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.

Orruks are good. They rolled a trojan horse of OP options in while everyone was excited to talk about Cities of Sigmar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
You must be new here. Tournament results are only relevant when they fit auticus' narrative.

Objectively untrue. You also aren't doing yourself any favors.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Sure there is a difference in power between books, but I in no way feel its as bad as you make it out to be. With a couple of exceptions most 2.0 tomes can give each other good games.

I would certainly challenge you to bring forth battle reports highlighting a "competitive" gitz, mawtribe, khorne, tzeentch, nurgle, orcs, or sylvaneth army taking on a competent player playing triple keeper of secrets, tournament powered FEC, or masters of the universe undead and it not being pretty much decided on the opening credits.

Yeah there are a number of 2.0 books that can give each other good games. And then there are the other half of the 2.0 books that don't bother showing up unless you are playing one of those set of books unless you are just there to mash models together and you don't give a damn about the outcome of the game.

https://youtu.be/CL2h_ByV3R4

A recent GT where an Orruk player outright outplays the Hedonites meta list, at a significant GT, top table. :-)

Sweet thank you for sharing with some hard material, I appreciate it.

I don't know if I would call that hard evidence. I have seen many cases of top lists getting outplayed by an inferior ones. Experience of each player, familiarity with their armies, dice rolls are all factors that play into the results. Does it prove it is possible to win not using a top tier list, sure. Anything more than that is open to heavy scrutiny.

 EnTyme wrote:
You must be new here. Tournament results are only relevant when they fit auticus' narrative.

Come on, show the man some respect. Yes, it does seem like he focuses on the negative and does exaggerate (not by much) the power discrepancies. But he is one of the most knowledgeable posters here in regards to balance.

He also wasn't aware that Slaves to Darkness units could be included in god-specific armies even though each tome says so in clear terms.

I mean I guess its an american tradition to try and slander and discredit the person rather than debate the bullet points on the podium. The item being pointed to about me not knowing about StD (which I guess is EnTyme's way of saying because I made a mistake and didn't know something, therefore everything I say is misinformed and wrong) happened a while back so I don't remember the full context, but I remember it had something to do with me not having or being able to find a rule or misinterpreting a rule incorrectly. Because that can happen with anyone, and is one reason i stopped doing youtube video reports (because a rule would get played wrong which would generate 100 negative comments, I feel bad for the mini wargaming guys lol) I'm not going to go back and find it, but I remember it happening and I remember I was wrong in that instance and there's really nothing more that I can say about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Equinox wrote:
I don't know if I would call that hard evidence. I have seen many cases of top lists getting outplayed by an inferior ones. Experience of each player, familiarity with their armies, dice rolls are all factors that play into the results. Does it prove it is possible to win not using a top tier list, sure. Anything more than that is open to heavy scrutiny.

That is true, but its evidence none the less, it at least has some type of objectionable data you can look at and analyze. A battle report shows bad play, for example. Rather then the typical "the last month 5 players won local tournaments, so that proves that that army is not that bad", which has zero context, or way to even look at why that army won, or who they played against, in a local tournament setting. (as an example)

speaking of STD some of their things look pretty good, but I suspect they will require STD allegiance. It would likely be OP if they got that no matter what if they were in a Khorne or Nurgle force for example.

 auticus wrote:
The item being pointed to about me not knowing about StD (which I guess is EnTyme's way of saying because I made a mistake and didn't know something, therefore everything I say is misinformed and wrong) happened a while back so I don't remember the full context, but I remember it had something to do with me not having or being able to find a rule or misinterpreting a rule incorrectly. Because that can happen with anyone, and is one reason i stopped doing youtube video reports (because a rule would get played wrong which would generate 100 negative comments, I feel bad for the mini wargaming guys lol) I'm not going to go back and find it, but I remember it happening and I remember I was wrong in that instance and there's really nothing more that I can say about it.

Everyone makes some mistakes for sure, but when your entire modus operandi is to complain about S2D in multiple posts/threads for years on end and you clearly were ignorant of something that was pretty big news for S2D when one of the first Chaos books was released, it raises some questions (as I pointed out in the thread in question). Even one of the dudes you have a rapport with was surprised at your lack of knowledge in that regard.

Like, marked S2D units being allowed in the 3 (at the time) chaos books opened up all sorts of new options and weapons for S2D players. Didn't raise the stocks on S2D for sure, but it was newsworthy. Newsworthy enough that someone who has such a hard on for harping about S2D would have been aware of if they actually played.

Kind of when I came to the conclusion that just complaining about AoS is some peoples hobby.

And to be fair, the mini wargaming guys had some truly egregious rules fiascos. Like fundamentally misreading rules and doubling down on it.

Nah its certainly not my hobby. I'm hoping 3.0 kills the double turn off and neuters the summoning madness. Those are the two things that prevent me from playing at all. The rest of my complaints I could probably deal with if those first two things were removed.

The S2D units issue was if I recall that I was mistaken that they could be battleline and I was surprised to find out that they could be, because I had been under the illusion that outside of the book were allies, not able to be battleline.

In fact now that whole conversation comes back to me, it was me not fully understanding how ALLIES in general worked, and my entire region played it the way I had described and was wrong about, to include a couple very hardcore tournament adepticon guys who were also wrong.

And as I recall there was also a very large facebook conversation on GW's AOS page about that very topic because a LOT of people were confused by how allies were supposed to work in the chaos universe so I don't really feel bad, it was a mistake, but I don't feel it was crystal clear how it was supposed to work.

I also recall a TGA thread on the same topic with several people being surprised that it worked that way as well.

It happens.

 EnTyme wrote:
He also wasn't aware that Slaves to Darkness units could be included in god-specific armies even though each tome says so in clear terms.

Really? That's your counter-argument?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nels1031 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The item being pointed to about me not knowing about StD (which I guess is EnTyme's way of saying because I made a mistake and didn't know something, therefore everything I say is misinformed and wrong) happened a while back so I don't remember the full context, but I remember it had something to do with me not having or being able to find a rule or misinterpreting a rule incorrectly. Because that can happen with anyone, and is one reason i stopped doing youtube video reports (because a rule would get played wrong which would generate 100 negative comments, I feel bad for the mini wargaming guys lol) I'm not going to go back and find it, but I remember it happening and I remember I was wrong in that instance and there's really nothing more that I can say about it.

Everyone makes some mistakes for sure, but when your entire modus operandi is to complain about S2D in multiple posts/threads for years on end and you clearly were ignorant of something that was pretty big news for S2D when one of the first Chaos books was released, it raises some questions (as I pointed out in the thread in question). Even one of the dudes you have a rapport with was surprised at your lack of knowledge in that regard.

Like, marked S2D units being allowed in the 3 (at the time) chaos books opened up all sorts of new options and weapons for S2D players. Didn't raise the stocks on S2D for sure, but it was newsworthy. Newsworthy enough that someone who has such a hard on for harping about S2D would have been aware of if they actually played.

Kind of when I came to the conclusion that just complaining about AoS is some peoples hobby.

And to be fair, the mini wargaming guys had some truly egregious rules fiascos. Like fundamentally misreading rules and doubling down on it.

Thing is one example does not make a trend. If there were multiple instances of Auticus overlooking basic mechanics it would be one thing, but when it's just one over the course of years...

I mean, I was 26 when I finally realized that "Harly Quinn" is "Harlequin".

 auticus wrote:
Nah its certainly not my hobby.

Meh, when you say multiple times since GHB1 that you are leaving the game and still post doom and gloom here on the regular, I'm skeptical.

When you say that Parablium or whatever is your new jam and you post more in this subforum than you do in the actual Parablium thread, I remain skeptical. Did that game turn out to be Runewars 2.0 and go tits up as fast as Runewars? Aren't you one of their hobby ambassadors or something as well? Why keep at it here when you found a new muse just a few subforums down?

You did the same when you said you were moving on to KoW when you pre-emptively complained about BoC summoning before the book even dropped. You are a prolific poster in the AoS subforum and since this site is one of my main posting sites, I pay attention to this stuff.

Like I said, if this is how you like to spend your time, more power to you. We can do this dance forever.

 auticus wrote:
The S2D units issue was if I recall that I was mistaken that they could be battleline and I was surprised to find out that they could be, because I had been under the illusion that outside of the book were allies, not able to be battleline.

In fact now that whole conversation comes back to me, it was me not fully understanding how ALLIES in general worked, and my entire region played it the way I had described and was wrong about, to include a couple very hardcore tournament adepticon guys who were also wrong.

And as I recall there was also a very large facebook conversation on GW's AOS page about that very topic because a LOT of people were confused by how allies were supposed to work in the chaos universe so I don't really feel bad, it was a mistake, but I don't feel it was crystal clear how it was supposed to work.

I also recall a TGA thread on the same topic with several people being surprised that it worked that way as well.

It happens.

It was definitely worded poorly in a few books, but it had been FAQ'd well before your post.

It certainly happens, just seemed weird that a dude so focused on complaining about AoS and his chosen army wouldn't have been abreast of that knowledge.

On one hand he can't engage in discussion over another game is there is no one to discuss with. On the topic of AoS there are people to discuss with.

On the other hand Auticus is very much an AoS player.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
On one hand he can't engage in discussion over another game is there is no one to discuss with. On the topic of AoS there are people to discuss with.

Its a bit of a catch 22 though. If you don't attempt a discussion, no discussions happen.

Kind of why I try to do the book review/summaries in the background subsection, to foster discussion on the background of AoS. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I have been slacking though, hope to have a Beastgrave review/summary up this weekend! And the AoS Advent stuff.

And even you have called him out on his hyperbole at times. Like the Forbidden Power thread, where first he was complaining about Mercenary rules (lol) before they were even released (lol again, but also par the course), then moved onto Lauchon the Spooky Bus-man. I think we were all in agreement that it was powerful, but he went next level on the hyperbole("point and click"). He claimed that it was auto win and being used in 100% of the games he watched, you pressed him on how and with what he was seeing used with, he went radio silent. That doesn't raise any red flags for you?

Some folks have different tolerances for that nonsense. As we've seen play out in how many threads now?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
On the other hand Auticus is very much an AoS player.

He may well be, but dude has claimed to have quit so many times its hard to tell. No malice intended, as I said, if this is what he enjoys, get at it my dude.

I have my aos models boxed in storage. I played three games with the new slaanesh book this year practicing for campaign before as slaanesh since i had the models before i decided mudhole stomping my opponents by virtue of my book was not fun.

I ran our campaign without playing in it.

I have not bought a tome since slaanesh after having bought all of them and am not giving the g dubs my money on slaves to darkness book.

I have since played 12 games of 3rd kow and about 25 conquest games and became their version of a press ganger and have written up next years map campaign with conquest. Additionally their guys are interested in reviewing my work which is pretty cool considering i was once the #2 content creator under bottle on tga and have been doing content for years.

Im interested in whatever this old world project is if the rules arent a board game. I will play aos again the moment they both eliminate the double turn and strangle free summoning. If they never do then thats also fine, my weekends are filled otherwise.

I post here because on dakka the other forums have few posters and because im interested in participating in the old and new world but not under the current meta churn you have to do to have fun public campaigns with where bob the power builder cant show up with triple keepers and ruin the campaign because the rules say he can or i have to houserule it out and face the public lynching of my regions power players that hate comp.

So because i have like a $10,000 investment in my gw universe, i will continue to follow and post about its continued issues that ive seen drive more players away than retain.

Tldr: me quitting *playing* the board game known as aos does not mean the same thing as not posting in the topics that interest me.

 auticus wrote:
I ran our campaign without playing in it.

I want to highlight this, because it does change the context considerably. I knew you were running the campaigns, I did not realize you had ceased to even play in them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nels1031 wrote:
And even you have called him out on his hyperbole at times.

I've also been called out on my hyperbole at times, I think it's something we humans are simply predisposed to.

I find that often if a person uses words in what we perceive as an exaggeration AND we disagree with them, we will “call them out on hyperbole” and then when our peers that we agree with do the same, we will be silent and conveniently pass on by.

I did not realize you had ceased to even play in them.

The slaanesh book was the last straw that broke me. Between the book, Ben Johnson smiling on twitter with his triple keeper of secrets, seeing summoning continue to be as ridiculous as it has been since they brought it back (as we fought against back on day 1), seeing the community dance around the bonfire about how awesome and 'fun' the book was, and watching my casual campaign get baby seal clubbed yet again... that was the last straw. At least until 3.0

I look forward to the new Slaves of Darkness stuff. I am planning on pre-ordering it (well tome, Start Collecting and Endless Spells) all for my brand new, first fantasy army.

At the same time, I do have some reservations since my first game was a train wreck in terms of anything approaching my force having a chance at victory. I played Bonereapers my first game. Since then, I looked at the Mortek Guard and compared them directly to Chaos Warriors. Unless I am missing something, the Mortek Guard generate head and shoulders more damage (thanks Nadirite and double unit number per point) than a similar amount of points of Chaos Warriors. And before someone steps in with the response that Mortek Guard are slower, they might want to note Chaos Warriors only have a Move 1" faster which ain't nothing, but I figure is more of fair trade in that Mortek Guard barely have to worry about Battleshock compared to Chaos Warriors.

What concerns me is that I don't see the Chaos Warriors warscroll changing much if anything in the new tome. I glanced at the Stormcast Eternal Liberator warscroll as they seem to be the Order counterpart and likely a good indication of what to expect. They pretty much share all the same stats as Chaos Warriors. Now my army is built on the bedrock of Chaos Warriors which seem like a fine choice to be a bedrock unit in terms of lore. I am also very likely to fight Bonereapers a lot as I know at least three people started them in the Escalation League that got me into AoS. I don't know how I am going to have much of a chance in these games even with a new Battletomb. I wanted an elite, aggressive army but feel hamstrung knowing that there is a faction that appears to do what I want better than what I thought would be the thing of mine.

I am almost sure that the new battletomb will offer a battalion or something to help my army out. However, I don't see how even new rules are going to allow my Warriors to even hold out long vs. an equal number of points of Guard. Maybe I am missing something. I am still very new to this game and pre-black powder war games if you don't count D&D. Others have tried to explain that Bonereapers have gaps in there army as weakness to exploit, but as a player that isn't planing on having a huge model collection for AoS, I can also claim that my army is going to have huge gaps in it. So that bring me little comfort as I don't see why a Slaves to Darkness army built mostly of Chaos Warriors and Chaos Knights should be inherently inferior by a noticeable amount to the Bonereaper equivalents. Seems like the kind of thing someone wanting to start of S2D army would want: Warriors/Knights. GW's Start Collecting seems to agree seeing the updated one kept those units in them. Maybe once Everchosen get rolled into Slaves to Darkness, I might be in a better spot since at the moment I can't ally any Everchosen (too expensive to be 25%) in my S2D army and I don't have enough Everchosen to ally S2D.

Right now, I feel like I am in a Sunk Cost Fallacy mindset in that I haven't been enjoying AoS (to the determent of all my miniatures gaming) yet I am putting more time and money into it in hopes it might get better. I don't like that feeling. For me, Age of Sigmar has until the end of this Escalation League I am in plus a few games with people in my Kill Team group that got me into the game before I may just shelve/sell the army. Not even playing Chaos Space Marines (using Marines as the Troop choices and fielding Terminators no less) for the last couple of years did that to me.

You'll have to wait for the book man.

If you do any polynomial regression on the stats and points as I have done (and i used to have links to charts and the spreadsheets a few years back) the current slaves to darkness lineup generated nearly negligible offense at all. No mortal wounds. Very little rend. Very few volume of attacks.

You get your face rubbed in pooh.

The new book I am anticipating will bring it up to at least the gitz and khorne level, which will be a far improvement, though if thats all they get you will suffer in a tournament environment still.

The sunk cost fallacy i totally get (just follow my post trail and the back and forth that people who hate hearing the negative stuff have generated with me). A lot of why I stuck around so long was because of the gross amount of money and time I spent on my model collection over the past 20 years. It was hard to just not use them anymore.

The S2D will likely have one or two units that are your obvious takes. I love warriors and knights too but I wouldn't count on those being the obvious takes. At least not the knights. The warriors are good tanks, but thats it. But you might get lucky and they make knights not something that only generates lolz when you field them? Anything is possible, depending on which of their design teams wrote the book.

Right now, I feel like I am in a Sunk Cost Fallacy mindset in that I haven't been enjoying AoS (to the determent of all my miniatures gaming) yet I am putting more time and money into it in hopes it might get better.

YOu and I are one and the same. I finally snapped late in the summer and put my GW stuff in storage and am now in Conquest and Kings of War. I look in here in the hopes that GW will someday get their head out of their rear, but then am reminded that a lot of the GW fanverse loves what they put out despite the issues you and I are lamenting, so I'm not very hopeful any longer.

@auticus

Your thoughts on Warriors and Knights is the same as mine. I can't shake the cynical part of my brain telling me that there are way too many old warrior and knight models out there to be hugely profitable if I believed that GW gives new models good rules. I really don't believe that, just a part of me wants it to be true so things make a little more sense to why. What I think is more the case is GW is ultra-conservative in changing established stats particularly in Fantasy/AoS it seems. I think the inertia of they have always been is going to keep warriors and knights from being the good units of the tome. I figure the actual good stuff will probably be some random Warcry cult that has a poorly thought out special rules that combos well somehow. I am sticking with Warriors and Knights because I think they look awesome, and I hear Black Sabbath/Dio/Iron Maiden looking at them. I just wanted them to play half as awesome as the look.

I agree on the toughness of warriors, so far my warriors have been tough as old boots. The bit of praise I got from my Bonereaper opponent was my warriors held out far longer than his previous game opponent's forces (flesh-eaters I think it was) did. We were both pretty new to AoS so we didn't have much to use a reference to know where everything lines up in the game though.

I don't even want super competitive rules. Just rules that don't make my army space marine scouts in a Lost Patrol or worse. I don't mine losing, but I also don't want to play every game just trying to narrow the margin of each loss with the understanding every game is going to be a loss but maybe, just maybe I only give my opponent a minor victory.

I would say that at the very least you will get a book that will make you have some kind of offensive output.

If its a for fun book like some of the books that are out, you will be kicked in the teeth by any power listing so that will be up to you to socially engineer with your opponent to ask him not to come in trying to kick your face in.

If you are lucky and it was written by the Ben Johnson team that seems to crank everything to 11, you'll be summoning 1000 points (or everytime a unit dies you'll just bring them back to the table or something) and doing dozens of mortal wounds every time you draw breath and point at something on the table.

StD's are currently saddled with a unit line up that does not have the tools needed to win games (mainly pitiful offense), coupled with an allegiance that is worse than the grand alliance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I find that often if a person uses words in what we perceive as an exaggeration AND we disagree with them, we will “call them out on hyperbole” and then when our peers that we agree with do the same, we will be silent and conveniently pass on by.

Yeah, that's humans.

seeing summoning continue to be as ridiculous as it has been since they brought it back (as we fought against back on day 1), seeing the community dance around the bonfire about how awesome and 'fun' the book was

I half-disagree with these two points; while Slaanesh summoning is ridiculous it is not a continuation of previous levels of summoning, rather it is ridiculous in both extend and its matchup-dependence. No other army summoning varies so wildly based on what the opponent brought, and no other army summoning can pump out even close to the same amount of free units. On the second point, it depends on the community. It's been well established some are worse than others. In my local community even the Slaanesh players were immediately unhappy with the state of the summoning, while TBF to the battletome most of it IS pretty fun if the summoning is tossed out.

I'm optimistic for Slaves to Darkness. I personally hope they get plenty of helmet options to tinker with. And I hope they're compatible with the older models, because Chaos Knight Helmets > Warrior Helmets.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
while TBF to the battletome most of it IS pretty fun if the summoning is tossed out.

Same view here. I love most of the new Slaves stuff, but depravity is a big negative element not just because of how swingy it is in the game (Skaven 1 wound rat army is going to generate way less than a stormcast army with almost all being multiwound). But also because it basically forces you into taking all leaders and summoning more. Units like fiends, which are expensive but not bad for their points; and even just larger groups of deamonettes or seekers are heavily discouraged. It really cuts down on viable and fun builds within the army all in the favour of "forcing" more keepers on us (hint GW - the Keeper models is great, we don't need summoning rules OP protection to make us buy them)

Well to me summoning has been the biggest thorn in that if your build cant keep up (meaning you are forced in your choices) the game is going to be very hard at best. Seraphon summoning was just as gross, and the FEC free point fiasco was a form of that as well. The nagash grave sites are not a fun experience if you aren't the nagash player. These all exist at some degree of annoying from not fun all the way to wholly toxic if you are not wanting to play tourney-hammer.

To your point about the community I also agree it depends on what community... when I say the community I'm referring to the general online community that I encounter here, or on facebook or through my twitter feed. On those platforms it seems that a good chunk of the majority were joining Ben Johnson in the triple keeper summoning being awesome and that that was awesome because summoning was awesome. There are a few fellows in my local community that monitor the same things and thats how those things pop up on our local tables.

"If Ben Johnson, the guy leading the development, is saying to do it, who are you to say I shouldn't?"

With summoning removed i agree that the book is fun. But thats the dig. The guys here that take slaanesh do it for the triple keeper summoning.

And remember my perspective and the majority of my time is spent in the public arena as an event organizer for narrative campaigns. All this can be solved by simply going away to my garage and retiring and then just shrugging my shoulders and saying "yeah the balance is gross but my group doesn't play like that so its not a problem", but private campaigns with 2 or 3 people does not engage me.

I play Khorne and Ogres and I have to agree that even as I had a smile in my face the whole game, the last tournament I attended (it was not my tipical FLGS tournament, but a bigger one, thank god), the third Slaanesh player in a row broke me on the inside.

I was playing Ogres and the second one didn't even summoned anything, for pitty. He tabled me at turn 4 with 1 keeper and a half remaining, but he had points to summon like 3 more or something like that.

And yeah Ogres are auto loss agaisnt slaanesh but is not like Khorne works better. I can't understand how he gains depravity by the wounds lost by his own models. I mean. When I kill 1 Keepr and a half he has enough points to summon another. WTF?

Indeed. Slaanesh will go down in the annals of GW broken hall of fame as one of the worst books for balance ever written. Right up there next to the 7th ed demon book and the 5th ed 40k grey knights.

The difference is the lead developer has a picture on the internet of him posing in front of his triple keepers with a smile on his face and thumbs up at a tournament.

The irony about summoning is that in 1.0 when it cost points it was doggak and nobody used it except in very very rare circumstances. Now that it's free, it's broken. Summoning is one of those things that can't properly be done. Either you have to pay, and it's terrible, or you don't and you get to add X points above.

Even armies that have decently balanced summoning like Nurgle and Khorne (although Khorne's is really nasty as it accumulates as units die meaning you can like summon a Bloodthrister towards the end of the game when your opponent has nothing that can deal with it) can be broken. I think the only answer there is to have summoning only recycle, not bring new. Which has its own slew of problems.

However, the commonality here is that ther's too much focus on tournament/competitive. Not everything has or should fit into the "can win a tournament" bucket. yes, there are groups like auticus' where the tournament players just switch FOTM armies and like to club baby seals but people like that should not be the focus of design. An army that's average power level has long inherently wrong with it even in a world where the broken armies exist. It only becomes a problem when everyone dismisses anything not the broken army.

I think you can make summoning work and be fun and not overbearing.

My solution was always if you summon over a certain threshold, use the sudden death victory conditions. Your opponent can no longer win a standard battle so he has to try for a desperation win.

Alternatively you only may summon in a warscroll from a certain list (mostly your core troops) and that its never 100% and your opponent should have the ability to try and block it.

The ability to bring in, literally, a whole second army with no risk or consequence - is flat out bad game design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
People weren't using summoning in 1.0 because it went against what summoning is supposed to be: a resource of free extra points.

If you have to pay points for summoning, it is no longer a resource of free extra points, and people aren't going to bother (as was demonstrated quite visibly)

The problem with points and summoning, if I recall right, is that you had to roll dice to summon. As soon as you have reserves (which is basically what that is) behind a random dice roll it becomes unattractive, esp at the large scale. Because now there's a high chance that a large portion of your army might not appear early enough in the game to work.

It's worse if the game design also moves toward stronger and stronger early strikes in the game because then you really do want as many points down on the table incase you get early tabled or your one summoner gets into combat or otherwise gets disabled.


So I can totally see why summoning ontop of existing points exists; though I do agree when you've armies that can summon way over hteir point values for the game that becomes broken.



I do wonder if when GW designs tehir current summoning if they don't play fluffy lists. So depravity - yeah it works fine when you've only 3 or so leaders and a bunch of regular models and you're hoping to summon a keeper but you didn't take one. At least in the testing phase - of course once its out there everyone wants 3 or 4 keepers and you're able to generate way more resources.

It's kind of like the white dwarf rules that came out a short while ago where they clearly weighted the army toward taking more troops and then went "Oh wait but troops don't make depravity so lets balance that up with a double depravity generator for leaders". The problem being that they were thinking of fluffy lists; whereas anyone building tactically would go "Oh hey I'll just take keepers and 6 leaders and keep most of them within that 12 inch bubble - and get DOUBLE the depravity generation".


To me either GW is nefarious or they are just way too casual in their rules designs. Sadly I don't think we'll see it change until we get new writers in influential positions with a new approach to writing rules.


Fingers crossed for the update next year (I think its out in January)

I do wonder if when GW designs tehir current summoning if they don't play fluffy lists.

I would say the answer to that is they do field broken lists because before the slaanesh book dropped, Ben Johnson had been tweeting three keeper boxes saying that this was going to be very useful in the upcoming book.

So he knew what it would do, which indicates that he was using that or seeing that in their internal ivory tower playtesting.