URGENT: GW is crowdsourcing their FAQ on Facebook!

[Firefly]

Hey, folks... Lustria Online member @Ixt here. I've already posted this on the Lustria forums, but here you go:

GW's official Age of Sigmar page is crowdsourcing AoS's upcoming FAQ for THIS WEEK ONLY!

If you've got any questions about the game at all, be sure to leave a comment! The thread is up for only one week and they are fielding one question per person. Make sure you aren't asking the same thing/the answer of another question doesn't answer your own!

Maybe even leave the question in this forum post to be reviewed by other forum members? Might not be a bad idea. My question is a long shot, but my hope is that if its logic holds, people will freak out less about summoning.

Anyway, I'll get on with it. Be sure to 'Like' their page. Here's the thread!:

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/posts/456916931171772:0

[Auticus]

I see the same summon question over and over, so hopefully that one will be resolved. Then there is the clamour for official points.

[grimmas]

The summon one is probably the best bet for a clear up. The points well that isn't a Faq thing really but who knows

[Firefly]

I see the same summon question over and over, so hopefully that one will be resolved.

Good opportunity for them to 'balance' it, and hopefully they take that opportunity! Very contentious rule, that.

[Mr Mystery]

I asked about Summoning, with specific carefully considered wording.

Sadly, someone not-GW then claimed to have answered it....despite that I've gone over his explanation before and pointed out where it doesn't stand up.

I'm always 100% in favour of 'play it your way', but when submitting a question for an FAQ, then telling GW 'ignore the first 20, I've answered them' is seriously pushing it.

Others I'd like cleared up - can you 'pile in' around the base of a model you're already in BTB with (I say nay, but the rules don't explicitly cover it either way).

And that's about it for me!

[grimmas]

There are a couple of helpful souls dishing out their "wisdom" I'm not sure they realise that people don't want to hear what they think they want a ruling from GW.

[Path Walker]

I asked about Summoning, with specific carefully considered wording.

Sadly, someone not-GW then claimed to have answered it....despite that I've gone over his explanation before and pointed out where it doesn't stand up.

I'm always 100% in favour of 'play it your way', but when submitting a question for an FAQ, then telling GW 'ignore the first 20, I've answered them' is seriously pushing it.

Others I'd like cleared up - can you 'pile in' around the base of a model you're already in BTB with (I say nay, but the rules don't explicitly cover it either way).

And that's about it for me!

I had already blocked that guy for his previous dunderheadedness.

[Mr Mystery]

I get he's passionate about it - we're Nerds, it comes with the territory.

But to claim 'he's answered it' is just beyond the pail for me.

He may be right, but still. Sheesh!

[Path Walker]

I get he's passionate about it - we're Nerds, it comes with the territory.

But to claim 'he's answered it' is just beyond the pail for me.

He may be right, but still. Sheesh!

Last time it was his utter inability to even entertain the idea that there was any contradiction because he couldn't understand it. So everyone else who pointed out any of the inconsistencies was just wrong and dumb. Actually I think you were involved in that too!

Who can Summon is the one rule i think AoS isn't particularly clear about, in the 4 pages of the rules anyway, because it could be seen either way.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

I was repeating about how if he insists on RAW, it all has to be RAW - and thus summoning was moot as beyond Bray Shamen and their main spell, no Summoning Spells are ever on the caster's Warscroll, ergo RAW can never be cast.

[Auticus]

GW knows. GW will answer. That guy may be right, or wrong, in the end we'll know for sure. This is why I have gotten off all of the fb groups for now.

[Ben_S]

I saw someone ask the summoning question on FB and GW replied with an answer that didn't even address the question actually asked. I can only hope that proper FAQs are better, but I won't get my hopes up until they're released.

[Mr Mystery]

I think I saw that one - it was essentially 'agree with your opponent'

Which, outside of an official FAQ, I think is pretty reasonable.

I still expect it to be case of 'the unit must have been deployed at the start of the game'. Otherwise summoning gives certain armies a really big advantage others just can't match.

[Path Walker]

I think it should be "what you have on the table or specifically mention to your opponent as being things you'll summon later, to allow them to place a unit to counter that" rather than a free "summon what you like when you like" but I have a feeling the actual answer will be the latter to be honest.

[Mr Mystery]

True enough on the first two.

But I just don't see 'summon whatevs, whenevs'.

[Path Walker]

Just becaude it fits with the "fewer, simple rules" things AoS has going

[Auticus]

I agree that I think the answer is summon whatevs whenevs because thats how GW has gone. You can do the same thing in 40k with summoning.

You're also right in that it is a trick that has no counter other than to also have a summoner army. Otherwise you will get buried. Sudden Death rules are often quoted as the counter but if you play scenarios, almost every scenario except one or two state to not use the victory conditions from the four page rules so sudden death is not an option unless you just want to stick wtih the AOS version of battleline forever. (which a lot of people here are happy to do)

[Mr Mystery]

Though of course, nothing can trump the golden rule of don't be a Richard

[grimmas]

Though of course, nothing can trump the golden rule of don't be a Richard

Go on ask them if they're going to add that to the FAQs and errata

It is the real "most important rule" after all.

[Ben_S]

I think I saw that one - it was essentially 'agree with your opponent'

Which, outside of an official FAQ, I think is pretty reasonable.

I still expect it to be case of 'the unit must have been deployed at the start of the game'. Otherwise summoning gives certain armies a really big advantage others just can't match.

I think the answer is that a Necromancer can summon Zombies (or whatever) without you needing to take Zombies in your starting force, but there's no point going over that debate again. My point was that the reply I saw on FB was about agreeing with your opponent on things like how many units you can summon - it didn't actually address the question that was asked, even in an 'agree with your opponent' non-answer sort of way.

I'm hoping official FAQs will be by rules writers, rather than social media/PR types, but I'm still not filled with confidence.

[Firefly]

Heh, I pointed it out to that guy, personally, that multiple individuals' scrutiny had effectively overcome the answer of, 'summoners can summon because.' I'm not against people pointing out RAW rulings to those who had misread, but the army of interpreters has been frustrating that thread.

I think summoning can have a happy marriage in the end:

1) Summoners can summon whatever they please if they have the keywords necessary, regardless of whether the unit is on the table.

2) Summon spell titles earn a colon after the word, 'Summon.' For example, 'Summon: Saurus Knights.' This designates 'Summon' itself as a spell, meaning that it may only be cast once per turn (unless otherwise stated).

3) Debatable: armies/models that 'need' summoning earn individualized exceptions based on the models being summoned.

4) Ridiculously powerful summoners (like Nagash) earn a keyword, 'Legendary,' which - due to the scale of their power - restricts that player from accessing the Sudden Death table.

I do hope it gets reined in somehow.

[Erik Setzer]

I think I saw that one - it was essentially 'agree with your opponent'

Which, outside of an official FAQ, I think is pretty reasonable.

Actually, that seems to be the official line on most of AoS. "We gave you very basic guidelines, you flesh out the game however you want." Which sounds nice and all, until you try to play a game at another store or another city, and they don't use the same house rules, making pick-up games even harder. It's a good way to isolate gaming communities, terrible approach to building a worldwide community. It's their attitude on things like that, that make me wonder if the few people left who understand the business they're in are locked in a basement somewhere not allowed to speak. I'll be amazed if the FAQ answers much.



I still expect it to be case of 'the unit must have been deployed at the start of the game'. Otherwise summoning gives certain armies a really big advantage others just can't match.

Not at all! See, you forget that in AoS, any army can include Necromancers or Chaos Wizards. So no army has an advantage over another. Just buy a Necromancer and some boxes of Undead and add them to your army. Doesn't matter what army it is. Problem solved!

Also, you're talking about "advantages" which sounds like a discussion of "balance" and I thought the general line was that "balance" is something only dirty tournament players talk about and AoS is great because it skips on the "balance" stuff and goes hardcore "narrative." If your opponent bought a lot more models, the rules fully support him throwing them all on the table and overwhelming you. Don't like it? Spend more money. Or try to take out the wizards first. But the official idea would be that you should totally spend more money.

Various models can summon to their heart's content in WFB and 40K. Why nip that here? Is it the lack of any other balancing mechanic, like points? Is it wrong in 40K for Chaos to be able to summon lots of new models to the table without fear of blowing up their psyker? There's no limit in 40K. AoS is actually more limited because you can only cast one or two spells a turn (has to be a major character to do more than that). So is 40K seriously broken due to summoning?