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.

Since I can't play AoS (still hoping to find someone who does one day) I am not familiar with the rules much. I haven't seen the Generals Handbook yet so have to wait I buy it from my FLGS. That said, the way I take it summoning now is just basically like Deep Strike in 40K but it can be any unit you want to summon as long as they match the points. That sounds interesting and something different. Thing is, I read a bit how some places like ITC (could be wrong though) will not let the "summon anything you want to summon as long as they match the points" and you have to choose before hand exactly what you are summoning. (again people forcing their interpretation how a game is supposed to be played.)

So how are you or your group going to handle it? Is it really broken? Before I thought summoning was broken and people who just summoned after summoning after summoning were just donkey caves. But this new rule is fair. But why nerf that you have to pick before the game not when you are actually summoning. Do people really need AoS to play like 40K?

I'll be playing it in the flexible sideboard to react to what the current situation requires style. Seems odd to further limit it to preselected units.

This is really a dead horse, but ill bite.

I only play AOS with points now. For the campaign our store is using it as it is written in the book. It is as described as Deep striking now from fellow AOS players/community.

Nothing in the GHB says you have to pick before hand, so if ITC is really doing that, its just stupid and holds no weight as there are summoners that get you random things (aka Alarielle). Its not a "interpretation how a game is supposed to be played", its just them making up a rule.

 Eldarain wrote:
Seems odd to further limit it to preselected units.

Yea, summoning has been satisfyingly punched in the face for Matched Play, I see no reason to limit it further.

Personally, I think the additional house rules that events ought to consider are a) measuring from the base, b) abolishing or severely limiting candy land mystical nonsense terrain, and c) allowing units to add individual members at the cost of [Unit Price] / [Unit Number] each. These are all very easy tweaks that I find add to the gaming experience significantly ... but they also have nothing to do with summoning

- Salvage

Boss Salvage, what terrain do you speak of?

I personally seem to think that players for armies such as undead should be given a 25% of total points pool for summoning along with resummoning units killed in the game. That's my opinion but I have yet to see the implications of the new summoning rules

 Eldarain wrote:
Personally, I think the additional house rules that events ought to consider are a) measuring from the base, b) abolishing or severely limiting candy land mystical nonsense terrain, and c) allowing units to add individual members at the cost of [Unit Price] / [Unit Number] each. These are all very easy tweaks that I find add to the gaming experience significantly ... but they also have nothing to do with summoning

Yes, this.

Summoning just like it says in the rules is fine and works.

Summoning as per the book works fine for 95% of units, and I say that as a fan of Flesh-Eater Courts who takes quite a big hit to their power with these new rules.

The bottom line is, you ultimately need a few blanket rules for more balanced/competitive play, and the best you can hope for is that these will be just in the vast majority of cases. Here it is the case. I sympathize with units like Pink Horrors being functionally broken under these rules, but when the opposite was early-days-Sigmar, where chain summoning and turn 1 tablings would happen, I am all for it.

And I know its internet hyperbole for things to only be "the best" or "the worst", but in real practice, not hypothetical message board theorizing, the new summoning rules can still be quite potent. The flexibility and deployment trickey they afford is just about right for the gamble of needing to cast the summon spell (usually).

Play RAW summoning in all games except tournaments where I play by whatever house rules the TO decides.

If we were to play a tourney of 2000 point games with a 1000 point sideboard I don't think it would be too bad to say the summoned units need to come from that total of 3000points already selected. It's not needed for a simple PUG though.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Summoning as per the book works fine for 95% of units, and I say that as a fan of Flesh-Eater Courts who takes quite a big hit to their power with these new rules.

The bottom line is, you ultimately need a few blanket rules for more balanced/competitive play, and the best you can hope for is that these will be just in the vast majority of cases. Here it is the case. I sympathize with units like Pink Horrors being functionally broken under these rules, but when the opposite was early-days-Sigmar, where chain summoning and turn 1 tablings would happen, I am all for it.

And I know its internet hyperbole for things to only be "the best" or "the worst", but in real practice, not hypothetical message board theorizing, the new summoning rules can still be quite potent. The flexibility and deployment trickey they afford is just about right for the gamble of needing to cast the summon spell (usually).

flesh eater courts free units are not considered summoning so they are virtually unaffected from the rules

 namiel wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Summoning as per the book works fine for 95% of units, and I say that as a fan of Flesh-Eater Courts who takes quite a big hit to their power with these new rules.

The bottom line is, you ultimately need a few blanket rules for more balanced/competitive play, and the best you can hope for is that these will be just in the vast majority of cases. Here it is the case. I sympathize with units like Pink Horrors being functionally broken under these rules, but when the opposite was early-days-Sigmar, where chain summoning and turn 1 tablings would happen, I am all for it.

And I know its internet hyperbole for things to only be "the best" or "the worst", but in real practice, not hypothetical message board theorizing, the new summoning rules can still be quite potent. The flexibility and deployment trickey they afford is just about right for the gamble of needing to cast the summon spell (usually).

flesh eater courts free units are not considered summoning so they are virtually unaffected from the rules

Not to burst your bubble, but it effects much of them.

Abhorrant Ghoul King on Zombie Dragon - costs points
Crypt Haunter Courtier - costs points
etc... Theres more im sure but don't feel like going through each one

*beats the dead horse*

As ruled by GW on their FB page for AOS. ANYTHING that sets up a unit or model besides the undeads banner that regens people (the skeletons ones and black knights etc) to the unit costs points from your total pool

I'm kind of shocked at the number of people over the past few weeks that have voiced that an army that cannot benefit from free points is somehow not worth taking, or weak etc.

If the points values are truly reflective and a model worth X is actually X points then you are paying for the abilities correctly and anything extra is extra and "bonus".

For competitive play, that breaks the game being able to add more points than your opponent.

We are using it out of the book. Not changing anything.

 namiel wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Summoning as per the book works fine for 95% of units, and I say that as a fan of Flesh-Eater Courts who takes quite a big hit to their power with these new rules.

The bottom line is, you ultimately need a few blanket rules for more balanced/competitive play, and the best you can hope for is that these will be just in the vast majority of cases. Here it is the case. I sympathize with units like Pink Horrors being functionally broken under these rules, but when the opposite was early-days-Sigmar, where chain summoning and turn 1 tablings would happen, I am all for it.

And I know its internet hyperbole for things to only be "the best" or "the worst", but in real practice, not hypothetical message board theorizing, the new summoning rules can still be quite potent. The flexibility and deployment trickey they afford is just about right for the gamble of needing to cast the summon spell (usually).

flesh eater courts free units are not considered summoning so they are virtually unaffected from the rules

That's what I thought, and initially advocated as well, but several individuals report GW saying otherwise, and the RAW do essentially say, if there's a unit that wasn't already there are the start of the game, it is considered having been a summon.

 Swabby wrote:
Boss Salvage, what terrain do you speak of?

This:



My problem is that every piece of terrain has to have a rule I don't care to remember, that isn't reflected by the terrain piece itself, that actively makes the board a weird hodge podge of gamey magical effects, that can have a fairly strong effect on the game and yet has nothing to do with the careful selection of two forces by living human generals. I am of course still pretty burned by the nonsense terrain of 8E, which was much worse than AOS' cute lil' chart!

So far all of my opponents but one have agreed that they don't need the chart in their life. The one guy who insisted on it grudgingly allowed me to use the second half of the rule to pick all my results rather than roll. So the middle of the table was Damned (a completely voluntary and fairly meh rule), while he rolled up a lot of randomness for the terrain pieces we weren't really fighting around. And then promptly forgot about anyway

If this chart has a place in the game, it's to select a characterful rule for 1-3 pieces of themed terrain, and then let the rest of the terrain do what it does in AOS, beyond remembering things and rolling dice.

+++++++++

Sorry for the Off Topic, summoning discussion crew

- Salvage

@Boss - I play all games with magical terrain rolled from the 4-page rules. It works really well in my opinion and once you have played a few games with it it becomes easy to remember the different effects. I personally like using the magical scenery rules and it seems to be the UK norm as tournaments run with those scenery rules too.

We don't use the chart either. we ate it, even after the tons of games played. Just following the rules as if it was normal. To much to remember and keep track of on a game that's supposed to be fast and simple.

Granted we do use the terrain rules for Wyldwood, but that's a special thing Sylva brings

 Bottle wrote:
@Boss - I play all games with magical terrain rolled from the 4-page rules. It works really well in my opinion and once you have played a few games with it it becomes easy to remember the different effects. I personally like using the magical scenery rules and it seems to be the UK norm as tournaments run with those scenery rules too.

I really don't see the appeal, Botts. Even assuming I remember what all the terrain is for a particular game (because it invariably all looks the same, despite different rules between matches), I don't think it adds anything for me.

And I sort of cringe when I watch GMG videos where it seems pretty clear the main tactic going on is to cluster your dudes about Mystical terrain for +1 Sv and tearing faces off, especially if you have guns. Which reminds me too much of 8E's Anvil of Vaul, which insta-fixed armies who didn't bring a solution for regen, or the Bane Stone and other significant buffing features. But the real problem in 8E - which thankfully only happens in some of the crazier Narrative games of AOS - was all the features that killed your dudes, with the enemy having to do nothing. I can guarantee it's part of that butthurt that I'm carrying into AOS' own chart. (Around a month into 8E my gaming group stopped using mysterious mystery terrain, in particular after I played a match where a boiling river killed 1500+ points of my Warriors of Tizz army. I wish I were joking, but the pain still stings )

- Salvage

I like having the chart for applying effects to terrain if they warrant it or as a feature of a game. Definitely don't like having the whole table have a random effect added to each piece.

I like it. I don't like games that play out the same all the time. That being said... in any events I'm doing you roll a D6 per item and if you roll a 6 its special. Otherwise its just a normal piece of scenery with no special rules.

You can then either roll on the chart or consult the warscroll for things like the garden of morr or realmgate or whatever.

 auticus wrote:
I like it. I don't like games that play out the same all the time. That being said... in any events I'm doing you roll a D6 per item and if you roll a 6 its special. Otherwise its just a normal piece of scenery with no special rules.

I dig that. I'm not against making fantasy fantastic - while I prefer Low Fantasy that's a bit too low even for me - I just like the table to make some sense, dammit. Or if it is all crazeballs, it's because it's a truly spectacular place.

- Salvage

Yeah I agree. A couple pieces of mystical scenery is cool. More than that and its hard to keep track of and seems more like a fun house.

I just think it adds a nice bit of variety for PUGs and Tournament Games. For my own table that I am currently making, I am hoping to have some pieces that are always rolled for and some that have set rules (for example my stone walls and human buildings). But I think it's nice for every piece of terrain to do something - I find it can force more movement out of armies and also make the game a little more deadly which speeds things up.

Yeah, I never understood why anyone who wanted a point system would then turn around and think summoned units should cost nothing other than the action it takes to summon them. I can see other ways of balancing it (either summoners get very expensive or summoned units have debuffs) but the're all heavier ruleswise. I think in games with VPs summoned units giving up their VPs when summoned but costing no points might have been fine, but horses for courses.

On the mysterious terrain - I think it can be fun seasoning but if every piece of terrain is mysterious then it makes it all feel samey. In matched play where you're not agreeing a setup with the other person though, I can see the argument for it, to force you to play differently even on the same map and with the same person.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 namiel wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Summoning as per the book works fine for 95% of units, and I say that as a fan of Flesh-Eater Courts who takes quite a big hit to their power with these new rules.

The bottom line is, you ultimately need a few blanket rules for more balanced/competitive play, and the best you can hope for is that these will be just in the vast majority of cases. Here it is the case. I sympathize with units like Pink Horrors being functionally broken under these rules, but when the opposite was early-days-Sigmar, where chain summoning and turn 1 tablings would happen, I am all for it.

And I know its internet hyperbole for things to only be "the best" or "the worst", but in real practice, not hypothetical message board theorizing, the new summoning rules can still be quite potent. The flexibility and deployment trickey they afford is just about right for the gamble of needing to cast the summon spell (usually).

flesh eater courts free units are not considered summoning so they are virtually unaffected from the rules

That's what I thought, and initially advocated as well, but several individuals report GW saying otherwise, and the RAW do essentially say, if there's a unit that wasn't already there are the start of the game, it is considered having been a summon.

They can replenish existing units for free however, but not past their starting model count. Anything that counts a placing a new unit counts as summoning and needs to be paid for.

I am incredibly happy with the punch in the face that summoning recieved. I was getting pretty sick and tired of my friend running Nagash every single game and winning without putting any thought into what he did. If you think summoning armies before the handbook came out required skill you must be a brain dead donkey. I can say this fairly because I ran summoning vampire counts and stomped every opponent into the ground and I didnt even have to run my Nagash. If I played Nagash my opponent would normally forfeit turn 2 because what could they possibly due against 200+ guys. Summoning was draining the little skill and strategy AOS had to begin with. Most games I play now against summoning armies will only be with points.

str00dles1 wrote:
This is really a dead horse, but ill bite.

I only play AOS with points now. For the campaign our store is using it as it is written in the book. It is as described as Deep striking now from fellow AOS players/community.

Nothing in the GHB says you have to pick before hand, so if ITC is really doing that, its just stupid and holds no weight as there are summoners that get you random things (aka Alarielle). Its not a "interpretation how a game is supposed to be played", its just them making up a rule.

Well obviously it will hold weight in any tournament played under ITC. Or you going to ITC tournament and insist on not following it? That's cheating.

And nothing wrong with making up rules btw. That's been time honoured tradition in miniature games in like...Decades. Doesn't AOS even advocate that? Rules, fluffs etc are just toolboxes for players to further customize anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:
@Boss - I play all games with magical terrain rolled from the 4-page rules. It works really well in my opinion and once you have played a few games with it it becomes easy to remember the different effects. I personally like using the magical scenery rules and it seems to be the UK norm as tournaments run with those scenery rules too.

Problem isn't so much remembering effect. Problem is remembering what terrain was what! Especially if you have lots of terrain(like we).

Now cool idea would be WYSIWYG terrain(ie piece is modeled so that it fits the rule) but that's basically requiring you to have huge pile of terrain. Theoretically 6x(okay albeit unlikely we ever REALLY need 15 damned terrain pieces as 15 1's would be unlikely but still. Lots either way)

Now some terrain pieces that have special rules and is modeled to fit that rule...Now that I can get behind in all day. River that looks like it's deadly? Make it deadly! Forest filled with ghosts? Haunted rules no problem.

Generic terrain that changes what rule it uses? On every piece? That's no fun memory game.