GW OFFICIAL: Age of Sigmar FAQ

[Bigred]

via GW Age of Sigmar Page (https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/?fref=photo) (Facebook) 4-21-2016

Official Age of Sigmar FAQ, broken down by phase and faction.


18199182001820118202182031820418205182061820718208

[Bigred]

Official Age of Sigmar FAQ, broken down by phase and faction. Part 2


182091821018211182121821318214182151821618217

[Erik Setzer]

Should be noted: This is not 100% official just yet. They're asking for feedback on whether the questions are clearly answered. If you want to participate in the discussion, go to the FB page:

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/posts/468272163369582

[Erik Setzer]

BOOM.

"Q: Can the summoning spells on some warscrolls be used by the appropriate caster even if none of the models from the warscroll are in my army?

A: Yes."

The most debated question now has an answer, and it's the one I thought was right the whole time. Huzzah!

[Auticus]

Yeah that one to me seemed obvious too.

[Mr Mystery]

Can't say I agree with that one, but an answer is an answer :)

They're wrong about bacon sandwiches though. The savages.

[Erik Setzer]

Well, it's the way summoning worked in WFB and still works in 40K.

Don't like your opponent summoning ALL THE THINGS? Just kill the summoner(s).

But yeah, totally going to have a Grey Seer start bringing Daemons out of the Warp for fun. (Actually, I'll *plan* on doing that, and the dice will always roll the wrong result, because Chaos likes to laugh at our plans.)

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, the worst answer IMO was that you can indeed take as many copies of a named character as you want. If you have five Archaon models, you're totally allowed to run an army with five Archaons. (I actually always assumed that was the way it worked, but, well, I *hoped* I was wrong on that.)

[Mr Mystery]

Dimensional Instability?

Of course, the most important rule of don't be a Richard will always apply :)

[Haighus]

Should be noted: This is not 100% official just yet. They're asking for feedback on whether the questions are clearly answered. If you want to participate in the discussion, go to the FB page:

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/posts/468272163369582 Hang on... so we get almost no customer interaction with GW for years, and suddenly they ask for FAQs, and then ask for feedback on their FAQ answers?! Well I never.


Actually, the worst answer IMO was that you can indeed take as many copies of a named character as you want. If you have five Archaon models, you're totally allowed to run an army with five Archaons. (I actually always assumed that was the way it worked, but, well, I *hoped* I was wrong on that.)
That is dumb though, hopefully the feedback actually means a damn and they change this. Although the way you have worded the feedback suggests they are not going to change clear cut answers which are unpopular, only adjust ones that remain unclear.

[Champi]

"Official Age of Sigmar FAQ"

No, not official... yet

[Erik Setzer]

Dimensional Instability?

Of course, the most important rule of don't be a Richard will always apply :)

"See, this here is AoS-616 Archaon, and this is AoS-65 Archaon, TOTALLY different characters."

[odinsgrandson]

BOOM.

"Q: Can the summoning spells on some warscrolls be used by the appropriate caster even if none of the models from the warscroll are in my army?

A: Yes."

The most debated question now has an answer, and it's the one I thought was right the whole time. Huzzah!

Yep. That's what the rules said. People argued against it on the basis of "They couldn't have meant that! It is totally broken!" rather than on the basis of anything the rules stated. And none of the other rules try to prevent broken things from happening, so that side had no leg to stand on all along.


Same things about character models. There aren't any rules against bringing more than one of anyone with a name.


People were hoping for a big errata on these, but this is just an FAQ. They are just clarifying that "Yes, that's the way the rules are written." The upcoming "Matched Play" format is where we'll be seeing actual changes to rules like these.


Also- remember that this has not been canonized on the basis that they want to make sure that everything here is CLEAR. They've definitely been clear on the points people dislike, people just don't want to use them because the rules aren't good (summoning infinite fateweavers, etc).

[Erik Setzer]

Summoning infinite Fateweavers would be pretty tough, though. Something like Fateweaver is generally a 10 or higher to cast for summoning, on two dice. That's a low chance for success. You'd have to have multiple summoners to try to make sure you could do at least one Fateweaver per turn.

Your opponent, meanwhile, should be taking advantage of the lack of protection for individual models, and hammering those summoners from range with anything they've got.

[Auticus]

Typically our demon summoner player (who claims summoning is perfectly fine) summons a lot of heralds which is easier to summon, who summon heralds etc. He does get off one or two greater demon summons but he relies mostly on bringing in twice the amount of heralds which bring in other things like horrors which can cast (summon) and then he works down blowing up the table with twice his original army size in units.

[Erik Setzer]

Works that way in 40K already. I used Orks to summon an extra 50% of an army, with just two psykers. In AoS it's easier to pick out the summoners. Replicating summoners can be an issue, but making them a priority should help take them out before it gets too far out of hand. Having nothing to restrict what you're bringing to the table should make it easier to make sure you include something that can help combat the summoners.

[odinsgrandson]

What you really use is Lords of Change.

They can summon themselves very easily (because they roll 2 dice and double the higher result rather than adding them together). In addition, they each can add +1 to your summoning roll, so the more you get out, the less and less likely any of them are to fail their roll.

Infinite Lords of Change are really easy to summon. And in a game where the victory conditions are "table your opponent" this can cause serious problems. Hence, people wanted to read the summoning rules very differently.

I can't imagine that they'll overlook summoning in their "Matched Play" style.

[Erik Setzer]

Okay, but you're getting into the same "pay to win territory" with the cost of that trick as someone using five Archaons. It's perfectly legal, as they just confirmed, but someone would have to drop a lot of money on it. At the end of the day, I guess it's, "How much money do you want to spend to try to ensure a win?" Eventually, you run out of people to play, too, so you've dropped a lot of money on toy soldiers that sit on shelves.

[Auticus]

The demon player here that loves chain summoning has a lord of change, fateweaver, and a blood thirster that usually end up on the field. Then a good half dozen or more heralds. Then a bunch of pink horrors.

Five lords of change isn't really something I've ever seen because no one wants to buy those.

And while it is easier to pick characters out in AOS since you can't hide them in units, typically our tables have decent amounts of terrain on them and his initial summoners are hidden in a corner out of sight so you cannot pick them out for at least a couple of turns, and thats a couple of turns where he has blown his army up in points 50 - 100% easily and sometimes up to 200%.

Especially with heralds, the walls of troops that he can summon can obscure visibility to the target easily.

Really the *only* thing that I have seen come close to being able to contest a daisy chain summoning army is the stormcast formation where they can just arrive where they want and assault.