The debit of summoning in aos

[Vangrail]

Currently I am at my local game store. We are discussing age of sigmar summoning.
my argument using vampire counts as example

Me = Under zombies it says every death wizard knows summon zombies along every other special u know. So he is allowed to summon zombies even though u start the game with no zombies. Or a summon a zombie dragon ect.

Store manager = u have to have the unit or warscroll in your army to summon it..... personally I think he is wrong.

Thoughts or clarification plz

[Calam]

I don't see where that would be a problem as the game isn't limited by a number of war scrolls. So you could just state that you are taking every war scroll that grants a summoning spell.
You're not deploying them so they don't against the limit of running out of room on the table, and it gives you added flexibility.
Looking at it from a fluff point of view, that is always a concern fighting the undead, they always add more friends to the fight.

[Mr Mystery]

Need to have a unit of them, as it's the War Scroll that grants the extra spell.

They don't need to be deployed to get the benefit, but you need to count it in your overall force.

[lobster-overlord]

as the game isn't limited by a number of war scrolls.

But if the game is limited by some other arbitrary rule such as number of wounds, number of units/models, etc, then it could become a sticky issue. I would say that since it doesn't exactly read that you get a free unit that it would be up to agreement PRIOR to the start of the game.

[Clewz]

you need the unit in your deployed army to get the spell. I know people are going back and forth over the rules to get A+ B = z from some vague comments throughout deployment etc but as the spell is only mentioned on the war scroll it makes sense to me that you have to follow what it says on there. It does seem strange in fluff terms as surely the wizard would know the spell but its to give summoning some form of balance

[Ben_S]

I've seen this debated elsewhere and heard that other GW staffers disagree with your manager (which just goes to show that they're guessing at the rules as much as we are).

Personally, my inclination is that all death wizards know how to summon zombies, whether or not you have zombies in your starting army. But, since the rules are pretty much ambiguous or indeterminate on this, I don't think either side of the debate will be able to say much to convince the other. (That said, apparently Wood Elves have some sort of summon Dryad spell that explicitly says you need Dryads, or something like that, so the absence of such a restriction in the Undead case is some evidence that you don't.)

[Houghten]

(That said, apparently Wood Elves have some sort of summon Dryad spell that explicitly says you need Dryads, or something like that, so the absence of such a restriction in the Undead case is some evidence that you don't.)

I can't find a spell with such a restriction anywhere in the Wood Elf compendium.

[Mr Mystery]

Yeah....I'm not seeing any summon Dryad spell?

Could be scenario specific?

[grimmas]

If The rules for summoning are on the Warscroll for the specific unit not the wizard unit then yes you will need to have corresponding unit in your army to use the spell. One wouldn't any other units rules if they weren't in the game why should this one be any different? the biggest problem people are having with AoS is that they are think like its WFB 9th and not a totally different system. The same goes for modelling for advantage you can't actually do it in AoS if you the actual rules.

- - - Updated - - -

Branch Wriaths can summon them into a sylvaneth wood 12" from them (roused to Wrath). In this case the rule is on the branchwraith warscroll so it's the Warscroll that's required to summon them

[Ben_S]

I can't find a spell with such a restriction anywhere in the Wood Elf compendium.

Sorry, it was Tree Kin:

"Sylvaneth Wizards know the
Regrowth spell in addition to any other
spell they know whilst there are any Tree
Kin on the battlefield."

There's no similar restriction on Zombies, etc - it tells you that all Death wizards know how to summon Zombies. I assume the rules are on the Zombie scroll because a) you'll need that to have the stats for the summoned Zombies anyway and b) it's more efficient that all Death wizards having a huge list of spells on their scrolls.

If you think about it, it's also not so different to when Lore of Undeath was introduced in End Times. No wizards had that in their army book, but GW released new spells and said 'everyone can use these'. Similarly here, it's not on the scroll for Necromancers, Liches, etc, but that doesn't matter because they're Death wizards and the Zombie scroll tells you that all Death wizards know how to summon Zombies.

[Houghten]

Yeah....I'm not seeing any summon Dryad spell?

Could be scenario specific?

There is a summoning spell for Dryads: Roused to Wrath, on the Branchwraith Warscroll. Thing is, the whole of its text is as follows:

If successfully cast, set up a unit of 2D6 Dryads more than 3" from the enemy, and fully within a Sylvaneth Wyldwood that is within 12" of the caster.

That's it. Nothing about needing to have a unit of Dryads in your army.

---

Mind you, I don't even understand what you mean by counting a unit in your overall force but not deploying it. What you deploy is your overall force. "Any remaining units are held in reserve, playing no part unless fate lends a hand." - The Rules

Those remaining units consist of every other model you have. Is someone trying to argue you can deploy/summon a unit you don't have models for? Because if that's what this thread really boils down to, that person can punch themselves in the face and then we can all go home for tea.

- - - Updated - - -


Sorry, it was Tree Kin:

"Sylvaneth Wizards know the
Regrowth spell in addition to any other
spell they know whilst there are any Tree
Kin on the battlefield."

But Regrowth isn't a summoning spell; it's a healing spell.

- - - Updated - - -


I assume the rules are on the Zombie scroll because a) you'll need that to have the stats for the summoned Zombies anyway and b) it's more efficient that all Death wizards having a huge list of spells on their scrolls.

Indeed.

[Mr Mystery]

Nope.

Treekin one heals an existing unit - thus no Treekin, nowt to heal.

Summoning and Healing are two different things.

[bigwebb24]

So after reading this Ill chime in everyone is right. You do have to have them in your army however if you read the rules youll see that you can delpoy units in reserve. Units in researve play no further part in the battle unless fate intervenes. If you have the unit in reserve then you still techniclly have the warscroll in your army thus your wizard will know the spell. Hope that cleares things up chim in if you have a different thought.

[Ben_S]

But Regrowth isn't a summoning spell; it's a healing spell.


But the point is a general one: whether you need to have the unit (Zombies or Tree Kin) in order for your wizards to use the spell on the unit scroll. People are saying this (i.e. death wizards cannot summon zombies unless you have zombies, because the rule is only on the zombie scroll). But, if that were the case, there would be no need to have a 'whilst there are any Tree Kin on the battlefield' on the Tree Kin scroll. That this restriction is explicitly placed here, whereas there's no such restriction on summon zombies, suggests that you don't need to have zombies in order to summon zombies.



Indeed.[/QUOTE]

[Mr Mystery]

Because if there are no Treekin, there is nothing to heal - this means you can't generate new Treekin.

You have the abilities and equipment options on your scroll.

Other scrolls may grant you additional abilities and benefits, but said scroll has to be part of your army.

The whole 'they're only on other scrolls because of space' is really ropey logic.

[grimmas]

But the point is a general one: whether you need to have the unit (Zombies or Tree Kin) in order for your wizards to use the spell on the unit scroll. People are saying this (i.e. death wizards cannot summon zombies unless you have zombies, because the rule is only on the zombie scroll). But, if that were the case, there would be no need to have a 'whilst there are any Tree Kin on the battlefield' on the Tree Kin scroll. That this restriction is explicitly placed here, whereas there's no such restriction on summon zombies, suggests that you don't need to have zombies in order to summon zombies.


Indeed.[/QUOTE]

You need to have the Warscroll to have the rules, and no unit means no Warsrcoll which means no rules. The difference being one heals a specific unit where as one summons a whole new unit hence specific caveat on re growth. If you were to say that zombies could still be summoned even if the orginal unit had been destroyed I'd be ok with that as it had already given the summoning spell to the death wizard but it still needs to be there at some point. It isn't that the summon rule is just on the Zombie scroll it's that it specifically states that is grants the summons spell to death wizards. If you don't have the scroll there's nothing to grant the spell to the wizard so again no scroll, no rules and you can't have a Warscroll if you don't have a unit.

[Al Shut]

But the point is a general one: whether you need to have the unit (Zombies or Tree Kin) in order for your wizards to use the spell on the unit scroll. People are saying this (i.e. death wizards cannot summon zombies unless you have zombies, because the rule is only on the zombie scroll). But, if that were the case, there would be no need to have a 'whilst there are any Tree Kin on the battlefield' on the Tree Kin scroll. That this restriction is explicitly placed here, whereas there's no such restriction on summon zombies, suggests that you don't need to have zombies in order to summon zombies.


Come to think of it, that restriction is kind of superfluous, isn't it? If there are no Tree Kin, what are you healing?

[Mr Mystery]

To me it suggests you can add models to a Treekin unit if they're all hale and healthy.

[Houghten]

no unit means no Warsrcoll

Why?


To me it suggests you can add models to a Treekin unit if they're all hale and healthy.

No. "If successfully cast, select a Tree Kin model within 18". That model heals D3 wounds." (emphasis mine)
Healing is defined in The Rules: "Some warscrolls include abilities that allow wounds to be healed. A healed wound no longer has any effect. You can’t heal wounds on a model that has been slain."

[Ben_S]

You need to have the Warscroll to have the rules, and no unit means no Warsrcoll which means no rules ... If you don't have the scroll there's nothing to grant the spell to the wizard so again no scroll, no rules and you can't have a Warscroll if you don't have a unit.

What do you mean by 'have the warscroll'? The warscroll is a just piece of paper with rules on it. One of those rules says that Death wizards can summon zombies (or, to put it another way, that zombies can be summoned by any Death wizard). What makes you think that this is only the case if you already have zombies in your army?

It seems that you think you need to include a unit of models before you have access to the rules for them, but surely you need the rules before you can bring the models...


Come to think of it, that restriction is kind of superfluous, isn't it? If there are no Tree Kin, what are you healing?

That's kind of the point. The spell wouldn't be of any use without a target (Tree Kin) to heal anyway. Nonetheless, the scroll is still explicit that the wizard does not have the spell if there are no Tree Kin. Why does it say this? Presumably because otherwise he would have the spell (albeit that it would be useless).

[Mr Mystery]

Perhaps to show that if a unit is wiped out, you can't then heal it?

[grimmas]

Why?

Because that's how the game works you don't get to use random rules from other Warsrcolls as you see fit if the corresponding unit isn't in the game.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

If you have a unit, you have a war scroll and all its associated rules.

No unit? Guess what?

[grimmas]

What do you mean by 'have the warscroll'? The warscroll is a just piece of paper with rules on it. One of those rules says that Death wizards can summon zombies (or, to put it another way, that zombies can be summoned by any Death wizard). What makes you think that this is only the case if you already have zombies in your army?

Because the summon zombies spell is on the zombie Warscroll not the wizard one which makes it their special rule and you only use the Warscolls for the units you're using so if there's no zombies there's no summon rule because it's not on any of the Death Wizard warscrolls

[Al Shut]

Perhaps to show that if a unit is wiped out, you can't then heal it?

That wouldn't be necessary, the rules already state that

[Al Shut]

If you have a unit, you have a war scroll and all its associated rules.

No unit? Guess what?


you only use the Warscolls for the units you're using so if there's no zombies there's no summon rule because it's not on any of the Death Wizard warscrolls

But where does it say that this is the way it is. I can't find any reference to 'taking warscrolls' right now and frankly the concept that rules for models that are not on the table cease to exist seems kind of odd to me.

[Mr Mystery]

Where is the rule for summoning?

On the summonable unit's Warscroll.

And that's about it. The counter point is 'it's only only Warscroll A to save space on Warscroll Z is beyond shonky, and that's the sole counter point.

[Al Shut]

The counter point is nowhere does it say I have to have a unit on the field for their rules to be valid.

[Mr Mystery]

Really really?

[Al Shut]

Really really!

[Mr Mystery]

It's not often I say this, but......

I can't even

[Houghten]

Really, though. Their rules are their rules regardless of whether or not there happen to be any on the field.

[Path Walker]

Is it too cliche at this point to explain that game rules are permissive?

[Mr Mystery]

But if you haven't included a unit from say, the Zombie Warscroll, you get none of the additional benefits. Otherwise, the spell would be on the casting unit as well.

I'm genuinely struggling to see that any other way.

[Path Walker]

Can you use a Command ability that is on a different War Scroll?

[Houghten]

There are no additional benefits. The sole benefit of deploying a unit of Zombies is that you have a unit of zombies on the field. Summoning them is a benefit of deploying a Death Wizard.

You know what does grant benefits? A Corpse Cart. Two of those benefits are not written on the Corpse Cart's own Warscroll, but on those of the Zombies and Dire Wolves.

[Mr Mystery]

Magic - that is a benefit.

Dude, are you doing deliberately obtuse on this one? Because it kind of feels like it.

[Houghten]

No, I'm not. Having to take a unit of Zombies before you can summon an entirely separate unit of Zombies makes so little sense to me you might as well have pencils up your nose.

[Mr Mystery]

The Zombie War Scroll provides an additional spell to Death Wizards.

And that's about it.

Saying 'my wizard has all spells my chosen group can possibly have' is even more nonsensical. Have a look at how many summoning spells Undead have open to them.

A Necromancer has three spells open to him as he comes, and this is quoting from his Warscroll....

Magic

A Necromancer is a wizard. He can attempt to cast one spell in each of your hero phases, and attempt to unbind one spell in each enemy hero phase. He knows the Arcane Bolt, Mystic Shield and Vanhel's Danse Macabre spells.

And that's it. If they came with Summon X, the Necromancer Warscroll would list it.

But it doesn't. Therefore, without a Zombie Warscroll as part of your army, your Necromancer, and other Death Wizards don't know and cannot cast that spell.

[Al Shut]

Warscrolls are not part of an army, units are. Warscrolls are documents where rules that contain rules. And if a warscroll gives an additional spell to another without any conditons than it always does that, even if it's a unit other than the unit the warscroll was written for.

I do think that it was a very poor decision to just put the summon spell on the zombie scroll, though.

[Path Walker]

Actually, read the rules, the War Scrolls are part of the unit, you choose a War Scroll and deploy a unit

[Mr Mystery]

Warscrolls are not part of an army, units are. Warscrolls are documents where rules that contain rules. And if a warscroll gives an additional spell to another without any conditons than it always does that, even if it's a unit other than the unit the warscroll was written for.

I do think that it was a very poor decision to just put the summon spell on the zombie scroll, though.

I think my brain just melted.

[Houghten]

Actually, read the rules, the War Scrolls are part of the unit, you choose a War Scroll and deploy a unit

The Rules: "You can continue setting up units until you have set up all the units you want to fight in this battle, or have run out of space. This is your army. Count the number of models in your army – this may come in useful later. Any remaining units are held in reserve, playing no part unless fate lends a hand."

Such as by having a necromancer summon them.

[Al Shut]

Actually, read the rules, the War Scrolls are part of the unit, you choose a War Scroll and deploy a unit

I can't find that in the rules, warscrolls describe units, which you choose and deploy.




I think my brain just melted.

That didn't take much.

[Mr Mystery]

For my next trick......

Warscrolls and Units

All models are described by Warscrolls, which provide all of the rules for using them in the game. You will need the Warscrolls for the models you want to use


And there you have it.

Zombie Warscroll says you need at least 10 Zombies to field that Warscroll.

Seriously guys, there's clutching at straws, wilful misinterpretation of the rules, and then there's your assertion which is out the other side of logic.

[Al Shut]

Yes you indeed need warscrolls for the models you want to use. Otherwise those would have no stats, no equipment and no abilities.

Yet there is absolutely no mention of something as fielding warscrolls. That's a concept you just invented.

[Ben_S]

There seem to be at least three different possibilities:

a) All Death wizards can summon Zombies, whether or not their army ever included any Zombies.
b) Death wizards can summon Zombies, provided that the army originally included at least one unit of Zombies, even if those Zombies are now all destroyed.
c) Death wizards can summon Zombies, provided that the controlling player has some Zombies currently in play.

So far as I can see, the alternatives being debated are a) and b), but most of the arguments being offered for b) actually seem to point towards c). After all, if 'Summon Zombies' is an ability of the Zombies, rather than the Wizard, then presumably the Zombies need to be 'in play' - you can't ordinarily use the abilities of a model that's been removed from the game.

Are people actually endorsing c), rather than b)?

[Mr Mystery]

I'm endorsing B, as at no point does the spell add to an existing unit of Zombies (though Zombie units can of course happily merge from there on in, but there's no direct adding)

So even if I've squelched all the Zombies, you can still raise their buttered corpses off the field.

[Calam]

Can you use a Command ability that is on a different War Scroll?

No, but I can use inspiring presence that is not on my generals war scroll but like the summoning abilities state all of a specific unit type get that ability.

[Charistoph]

Really, though. Their rules are their rules regardless of whether or not there happen to be any on the field.

Really? Where does it say that?


No, I'm not. Having to take a unit of Zombies before you can summon an entirely separate unit of Zombies makes so little sense to me you might as well have pencils up your nose.

Maybe. There is a way to look at it so the narrative makes sense, and that is, someone would have summoned what he could have summoned before the fight. If the units are not on the field, than he did not know how to summon it in the first place.

Of course, a counter-narrative to this would be the simple fact he didn't have time to summon them before the battle ensued.


There seem to be at least three different possibilities:

a) All Death wizards can summon Zombies, whether or not their army ever included any Zombies.
b) Death wizards can summon Zombies, provided that the army originally included at least one unit of Zombies, even if those Zombies are now all destroyed.
c) Death wizards can summon Zombies, provided that the controlling player has some Zombies currently in play.

So far as I can see, the alternatives being debated are a) and b), but most of the arguments being offered for b) actually seem to point towards c). After all, if 'Summon Zombies' is an ability of the Zombies, rather than the Wizard, then presumably the Zombies need to be 'in play' - you can't ordinarily use the abilities of a model that's been removed from the game.

Are people actually endorsing c), rather than b)?

I personally saw it as B when first looking at it. And in a way, I like it for balancing in one area, largely so you don't have someone summoning a unit they haven't already committed. Or bring back a unit that had been wiped out.

Of course, C is how it is more written.

[Xaric]

Ill put this out there my personal view on the fact you can summon every model in the game provided you follow the core rules 1 the summon has keywords on what can summon them and two you can only use that summon once per wizard lets be realistic shale we provided your army is themed and your not being a dick if you take 5 necromancers and there like in a 5 star pentagram summoning zombies then summon because there theme is they are raising the dead to take over but they can only cast once per turn that spell and they can be denied every army has a model that can unbind spells.

Also if you noticed summoned monsters have horrible saves half the time and sometimes the value to summon them is high for some of the higher classed monsters needing a 9 on 2 d6 is very hard to get.

[Ben_S]

There seem to be at least three different possibilities:
a) All Death wizards can summon Zombies, whether or not their army ever included any Zombies.
b) Death wizards can summon Zombies, provided that the army originally included at least one unit of Zombies, even if those Zombies are now all destroyed.
c) Death wizards can summon Zombies, provided that the controlling player has some Zombies currently in play.



I'm endorsing B … So even if I've squelched all the Zombies, you can still raise their buttered corpses off the field.

That’s what I thought. So far as I can see, no one is actually arguing for C. Here’s another example:


If you were to say that zombies could still be summoned even if the orginal unit had been destroyed I'd be ok with that as it had already given the summoning spell to the death wizard but it still needs to be there at some point.

However, my point is that the arguments that people are offering for B actually seem to point towards C. For instance:


If The rules for summoning are on the Warscroll for the specific unit not the wizard unit then yes you will need to have corresponding unit in your army to use the spell. One wouldn't any other units rules if they weren't in the game why should this one be any different?

If we accept that the summoning rules are rules of the Zombie unit and not the Wizard unit, because they’re on the Zombie warscroll, then surely the Zombies would need to be presently in the game and not destroyed. After all, you wouldn’t use any other unit’s rules after that unit had already been removed from the game.

It looks to me as B is an unstable position. C would be perfectly consistent, but any defence of B seems to involve appealing to some invented notion of ‘having’ a warscroll according to which you ‘have’ a warscroll (and its associated rules) only if you initially deployed a unit corresponding to that warscroll but you continue to ‘have’ it even after that unit is wiped out. I don’t see anything along these lines in the rules.

That said, as I pointed out in my original contribution to this thread, there’s nothing in the rules that really addresses this explicitly. We can argue as to what’s intended, but if you were to ask what the rules actually say then it comes down to the most important rule: if you can’t agree, then dice off. Whether your Necromancer can summon Zombies, without having had any in your army, depends (in the absence of agreement) on a dice roll. That's what the rules actually are.

[Path Walker]

Does it really matter though?

If you and your opponent disagree on this one little rule, just use The Most Important rule and go about your game. Its really not worth arguing over.

[Xaric]

Yep I agree with path walker and if your friend is going to be a dick because of a over competitive nature then he's most likely not fun to play with

[Erik Setzer]

Bleh. This whole debate shows why you shouldn't try to do a game with four pages of rules.

If you have to have the unit counting in your initial army, then what's the point in summoning it? Just to be cheeky and say you have fewer wounds for Sudden Death purposes? Yeah, sure, but if you miss out on achieving the SD, you have fewer models to kill to hit 100% (or higher!) of your initial model count and be a victory for your opponent, which is a big penalty. And if they kill your wizard, you can't summon a unit you already "paid for."

If you're not trying to play a balanced match, you're doing unlimited scrolls, and just don't care about any kind of limiting or balancing factors in a game, then the idea that you have to bring the summoned unit in your initial army isn't a problem. And if you're going with the whole "AoS is a storytelling experience!" argument (as opposed to a game with a winner and loser), then why would you argue that an army has to include summoned units? Don't Necromancers raise the dead on the field they're fighting on, rather than bring a baggage train of bodies with them? Don't Chaos Sorcerors beg the gods for reinforcements on the spot and hope they'll listen?

[Path Walker]

Yes, this one point of rules debate (which is the only one I've seen about Age of Sigmar) proves that 4 pages of rules don't work.

You need a rule book with loads of pages because then you'll never run in to any ambiguities, it's why 40k, 8th edition Fantasy and so many other games never have any discussion about Rules as Written or Rules as Intended.

[Charistoph]

Bleh. This whole debate shows why you shouldn't try to do a game with four pages of rules.

Yes, this one point of rules debate (which is the only one I've seen about Age of Sigmar) proves that 4 pages of rules don't work.

But it is not the 4 pages in where the problem lies, but in the actual unit rules themselves that are the issue. The base rules could have refined it, true, but it is the warscrolls doing the actual mess up.

[Xaric]

Bleh. This whole debate shows why you shouldn't try to do a game with four pages of rules.

If you have to have the unit counting in your initial army, then what's the point in summoning it? Just to be cheeky and say you have fewer wounds for Sudden Death purposes? Yeah, sure, but if you miss out on achieving the SD, you have fewer models to kill to hit 100% (or higher!) of your initial model count and be a victory for your opponent, which is a big penalty. And if they kill your wizard, you can't summon a unit you already "paid for."

If you're not trying to play a balanced match, you're doing unlimited scrolls, and just don't care about any kind of limiting or balancing factors in a game, then the idea that you have to bring the summoned unit in your initial army isn't a problem. And if you're going with the whole "AoS is a storytelling experience!"
argument (as opposed to a game with a winner and loser), then why would you argue that an army has to include summoned units? Don't Necromancers raise the dead on the field they're fighting on, rather than bring a baggage train of bodies with them? Don't Chaos Sorcerors beg the gods for reinforcements on the spot and hope they'll listen?

What about all the times in those so called big rule books of 120+ pages of rules have conflictions between two rules yes can we clearly say having a huge book of many rules be any different to a 4 page hand-out with 4 page's of rules.

Once again I hear that word that is based on a person perceived perception called "balanced"... there has never and never will be balance in warhammer 8th/40k/AOS or as a matter of fact any game in the existence of games stop trying to prove there can be. We have 10+ armys all with there own play style this is even before a game even starts how can you possibly balance them all out as equal because there not designed as equal to begin with.

The enjoyment of the game is using tactics to exploit a weakness in your enemy's army that he has not counted for there is also no such thing as Over powered because by definition anything can be over powered to another unit because it was designed to exploit there weakness people need to stop using these words or coming up with what they believe is balanced and just play the game as intended and don't be a dick about it.

My last words I leave is if you go to a game to be a dick then you are a dick and most likely not fun to play with.

[Mr Mystery]

But it is not the 4 pages in where the problem lies, but in the actual unit rules themselves that are the issue. The base rules could have refined it, true, but it is the warscrolls doing the actual mess up.

I disagree.

Mostly, it's players either not reading what is actually written, or not liking what is written so just sort of making stuff up.

At the risk of opening the can of worms again, the summoning thing, and that 'every wizard knows every summoning spell for their faction thing' is based off the frankly bizarre assertion that 'those rules are only written on the War Scroll for the unit that can be summoned to save space on the unit that can summon them's Warscroll'....

Don't get me wrong - if you and your opponent are happy with that interpretation, knock yourself out. But it's just not logical at all. To benefit from a Warscroll, you must have that unit on the board.

[Xaric]

Fluff wise most wizards would contain a tome of all there arcane spells I would assume a necromancer would have a book full of spells dedicated to raising the dead and the models you have in your collection would imply he has those in his tome ready to use.

[Erik Setzer]

It's entirely logical, much more so than "you can only summon a unit that's already on the battlefield." Especially as the game's core rules have a very specific counter for that (i.e. you don't count units that didn't start on the board for purposes of percentage casualties, so if you only had 25 guys on the board and summon 50, and 80% of your summoned guys get wiped out, that's 160% casualties for calculating the victor). And it also makes sense in terms of story.

I find it amusing that suddenly the people claiming AoS was great because it let you do narrative battles and such are now trying to do extreme attempts at "RAW" interpretations and coming out sounding like the kind of WAAC players I despise, arguing for a rules interpretation that not only doesn't make sense in the game, but also makes zero sense thematically. You're disproving the entire claim that AoS is for narrative, story-based battles, by arguing for a rules interpretation that goes against the fluff.

Personally, I'd just start the game with the models on the table, to prevent the above scenario where you lose just because your summon units got mauled. But hey, people have options. Oh, except that apparently they don't, because the "AoS has options!" crowd is also now arguing against options as well as arguing against a story-based interpretation of the rules.

[Mr Mystery]

Reading as Written is extreme now?

If you have a unit of Zombies in your chosen force, then you have the ability to summon more Zombies.

If not, then you don't have the Warscroll which says you can summon more, so therefore you don't have the additional spell it provides to your Death Wizards.

And that's it. I'm genuinely baffled at those insisting it could be any other way?

[Mr Mystery]

Let us consider the various summoning options open to a Death Wizard, if we accept that they're written on other Warscrolls for space savings reason......

A single model then has the option to summon.....

Zombie Dragon
Terrorgheist
Hexwraiths
Spirit Hosts
Tomb Banshee
Cairnwraith
Varghulf
Crypt Horrors
Crypt Ghouls
Black Knights
Grave Guard
Skeleton Warriors
Dire Wolves
Zombies
Bat Swarms
Fell Bats
Vargheists

Or 17 separate units.......

Seriously? That makes sense to you?

[Xaric]

But can only ever summon 1 per turn that can be unbind or failed to successfully cast it and as I recall even Khorne force's get a unit that can unbind spells.

Wizards are naturally weak saves so they can die from a small gust of wind also if a enemy brings nothing but summoner's he's basing his army on luck as I recall some units that need to be summoned require a 9+ on 2 d6 the average number is 7 and also zombies don't have saves... they die in droves and if your not running nagash they will die to battle shock having a 4 bravery you kill 14 zombies = 10+d6 removed due to battle shock so in total you remove 25 - 30 zombies in 1 turn...

Now if this is about nagash because he can summon loads of times he can summon 1 unit type per summon so he can not summon zombie then summon zombie again till the following turn also he should be able to use all death wizard summons HES A FREAKING MASTER NECROMANCER he's like the last level boss of every boss encounter of course he should be allowed to raise a army of the dead his power is equal to sigmar himself he is a god... but this is where the victory comes in play if you slay a summoned unit it still counts to the amount of deaths at the end of the game.

They need to make a model for each chaos god with crazy summoning powers I would love to see nurgle vs tzeentch go toe to toe vs each other !!!

[Cutter]

Does it really matter though?

If you and your opponent disagree on this one little rule, just use The Most Important rule and go about your game. Its really not worth arguing over.

As much as it surprises and pains me, I think I agree with PWc on this one. It really doesn't matter which way round you play it as long as you are both playing it the same way, and if you can't agree, d6 it. If you don't win the roll this match, you might next match, it now becomes part of your meta, in whose favour are the winds of magic blowing today...

[grimmas]

It's entirely logical, much more so than "you can only summon a unit that's already on the battlefield." Especially as the game's core rules have a very specific counter for that (i.e. you don't count units that didn't start on the board for purposes of percentage casualties, so if you only had 25 guys on the board and summon 50, and 80% of your summoned guys get wiped out, that's 160% casualties for calculating the victor). And it also makes sense in terms of story.

I find it amusing that suddenly the people claiming AoS was great because it let you do narrative battles and such are now trying to do extreme attempts at "RAW" interpretations and coming out sounding like the kind of WAAC players I despise, arguing for a rules interpretation that not only doesn't make sense in the game, but also makes zero sense thematically. You're disproving the entire claim that AoS is for narrative, story-based battles, by arguing for a rules interpretation that goes against the fluff.

Personally, I'd just start the game with the models on the table, to prevent the above scenario where you lose just because your summon units got mauled. But hey, people have options. Oh, except that apparently they don't, because the "AoS has options!" crowd is also now arguing against options as well as arguing against a story-based interpretation of the rules.

The OP asked for RAW interpretations that's what we're doing. For narrative scenarios one can do as they agree with their opponent but that isn't what he asked. What the hell though you got tell us how much you don't like AoS and that what matters isn't it?

[Erik Setzer]

Let us consider the various summoning options open to a Death Wizard, if we accept that they're written on other Warscrolls for space savings reason......

A single model then has the option to summon.....

- SNIP -

Or 17 separate units.......

Seriously? That makes sense to you?


Absolutely. I could do that with the Lore of Undeath already. I could summon Vampires and Necromancers and Mortarchs, even (okay, the Mortarch needed Nagash's points boost).

So, with a game that threw out all kinds of other restrictions, do I believe Necromancers would still have the ability to summon a bunch of stuff? Heck yeah.

Here's your "debit" right here:

"You can continue setting up units until you have set up all the units you want to fight in this battle, or have run out of space. This is your army. Count the number of models in your army – this may come in useful later."

"Models added to your army during the game (for example, through summoning, reinforcements, reincarnation and so on) do not count towards the number of models in the army, but must be counted among the casualties an army suffers."

So, yeah, you can summon all the stuff you want, but it just means more fodder for me to kill.

The spells all say "The unit/model is added to your army..." Not "The unit/model is placed on the table..."

A Terrorgheist takes a 10 to summon. Remember, this is on 2D6. Looking that up... looks like an 8.33% chance of summoning the Terrorgheist.

So, you're telling me that first I have to not only include the Terrorgheist in my limit of warscrolls if I'm playing with a limit, but then only have a minute chance of ever bringing it onto the table? Or it can start on the table but I can just bring it back later, which isn't "summoning" so much as resurrecting?

Ditto for Daemons. A Greater Daemon is a minute chance to summon.

Necromancers having the ability to raise dead on the spot and Chaos Sorcerors being able to ask for Daemons to aid them are established parts of the fluff. The ability existed in the past and let you add to your current army. In 40K, you can still summon Daemons out the wazoo, that are *added* to your army, not included from the start.

So, again, we've got a game that's all kinds of open and lets people go crazy in so many ways, but suddenly treating summoning the way it worked in the past is game-breaking or something? Playing a rule the fluffy way is bad, we have to interpret things a weird way?

Yes, I think it IS clear that, to save a mess of printing a long list of summoning spells in one spot, they split them up and put them on the appropriate unit, which helps because if you want to only print and bring certain scrolls in your bag, you don't have to print a huge list, you just have the spell you need right there with the unit you want to summon, super-easy, no need to look elsewhere to find it. You just say, "Hmm, I want to try to bring in some Skeletons," then you know to look for the Skeleton scroll, and find the casting value for summon right there. Actually a rather good idea, and kudos to them for doing something like that, and shame on the community for then trying to be cheeky with that and having silly rules debates. Sure, part of the blame lies on GW for not making it more clear, but the majority of the blame lies on the people trying to be WAAC-esque misfits.

- - - Updated - - -


The OP asked for RAW interpretations that's what we're doing. For narrative scenarios one can do as they agree with their opponent but that isn't what he asked. What the hell though you got tell us how much you don't like AoS and that what matters isn't it?

I'm trying to interpret your post, but assuming I read it right:

1. I dislike some of the stuff with AoS, mainly because so far it's led to people quitting fantasy and leaving the horrible players behind who will argue these petty rulings. Never said I hate the game or anything. You choose to believe something that isn't true, that's on you, and shame on you for assuming.

2. I have as much right to comment as anyone else. If you don't like it, either leave the forum or Ignore me. Telling me I'm not allowed to have an opinion is juvenile AT BEST.

3. Even RAW doesn't support what people are arguing. The rules say the unit is ADDED to your army, not that the unit has to be in the army to start with. People are arguing against the rule itself. So, heck, the actual RAW isn't the RAW they're arguing.

[Cutter]

"Models added to your army during the game (for example, through summoning, reinforcements, reincarnation and so on) do not count towards the number of models in the army, but must be counted among the casualties an army suffers."

That's a really interesting observation Erik.

I can start with 10 models, summon 100 models, lose 50 models and in effect suffer 500% casualties...

A summoning heavy army best wipe out it's opponent, otherwise the victory mechanics screw it.

On the other hand, my 10 model summoning army may have been playing for Sudden Death as long as my opponent has 14+ models at the outset.

That's, as The Jam would say, Entertainment.

[Path Walker]

With Age of Sigmar it's really a lot more explicit than ever before but basically: If you're trying to get one over on your opponent, you're playing the game wrong.

RAI should always be "What does my opponent think is fair" because that is the intention of the game.

[Al Shut]

Let us consider the various summoning options open to a Death Wizard, if we accept that they're written on other Warscrolls for space savings reason......

A single model then has the option to summon [...] 17 separate units

Seriously? That makes sense to you?

Thank you for taking your time to count the actual summoning options. This nicely demonstrates that the idea of saving space by having the spell on the summoned units isn't bizarre at all but actually needed. I hadn't realised it was that much and previously thought this was a rather dumb decision by GW, my apologies to them.



Mostly, it's players either not reading what is actually written, or not liking what is written so just sort of making stuff up. [...] To benefit from a Warscroll, you must have that unit on the board.


Reading as Written is extreme now?

If you have a unit of Zombies in your chosen force, then you have the ability to summon more Zombies.

If not, then you don't have the Warscroll which says you can summon more, so therefore you don't have the additional spell it provides to your Death Wizards.

You are the one who is making things up. Again, there is no such thing as 'having a warscroll'. Everybody has every warscroll so to speak. The rules on them are active all the time. When not it is specifically stated (see the Treekin healing spell).

[Path Walker]

No really, unless the warscroll is being used, you can't see its rules.

WARSCROLLS & UNITS
All models are described by warscrolls,
which provide all of the rules for using
them in the game. You will need warscrolls
for the models you want to use.

All the rules for using them in the game, so your Wizard doesn't have the spells if the warscroll isn't being used

CASTING SPELLS
All wizards can use the spells described
below, as well as any spells listed on their
warscroll. A wizard can only attempt to cast
each spell once per turn.

If the warscoll for Zombies isn't being used, then the Wizard doesn't have that spell listed on their warscroll.

But, more importantly, it doesn't matter as long as you and your opponent are cool with which ever way.

[Mr Mystery]

I give up.

I genuinely give up.

Baseless assertion apparently trumps what is actually written.

I deal with that enough in my professional life that there's no point adding to it on the internets.

In short, it doesn't matter what you want the rules or policy terms and conditions to say, they say what they actually say.

[Al Shut]

If the warscoll for Zombies isn't being used, then the Wizard doesn't have that spell listed on their warscroll.

There is no distinction between warscrolls that are used and warscrolls that are not used.

[Erik Setzer]

I give up.

I genuinely give up.

Baseless assertion apparently trumps what is actually written.

I deal with that enough in my professional life that there's no point adding to it on the internets.

In short, it doesn't matter what you want the rules or policy terms and conditions to say, they say what they actually say.

Yes, they say what they say. Summoned units aren't part of the starting army and don't have to be, they are ADDED, as the rules say in multiple places. So you can try to re-interpret them as you want, but you're still wrong. In this case, GW tried to do something good (well, they actually did it, but I suppose a paragraph at the start of the compendium or a couple sentences on all the caster's warscrolls would have helped stopped cheeky buggers), and you're attempting to turn it into something bad.

[40kGamer]

For my next trick......

Warscrolls and Units

All models are described by Warscrolls, which provide all of the rules for using them in the game. You will need the Warscrolls for the models you want to use


And there you have it.

Zombie Warscroll says you need at least 10 Zombies to field that Warscroll.

Seriously guys, there's clutching at straws, wilful misinterpretation of the rules, and then there's your assertion which is out the other side of logic.

Actually I read this bit You will need the Warscrolls for the models you want to use as simply meaning if you are going to use a unit in the game, you must have the Warscroll (ie rules for the unit) available to do so. "Use" and "Deploy" are not synonyms.

The set up phase never dictates that only the Warscrolls for the units you deployed are available to you.

Any remaining units are held in reserve, playing no part unless fate lends a hand.

This bit about reserves also indicates that everything need not be deployed to be potentially used in the game.

So going off of RAW:

You need Warscrolls for any unit you want to use
Units attached to Warscrolls do not need to be deployed to play a part in the battle later
Summoning Wizards can attempt to summon any unit that aligns with their discipline

Also going into the realm of RAI, it seems ridiculous that a Necromancer would have to already have Zombies or what have you on the table to summon more of them. That is in no way narrative or thematic.

Summoning is offset by the way models killed are scored, the fact that you have to roll 'x' on 2d6, the limit of spells a wizard can attempt, and the possibility of these being unbound.

Honestly compared to the Conjuring shenanigans of 40k this is seriously mild.

[Mr Mystery]

Well, I've put it to GW via email.

Wording of said email below.


Hi

Apologies if this is the wrong contact, but I have a quick rules question...

Various units in Age of Sigmar can be summoned via spells, and the Warscroll lists which Wizards have that spell.

Is the intention that say, all Death Wizards know all summoning spells listed on the various Warscrolls, or does a unit whose Warscroll mentions a summoning spell have to deployed on the board for Wizards to benefit from that spell?

I know what my money is on the answer being.

[40kGamer]

Well, I've put it to GW via email.

Wording of said email below.



I know what my money is on the answer being.

Interesting idea emailing them. Since they disbanded the Roolzboyz ages ago I haven't received anything other than an autoresponse stating that an "FAQ" will be released at some undisclosed time in the future. Funny enough, I'm still waiting on most of those FAQ's as well. :p

[Mr Mystery]

Don't ask, don't get :)

[40kGamer]

Don't ask, don't get :)

True! And maybe with the excitement and push for the new setting they'll be more prone to drop a note back. On a totally unrelated note I've finally assembled the starter set models and they are stunning. Now off to choosing colours for the Sigmarites.

[Mr Mystery]

Metallic Pink!

[40kGamer]

Don't tempt a long time lover of the MIA Prince of Excess with suggestions of pink! :p

[Mr Mystery]

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2015/02/08/08-prince.w529.h529.2x.jpg

So looking forward to finding out what's happened to the dirty bugger!

[40kGamer]

Awesome! I know he/she'll be back... I can feel it in me bones. I remember a design team talk years ago where it was mentioned that hinting at things and leaving holes to explore in the fluff allows a lot of freedom for future development. This is one of the things GW's studio has always done extremely well IMO, and seeing how things roll out over the next year (or years) will be very interesting.

[Mr Mystery]

My bet is that Morathi is somehow involved....if I recall correctly, in Khaine she was yoinked by Slaanesh itself....ain't nobody coming out of that well!

[Erik Setzer]

Asking GW is a fun experience, try having five people email and compare the different answers you get.

And "you need the warscrolls for the units you'll use" is like saying "you need the codex for the units you're using." You can't just throw models on the table and tell your opponent, "Trust me, I've memorized the rules, I don't need the warscrolls."

The confusion is that people refer to units as "warscrolls" when trying to figure out army comp, so people just start taking it that was as a synonym, but that's not true. A "warscroll" is simply a set of rules. You can have warscrolls on you without taking the units in your army. In the area about Warscrolls and Units, it clearly notes that warscrolls are the rules listings for units. Note that when it talks about set-up, etc., it says "units." It doesn't say "set up a warscroll." Because a warscroll is simply a set of rules for models. That's it. You don't include "warscrolls" in your army. You include models and units. If you're going to play with models and units, you need the rules for them; hence, you need warscrolls.

[40kGamer]

My bet is that Morathi is somehow involved....if I recall correctly, in Khaine she was yoinked by Slaanesh itself....ain't nobody coming out of that well!

Yeah, she was taken by the Dark Prince in person... I still have to finish the last book to see how it all ended.

- - - Updated - - -


Asking GW is a fun experience, try having five people email and compare the different answers you get.

This is probably why the default answer is for us to wait on FAQs so they can control the response. I haven't had an actual response in a decade... although to be honest I've only emailed a handful of questions over the years.

[Mr Mystery]

So ask the same question yourself.

[Charistoph]

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2015/02/08/08-prince.w529.h529.2x.jpg

So looking forward to finding out what's happened to the dirty bugger!

...Maybe that's what happened. The Dark Prince changed his/her name to an unspeakable symbol so all of the prayers, worship, and Daemons can no longer reach him/her directly and are getting rerouted through the worst post system in existence.

Of course, it could also be that Slaanesh was back-stabbed by the Horned Rat and then took too many queloods to stop the pain. For some reason, I like the idea of the Horned Rat being the new Malal/Malice. It fits so well.

[Xaric]

I have a idea don't go to a game to be a dick go there to enjoy the game...

[Mr Mystery]

Bah!

Need to resend me request to the correct email address.

Updates as I get them.

[Mr Mystery]

Resent and slightly reworded to be as specific as possible.




Various units in Age of Sigmar can be summoned via spells, and the Warscroll lists which Wizards have that spell.

Is the intention that say, all Death Wizards know all summoning spells listed on the various Undead Warscrolls, or does a unit whose Warscroll mentions a summoning spell have to be deployed on the board for Wizards to benefit from that spell?



Auto reply suggests we'll have to wait for a more formal FAQ though, as they don't respond to individual questions.

[Erik Setzer]

Auto reply suggests we'll have to wait for a more formal FAQ though, as they don't respond to individual questions.

Hmm. Wonder when the FAQ will show up. And if it'll be as long as the rules. :-P

[Path Walker]

Resent and slightly reworded to be as specific as possible.



Auto reply suggests we'll have to wait for a more formal FAQ though, as they don't respond to individual questions.

They should just set the auto reply to be roll off on a d6.

[40kGamer]

They should just set the auto reply to be roll off on a d6.

I still prefer to roll 1d6 and let the other person choose even/odd. Quick and easy.

[Path Walker]

I still prefer to roll 1d6 and let the other person choose even/odd. Quick and easy.

I dunno, there is something a little more dramatic in a roll off for me, just a little moment of drama

[40kGamer]

I dunno, there is something a little more dramatic in a roll off for me, just a little moment of drama

I have to admit the roll off does make both players feel engaged which is always a good thing.

[ColeVVatkins]

Everyone I know and play with agree that you have to bring the unit... To bring the warscroll... To gain that summon spell.

[nsc]

Some warscrolls (I'll have to dig up which later, sorry, I'm on my coffeebreak and don't remember off the top of my head) grant spells to wizards in a specific range, they're very clearly worded that you need the model on the field and within range to grand the wizard the spell. For every other spell which simply reads "Wizards of YKEYWORD" (where YKEYWORD is any keyword) I believe that any wizard has that spell. There is no ruling which states you need the unit deployed for the warscroll to be in effect, and there is no ruling which overrides the text "every death wizard knows summon zombies" from the first post.

[artisturn]

The way I see it is my Necromancer is able to raise Zombies with out having the unit present on the table,Vampire Counts have always been about raising shambling hoards of undead.

The warscrolls are in my compendium which are the rules for my army. (my justification for not needing the warscrolls or units on the table)

Now I have only played one game so far and that was against my friend Zeus who plays Lizardmen.

In that game his Slann summoned Tehenhauin, Prophet of Sotek, if we were playing you could only summon what units were on the table then He would of had two of the same named character on the table which is pretty game breaking.

Now it was mentioned in a previous post that a Necromancer could summon 17 types of undead if He had access to all the warscrolls,but nowhere in that 17 are they any wizards or named characters, which Lizardmen could summon.


In the only game I played so far,my summoned units actually worked against me in deciding who won the game. And I only kept summoning units when my opponent would summon one,in fact we worked out a truce and stopped summon due to the fact it was adding so much time to the game. Now I guess the way to make summing work is don't be a tool about it.

But it would be nice if GW would clarify this ,since three armies can summon pretty much their whole army list.

[ColeVVatkins]

That's exactly why everyone I know plays you can only summon 1 unit under the wizards control.

[Erik Setzer]

Seems people are having to come up with house rules and all to solve something that should have had a clear rule written in the core rules.

But yeah, let the fanatic crowd tell us again that four pages makes for a tight game with plenty of depth and no issues...

[ColeVVatkins]

Haha... 4 pages is barely enough for movement in 40k :-P

[40kGamer]

Seems people are having to come up with house rules and all to solve something that should have had a clear rule written in the core rules.

But yeah, let the fanatic crowd tell us again that four pages makes for a tight game with plenty of depth and no issues...

Mate, Conjuring is a disaster in 40k and we have 100's of pages of rules. More doesn't always mean better, it can just mean more. ;)

[Mr Mystery]

Seems people are having to come up with house rules and all to solve something that should have had a clear rule written in the core rules.

But yeah, let the fanatic crowd tell us again that four pages makes for a tight game with plenty of depth and no issues...

You could write one page of rules - people would argue.

You could write four pages of rules - people would argue.

You could write any number of pages of rules - people would argue.

My job is dispute resolution in the finance and insurance sector. This involves me dealing with consumer complaints when they do not agree with the seller or underwriter.

Guess what? I regularly find ambiguity in policies, and have to be able to justify my outcome in perhaps two sides of A4 paper (stuff that goes in a printer size, not sure if different size descriptions in different countries).

These are policies literally written by lawyers to set out what they will and will not insure.

If an entire industry which can trace its origins back to the Coffee Houses of Georgian London (Lloyds of London being the first known insurer) can't write things perfectly clearly, then what chance does a games company have?

On occasion, it's the policy holder either not understanding, or wilfully ignoring how insurance actually works. Other times, the insurer has a very peculiar interpretation of evidence. Other times? The policy is too loosely worded.

Remind you of anything?

[Erik Setzer]

Mate, Conjuring is a disaster in 40k and we have 100's of pages of rules. More doesn't always mean better, it can just mean more. ;)

Oh? I've never seen any issue with it in a game. Pretty simple, you just cast the power, and if it succeeds, place a unit and scatter it like Deep Striking, and then it can't assault in the turn (because it Deep Strike'd). Easy as pie.

In this case, one paragraph would have helped clear things up. They could have helped with a lot of situations by just doing eight pages rather than four (eight because printing happens in lots of four pages, so the next step from four would be eight). It might cost just a little more (where they're actually printing it themselves), but would have helped add more clarity to the game, especially with all these insane rules everywhere. (Yeah, I know, they'll phase out the older armies as soon as they can, but that's not going to be for months, possibly years.)

[40kGamer]

two sides of A4 paper (stuff that goes in a printer size, not sure if different size descriptions in different countries).

A4 is just slightly larger then the American standard 'Letter' size paper. Fun fact - You can sometimes tell that someone sold you a FW knockoff because of them using the wrong paper size for the assembly guide.


These are policies literally written by lawyers to set out what they will and will not insure.

Lawyers... ugh, can't live with them, can't live without them... :p

Seriously though, there is essentially nothing written that people can't find a way to argue around.

[Mr Mystery]

And believe me - from experience, they don't even need to be arguing from a logical or factual standpoint.

Of course, can't go anywhere near specifics, but let's just say some views are far, far harder to write than others, as it involves explaining what insurance actually does first.

[40kGamer]

Oh? I've never seen any issue with it in a game. Pretty simple, you just cast the power, and if it succeeds, place a unit and scatter it like Deep Striking, and then it can't assault in the turn (because it Deep Strike'd). Easy as pie.)

You must not have faced off with the slightly cheesy 30-40 dice summoning spam army. You can 'break' 40k with Maelific Daemonolgy if you choose... only offset is the myriad of other ways to break and datamine the rules of the game. Creates a sense of game balance through numerous extreme imbalances. However, even with 100's of pages of rules, 40k still only functions if people agree to the type of game they are going to play. Which is a whole other massive issue but just highlighting the more <> better aspect of rules.

- - - Updated - - -


And believe me - from experience, they don't even need to be arguing from a logical or factual standpoint.

Of course, can't go anywhere near specifics, but let's just say some views are far, far harder to write than others, as it involves explaining what insurance actually does first.

Hmmm, it really does sound like the blokes that argue ridiculous rules points in games doesn't it? :p

[Mr Mystery]

Sadly so.

[ColeVVatkins]

No doubt that 40k summoning is broken. That is why everyone has special rules to eliminate the issue... Same reason in AoS everyone has special rules for summoning... As in can only summon one unit/model and you have to have the unit/model(warscroll) on the battlefield.

[Cutter]

As in can only summon one unit/model and you have to have the unit/model(warscroll) on the battlefield.

"Yeah, well, that's just like...your opinion...man..."

[Xaric]

the core thing is if you go to a game to be a *** just to prove you dislike the game why are you even playing the game to begin with? to prove that your an *** or to try and direct people away from it because your an *** I will use two examples.

Bring nagash to a low unit game to try and prove how broken the game is...

Bring a baneblade to a 600 point game to try and prove how broken the game is...

See same concept your doing it out of spite GW want you to be mature about it and play the game as intend that is to have fun is it really that hard to believe hell I personally go to games and restrict myself because I want a challenge and it fits my army's theme because that's how I see fun. You know what people are turning into when they act like an *** there turning into those guys who would make fun of people for playing warhammer to begin with you know the ones who would walk past gaming groups and act like a idiot and start talking about the game in a dumb way with stupid reasoning to mock everyone.

[Mr Mystery]

The wider community has ever been 'self policing' in that regard.

Points or no points, restrictions or no restrictions, there have always been claims X is too hard, Y is too soft, Z is way out etc, and very, very rarely is there any kind of meaningful consensus.

It doesn't particularly help matters that 'beardy' 'cheesey' and 'sub-par/sub-optimal' are ultimately beyond absolutely definition.

Like it or not, but the total removal of points has put the onus squarely upon the people playing that specific game. I'm yet to encounter someone who carefully deploys until they're 'a third minus one' more numerous, bagging maximum advantage without granting me a sudden death option, though of course it remains early days.

As for efforts to come up with some kind of point system? Go for it. I genuinely applaud such efforts, as it's all part and parcel of the hobby, and indeed always has been.

Important thing to remember? there are no right or wrong ways to do this. The game may not have been written with organised competitive gaming in mind, but if that's your bag, that's your bag. The game very much appears to have been written for scenario and narrative play, and does not necessitate exactly equal armies, but that doesn't make that the only or even 'correct' way to play it.

And my final golden rule? A penis will be a penis, regardless of the game you're playing. RPGs? They won't really play to character, freely switching between behaviours purely to get some advantage, pour over the source books in search of the ultimate combo. Monopoly? Get all moody when someone else bags Parklane or Mayfair and refuses to sell to them. Snap? Yeah, they'll be a dick about that as well. They'll turn up to a tournament, and loudly whinge about why tournaments are bad and all other tournament players are cheesey Neckbeards. They'll go to the pub with you to see a local band play live, and complain about the volume, the choice of songs and the range of beers.

It's inescapable, so the only way forward is to ignore them and make the best of it - no matter where they show up on life's journey

[Anthrax ion pusscabe]

Is it wrong that I see massed summoning as a hilariously bad idea tactically to the point what I'm planing being my standard army for AOS does not actually include any summoners, like I don't want to suffer 500% casualties

[Erik Setzer]

Is it wrong that I see massed summoning as a hilariously bad idea tactically to the point what I'm planing being my standard army for AOS does not actually include any summoners, like I don't want to suffer 500% casualties

No, it's not wrong. You see the price you pay for summoning, and why you don't have to do silly things like start with the unit on the table or included in your army.

[Cutter]

Is it wrong that I see massed summoning as a hilariously bad idea tactically to the point what I'm planing being my standard army for AOS does not actually include any summoners, like I don't want to suffer 500% casualties

It's a risk certainly.

[Anthrax ion pusscabe]

Though it'll be interesting to see how my army of nothing but skeleton key worded units will go, especially with the new shieldwall ability

[ColeVVatkins]

...

- - - Updated - - -


"Yeah, well, that's just like...your opinion...man..."

I agree... It's just how we have been playing to keep people from being @holes...

[Xaric]

Also most summoning can olny be used 18" and cant be placed within 9" of a enemy if there is terrain all over the place and most of the enemy are moving up chance's are you will be pushed back and wont have the room to summon.

[grimmas]

Of course this may all become moot when the actual AoS Warcrolls are released we are just basing this off the PDF make do ones at the moment. Also just basing it on the 4 page basic rules is somewhat misleading as that is the bare bones of the game. The scenarios in the basic book have additional/different summoning rules.

That is the real rub the game at the moment plays best within the various scenarios rather than the line up and fight way described in the basic rules. If you and your opponent decide on a scenario that explains why you necromancer has spent the weeks preceding the battle seeding the battle field with the corpses of every ressurectable creature ever then why not? Of course that is the answer we've not really considered for the OP, he wasn't allowed to summon as he wished because the scenario the manager was having people play had things done differently.

[Xaric]

Okay this is to put this at rest last I heard war scrolls are just rules for units read the rules careful...

THE ARMIES
Before the conflict begins, rival warlords gather their most powerful warriors.
In order to play, you must first muster your army from the miniatures in your collection. Armies can be as big as you like, and you can use as many models from your collection as you wish. The more units you decide to use, the longer the game will last and the more exciting it will be! Typically, a game with around a hundred miniatures per side will last for about an evening.

So where does it say a war scroll is a physical object to your game you deploy in a turn based fashion pulling models from your collection in correspondence with war scroll information this means the information on the war scroll regarding to summoning is just because when you summon that's the war scroll with the stats and ability's of that unit that would be summoned.

You do not need the model on the table to start summoning more... people need to stop thinking "well we made a house rule to bring so many war scrolls oh you cant summon because you never played that war scroll" The game never had a limit to what or how many war scrolls that was a addition by the player base in a attempt to balance the game.

Now I am not saying you cant play it this way with a war scroll limit but stop trying to confuse people with the factor you added a house rule and its played by this house rule and if you refuse the house rule your playing wrong...

Summoning has its own internal balance to the game and its own rules to it just because someone else's army can summon and yours cant does not mean its unfair look at tau in 40k they are a army with no psyker units yet there top tier in 40k.

If you cant summon then learn to deny last I recall every army has a model that can deny spells even khorne army has them and they don't have a wizard lets look at the restrictions to summoning shale we.

Magic
Chaos Wizards know the Summon Bloodletters spell, in addition to any others they know.

Summon Bloodletters
Summon Bloodletters has a casting value of 6. If successfully cast, you can set up a unit of up to 10 Bloodletters of Khorne within 16" of the caster and more than 9" from any enemy models. The unit is added to your army but cannot move in the following movement phase. If the result of the casting roll was 11 or more, set up a unit of up to 20 Bloodletters of Khorne*instead.

Now each time you summon a unit you construct a giant footprint that can be charged and shot also they cant be summoned within 9" of a enemy unit so what you need to do if a enemy is a summoner unit is to use spread formation of all your units maximising your coverage of your deployment the more coverage the less area he has to summon now that means 16" he cant summon behind your unit unless you get too close that he bypass's your unit by 9" this is hard if you have units in blocks of 20 because the footprint is larger then say 1 model.

Now the other restriction is luck the lowest a model from every summoned monster needed to be summoned and correct me on this one is 4 (zombies) from what I have seen that means there is always a chance of failure also if you can deny always deploy your unit that can unbind his unit because you need to be in range and I believe the range for unbind is 18". also some units get a bonus to unbind like the Wrath of Khorne bloodthirster adding a +2 to unbind that means up to 14 to unbind setting your average from 7 to 9 to deny spells.

[nsc]

Now I am not saying you cant play it this way with a war scroll limit but stop trying to confuse people with the factor you added a house rule and its played by this house rule and if you refuse the house rule your playing wrong

Yeah this is what I find the most annoying during these summoning discussions, or people citing a GW store manager as a rules arbiter.

The rules say absolutely nothing AGAINST wizards gaining the spell, but the rules very clearly say that wizards GAIN the spell.

It's an open and shut case if I've ever seen one, for all the jabber about four pages of rules some people can't get through them it seems! :rolleyes:

[odinsgrandson]

Yeah- people sometimes have trouble *believing* the rules as written. Especially when the balance seems off (like being able to summon spell casters who can then activate and possibly summon more sorcerers).

[ColeVVatkins]

A friend and I were discussing this today. So we each start with 50 models... He summons 50 more... I can't summon.. But I kill 50models... The battle is over... I just caused 100% casualties. Major victory. Game over.

[nsc]

A friend and I were discussing this today. So we each start with 50 models... He summons 50 more... I can't summon.. But I kill 50models... The battle is over... I just caused 100% casualties. Major victory. Game over.

Well "you play until the game ends" so he'll table you, and do 100% casualties, but you'll inflict more than 100% casualties and you'll win.

Although almost all summoning limits unit sizes, the chaos lord doesn't which is silly honestly! Good thing there are better hero powers!


Yeah- people sometimes have trouble *believing* the rules as written. Especially when the balance seems off (like being able to summon spell casters who can then activate and possibly summon more sorcerers).

Part of the problem is GW put in some 'broken combos' such as Kairos and the Skaven Screaming Bell because they believe you should discuss with your opponent before playing how you will agree to play with your toy soldiers. The idea is that if someone endlessly summons lords of change they will have spent a fortune (or borrowed models which someone bought, assembled and likely painted) they will win one game and then nobody will play with them ever again. Some people decide that summoned units can't act in that hero phase, which is a valid house rule. Also GW doesn't believe anyone will travel to a club, meet up with a friend or stranger, to put down fate weaver, the screaming bell and then declare that they win the game, it's a waste of everyone's time :)

Garry Gygax once said the biggest secret was that nobody needed to buy the D&D books to play D&D, you could just make up rules and have fun--house ruling was embraced within table top RPGs, and house ruling was embraced in war games too, as the game master was expected to run scenarios with custom monsters, custom win conditions, custom armies fighting. Even in 40k there are house rules at clubs which limit comp, which say 'the base of ruins count as ruins for cover saves', etc. etc.

I've met historical gamers who played some of the more advanced demo games for age of sigmar and they have remarked that it played like some historicals they play! (sorry I didn't think to ask them which ones, oops my bad)

[Xaric]

you play till end people normally say how much time they have to play so normally that would indicate the end.

summons endless lord of change they are a 9+ to summon and have to deal with unbinding good luck getting constant 9's also do you carry more then 1 lord of change...

This is a dick player case if you bring a model to prove a point that something is unbalanced to ruin a game then you are going to be a dick and possibly not fun to play with.

No different then playing 40k and bringing a titan to a 600 point game because I am sure you knew he was going to bring a titan.

[Mr Mystery]

A friend and I were discussing this today. So we each start with 50 models... He summons 50 more... I can't summon.. But I kill 50models... The battle is over... I just caused 100% casualties. Major victory. Game over.

Moral being - be careful what you summon.

LOLOLOLOLOL I TOOK FIVE NECROMANCES AND WILL SUMMON NEAR INFINITE ZOMBIES LOLOLOLOLOLOL TACTICAL GENIUS.

Well, I just bagged 6 Zombies with a single shot from my Thundertusk. The game is mine.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE GAME R BROEKD!

[Al Shut]

Well "you play until the game ends" so he'll table you, and do 100% casualties, but you'll inflict more than 100% casualties and you'll win.

You're right that the game doesn't end once one sides casualties have reached 100% but the percentages are only calculated if the players run out of time and/or motivation before one of them is completely destroyed. The one who tables the other always wins.

[Xaric]

so wait if he plays just nagash and he summons zombies and he looses 1 zombie does that count as 100% casualties so if he summoned say 60 zombies and they all died would that mean he lost 6000% casualties?

Am I getting this right?

[Path Walker]

so wait if he plays just nagash and he summons zombies and he looses 1 zombie does that count as 100% casualties so if he summoned say 60 zombies and they all died would that mean he lost 6000% casualties?

Am I getting this right?

If you end the game before all models on one side are removed, then you work out the starting percentage compared with the models you lost, so yeah, in that case, if you had to call the game early this is what would happen, you'd win a Minor Victory

[odinsgrandson]

Xaric- that's right. If he's playing just Nagash and summoning a horde of zombies, he's betting on the two of you finishing the game and not running out of time.



summons endless lord of change they are a 9+ to summon and have to deal with unbinding good luck getting constant 9's also do you carry more then 1 lord of change...


Each Lord of Change has a couple special rules that make it pretty easy for them to summon themselves:

1- They add +1 to the spell rolls of all Tzeentch wizards. The rules don't say anything about abilities not stacking, so if you have two or three Lords of Change out, you get +2 or +3 (Kairos gets +2 from a different ability of his, so if you combo them, you get plus a lot).

2- They have another ability that when the roll to cast a spell, they can make the lower die match the higher one. So if you rolled a five and a two, you just rolled a ten. With only the initial plus one, they need to roll two dice, and one or the other needs to be at least four. As you get more Lords out on the field, the number that you need to roll drops.

So, what started out as a very difficult summoning roll (9+) is way more likely to succeed than to fail (4+ on either die). If Fateweaver is around, have him go first, because he'll only need a 3+ on either die.



Now, I've honestly always been a big fan of the Lord of Change- he might be my favorite GW character/species ever, so the list actually does appeal a bit to me (I imagine making about four or five of them, each converted to be wholly individual). The number you need isn't infinite, you only need enough that they can't be tabled in one turn (because whoever's still around gets to summon the rest of them back).

And unlike the Tomb Scorpion or Fate-Bell-Cheat, you still get to play the game.

[ColeVVatkins]

Moral being - be careful what you summon.

LOLOLOLOLOL I TOOK FIVE NECROMANCES AND WILL SUMMON NEAR INFINITE ZOMBIES LOLOLOLOLOLOL TACTICAL GENIUS.

Well, I just bagged 6 Zombies with a single shot from my Thundertusk. The game is mine.

WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE GAME R BROEKD!

Lol! We also ply game over turn 2 6+... Turn 3 5+... Turn 4 4+... So you can win the casualty battles against someone who summons. But as I said before... We also play one wizard can only summon one unit under his control. If someone wants to be a jerk... Well he will have a hard time finding games. :-)

- - - Updated - - -


Xaric- that's right. If he's playing just Nagash and summoning a horde of zombies, he's betting on the two of you finishing the game and not running out of time.



Each Lord of Change has a couple special rules that make it pretty easy for them to summon themselves:

1- They add +1 to the spell rolls of all Tzeentch wizards. The rules don't say anything about abilities not stacking, so if you have two or three Lords of Change out, you get +2 or +3 (Kairos gets +2 from a different ability of his, so if you combo them, you get plus a lot).

2- They have another ability that when the roll to cast a spell, they can make the lower die match the higher one. So if you rolled a five and a two, you just rolled a ten. With only the initial plus one, they need to roll two dice, and one or the other needs to be at least four. As you get more Lords out on the field, the number that you need to roll drops.

So, what started out as a very difficult summoning roll (9+) is way more likely to succeed than to fail (4+ on either die). If Fateweaver is around, have him go first, because he'll only need a 3+ on either die.



Now, I've honestly always been a big fan of the Lord of Change- he might be my favorite GW character/species ever, so the list actually does appeal a bit to me (I imagine making about four or five of them, each converted to be wholly individual). The number you need isn't infinite, you only need enough that they can't be tabled in one turn (because whoever's still around gets to summon the rest of them back).

And unlike the Tomb Scorpion or Fate-Bell-Cheat, you still get to play the game.

I think every game has broken rules... 40k chaos Lord with axe.. Sacrifice him for a herald.. Get a blood thirster and a herald with the axe... When herald dies you get another blood thirster... Found another one with my verminking dreaded thirteenth spell... If I cast it on a hero and kill him I get a "verminus" unit... So I can put out a verminlord warbringer.... But why would I do that... It's not gonna be fun for me or my opponent... What I'm saying is... We can always find broken rules/units/models... If someone wants to exploit it... We aren't gonna play with them...

Again using phone for replys... Sorry

[Xaric]

Xaric- that's right. If he's playing just Nagash and summoning a horde of zombies, he's betting on the two of you finishing the game and not running out of time.



Each Lord of Change has a couple special rules that make it pretty easy for them to summon themselves:

1- They add +1 to the spell rolls of all Tzeentch wizards. The rules don't say anything about abilities not stacking, so if you have two or three Lords of Change out, you get +2 or +3 (Kairos gets +2 from a different ability of his, so if you combo them, you get plus a lot).

2- They have another ability that when the roll to cast a spell, they can make the lower die match the higher one. So if you rolled a five and a two, you just rolled a ten. With only the initial plus one, they need to roll two dice, and one or the other needs to be at least four. As you get more Lords out on the field, the number that you need to roll drops.

So, what started out as a very difficult summoning roll (9+) is way more likely to succeed than to fail (4+ on either die). If Fateweaver is around, have him go first, because he'll only need a 3+ on either die.



Now, I've honestly always been a big fan of the Lord of Change- he might be my favorite GW character/species ever, so the list actually does appeal a bit to me (I imagine making about four or five of them, each converted to be wholly individual). The number you need isn't infinite, you only need enough that they can't be tabled in one turn (because whoever's still around gets to summon the rest of them back).

And unlike the Tomb Scorpion or Fate-Bell-Cheat, you still get to play the game.

Oddly I would say 5 lord of change would make sense fluff wise too think about it this way instead of treating them as there own daemon treat the summon as a mirror image and what is the real one after all a lord of change is part of the most cunning god of them all. But this encourages you not to be a dick because as I said before in meny post.

Bringing nagash in a low unit game is no better the bringing a titan in a 600 point warhammer 40k game.

[ColeVVatkins]

Completely agree... I play with people that play for fun... In AoS I could always bring thanquol and never lose... 2d6 mortal wounds... He kills nagash in two turns... :-P I don't bring him... He feels broken...

[artisturn]

My friend Zeus and I were discussing summoning and we agreed that Lizardmen have the upper hand when it comes to summoning units,The Slann can cast three spells per turn and can summon special characters and troops.

Unlike VC that can only summon two hero choices (Banshee and Cairn Wraith) and troops, It doesn't bother me one bit that I can't summon the cool characters.

Now in the only game I played so far (lizardmen versus VC) we actually called a summoning truce after the third turn due to the fact it was adding too much time to the game.

In 8th I would raise Zombies galore, but now summoning can be more harmful then helpful if you raise too much. So knowing that I really have to think is the cost worth the risk.

[Charistoph]

My friend Zeus and I were discussing summoning and we agreed that Lizardmen have the upper hand when it comes to summoning units,The Slann can cast three spells per turn and can summon special characters and troops.

Unlike VC that can only summon two hero choices (Banshee and Cairn Wraith) and troops, It doesn't bother me one bit that I can't summon the cool characters.

Now in the only game I played so far (lizardmen versus VC) we actually called a summoning truce after the third turn due to the fact it was adding too much time to the game.

In 8th I would raise Zombies galore, but now summoning can be more harmful then helpful if you raise too much. So knowing that I really have to think is the cost worth the risk.

Don't forget Daemons. Any Chaos Wizard can summon them, Daemon, Mortal, or Beast, and ALL of the Daemons are summonable (except for a few specifics), not just a couple Heroes and Troops.

Even if you limited each Hero to a maximum of 1 per, there are far more models capable of summoning in a Chaos army than the Seraphon or Undead. And many of them can also Summon, in turn.

And let's face it, most Daemons are more dangerous than the average zombie or skeleton.

[Xaric]

I made a house rule using gaming summoning rules that each wizard can only maintain control of x amount of spells they can cast as summons so for instance a wizard that can cast one spell can only ever have 1 summon active at a given time.

[ColeVVatkins]

Don't forget Daemons. Any Chaos Wizard can summon them, Daemon, Mortal, or Beast, and ALL of the Daemons are summonable (except for a few specifics), not just a couple Heroes and Troops.

Even if you limited each Hero to a maximum of 1 per, there are far more models capable of summoning in a Chaos army than the Seraphon or Undead. And many of them can also Summon, in turn.

And let's face it, most Daemons are more dangerous than the average zombie or skeleton.

Remember thanquol tried to summon a verminlord... Summoned a blood thirster by accident and almost died... So I guess I can summon any daemon I want... Skaven are chaos now...

[Charistoph]

Remember thanquol tried to summon a verminlord... Summoned a blood thirster by accident and almost died... So I guess I can summon any daemon I want... Skaven are chaos now...

I did forget the Verminkin in that assessment, yes. But I haven't studied their Warscrolls but for the most cursory.

[ColeVVatkins]

I did forget the Verminkin in that assessment, yes. But I haven't studied their Warscrolls but for the most cursory.

All you need to know is that all skaven casters have the keywords chaos and wizards... :-P

[Charistoph]

All you need to know is that all skaven casters have the keywords chaos and wizards... :-P

Well, of course, it's more I didn't bother to check which are Wizards so don't have them in my mind. The Warplock for example...

[Xaric]

also take into account you can take models from other race's or even factions to throw into your army so you can summon every model in the game that is summonable.

[Erik Setzer]

Completely agree... I play with people that play for fun... In AoS I could always bring thanquol and never lose... 2d6 mortal wounds... He kills nagash in two turns... :-P I don't bring him... He feels broken...

Um... Wasn't the point of AoS ditching rules and stuff so that people could bring whatever they wanted and not feel like it was a waste? That seems like the exact opposite issue, some stuff is so powerful that you can't bring it unless you want to feel like a jerk. Can't you just let your opponent take stuff that you think would be equally matched? Isn't that what the no-points is all about?

- - - Updated - - -


In 8th I would raise Zombies galore, but now summoning can be more harmful then helpful if you raise too much. So knowing that I really have to think is the cost worth the risk.

And there's the balance to the concern about people adding units they didn't start the game with. It can actually be detrimental to your army and cost you the game fast.

[ColeVVatkins]

Um... Wasn't the point of AoS ditching rules and stuff so that people could bring whatever they wanted and not feel like it was a waste? That seems like the exact opposite issue, some stuff is so powerful that you can't bring it unless you want to feel like a jerk. Can't you just let your opponent take stuff that you think would be equally matched? Isn't that what the no-points is all about?



So far I haven't had anyone survive 2d6 mortal wounds from thanquol...

[Erik Setzer]

So far I haven't had anyone survive 2d6 mortal wounds from thanquol...

Okay... It's an 8" range. Cannons are 32" for Dwarfs, 40" for Empire, have two shots per turn, hit on 4+, wound on 2+, reduce Thanquol's save to 6+, and do D6 wounds per failed save. Thanquol's got 13 wounds. That's about four wounding hits from a cannon, which would be maybe 8-9 shots needed to get through. A pair of cannons would probably handle it, but four would certainly make sure of it. Considering that cannons were in the range of 100-120 points in WFB, and Thanquol was, IIRC, 675 points (somewhere in that ballpark), that seems like a fair trade-off. If you don't have artillery, use a LOT of missile weapons.

The only reason that becomes a bit of an issue is because Thanquol's side might end up being outnumbered in order to balance against him, which could see him getting a Sudden Death bonus, which doesn't make much sense. But just ignore that silly rule, because, to be blunt, it's a stupid rule.

My own Dwarf army I've been building up for AoS would be fine against him... Three cannons, an Organ gun, and a grudge thrower, might even be enough to down him in one turn. 'Course, then that might present a problem with the rest of the Skaven army not being able to deal with the artillery, and being too potent on the Dwarfs' side. But try out something like that, see if you feel that bad about him afterward.

[ColeVVatkins]

Yessir... That's exactly how I would play against him... But for those non ranged armies... You have to get within range... That's when he dominates... When I said he is just wrong... Match him against any other hero... It's not fair... He hasn't lost a fight yet... Of course he would lose if nagash spent his 8 spells summoning units... :-P

[Erik Setzer]

But that's basically how things were before... Nagash's strength came in summoning, and I usually wouldn't use him because he's a massive points sink that has to summon units to make his points back. He still gets his value from his ability to bring in new units. Thanquol and Boneripper were absolutely brutal in the End Times books, you could crush all kinds of stuff with him.

If I took Orcs against him, I'd just throw waves of models at him. Eventually he'd fall.

[ColeVVatkins]

Ya... Drown him in non hero's... Just plain 1/2 wound units... But I'm sure I would keep him surrounded by stormvermin... :-P

[Erik Setzer]

Sure, but then that wall of Stormvermin also makes it harder for him to get range with his attack. So it's not exactly a failsafe plan.

[ColeVVatkins]

He is such a huge model... He always has line of sight... Have a wall of about 6" stormvermin... Fire off the 2d6 mortal wounds... And did I mention that op rule of 5+ invulnerable the stormvermin would have... Giving them 4+ armor and 5+ invul.. *Giggle*

- - - Updated - - -

Blessings of the Horned Rat: If Thanquol
uses this ability, select a Skaven unit
within 13". Until your next hero phase, roll
a dice whenever that unit suffers a wound
or mortal wound. Add one to the result
if the unit has 13 or more models. On a 6
or more, the Horned Rat saves his minion
from harm and that wound or mortal
wound is ignored.

[Mr Mystery]

2 Thundertusks.

I've got the range on him by a good degree, and tonk him for 6 mortal wounds on a 2+ with each one :)

In the words of Chas'n'Dave......I don't care, I don't care, I don't care if he comes round 'ere. I've got my beer in the sideboard here, let Muvver sort 'Im out if he comes round 'ere!'

He's hard, but as with pretty much everything in AoS, far from invulnerable :)

[ColeVVatkins]

If you want anything to die... Pretty easy to do in AoS if you have ranged...

[Xaric]

are people forgetting your not restricted to using other race's in your army now not like in 8th edition so if you lack range units find a warscroll that you like and take it even if there not of the same faction there is no alliance chart just come up with a reason they joined maybe there slaves.

Also Mighty Lord of Khorne with his collar of Khorne ability can unbind a unlimited amount of spells as there is no limit like normal wizards have so good luck summoning.

Bloodsecrator force's you to reroll successful casts not unbind them so good luck on trying to be successful.

So you have to roll to try and cast if successful you must re-roll again then if you are successful again you can possible be unbind by the Lord of Khorne :D

[ColeVVatkins]

are people forgetting your not restricted to using other race's in your army now not like in 8th edition so if you lack range units find a warscroll that you like and take it even if there not of the same faction there is no alliance chart just come up with a reason they joined maybe there slaves.

Also Mighty Lord of Khorne with his collar of Khorne ability can unbind a unlimited amount of spells as there is no limit like normal wizards have so good luck summoning.

Bloodsecrator force's you to reroll successful casts not unbind them so good luck on trying to be successful.

So you have to roll to try and cast if successful you must re-roll again then if you are successful again you can possible be unbind by the Lord of Khorne :D

Sadly I only have Skaven... Guess it's time to invest in khorne :-P

[Erik Setzer]

Also, not sure how stopping spells helps against a weapon that isn't a spell...

[ColeVVatkins]

Also, not sure how stopping spells helps against a weapon that isn't a spell...

Most people don't realize until game time... It was hilarious in my first game using Thanquol... I got him within range of his general and said ok these 2d6 are mortal wounds... The guy said what... Where... Lemme see! He read it and said... Soo.. This game is over... So we started a new game.. That's why I don't use him.. But with all the summoning I'm guessing I'm gonna have to bring Thanquol every game... Can always summon if I wanted to play dirty too... (Thanquol is Chaos wizard)

[Xaric]

There are units out there that can block against mortal wounds for instance Chaos war shrine with 1 wound horde of model unit also mortal wounds in general are wasted on models who don't have a save to begin with.

[ColeVVatkins]

So far saves aren't that tough... I use the 2d6 to kill you... I don't care if you have a save or not...

[Xaric]

Okey I did a experiment with your 2d6 with 20 bloodreavers wile being benefitted by supporting units that give them each 3(4) attacks rerolling all failed hits and failed wounds of 1 the results are no matter how those 2d6 wounds did the unit that did them died horribly vs bloodreavers.

Even if you do kill 12 of them when they pile in with the last 8 of them will surround him chieftain gets 4 attacks and 21 attacks from the other 7 so he must live past 25 attacks that all have rerolls to hits and rerolls to wounds of 1 can you possibly block them all? and these units get a 6+ from mortal wounds and wounds because of the chaos war shrine support in the tests I did they killed him out of the 10 times died about 6 times.

Its called using the correct units vs. the correct enemy's.

[ColeVVatkins]

So you expect a hero to take on a 20 wound unit? We were talking about hero vs hero... If I had to take on 20 wounds I would have weapon teams with him... Warpfire thrower for instance.. If I only took 2.. That is 4d6 mortal wounds to your unit of 20 bloodreavers...

[Mr Mystery]

And it's all hypothetical nonsense.

If you do A, I'll do B. And if I do B, you'll do C - so on and so forth.

Yes, Thanquol can be pokey. But like everything in AoS, far from insurmountably so.

[ColeVVatkins]

And it's all hypothetical nonsense.

If you do A, I'll do B. And if I do B, you'll do C - so on and so forth.

Yes, Thanquol can be pokey. But like everything in AoS, far from insurmountably so.

Agreed... I was just bragging that I haven't seen a hero go Toe to toe with Thanquol... I know any and everything can kill him... If you focus him turn 1 you may be able to kill him... But he is just one model/13 wounds... So I still have an army when he dies... :-)

[Xaric]

Okey your clearly playing the game in a 1v1 format remove the tag hero vs hero if I throw a unit designed to kill another unit then of course that unit will win that is simple game mechanic's...

My comment is more logical because lets face it we play with groups of units not just 1 unit vs 1 unit... because the reason I used bloodreaver is because they are designed in mind to have high damage output and very weak saves I wouldn't use my hero because he has high saves and multiple wounds and those saves would be ignored because of mortal wounds... try to think more tactical in the future.

Also thanquol is a monster and also he's a general type unit and his skills are designed to kill monsters/hero type units... so your telling me because he can kill your unit that is weak to him is unfair I call that its your fault with your poor choice of units vs units.

Lets look at my general type monster Bloodthirster of Insensate Rage if I charge and fly over and land behind the unit that has multiple units around him this includes hero's as they are 1 model in a unit and I roll a 6 to wound on a normal unit every unit 8" around that unit takes 3 mortal wounds so say good bye to all your hero's that are within the ranks of 1 wounds units to anything with less then 3 wounds and no protection vs. mortal wounds

If you ask well he cant go past units unfortunately that's the benefit from fly and if I do a charge just outside 3" and the charge distance reaches behind your unit its viable now que the hate :D

[Erik Setzer]

And it's all hypothetical nonsense.

If you do A, I'll do B. And if I do B, you'll do C - so on and so forth.

Yes, Thanquol can be pokey. But like everything in AoS, far from insurmountably so.

Much in the way that Ronda Rousey can be beaten by another woman.

[Mr Mystery]

No, not even close.

As aforementioned - a pair of Tundertusks have the range on him, and can deliver the hurty-pain-pain very, very quickly.

2 x Frost Wreathed Ice, and there is an exceptionally high chance poor old Thanquol will be left on a single wound, and with two Harpoon Launchers, there's a fair chance he won't survive the first turn.

And it's no good hanging Thanquol back on that count because of his piddly 8" range, and even if I do wind up in his range, he can only tickle one at a time :)

[Xaric]

Give Mr Mystery a cookie please at least he understands how to exploit a targets weakness please fill free to take notes from him.

So what have we learned today class thanquol is weak to range so you have two ways to exploit this tie him up with loads of 1 wound no save models and shoot him at range or use a lot of ranged fire power focusing him down.

The problem with a number of monsters is they loose effectiveness when they suffer wounds.

So far the weakness chart goes as follow

Monster weak too siege weapon
Siege weapon weak the mounted fast models
mounted fast models are weak to high resistance units
high resistance units are weak to numbers of low wound models with high attacks
Low wound models with high attacks are weak to monsters

Now you can remove the weakness if you combined two units together or enhance them using bonuses but this is completely theory as every model in this game is different.

[Erik Setzer]

No, not even close.

As aforementioned - a pair of Tundertusks have the range on him, and can deliver the hurty-pain-pain very, very quickly.

2 x Frost Wreathed Ice, and there is an exceptionally high chance poor old Thanquol will be left on a single wound, and with two Harpoon Launchers, there's a fair chance he won't survive the first turn.

And it's no good hanging Thanquol back on that count because of his piddly 8" range, and even if I do wind up in his range, he can only tickle one at a time :)

So yeah, I was close. You're talking about having two "heavyweights" take on one. If you take two fighters that are a touch under Rousey's caliber and have them take her on at the same time, she can be beaten. Similar concept.

Of course, the Skaven player could just summon in Daemons, too. Because why not? Or just throw in Warp Lightning Cannons. And then it becomes a race to see who can throw out the most ranged stuff that does wounds that can't be saved. Cold War FTW?

[Xaric]

erik if that is what is needed they call that a war of attrition :)

[Mr Mystery]

Dude, I could field a single Thundertusk and still flatten Thanquol.

Hence my original point - Thanquol is nasty - but still relatively easy to deal with.

[nsc]

Dude, I could field a single Thundertusk and still flatten Thanquol.

Hence my original point - Thanquol is nasty - but still relatively easy to deal with.

What if thanquol is bubble wrapped?

[Mr Mystery]

I'll still used ranged weapons against him - nobody is safe from ranged weapons these days!

[nsc]

I'll still used ranged weapons against him - nobody is safe from ranged weapons these days!

You need LoS so you can bubble with bigger models and then yes he is safe from shooting :)

[Mr Mystery]

Then I'd have enough Thundertusks to go through them like Butter :p

[Xaric]

how on earth do you get Thanquol out of LOS he's freaking big you would need a lot of big models just to hide him.

[Jef Stuyck]

The answer is quite simple to this, when you start the game, make sure both players agree on the ruling.

If one player says, you need to have it on the table at the start. Take that as the ruling.

If both agree that you can summon as much as you have on the side, use that ruling.

As Game workshop says:


The wording on our warscrolls and rules are purposefully vague so as to promote freedom when building your army.
So long as you and your opponent are happy with it; go for it. Have fun!

Also this:


Please keep an eye out for the FAQ and errata when it comes out.

[nsc]

how on earth do you get Thanquol out of LOS he's freaking big you would need a lot of big models just to hide him.

Oh, I have the old metal Thanquol & Boneripper, so Thanquol is the size of a grey-seer and boneripper is the size of a rat ogre.


Then I'd have enough Thundertusks to go through them like Butter :p

How many wounds is each thundertusk? I guarantee if we're in a fair game I can bubble wrap more than you can kill in one turn :)

[Mr Mystery]

12 wounds each.

Though, I would have to insist you use the correct Thanquol and Boneripper model, cheapskate :p

[nsc]

12 wounds each.

Though, I would have to insist you use the correct Thanquol and Boneripper model, cheapskate :p

This is indeed the correct thanquol and boneripper model, purchased from Games Workshop and by their own rules I am allowed to use them as Thanquol and Boneripper as that is what they are. :) You should see my ork trukks, I have 3 of the old ones, they don't even block LoS on a guardsman they're so low and flat :P

So sue me for owning old models.

Maybe for christmas I'll buy myself a new huge end times T&B.

If we assume that for each thundertusk I have 12 stormvermin, will you punch through? ;) What if they're fearless from T&B's command ability?

Of course this is purely hypothetical, although I would argue that hypothetically I'm not a cheapskate ;)

[Mr Mystery]

Well, if you've bubble wrapped him, I'll just sort of leave him to it, as you'll have blocked his LoS too, so I'll just send in the Lads with their wonderfully krumpy Ironguts :p

[Erik Setzer]

Yep, any of my three sets of T&B are *correct* models, since they're all T&B.

I'd use the new one if/when I played him, just because it'll look impressive once I bother to finish painting it (hmm, I should really do that), but the older ones also look cool, and as GW models they're plenty correct to use in a game, especially if someone can't afford the new one.

[Mr Mystery]

Ah but they're not the one shown on the Warscroll, therefore totes invalid.

Stop cheating.


no, not really.

[Calam]

I haven't played against nagash yet, but I want too. I think I have enough helstorm batteries that it won't matter.

[Xaric]

Ah but they're not the one shown on the Warscroll, therefore totes invalid.

Stop cheating.


no, not really.

I guess that comes down to description if the description said it carry's a weapon but the model you are using does not have that weapon then you cant use that part of the profile :D

[odinsgrandson]

This is indeed the correct thanquol and boneripper model, purchased from Games Workshop and by their own rules I am allowed to use them as Thanquol and Boneripper as that is what they are. :)

Reminds me of the Cardboard Ork Dreadnought you got in the 2nd ed box set. Totally legal as a dreadnought in official tournaments.



As an aside, I honestly do want to find an old Nagash sometime. Not because I think short Nagash has a tactical advantage, but because I have the hubris to think I might be able to make that mini look decent, and want to have a crack at it.

[Erik Setzer]

As an aside, I honestly do want to find an old Nagash sometime. Not because I think short Nagash has a tactical advantage, but because I have the hubris to think I might be able to make that mini look decent, and want to have a crack at it.

I actually had one lying around still, just had to dig it out and get a layer of "time" off of it (that weird crud that sometimes accumulates on metal figures). The local GW store had a diorama contest where it had to fit on a Knight's base. Since it was right before the new Nagash's release, I decided to use the old Nagash in a diorama with him raising fresh Undead around him, simple concept but I only had like a week to do it in. I also magnetized his feet so I could make another base for him of the proper size to use in Warhammer.

He actually turned out looking pretty good (considering the time I had to paint him). Went with the typical purple robes, but black armor (as he SHOULD have), avoided any of the too-colorful stuff. The only issue is that his skull still looks odd. If you could find a replacement head, it'd be a solid model.

I'll try to get some images later.

[odinsgrandson]

I feel that the awful happy clown skull is too much of what makes that mini 'special.'

I couldn't replace it. That'd be like cheating.

[Charon]

Still have an old nagash and an old bloodthirster (that one that looks like the gargyle from hero quest)