.
This is the only qualifier in the game for when you are deemed to "have" warscrolls - wanting to use the models.
Also, requiring the models to be on the board for the relevant warscroll to be 'live' causes logical problems for a number of units that have different set-up rules on their warscrolls.

I think this interpretation was the result of attempts by people to try and limit summoning because in WFB you had summoning armies, and the idea of facing a summoning army with no restrictions and the ability to summon anything was terrifying.. Until you realise that summoning is now pretty much a method for alternative deployment and a unit recycler. Both of which can be accounted for, pre-empted and even prevented.

Yes, you can still get your hypothetical infinite Tzeentch daemon loops, but much like the hypothetical 20 Greater Daemon armies possible doesn't mean probable.

Summoning's a gimmick for those armies that have it as stock. Heck, Stormcast can effectively be turned into an ersatz summoning force using various abilities.

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.

Yep, as I see it that part of the rules is just explaining where all the unit rules are. Not setting up an elaborate seeding mechanic. :-)

We love summoning and however we choose our forces full on summoning is allowed/expected.

No armies may need it but it sure makes things a lot more fun and varied not mention keeping it all nice and fluffy.

I dunno but the more 'unbalanced' a game seems,the more fun we have playing it out.

Malisteen wrote:The the ability to summon things that can summon more things is your make or break criteria for what qualifies as a 'summoning army', then undead don't count, either.

I'm just saying that the Seraphon are so limited in their summon capabilities that I don't think that is the primary (or best) way to play the army. Therefore, I don't consider the Searphon to be primarily a summoning army. There are no SLANN WIZARDS in any of the battalion warscrolls, nor any in the collections of Seraphon sold by GW.

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.

In matches where they limit the total number of warscrolls you can have (ie no more than 10 warscrolls, one HERO, one MONSTER, etc), I would not let someone summon units from a warscroll outside that set. So you have to physically have the warscroll present, and it needs to be a warscroll that you are legally allowed to have. But I'm also in the "summon from reserves" and "slain models don't go back in your reserves" group.

Each event and group seems to handle summoning differently.

Literally this topic comes up 2-3x a week on the facebook groups and there gets to be a lot of bad blood running in those posts.

Summoning isn't needed for any army in AoS (since you can take anything you want, anyway).

However, that's still a cool way to have some fun or "great cinematic" in game, like an army having to hold the line against waves of undead/demons/summoned lizardmen before killing the summoner and stopping the flow.

Which means the agreement of your gaming partner, of course. Isn't that the first rule for this game?

 Sarouan wrote:
Summoning isn't needed for any army in AoS (since you can take anything you want, anyway).

However, that's still a cool way to have some fun or "great cinematic" in game, like an army having to hold the line against waves of undead/demons/summoned lizardmen before killing the summoner and stopping the flow.

Which means the agreement of your gaming partner, of course. Isn't that the first rule for this game?

I agree that summoning only really becomes an issue if somebody intends to break it. That's fine for a pre-agreed scenario but there is plenty of other things that can be abused in the game if one is so inclined (possibly a good thing, there are few limitations on potential scenario ideas). The trick is not to!

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.