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.

That isn't what I am asking. I understand your feedback about the CP already. I am asking about the game state completely independent of that suggestion. Let me try to explain differently.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

auticus wrote:
The biggest thing that I see is that people will say it makes summoning worthless because you can just stop it with CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am thinking of a way to use it as a 1x bonus in a game however. It will cost CP but only usable once and from gameplay in previous games to unlock it.

It will make it completely worthless and skavin with be top army with no way to beat it. They easily get 3-4 CP turn 1 and can keep getting them back here and there on 5+, with massive powerful shooting and endless spell. GL.

Emphasis mine. The bold part is what I am curious about.

So, what I am reading here, is 'If summoning were worthless, Skaven could not be beaten.'

Non-summoning armies would not increase or decrease in strength were summoning to be changed or made worthless, because those armies engage in no summoning at all.

Accordingly, for the above statement to work, it means that Skaven can not currently be beaten by non-summoning armies. If, say, DoK beats Skaven then the statement you made does not make sense. It follows your opinion is that DoK, Idoneth, SCE, or any other army which does not summon cannot beat Skaven right now.

I want to know why you have expressed that even the likes of DoK (or any other non-summon army) cannot beat Skaven right now, because that is the part I do not understand. I really, honestly do. I am not trying to be passive-aggressive or anything.

That is predicated on the concept that armies that spam summoning are not viable unless they can get 750-1000 free points a game and then armies like skaven which rotate around the concept of doing high damage en masse would just be free to do whatever with no way to beat them.

Which I don't agree with.

Because if the game were balanced around the point costs better, an army wouldn't require 750-1000 free points in the game on top of their base 2000 to be viable.

auticus wrote:
That is predicated on the concept that armies that spam summoning are not viable unless they can get 750-1000 free points a game and then armies like skaven which rotate around the concept of doing high damage en masse would just be free to do whatever with no way to beat them.

Which I don't agree with.

Because if the game were balanced around the point costs better, an army wouldn't require 750-1000 free points in the game on top of their base 2000 to be viable.

The idea is, you are removing a function of the game that some armies are using, sure you can build around it, and that is what players will do. If someone builds for Summoning with that 1CP stops ability, that list will lose to others not building for summoning, b.c they get full use of their mechanics and the other player doesnt.

Its like building 2 armies, 1 with focus on melee, 1 focus on shooting, with 1CP you could stop shooting of 1 unit, the melee army will be at an advantage, given equal skill levels and no player errors, the player with the advantage will win. Im trying to show that spending 1CP for stop a game mechanic (Summoning, Shooting, Melee, Moving, etc...) isnt a good way to balance the game.

And if you think the armies with summoning are paying to little points for that mechanic, then summoning isnt the problem the problem is army balance.


Look at Khorne and BoC summoning, do you really feel their summoning are to strong?

I like Khorne summoning, feel it is reasonably well balanced, and hope GW structures future mechanics like that. There is a distinct cost within the context of the allegiance (blood tithe used for summons cannot be used for the abilities) which is unlike the standard summoning. BoC are also on the better side, because they do have a cost in needing to camp a character & throw-away unit on the herdstone. However the latter suffers in that the cost is not appropriately balanced to the benefit. Seraphon are technically like that, but the 'cost' is utterly trivial.

Ultimately, you argue that summoning armies are paying to get their summoning, when most commonly they are not. And it shows, with summon armies out-performing non-summon ones (established earlier in the thread).

But I still want to know why you think only summon armies can beat Skaven. Lets make it more specific; why can't DoK beat Skaven?

No matter how much you look at it, summoning is free points.

Do I think Khorne and BoC summoning are *too strong*?

I think they are benefiting from free points, so against half the game that can't do the damage required OR summon themselves, that would indeed be too strong against those armies.

Against armies that can do the damage required OR summon themselves, no they are probably ok.

Allegiance is free buffs, with summons just being one of those buffs. They are adding points to the table, but allegiance benefits making existing units stronger are making them worth more points.

The problem is armies which get their set of allegiance buffs, then get another set of allegiance buffs in the form of summoning. Its like getting to take two allegiances abilities and benefit from both.

I've been wondering about summoning and what other's experience has been. Seems like some people think summoning is OP for some, just fine for others. I'm not 100% sure this list is complete, but I do wonder if you consider the summoning for this army fine (as in: strong, but nothing game breaking) or problematic (completely game breaking in a type of setting). So feel free to fill in your own experiences so far.

Order:

Sylvaneth: Some heroes (Branchwwraith, Alarielle), but nothing too game breaking it seems (considered fine by me)
Seraphon: can be grotesquely overdone in a list (considered OTT by many, myself included)

Chaos:

Beasts of Chaos: Sacrifices via heardstone, seems fine to me with their limitations on how to get resources however.
Blades of Khorne: Bloodtithe points, seems fine to me in 1V1, spirals out of control in multiplayer games however (in my own experience)
Disciples of Tzeenth: Points via magic, again seems fine in 1V1, spirals out of control in multiplayer games.
Hosts of Slaanesh: Via pain points: haven't seen it happen myself, but some say it gets really crazy if you fight against multi-wound armies and many monsters.
Maggotkin of Nurgle: Contagion points: seems fine so far with the limited resource acquirement.

Death:

Flesh-eater courts: Summoning via once per game command abilities: can be WAACed by spamming loads of Archregents because of throne terrain circumvents the resource limiting factor. Solutions might be to limit Archregents to 1 per army (fluffwise as well)?
Legions of Nagash: doesn't summon additional points, but gets a unit regeneration mechanic on steroids. Limiting this to "use once per 1000p in the battle" (due to scaling) is a fix I hope they do however.

Destruction:

Gloomspite Gitz: Have a limited and not guaranteed LoN-style resurrection mechanic for moonclan grots via their terrain.




I think that's the complete overview of summoning. Feel free to add in your own thoughts, because when I look at this overview, I don't think summoning as a whole is problematic, just some of the outliers.

The ones I have seen be the most bent are the seraphon and both FEC and legion of nagash. I do consider recycling entire dead units back to life as summoning because unit was destroyed and removed from table and then comes back and to me is having the unit twice.

The rest can trend toward unfun if you aren't rolling a newer army book but don't feel as hopeless as the top 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So looking like fyreslayers. 2 wounds. The ability to get to a 2+ save and make that rerollable.

The return of the 2+/rerollable saves which forces the need for mortal wound spam.

This changes my campaign setup. Its getting tiring having to houserule, so I think we'll just go with if you have newer books vs newer books just bust the game how you want, and if you are running an older list we'll deal with that then. I don't think anyone in my area runs a list thats trash because no one wants to get face planted anyway and limiting mortal wounds worked up until this release where they are bringing back 2++ rerollables.

The ones I have seen be the most bent are the seraphon and both FEC and legion of nagash. I do consider recycling entire dead units back to life as summoning because unit was destroyed and removed from table and then comes back and to me is having the unit twice.

I agree with the Nagash thing. It is very tiresome to see a horde of undead troops come back and back again turn after turn.

Khorne summoning I find to be interesting seesaw. It punishes armies(both Khorne and otherwise) for having nothing but MSU, but is deflated against armies that go for large units. Fought a Nagash army that had the largest Battleline choices(in amount of bodies) the player could choose and only Blood Tithe points I was getting reliably were from my own units.

 Eldarsif wrote:

The ones I have seen be the most bent are the seraphon and both FEC and legion of nagash. I do consider recycling entire dead units back to life as summoning because unit was destroyed and removed from table and then comes back and to me is having the unit twice.

I agree with the Nagash thing. It is very tiresome to see a horde of undead troops come back and back again turn after turn.

Khorne summoning I find to be interesting seesaw. It punishes armies(both Khorne and otherwise) for having nothing but MSU, but is deflated against armies that go for large units. Fought a Nagash army that had the largest Battleline choices(in amount of bodies) the player could choose and only Blood Tithe points I was getting reliably were from my own units.

The Khrone players i know dont summon much anymore, its either summon turn 4 to get someone on late objective turn 5, or summon a big guy turn 3. Mostly they use for Spelleater Curse or Murderlust.

Thats what happens when you have an actual choice with actual decisions lol. If it were free with no cost except having to have a skull altar for example they'd be pumping out little khorne babies

auticus wrote:
Thats what happens when you have an actual choice with actual decisions lol. If it were free with no cost except having to have a skull altar for example they'd be pumping out little khorne babies

Yes that is very so true, but are other armies balanced in mind with free summoning? If so then it is a balanced mechanic, you can have it both ways.

I would say that the NEW books are. The older books and factions with no battletome are not. Which is over half of the game still.

I would argue that factions without battletomes are technically faction non grata until they see a tome considering how GW has shied away from committing to these factions fully and have up to this point removed some of the completely.

auticus wrote:
I do consider recycling entire dead units back to life as summoning because unit was destroyed and removed from table and then comes back and to me is having the unit twice.

Sounds to me like that is Resurrection on steroids rather than adding something new to the table. And if the unit can only be brought back after it was gone, it's not like having it twice... It's just resurrected (in a very powerful way... as if it were on steroids. ). But yeah, it is very powerful, that's 100% true. So I would like to see a bit of a restriction on it.

To weigh in on Slaanesh Summoning.

Slaanesh does best when they fight multi wound models and their opponent doesn't have a chance to do mortal wounds in return. Some good opponents for Slaanesh to fight are Stormcast, other chaos gods, and generally any elite army as they all have multi wound models. Any 1 wound army who can't bring monsters will do well against slaanesh as the player will struggle to summon.

Our best strat is summoning the enrapturess as she generates points, can shoot for a decent amount, and if she gets changed, will generate points. I have summoned 4 of them by turn 3 and shot off a lord arcanum handing out spells, staunch defender, and buffs to sequitors. Once he fell, my opponent tried a hail mary that failed and conceded.

Our way to get points is to fight in combat. Our heroes need to be damaging to generate points, but you also don't want paper thin heroes who die to stiff breeze so that they can summon. Anyone who can deal mortal wounds will negate our summoning, and anyone who can get past Slaanesh's ability to negate attack either through weight of attacks or counter modifiers will be able to demolish Slaanesh.

I think it is hard to make the call on GW getting better about summoning, because only three summon armies have been released after the 2.0 launch; BoC (some problems, but OK overall), FEC (all sorts of busted), and Khorne (probably the best executed). Those are all over the map.

As for the others, it is literally a free upgrade as they went from not being able to summon to having it added on for free with the 2.0 launch. These armies were not widely regarded as bad before; they didn't need a buff or anything. They just got it. I think that breeds a certain resentment.

That's so weird... Were you very knowledgeable about FEC before book 2 Ninthmusketeer? The FEC summoning potential actually took a hit (outside of Archregent spam, which is why I put him up as problematic). In my old FEC v1 list, I actually made a list that was able to summon over 1k points in a 2k game. I cannot pull that one off at all anymore.

Majestic horror + royal family essentially allowed my general to summon a unit of big guys twice (for free), then (because he was part of a royal family) could summon 2 additional ghoul kings, who could then summon a unit of 10 ghouls themselves on their own.

Essentially, that little battalion allowed me to summon:

2 units of 160p worth of big guys
2 units of 100p each for the ghoul kings you had to include baseline
2 new ghouls kings worth 280p
Those 2 ghoul kings could then summon 200p worth of ghouls too.

All in all, it was a battalion that cost 840p and it could summon 1000p (would be 1040p in the new book) on it's own for 5CP. (and 1 CP was tossed in as a freebie because it's a battalion). And that doesn't even account for any other summoning the remaining 1160p of your army could do.

That's actually as much as 5 Archregents (so nearly all your heroes) could muster.



The main difference: people didn't notice FEC V1 could do this because all the rest of the army was .... So it completely flew under the radar for most people. The only player to actively (ab)use the FEC summoning back then was captain America (Bill Souza) himself.

Yes, I am well aware of FEC summoning before. Before you had to spend a cp for every summon, now only the mounted ones do. It all comes in round one and leaves the later cp open for use; much stronger. Further, much of the point cost you have there is 10-man ghoul units; the worst of the FEC summons. A 20-man unit is worth more than twice as much because it gets an extra attack at that size and is harder to wipe out completely. It can also only summon exactly those options, Archregents can summon whatever best fits the situation which improves their tactical options considerably.


For being terrible, FEC still won tournaments, and not using royal family.

I’ve been out of the loop (sorry, starting new job) but it’s obvious how much of a sticking point summoning is.

Seriously, how do we fix this?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yes, I am well aware of FEC summoning before. Before you had to spend a cp for every summon, now only the mounted ones do. It all comes in round one and leaves the later cp open for use; much stronger. Further, much of the point cost you have there is 10-man ghoul units; the worst of the FEC summons. A 20-man unit is worth more than twice as much because it gets an extra attack at that size and is harder to wipe out completely. It can also only summon exactly those options, Archregents can summon whatever best fits the situation which improves their tactical options considerably.


For being terrible, FEC still won tournaments, and not using royal family.

You do know how Bill Souza ended up with FEC as his choice right? He asked the internet what he should field next and the internet did what the internet always does: joke around and tried to suggest a super weak army (according to internetz wisdom at least) to him. He took it and surprised everybody with it. He was literally the only one in the competitive scene running FEC at a high level and he did use a version of summoning that was actually way more grotesque than anything the V2 book could muster, including turn 1 summoning with a +5" on the charge that could all be re-rolled for free.

And in fact, through majestic horror, his summoning potential was higher than it would be now (even without Royal family... although he did use ghoul patrol, a battalion that makes his ghoul units larger than starting size, so still increasing his army size as the game went along, I didn't even mention that in my previous post as that "army growth potential" was just removed in the new book without any compensation).

And again: the summoning problem now (even in the description you are giving) lies in the abhorrent Archregent, not the summoning overall (as all but Archregent and foot ghoul king (and the later hasn't changed at all and you wouldn't want to spam those anyway) still have to pay CP for it).

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’ve been out of the loop (sorry, starting new job) but it’s obvious how much of a sticking point summoning is.

Seriously, how do we fix this?

You dont need to stop summoning to fix it, let it be a mechanic in many armies, just make sure the armies without it are strong enough to not need it.

When i first started, i thought summoning was broken, not after many games, playing in tournaments, and understanding so much more, i dont feel summoning is all that big of a deal, i feel double turns are the worst part of the game and in no way is summoning even close to a problem of the double turn.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’ve been out of the loop (sorry, starting new job) but it’s obvious how much of a sticking point summoning is.

Seriously, how do we fix this?

It's a pet peeve for some, that much is for sure. But, if you stop and rationally think about it, there are more versions of summoning that are just fine (I tried to make a list earlier in the thread too) than there are busted versions.... But the busted versions do stand out like a sore thumb. (Seraphon Slann + astrolith, engine of the gods, LoN Endless legions and FEC Archregent). Are fixes in order? I hope GHB19 (or a new seraphon book) fixes some of the worst culprits beyond just a point increase, but an actual mechanics change/limitation would be nice.

 Elmir wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yes, I am well aware of FEC summoning before. Before you had to spend a cp for every summon, now only the mounted ones do. It all comes in round one and leaves the later cp open for use; much stronger. Further, much of the point cost you have there is 10-man ghoul units; the worst of the FEC summons. A 20-man unit is worth more than twice as much because it gets an extra attack at that size and is harder to wipe out completely. It can also only summon exactly those options, Archregents can summon whatever best fits the situation which improves their tactical options considerably.


For being terrible, FEC still won tournaments, and not using royal family.

You do know how Bill Souza ended up with FEC as his choice right? He asked the internet what he should field next and the internet did what the internet always does: joke around and tried to suggest a super weak army (according to internetz wisdom at least) to him. He took it and surprised everybody with it. He was literally the only one in the competitive scene running FEC at a high level and he did use a version of summoning that was actually way more grotesque than anything the V2 book could muster, including turn 1 summoning with a +5" on the charge that could all be re-rolled for free.

And in fact, through majestic horror, his summoning potential was higher than it would be now (even without Royal family... although he did use ghoul patrol, a battalion that makes his ghoul units larger than starting size, so still increasing his army size as the game went along, I didn't even mention that in my previous post as that "army growth potential" was just removed in the new book without any compensation).

And again: the summoning problem now (even in the description you are giving) lies in the abhorrent Archregent, not the summoning overall (as all but Archregent and foot ghoul king (and the later hasn't changed at all and you wouldn't want to spam those anyway) still have to pay CP for it).

I am still not seeing what makes old FEC summoning better than new FEC summoning. Also, afaik at the time he was picking the army FEC were among the worst battletome-armies since they did not have summoning yet; AoS 2nd ed was not out. And that mentality stuck for some time even after it was no longer true because of their reputation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elmir wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’ve been out of the loop (sorry, starting new job) but it’s obvious how much of a sticking point summoning is.

Seriously, how do we fix this?

It's a pet peeve for some, that much is for sure. But, if you stop and rationally think about it, there are more versions of summoning that are just fine (I tried to make a list earlier in the thread too) than there are busted versions.... But the busted versions do stand out like a sore thumb. (Seraphon Slann + astrolith, engine of the gods, LoN Endless legions and FEC Archregent). Are fixes in order? I hope GHB19 (or a new seraphon book) fixes some of the worst culprits beyond just a point increase, but an actual mechanics change/limitation would be nice.

Busted or no, summoning armies out-perform non-summoning ones. It does not have to be broken to be giving a free advantage.

Which brings up an interesting and perhaps useful question; if all armies lost all summoning (not including returning slain models to existing units) which armies would actually be screwed by that? As in, made bad enough as to be considered an underdog like KO, Ironjawz, etc. LoN & FEC would be fine and possibly still strong due to what else their allegiance does, Seraphon's viable builds would still be viable, Khorne would not particularly be affected since it is a choice rather than an upgrade, Tzeentch would be fine, Nurgle & BoC would still be fine...

Is there any army that would actually be screwed *without* summoning?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Busted or no, summoning armies out-perform non-summoning ones. It does not have to be broken to be giving a free advantage.

Which brings up an interesting and perhaps useful question; if all armies lost all summoning (not including returning slain models to existing units) which armies would actually be screwed by that? As in, made bad enough as to be considered an underdog like KO, Ironjawz, etc. LoN & FEC would be fine and possibly still strong due to what else their allegiance does, Seraphon's viable builds would still be viable, Khorne would not particularly be affected since it is a choice rather than an upgrade, Tzeentch would be fine, Nurgle & BoC would still be fine...

Is there any army that would actually be screwed *without* summoning?

Summoning armies are out there dominating non-summoning? That black and white statement is just simply not true. It's actually hard to discuss any nuance in problems with summoning if you just throw these types of completely non-nuanced (and therefor outright false) statements around. At high-end gameplay, the non-summoning armies still do quite well with several builds that have zero summoning in them, regularly creeping into top spots or even winning events. And even in casual play, it's mostly the outliers that I detailed before that cause problems (and even then, you have to ask yourself: are FEC with lots of archregents, seraphon with Slann, astrolith, EotG etc "casual lists" to begin with). ANY army trait is a free advantage! Not just the summoning ones. The Draconic measure of just scrapping that one takes a lot of enjoyment out of the game.

Even so, I'll indulge in your list (and leave the most interesting one for last):

FEC: they might be able to compete without summoning? Provided GW actually starts returning (or turning) some of their points costs to be less inflated (Ghouls @100p for 4+/4+ 2A infantry is very steep compared to other armies' core units in today's environment, as are 160p crypt horrors with their stats, as would 140p heroes like the GK be). But they could probably still end up middle of the pack with their new book. They still punch hard after all. It's an army that lacks tools though, so they might suffer more for it. Not having a single command ability on a card that is not summoning instantly reduces their options for CP though, it would be feeding frenzy only as a CP dump.

Sylvaneth: ridiculously overcosted units like Alarielle were not given a pointscost reduction because they received summoning. It was a balancing act there. Take that away and at least be kind enough to give her a DRAMATIC points reduction.

Nurgle: yeah sure, you'd just be removing an interesting and well executed mechanic over a pet peeve, but I'm sure they could get some viable builds going. Could do with a points cost reduction for some units overall.

Seraphon: I'm not knowledgeable enough about what their other viable builds were. Kroaknado hasn't been a thing for ages, saurus heavy has never really worked in the past years, but maybe I'm missing things. I doubt you'll see them in any top 10 list though with things like eelspam, skaven, shooty SCE or gav bombs still going around unhindered. It's an army with plenty of tools in their toolbox, so I could see them still getting other viable builds.

Khorne: perfect example of summoning being just fine, with or without. With their new "double" bloodtithe tables, it's actually a super interesting game choice, so much so that it could compensate for all summoning being gone. The designers on the twitch stream even mentioned they wanted summoning to be more of a choice.

Tzeentch: provided tweaks to pink horrors (who are definitely now costed with summoning in mind) and a few other units, they probably don't need the summoning to be viable, as they have plenty of other tools.

BoC: they'd be fine, but again, it's an interesting game-play mechanic that doesn't lead to anything ground breaking so far, so I'd hate to see that individuality of the army gone.

Gloomspite Gitz: it's so unpredictable that it's hard to rely on for competitive play. Very random (and very goblin like in that respect), but it would not be a major loss for GGS at all.

LoN: they'd lose a major allegiance ability, but they'll probably be able to hold their ground still. They'd lose the dominance they had in the competitive scene for a few months for sure! I find this the trickiest to assess, as it doesn't look like they really factored the summonable keyword into their points cost. Their points pre-LoN book just carried over and seemingly no "points value" was assigned to the now very strong summonable keyword. Dire wolves are the best example of this: they are now a steal at 60p each (remember that they had ZERO regeneration skills before). I just find this faction the most baffling and could not pinpoint any units that were so overcosted that they needed a points drop, but were not given one because summoning compensated. In fact, the non-summonable units are left out a lot (blood knights, morghasts etc) because they don't have the potential to be ressurrected.



Overall though, would I want to go back to a world without summoning? Hell no. One of my personal annoyances with early-AoS, was that no army actually felt unique with distinctive playstyles. Hell, the very first years were even worse, with almost all warriors being 1A 4+/4+ models with no discernible difference between how empire played vs how chaos marauders played. That was a dull AF game.

If you are so entrenched in your anti-summoning stance "because it's a free advantage some armies get", be consistent: scrap the SCE deepstrike, scrap the deepkin tides, scrap the DoK temples, scrap almost everything that isn't a unit in it's own right and marvel at what a sterile and boring game it would become, and all that for 3 outliers of armies where summoning feels too strong and do away with the 7 instances where it's just fine and actually adds to the overall game-play richness without breaking it.

 Elmir wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Busted or no, summoning armies out-perform non-summoning ones. It does not have to be broken to be giving a free advantage.

Which brings up an interesting and perhaps useful question; if all armies lost all summoning (not including returning slain models to existing units) which armies would actually be screwed by that? As in, made bad enough as to be considered an underdog like KO, Ironjawz, etc. LoN & FEC would be fine and possibly still strong due to what else their allegiance does, Seraphon's viable builds would still be viable, Khorne would not particularly be affected since it is a choice rather than an upgrade, Tzeentch would be fine, Nurgle & BoC would still be fine...

Is there any army that would actually be screwed *without* summoning?

Summoning armies are out there dominating non-summoning? That black and white statement is just simply not true. It's actually hard to discuss any nuance in problems with summoning if you just throw these types of completely non-nuanced (and therefor outright false) statements around. At high-end gameplay, the non-summoning armies still do quite well with several builds that have zero summoning in them, regularly creeping into top spots or even winning events. And even in casual play, it's mostly the outliers that I detailed before that cause problems (and even then, you have to ask yourself: are FEC with lots of archregents, seraphon with Slann, astrolith, EotG etc "casual lists" to begin with). ANY army trait is a free advantage! Not just the summoning ones. The Draconic measure of just scrapping that one takes a lot of enjoyment out of the game.

Even so, I'll indulge in your list (and leave the most interesting one for last):

FEC: they might be able to compete without summoning? Provided GW actually starts returning (or turning) some of their points costs to be less inflated (Ghouls @100p for 4+/4+ 2A infantry is very steep compared to other armies' core units in today's environment, as are 160p crypt horrors with their stats, as would 140p heroes like the GK be). But they could probably still end up middle of the pack with their new book. They still punch hard after all. It's an army that lacks tools though, so they might suffer more for it. Not having a single command ability on a card that is not summoning instantly reduces their options for CP though, it would be feeding frenzy only as a CP dump.

Sylvaneth: ridiculously overcosted units like Alarielle were not given a pointscost reduction because they received summoning. It was a balancing act there. Take that away and at least be kind enough to give her a DRAMATIC points reduction.

Nurgle: yeah sure, you'd just be removing an interesting and well executed mechanic over a pet peeve, but I'm sure they could get some viable builds going. Could do with a points cost reduction for some units overall.

Seraphon: I'm not knowledgeable enough about what their other viable builds were. Kroaknado hasn't been a thing for ages, saurus heavy has never really worked in the past years, but maybe I'm missing things. I doubt you'll see them in any top 10 list though with things like eelspam, skaven, shooty SCE or gav bombs still going around unhindered. It's an army with plenty of tools in their toolbox, so I could see them still getting other viable builds.

Khorne: perfect example of summoning being just fine, with or without. With their new "double" bloodtithe tables, it's actually a super interesting game choice, so much so that it could compensate for all summoning being gone. The designers on the twitch stream even mentioned they wanted summoning to be more of a choice.

Tzeentch: provided tweaks to pink horrors (who are definitely now costed with summoning in mind) and a few other units, they probably don't need the summoning to be viable, as they have plenty of other tools.

BoC: they'd be fine, but again, it's an interesting game-play mechanic that doesn't lead to anything ground breaking so far, so I'd hate to see that individuality of the army gone.

Gloomspite Gitz: it's so unpredictable that it's hard to rely on for competitive play. Very random (and very goblin like in that respect), but it would not be a major loss for GGS at all.

LoN: they'd lose a major allegiance ability, but they'll probably be able to hold their ground still. They'd lose the dominance they had in the competitive scene for a few months for sure! I find this the trickiest to assess, as it doesn't look like they really factored the summonable keyword into their points cost. Their points pre-LoN book just carried over and seemingly no "points value" was assigned to the now very strong summonable keyword. Dire wolves are the best example of this: they are now a steal at 60p each (remember that they had ZERO regeneration skills before). I just find this faction the most baffling and could not pinpoint any units that were so overcosted that they needed a points drop, but were not given one because summoning compensated. In fact, the non-summonable units are left out a lot (blood knights, morghasts etc) because they don't have the potential to be ressurrected.



Overall though, would I want to go back to a world without summoning? Hell no. One of my personal annoyances with early-AoS, was that no army actually felt unique with distinctive playstyles. Hell, the very first years were even worse, with almost all warriors being 1A 4+/4+ models with no discernible difference between how empire played vs how chaos marauders played. That was a dull AF game.

If you are so entrenched in your anti-summoning stance "because it's a free advantage some armies get", be consistent: scrap the SCE deepstrike, scrap the deepkin tides, scrap the DoK temples, scrap almost everything that isn't a unit in it's own right and marvel at what a sterile and boring game it would become, and all that for 3 outliers of armies where summoning feels too strong and do away with the 7 instances where it's just fine and actually adds to the overall game-play richness without breaking it.

I fully agree with you, Ive been trying to show Non-summoning armies are just as good in top levels as summoning, go back and read, they literally said "Its balances in comp, not in causal" you cant win with them, they are very bias against summoning and even admitted player skill is why summoning is "OP"

All stats shows summoning and non-summoning armies are equal on the table tops.

Oddly The game is very well balanced atm, yes there are some armies better than others, but that willa lways be the chase, this is the most balanced i have seen 40k/AoS has ever been. I have seen (You guys can go look it up, its every where now thanks to BCP) BCR, LoN, DoK, IDK, Seraphon, KO, Frees People, Goblins, BoC, FeC, ScE, SKaven, BoK, all has hit top 1 and all within top 5 many times, with a few others normally hitting top 5 (like Bonesplitters and Slaanesh).

 Elmir wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Busted or no, summoning armies out-perform non-summoning ones. It does not have to be broken to be giving a free advantage.

Which brings up an interesting and perhaps useful question; if all armies lost all summoning (not including returning slain models to existing units) which armies would actually be screwed by that? As in, made bad enough as to be considered an underdog like KO, Ironjawz, etc. LoN & FEC would be fine and possibly still strong due to what else their allegiance does, Seraphon's viable builds would still be viable, Khorne would not particularly be affected since it is a choice rather than an upgrade, Tzeentch would be fine, Nurgle & BoC would still be fine...

Is there any army that would actually be screwed *without* summoning?

Summoning armies are out there dominating non-summoning? That black and white statement is just simply not true.

Stop. One: that is not what I said. Two: the tournament stats quite clearly show summoning armies out-performing non-summoning armies. As the only set of data we have, that is what I refer to.

 Elmir wrote:
It's actually hard to discuss any nuance in problems with summoning if you just throw these types of completely non-nuanced (and therefor outright false) statements around.

It is hard to discuss any nuance when someone disregards rule #1. I have been guilty of it in the past and am trying to be better. So I'm not going to engage further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Ive been trying to show Non-summoning armies are just as good in top levels as summoning

When I say summoners out-perform non-summoners I am referencing tournament data (since that is the only data we have to go off). Can you link/share what you are looking at?

When someone can illustrate in depth a casual non tournament powered list holding their own just fine against a strong summoning list i will reconsider my stance.

To date that has never been done and the fallback is either “git gud”, “tourney lists will always destroy casual lists” or “dont play a casual list”

This thread illustrates WHY casual lists are blown out of the water and seeks to illuminate possible houserule remedies for casual lists or lists that dont have an updated book can have a good game (yes i know seraphon adepticon)


I have sought a detailed how to for a very long time with bo answers given beyond the above.

https://thehonestwargamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6.png

1 out of the top 5 as of Apirl 5th isnt Summoning armies. In the Top 10 1/2 is summoning.

Meaning its about equal, especially given that skaven is newer and soon will have more games. Serahpon isnt even above a 50% but its only 35 players, now that they won a large event we will see them more, so i am hoping to see how they do next moths report.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
When someone can illustrate in depth a casual non tournament powered list holding their own just fine against a strong summoning list i will reconsider my stance.

To date that has never been done and the fallback is either “git gud”, “tourney lists will always destroy casual lists” or “dont play a casual list”

This thread illustrates WHY casual lists are blown out of the water and seeks to illuminate possible houserule remedies for casual lists or lists that dont have an updated book can have a good game (yes i know seraphon adepticon)


I have sought a detailed how to for a very long time with bo answers given beyond the above.

KO won a large event, did that not count?

So spell armies vs non-spell armies. A few armies have no spellcasters at all, while for many it is simply non-viable to use/ally in more than a small amount of spell support. This imbalance is not too bad as spellcasters do tend to pay a good chunk of extra points for the ability to do so, and even non-casting armies have readily available ways to unbind spells.

Until malign sorcery gets involved. Being able to summon the spells costs points, but it puts non-casting armies at a disadvantage because even their unique unbind mechanics are unable to dispel one once its on the table. The Khorne update shows that GW intends for models which can unbind to be able to dispel endless spells as well. Perhaps a house rule that affects armies without wizards, updating their unbinders (like aether navigator) to be able to attempt to dispel an endless spell at the start of turn like the slaughterpriest now does?

The other issue with malign sorcery is the realm spells. Suddenly every wizard gets access to 6 more spells, increasing the value of wizards across the board. The difference is subtle but I have seen it enough times to say there is definitely a notable impact; I'd estimate a wizard is about 10% more valuable per spell it can cast. On the extreme end we have Nagash who is good but not amazingly so without realm spells, but becomes a cheese fest when they are present. I've heard it suggested that wizards can pick a spell from the appropriate realm lore instead of from their battletome lore, which seems like it would work but also seems like it could put people off if they have to decide 'on the spot' when the realm is decided pre-game.

As I understand it many players simply avoid the realm rules & spells entirely, which I totally understand but causes an issue for the community overall when GW *supposedly* wants them to be standard and balanced around them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
https://thehonestwargamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/6.png

1 out of the top 5 as of Apirl 5th isnt Summoning armies. In the Top 10 1/2 is summoning.

Meaning its about equal, especially given that skaven is newer and soon will have more games. Serahpon isnt even above a 50% but its only 35 players, now that they won a large event we will see them more, so i am hoping to see how they do next moths report.

The entire bottom half is non-summoning armies... That is a massive chart of evidence showing summoning armies doing better. Even that aside, the percentage of summoners to non-summoners is not 50-50, which undermines your argument from the onset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

auticus wrote:
When someone can illustrate in depth a casual non tournament powered list holding their own just fine against a strong summoning list i will reconsider my stance.

To date that has never been done and the fallback is either “git gud”, “tourney lists will always destroy casual lists” or “dont play a casual list”

This thread illustrates WHY casual lists are blown out of the water and seeks to illuminate possible houserule remedies for casual lists or lists that dont have an updated book can have a good game (yes i know seraphon adepticon)


I have sought a detailed how to for a very long time with bo answers given beyond the above.

KO won a large event, did that not count?

Do you know what the matchups that KO army played? The lists of what it played against?