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.

 auticus wrote:
I would constitute anything greater than 500 free points as excessive summoning and anything cascading higher than 1000 points as vulgarly excessive summoning.

So it's vague. And I'd wager influenced by exactly what's being summoned & when.

You still didn't tell me what factions you think can't handle this 500pt+ worth of summoning. And there's a difference between dealing with 500pts spread over 4-5 rounds of entry vs all at once.

 auticus wrote:
I would constitute anything greater than 500 free points as excessive summoning and anything cascading higher than 1000 points as vulgarly excessive summoning.

Just randomizing units together you might get 2 units that can't even work together.

That one gets thrown around quite a bit but I'm not suggesting randomly putting units together and making it work.

There is absolutely no way I will believe you can take a non tournament list to a game where your opponent is bringing out 1000 free extra points and expect me to acknowledge that some sort of competitive good game is going to be had with that. I've seen literally dozens of those matchups and they have never been fun to watch or fun to play (on either side of the table).

Dude. i was playing the TURTLE before the points went done even once and i faced summoning armies just fine.

For a long time my IDK list was Ishlaen guard x12, thralls x20, reavers x20, Tidecaster general, Soulscryer (no king) and a Leviathan. If you don't think that is a casual list, then i honestly wouldn't be able to talk to you about this anymore lol (I know you think thats casual, just showing it can't get anymore casual than that).

Back when I played IDK, I had a rather similar list, sub out some Eels for Sharks and swap heros around, and the list tore through Seraphon excessive summoning. 6 Ishlaen Eels could easily tear through triple their points worth of old Seraphon.

This comes down to points I think both of you have made in this thread already, that summoning isn't necessarily broken, but can be a broken tool in any setting, depending on how accurate/balanced the actual points are.

 Thadin wrote:
Back when I played IDK, I had a rather similar list, sub out some Eels for Sharks and swap heros around, and the list tore through Seraphon excessive summoning. 6 Ishlaen Eels could easily tear through triple their points worth of old Seraphon.

This comes down to points I think both of you have made in this thread already, that summoning isn't necessarily broken, but can be a broken tool in any setting, depending on how accurate/balanced the actual points are.

Yeah, the crazy thing is, that was before the points hike on the Morrsarr guard, so it was literally just worst to take Ishlaen when you could MW bomb with 3 units of 9, it was insanely OP lol.

Summoning has been a problem a few times, i'm not going to deny that at all. But for a while now (sense the CP changes) summoning isn't bad, some armies that can summon has been bad.

So i would like some of the other players in this thread to show/give examples as to how/why summoning is actually bad in its current state other than "its free units" b.c we are easily argue that doesn't matter, different armies get different things, so armies get bonus power/rules, others get more models to bring in.

I mean just look at Clan rats with all their normal buffs (before spells) vs Daenettes (which can be summoned) the Clan rats can deal almost equal damage as the Daemonettes before spells, and they don't break moral (if playing correctly), they also are 3x as many throw away unit. Then you look at Plague monks and its not even a contest. These is a reason why most min/max HoS players take Bestigors/Ungors over Daemonettes, b.c they are very lacking, Why is that? Well most likely b.c you can summon a lot of them.

HoS players aren't summoning basic Daemons from what I can gather, it's just more Keepers. I'd consider them the worst offender for summoning due to the sheer power of what they're summoning, the method of summoning, and how it feels like they're not giving up much at all. Now, it's gotten nerfed quite a bit which is quite a good thing, but is still nasty.

Two Keepers in a Syll'esk army dying nets you (13 Wounds taken before death x2 keepers x 2 for Syll'esk) 52 DP, allowing you to summon another Keeper to the board, with 7 points to spare. And then, what if the Keepers or Syll'esk deal damage to a monster, or a bunch of Fyreslayers(or two wound infantry)? Their efficiency just gets better and better.

Correct, b.c KoS and a couple other heroes are the problem. When you relay on your heroes for literally everything but holding back objectives, that is a problem.

I'm with you there, the issues with HoS aren't entirely because of summoning, but they're just made worse by it.

Its a symptom that I feel makes the problem worse. If there was some design ethos to prevent summoning in the scale that armies like slaanesh and others before them have done, then it wouldn't be as big a deal.

When they said at the beginning of 2.0 that they were unleashing the summoning, I was very against it because having lived through the brief time of people in my area fielding tzeentch demons and just literally doubling their army in one turn, I knew what was about to go down.

And it did. Throughout the history of 2.0 there have been a number of factions whose summoning was grotesque. Not just one or two.

There needs to be a reign or a stop or a counter point somewhere where the design team stops breaking the game with it.

And yeah with Slaanesh its their keepers that are the primary problem. My slaanesh army was a single keeper and a bunch of daemonettes and daemonette cavalry and a couple chariots. It did great in casual games and was mowed over by tournament lists because I didn't take the other two keepers that were mandatory.

When I ran triple keepers I suddenly couldn't lose. And summoning was a big reason why. (and I fielded that army against the other tournament lists because I don't like playing a game where I lose in turn 1 or 2 because I liked the wrong army).

My main army is/was Slaves to Darkness. They still have a very hard time and facing against armies that can blow their army up by an extra 1000 points or more make those games not even worth playing.

yea, I miss the days where you had to pay extra points for summoning. I hate summoning because there are some games that were super close, and I would have had a chance to win based on movement alone if they didn't do something like summon a block of blood letters onto an objective on the last turn of the game. It feels pretty unfair to be cheated out of a victory after an uphill battle all game, where it was a close battle the entire game and both sides were beaten down to a pulp, but they just bamf in new units.

It feels unfair when one side gets 2500 points to your 2000.

While I don't disagree, when summoning cost points it was almost never worth taking and you rarely if ever saw anyone do it in Matched Play. So it's really a double-edged sword.

Compromise. Points reserved from the list are worth twice as much for actual summoning.

That starts introducing tougher choices, which I would say is anti what aos is designed around. Tougher choices is considered a barrier of entry to playing the game and doing well at it. Looking at summoning how it is now, particularly with the factions that can overwhelm with summoning, the choice is made for you that that is an awesome direction to go in and you should do it, since basic math tells you that if you can get at least 1000 extra points in a matched play game than your opponent, that you are going to have an edge against most any casual list and a good chunk of competitive lists.

Of course you can't market it as a 3000 v 2000 point game, because people would get upset at that, but you can introduce the summoning to make it like that, and then that becomes ok.

Of course - there are counters. One simply also has to rock up with a high powered tournament-style list as well. If you don't have one of those or don't want to be pigeon holed into one of those, well, find a new game to play.

 auticus wrote:

Of course - there are counters.

Please, enlighten us as to what they are.
For example, how would you counter say.... Beasts of Chaos? Just assume the Beasts player is going the All Herd/Herd Stone sacrifice/Amethyst Gem from Malign Sorc. route & you know this going into the game.
(I picked Beasts because before the Covid lockdowns this was the army I was playing. I wonder if your solutions differ from my opponents. Btw, my opponents do not have high powered tournament-style lists.)

 auticus wrote:
One simply also has to rock up with a high powered tournament-style list as well.

But this is just the generic counter to every problem. In every game, AoS or otherwise. And is this included in the counters you alluded to or in addition?

 auticus wrote:
If you don't have one of those or don't want to be pigeon holed into one of those, well, find a new game to play.

Piss poor advice. Granted, if you run away from the AoS table you don't have to deal with the summoning. But it doesn't help those who choose to stay & roll some dice.

Please, enlighten us as to what they are.

The three main pillars of play that I observed were: excessive summoning, excessive spam of mortal wounds, or excessive speed to capture objectives.

If you could do more than one of those things you were generally in a VERY good place. Casual lists typically don't do any of those things excessive which is why they get nut shot against the armies that do regularly.

Now in the past when I complain about summoning being gross, I get dogpiled on by the tournament players telling me its not that bad, and tournaments aren't being dominated by summoning so its perfectly balanced, and that you just need to git gud and learn the counters. So I'm passing that along here as what I expect to hear from the people that think its fine.

Piss poor advice. Granted, if you run away from the AoS table you don't have to deal with the summoning. But it doesn't help those who choose to stay & roll some dice.

Really what choice do you have? Its a part of the game, its a very loudly cheered on part of the game, and its not going anywhere.

You have a few options.

One - you do it as well or come up with a tournament powered list that does so much damage that summoning can't keep up.

Two - you have to socially engineer your group and beg and plead and politic with your opponents to not stack their list like this. This has variable results. In my group it will get you laughed at by a few people and they aren't going to tone anything down.

Three - you just drink beer and roll dice and don't care about the outcome, knowing you are going to take nut shot after nut shot after nut shot if you choose to play casually in an environment where your opponent can and will bring an adepticon powered list.

Four - you lay down houserules that stop summoning from being so gross. I did in my events. You could summon up to 25% of your force's points, but if you exceeded that your opponent got a sudden death victory condition (from the core rules no less, those actually exist but few know that they exist since they aren't part of matched play). This made people think before just spam summoning.

It also has the nasty tendency to incite a ton of drama from people that hate house rules and can divide your community in a pretty heated way so ... use with extreme caution.

Five - you find a different game to play that doesn't have issues of this magnitude (every game has issues yes but not of the magnitude present in 40k or aos). This is what I have done.

Its the lowest impact of the bunch, though your investment gets flushed. But I have found a game that has none of these issues, I sold most of my GW collection last year, keeping my slaves to darkness for Kings of War purposes, and hoping one day the whfb old world project is something they write for people like me (they have done great with Titanicus so ... they have the power) or that AOS 3.0 swings that pendulum back out of magic the gathering territory with the rules and puts some limits on excessive summoning.

The main issue is ... well... why most people are here in the first place. AOS has a mega fan base and as such it makes people feel safer, happier, etc, to participate than other games that they'll have to struggle to build a community around. Many people aren't here for the rules (though a lot of those people will voice annoyance with the rules) - they are here for the pretty models and the massive fan base. If Joe's Game Shop came up with the game Age of Sigmar, it would be in the "Other" forum section here with 17 replies in four years or something because the rules by themselves would never have gotten any traction without the GW name and fanbase behind them. The only sin GW committed in 2015 was not having points. Had they released AOS with points, the rage issue would have been limited to just the old world being blown up. The game issue people had were almost entirely around no points existing. GW could release practically any ruleset they wanted in regards to their 40k or fantasy line, and so long as points exist, its going to do well because they have the one thing that no other game company will likely ever have: the massive fanbase which is the #1 attractor for so many people.

Summoning will always be something that’s insanely hard to get right.

No matter how it’s done, there will always be a downside to it one way or another.

Previously some summoning costs seem to have been factored into armies to account for this.
While this is good, it means the army is then hampered if not built for summoning.

Likewise, armies with no added costs can just spam away and end a match with close to double the points they started with.

It really is a delicate balance between something being useful and completely useless.



I’d like to see something along the lines of the following:

Limit on what can be summoned - keep it to basic troop types with the odd elite unit thrown in at once per game limit.

Troops can’t capture objectives - the main issue I see in games is late game summons landing troops on multiple objectives at once for quick last minute wins.
Preventing these units from scoring would prevent that entirely.



While the above does give a huge hit to summoning, it still allows for armies to reinforce themselves, provide quick chaff and drop units for hero hunting.

In WHFB (the old days) you could summon new units but they were things like zombies and skeletons. So basic ... TRULY core units.

You certainly weren't summoning greater demons.

So I'd agree with that, limit what can be summoned and how much (in the old system it was d6, 2d6, or 3d6 depending on how high the power level of the spell was and how many dice you threw at it).

The problem with saying that summoned troops can't cap objectives is things start to get confusing fast. "I can't remember, was that unit summoned?"

Limiting type of summoning, and quantity of summoning - both can let the free points summoning model work without being a huge negative cess pit.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Compromise. Points reserved from the list are worth twice as much for actual summoning.

So you're saying a 1500 point list could become a 2500 point list, against your 2k.

Believe it or not, I’m gonna say I think the best response to it is auticus’s; if you summon more than 25%, the sudden death rules that actually exist come into play. You wanna summon 1 Keeper into a 2000pt game? Cool. Summon a second? Hello, sudden death rules.

While a “house rule” that he loves adding in, it actually adds one of GW’s legit rules in from back when outnumbering was a thing. Which summoning makes a thing again anyway. So it’s not so much a house rule as it is adding back in an old rule that made sense.

Auticus, THIS is the kind of thing you should be adding to here; not the “I don’t play it, it sucks, but I HAVE to make events for people so I basically re-write the rules and anyone who wants to play well should play my rules”. Personal opinion, this suggestion solves the summoning problem. Using a legit AoS rule to do it. Serious props, and I think if you haven’t put it directly to GW yet, you might want to consider it. After all, it’s their own rule you’re requesting to make a comeback.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Believe it or not, I’m gonna say I think the best response to it is auticus’s; if you summon more than 25%, the sudden death rules that actually exist come into play. You wanna summon 1 Keeper into a 2000pt game? Cool. Summon a second? Hello, sudden death rules.

While a “house rule” that he loves adding in, it actually adds one of GW’s legit rules in from back when outnumbering was a thing. Which summoning makes a thing again anyway. So it’s not so much a house rule as it is adding back in an old rule that made sense.

Auticus, THIS is the kind of thing you should be adding to here; not the “I don’t play it, it sucks, but I HAVE to make events for people so I basically re-write the rules and anyone who wants to play well should play my rules”. Personal opinion, this suggestion solves the summoning problem. Using a legit AoS rule to do it. Serious props, and I think if you haven’t put it directly to GW yet, you might want to consider it. After all, it’s their own rule you’re requesting to make a comeback.

I don't know that rule; is it that you autolose if the original (non-summoned) part of your army is destroyed?

Auticus, THIS is the kind of thing you should be adding to here

I've posted that and a handful of other things about 1000 times over the past few years here lol. It either gets ignored, or slammed for being a house rule, or slammed for being "not needed, the game is balanced already". I also posted this on facebook groups and TGA with the same results many many times.

In fact I started a whole thread on this topic some time ago here, on alternate ways to deal with free summoning, using this house rule as one proposal and it largely got dismissed.

I don't know that rule; is it that you autolose if the original (non-summoned) part of your army is destroyed?

Sudden death victory conditions are a series of win conditions that the outnumbered player can still achieve to make it a game.

Things like "kill the enemy warlord and win the game". As I recall there is a chart you roll on. Some of them are laughably hard to achieve. I would also suggest that table get rewritten to make it more of a threat.

But basically if you come into a battle, your opponent sneezes and three more keeper of secrets pop up along with a second legion of demons, you are no longer trying to achieve a military victory in the conventional sense. You are there to do a precision strike (kill the warlord) or some other thing (survive, take objective 2, whatever).

This puts an actual risk to spam summoning and makes it less of an auto take because its no longer ultra optimal because it can lose you the game. It also introduces valid choices into the game now that make the game deeper one step at a time.

I wouldn’t suggest modifying the sudden death chart. Try to stick as close to what GW originally wrote for best chance to avoid having it labeled a house rule. Random strangers online don’t like “AoS is broken, but I have all the answers, play it my way or have a crap game”. Nobody listens to that. “GW made a rule back at the beginning about overwhelming odds, why not include that to deal with summoning spam” and you suddenly have an audience. One is arrogant, one is helpful using already existing rules of the game.

I've never posted AOS is broken, I have all the answers, play it my way or have a crap game. I have posted what I have found and have asked for discussion on it.

Those discussions went nowhere so I stopped posting them.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/777313.page#10489809
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660/772521.page#10488040 - several times
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/540/763364.page#10367572 - several times
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/765039.page#10187441
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1770/756703.page#10082241
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/759935.page#10058684
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/759842.page#10052853

Some of those i started, some i contribute in. All have the sudden death principals I have been bringing up for a few years now.

I post the same way regardless of forum. Yet in the forums I am posting in the more popular opinion, suddenly I'm no longer arrogant and people like what I"m saying I have a deep feeling its really about presenting topics that go against what is popular or acceptable marks you for being liked or not liked by the overall population. Funny enough I was "arrogant" on warseer when I was defending AOS too but the AOS fans were pretty vocally supportive of me.

When you just have text to go off of, applying a tone of arrogance to someone you've never spoken to tends to come from the person that is projecting the emotion onto the text. Whenever anyone has asked me to go into depth on why I feel the way I do, I'm glad to do so.

Certainly if you like AOS as it is, its not a crap game to you so someone else feeling it is a "crap game" shouldn't matter anyway.

I’m not quoting, I’m paraphrasing. You absolutely have decided AoS is a garbage game as is and you’ve talked about how heavily you modify it and have recommended it over and over again on here, then got upset that people asked you to stop complaining. Numerous people on here, myself included, have told you we hate the negative way you go after AoS then act like a battered wife that continues to be involved with it.

However you’ve just gotten me to agree with your solution that doesn’t involve some random stranger online “fixing” a multi-million dollar company’s game, and rather uses one of their own rules to fix it. I’m agreeing with you and think it’s a solid rule and telling you THAT is the way forward for the majority of us to appreciate what you have to say and not ignore your points.

Cool I appreciate that. I'm just pointing out that being tarred as a constant stream of negativity with no constructive content is grossly unfair and I have posted examples above.

The "battered wife" comes from an over ten thousand dollar investment into the system. Had I started out in 2015 or 2016 instead of 1998 with warhammer, we wouldn't have this conversation because I never would have invested anything and it would have been no loss.

 auticus wrote:
Cool I appreciate that. I'm just pointing out that being tarred as a constant stream of negativity with no constructive content is grossly unfair and I have posted examples above.

The "battered wife" comes from an over ten thousand dollar investment into the system. Had I started out in 2015 or 2016 instead of 1998 with warhammer, we wouldn't have this conversation because I never would have invested anything and it would have been no loss.

TBF, if you've had fun with AOS for 20 years (1998-2018), you probably made back your $10,000 investment. I know if you watched a movie a week since 1998 you'd've spent more than $10,000 on the fun. So it wouldn't've been a loss!

Trust me, I have just as much invested. I get it, and I was absolutely one of the ones who failed against AoS when it first came out and made it my mission to show how broken the game was without points by just overwhelming opponents with hordes of models (10+ Daemon princes in a single game, plus GDs). However, through points I’ve come to appreciate it as a new game. I miss the old world. I miss the rank and file positioning tactics that were decided by skill and an ability to gauge distances. But this is something new. And I’ve decided to appreciate it for what it is now, instead of lamenting what it used to be. I’m focusing on the cool new dynamic models that couldn’t exist before in a RAF game, and the combos I can create. Winning, as it is, is a way for me to gauge if my thought process works or if I need to go back to the drawing board. It’s a way to challenge myself. I don’t want to cash in on some “I can’t lose no matter what”, I want to earn my win. So I absolutely support a way to limit broken aspects. But I also like having a reward for choosing the right targets. And I do think the SD revisit is a perfect way to make it work.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Compromise. Points reserved from the list are worth twice as much for actual summoning.

So you're saying a 1500 point list could become a 2500 point list, against your 2k.

With all due respect, being intentionally obtuse is not going to get this discussion anywhere. For example:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Cool I appreciate that. I'm just pointing out that being tarred as a constant stream of negativity with no constructive content is grossly unfair and I have posted examples above.

The "battered wife" comes from an over ten thousand dollar investment into the system. Had I started out in 2015 or 2016 instead of 1998 with warhammer, we wouldn't have this conversation because I never would have invested anything and it would have been no loss.

TBF, if you've had fun with AOS for 20 years (1998-2018), you probably made back your $10,000 investment. I know if you watched a movie a week since 1998 you'd've spent more than $10,000 on the fun. So it wouldn't've been a loss!

TBF, anyone who thinks AoS launched in 1998 has no place in this discussion because they do not have even the most basic of knowledge required to engage in it.

 auticus wrote:

Please, enlighten us as to what they are.

The three main pillars of play that I observed were: excessive summoning, excessive spam of mortal wounds, or excessive speed to capture objectives.

If you could do more than one of those things you were generally in a VERY good place. Casual lists typically don't do any of those things excessive which is why they get nut shot against the armies that do regularly.

Now in the past when I complain about summoning being gross, I get dogpiled on by the tournament players telling me its not that bad, and tournaments aren't being dominated by summoning so its perfectly balanced, and that you just need to git gud and learn the counters. So I'm passing that along here as what I expect to hear from the people that think its fine.

I'm not a tourney player. I don't give a gak about what's perfectly balanced (or not) in that environment, or what those people want to hear. All I want you to do is provide an example of how you would go about stopping (or, as a lot can't be completely stopped short of the game ending, at least greatly hindering) army x from summoning. How would you stop them from doing their trick?
Pick two forces: How would you stop _____ from summoning, using _____?

Matching/exceeding them with summoning of your own is not really the answer. They're still doing it. And the question is how to make them NOT do it.
Excessive speed to capture objectives? Also not the answer. I'm not asking how to win the game. I'm asking how to keep the other guy from summoning while I do that.
Spamming mortal wounds? Better, but vague. What are you doing the MW to? How are you delivering those MW? Does it matter what forces you're using/facing?

As for casual lists not making use of excessive summoning, MW spam, or excessive speed? Well, that's on the players as every Tome I'm familiar with provides options for at least 2/3 of those. And you don't need to make tourney lv lists to make decent use of your options.

 auticus wrote:

Piss poor advice. Granted, if you run away from the AoS table you don't have to deal with the summoning. But it doesn't help those who choose to stay & roll some dice.

Really what choice do you have? Its a part of the game, its a very loudly cheered on part of the game, and its not going anywhere.

You have a few options.

One - you do it as well or come up with a tournament powered list that does so much damage that summoning can't keep up.

Two - you have to socially engineer your group and beg and plead and politic with your opponents to not stack their list like this. This has variable results. In my group it will get you laughed at by a few people and they aren't going to tone anything down.

Three - you just drink beer and roll dice and don't care about the outcome, knowing you are going to take nut shot after nut shot after nut shot if you choose to play casually in an environment where your opponent can and will bring an adepticon powered list.

Four - you lay down houserules that stop summoning from being so gross. I did in my events. You could summon up to 25% of your force's points, but if you exceeded that your opponent got a sudden death victory condition (from the core rules no less, those actually exist but few know that they exist since they aren't part of matched play). This made people think before just spam summoning.

It also has the nasty tendency to incite a ton of drama from people that hate house rules and can divide your community in a pretty heated way so ... use with extreme caution.

Five - you find a different game to play that doesn't have issues of this magnitude (every game has issues yes but not of the magnitude present in 40k or aos). This is what I have done.

Its the lowest impact of the bunch, though your investment gets flushed. But I have found a game that has none of these issues, I sold most of my GW collection last year, keeping my slaves to darkness for Kings of War purposes, and hoping one day the whfb old world project is something they write for people like me (they have done great with Titanicus so ... they have the power) or that AOS 3.0 swings that pendulum back out of magic the gathering territory with the rules and puts some limits on excessive summoning.

The main issue is ... well... why most people are here in the first place. AOS has a mega fan base and as such it makes people feel safer, happier, etc, to participate than other games that they'll have to struggle to build a community around. Many people aren't here for the rules (though a lot of those people will voice annoyance with the rules) - they are here for the pretty models and the massive fan base. If Joe's Game Shop came up with the game Age of Sigmar, it would be in the "Other" forum section here with 17 replies in four years or something because the rules by themselves would never have gotten any traction without the GW name and fanbase behind them. The only sin GW committed in 2015 was not having points. Had they released AOS with points, the rage issue would have been limited to just the old world being blown up. The game issue people had were almost entirely around no points existing. GW could release practically any ruleset they wanted in regards to their 40k or fantasy line, and so long as points exist, its going to do well because they have the one thing that no other game company will likely ever have: the massive fanbase which is the #1 attractor for so many people.

Sigh....
This isn't a discussion of the merits of the game, why people play (though for the record; my group plays because we generally find it fun - if we didn't we'd certainly be playing something else.), what game you play since leaving AoS, or what you've done with your models.
House rules & recommending begging/social engineering/quitting are also non-answers.
House Rules - while those will certainly work, I can't look those up in my books. I can't apply those outside my own circle. And they aren't needed in my group.
Begging? Really? When they say no, how do you deal by the rules?
Social Engineering of the group? Like house rules, not in my books & not useful outside my group.
Quitting?? The whole question is predicated on the exact opposite of that.

So after all that? You only bit of useful advice is to out-damage them?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Compromise. Points reserved from the list are worth twice as much for actual summoning.

So you're saying a 1500 point list could become a 2500 point list, against your 2k.

With all due respect, being intentionally obtuse is not going to get this discussion anywhere. For example:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Cool I appreciate that. I'm just pointing out that being tarred as a constant stream of negativity with no constructive content is grossly unfair and I have posted examples above.

The "battered wife" comes from an over ten thousand dollar investment into the system. Had I started out in 2015 or 2016 instead of 1998 with warhammer, we wouldn't have this conversation because I never would have invested anything and it would have been no loss.

TBF, if you've had fun with AOS for 20 years (1998-2018), you probably made back your $10,000 investment. I know if you watched a movie a week since 1998 you'd've spent more than $10,000 on the fun. So it wouldn't've been a loss!

TBF, anyone who thinks AoS launched in 1998 has no place in this discussion because they do not have even the most basic of knowledge required to engage in it.

I don't think AOS launched in 1998, but I don't think he spent 10,000 dollars since AOS launched, either, given that he said he wouldn't've bought anything....

Also, I literally just asked what you meant. If points deducted from a list count double for summoning, then someone who brought 1500 to a 2000 points game could summon 1k, making their list 2500 against your 2k. That's literally what you meant, right?