When does the game end?

[ColeVVatkins]

In the rules it says destroyed OR no models left on the table... So is the game over as soon as I do 100% casualties?
Example... We each bring 50 models... You have summoning and I do not... I kill 50 models but you still have 50 left thanks to summoning. I have destroyed 100% of your force but you still have models on the table. Is it up to the non summoner to keep track of casualties?
Or... Is the game not over and the summoner always wins?

[Erik Setzer]

Well, remember that you can have reinforcements, that are off the field of battle (either because you chose to, or the scenario has them). So either you completely destroy the opposing army, or you just destroy the parts of the army that are on the battlefield.

Heck, in some scenarios it sounds like the enemy just keep bringing back their dead, so it'd be impossible to destroy the opposing army, but you could still wipe out all the models they have on the table at a certain time (assuming they've been a bit unlucky bringing guys back).

So basically, either play until someone has no models on the table, or until the scenario's objectives are fulfilled, or you get bored or run out of time. That's when the game ends.

[ColeVVatkins]

That's kinda what I'm asking... So I can never beat an army that summons... I can't wipe them off the table... If I started to they would just summon another unit... That's why they wrote in the rules about casualties...

[Path Walker]

Well, after you've played enough, you'd call an end to the game, then you'd compare starting army size to casualties and see who wins a Minor Victory

[Ben_S]

The usual victory condition is met when "one side [is] able to claim victory because it has destroyed its foe or there are no enemy models on the field of battle". It may look strange to have these two alternatives, given that they sound similar, but remember your opponent could have troops held back in certain conditions (like burrowing under the ground). In that case, you can't kill them, but you've still won if you leave him with no models left on the table.

If he summons new units during the game, you need to kill them too. There's nothing that says stop at 100% casualties. Given summoning, you can inflict over 100% casualties (because it's calculated as a percentage of his starting army size).


That's kinda what I'm asking... So I can never beat an army that summons... I can't wipe them off the table... If I started to they would just summon another unit...

Yes, you can. You can stop them summoning (unbind spells, kill wizard, etc) and/or kill them faster than they can summon.

If the game has to finish before either army is wiped out, e.g. due to a time limit, then you compare casualties for a minor victory.

[kaboomzi]

I'd argue that once you destroy 100% of your opponents starting number of models, you could call the game on the grounds of destroyed foe an roll off with your opponent to see if the game ends when they don't agree. Once you win the roll off you'll win with a minor victory. Most wizards can only summon a couple units per turn, but if those units are additional summoners, you'll never keep up with the tide. I read the rule as 2 two things as its written " destroyed its foe OR there are no enemy models left." As opposed to destroyed 'by' removing all models. It's written as two separate things. Reading the two seperate things as one (can only be 'destroyed' if all models are removed) mostly cripples any army without summoning vs someone with summoning. Not to mention it completely removes any tactics in regards to forethought on what you would be willing to summon during the game. If what you summon counts towards casualties in the race to kill 100% of the starting number of models (it does) then you have to actually think about what you'll bring and when you'll bring it as opposed to just "everything right now and more next turn". At least, that's my 'in a nut shell' take on it currently. I run Lizardmen... Seraphon and it'd be waaay to easy to cause all kinds of madness if I wanted...

[ColeVVatkins]

Yes, you can. You can stop them summoning (unbind spells, kill wizard, etc) and/or kill them faster than they can summon.

If the game has to finish before either army is wiped out, e.g. due to a time limit, then you compare casualties for a minor victory.


You can't stop a caster that doesn't want to be stopped... Aka boards edges... Stay max range to get off summons. .

[daboarder]

Well, after you've played enough, you'd call an end to the game, then you'd compare starting army size to casualties and see who wins a Minor Victory

Does everyone get a medal as well? And we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya round the fire? Stay up late, swapping manly stories? And in the morning, IM MAKING WAFFLES

[Brenlak]

Blue Waffles?

[daboarder]

Blue Waffles?

oh dear, now someones going to google that.....:eek:

[Erik Setzer]

You can't stop a caster that doesn't want to be stopped... Aka boards edges... Stay max range to get off summons. .

But summoning spells tend to have a limited range, so they're keeping their new units held well back as well. And then you just set up a "fort" and let them come to you and grind them up and laugh maniacally.

That last part is purely optional.

[Al Shut]

That last part is purely optional.

Does it give you a bonus?

[nsc]

You can agree with your opponent when to end the game before hand, you can just use 40k's variable mission ending too where after turn X you start rolling.

You don't have to play until someone is tabled.

If you're having problems with people summoning models talk to them about it before hand, use jezzails or something to shoot their wizards, unbind their summoning spells, etc etc.

[Mr Mystery]

But summoning spells tend to have a limited range, so they're keeping their new units held well back as well. And then you just set up a "fort" and let them come to you and grind them up and laugh maniacally.

That last part is purely optional.

Laughing maniacally is never optional!

[Kirsten]

the game is over when I pry the dice from your cold, dead fingers.

[ColeVVatkins]

So I can't get to summoner til turn 2... He is just to far away... So he gets off 4 summons... 4 extra units... You expect a non summoner to kill all that? I think there has to be house rule of starting turn 3 game ends on 5+ or something...

[Mr Mystery]

But seriously.

The game ends when your opponent lies beaten, bloodied and broken upon the floor, spine shattered, skull cracked and his teeth readied for use as next week's dice, a mewling, quivering lump of bruised and batter flesh, begging for mercy.

[Erik Setzer]

Laughing maniacally is never optional!

Well, at least *I've* been doing it right, then...

- - - Updated - - -


the game is over when I pry the dice from your cold, dead fingers.

I think I'd fight harder if someone threatened me with that. You want to take my TV from my cold, dead fingers? Fine. You want to touch my dice? Oh heck no, that's asking for the fury of the gods!

[ColeVVatkins]

But seriously.

The game ends when your opponent lies beaten, bloodied and broken upon the floor, spine shattered, skull cracked and his teeth readied for use as next week's dice, a mewling, quivering lump of bruised and batter flesh, begging for mercy.

So a summoning army always wins... :-( I have no chance unless game ends early...

- - - Updated - - -


You can agree with your opponent when to end the game before hand, you can just use 40k's variable mission ending too where after turn X you start rolling.

You don't have to play until someone is tabled.

If you're having problems with people summoning models talk to them about it before hand, use jezzails or something to shoot their wizards, unbind their summoning spells, etc etc.

I know how to fight against it... But if they bring casters... You can't stop them from summoning... That's why I'm asking about the rules on ending the battle...

[kaboomzi]

I'd say that after killing 100% of your opponents starting force you could call the game on the grounds of a destroyed foe. If/when your opponent disagrees, make it a roll off (as mentioned at the end of the rules) and see if you can claim a minor victory.

The victory conditions read as two separate things. Destroy the foe OR remove all enemy models. As opposed to something like destroy the foe BY removing all enemy models...

Reading the two conditions as one negates any tactics needed since a summoner would only be limited by his or her wallet. Though gw is probably cool with that. However, being 2 seperate win conditions means a summoner has to think before hand about what they want to summon and when they'll do it because (as described) they dont count towards your starting model count but DO count towards casualties. Same applies for reinforcements and reincarnation.

Sorry but a non summoning army will not stand a chance against a summoning army otherwise. I run Lizardmen... er, Seraphon and I can wreck an opponent first turn by summoning additional summoners and entire army first turn. That on top me most likely having gotten a sudden death bonus on you because you out numbered me a third based on our starting model count.

[Erik Setzer]

If you get a wizard within 18", you can try to stop them. Just roll 2D6, try to beat their roll. But heck, it's not like they can hide their caster, and you can snipe it ridiculously easy.

It really depends on the type of army you have. You could try a lot of missile fire, some units that have crushing charges (Ogres, Knights, etc.), casters of your own... Heck, if you have the models, join in and make it a summoning spree.

[ColeVVatkins]

If you get a wizard within 18", you can try to stop them. Just roll 2D6, try to beat their roll. But heck, it's not like they can hide their caster, and you can snipe it ridiculously easy.

It really depends on the type of army you have. You could try a lot of missile fire, some units that have crushing charges (Ogres, Knights, etc.), casters of your own... Heck, if you have the models, join in and make it a summoning spree.

So they do hide their caster... Behind a house... He summons 4 units... Or more...only chance of have is to wipe him off the board or hope the game ends early... That's why I'm asking about 100% casualties being an army destroyed...

[Erik Setzer]

Well, the game can end whenever you both can agree on it ending. You should probably agree to a turn limit before the game starts. Otherwise, it can drag on all day.

Then if he insists on summoning so much, you win because you killed 378% of his starting models.

Heck, technically, there's nothing that says you can't just bring on units from reserve any time you want. There's no set definition of what an "army" is, so if you have models with you at the game, and you have the rules for them on hand, it's perfectly legal to count them as reserves and bring them on, with the same stipulation that summoned models have of them not counting for purposes of killing percentage. (Indeed, this can lead to a game ending with one player winning by killing 825% of the opposing force as opposed to his opponent killing 566% of his force.)

[ColeVVatkins]

Well, the game can end whenever you both can agree on it ending. You should probably agree to a turn limit before the game starts. Otherwise, it can drag on all day.

Then if he insists on summoning so much, you win because you killed 378% of his starting models... I've said it a bunch on the forums... To agree on how many things a caster can summon... And agree to start rolling when game ends after turn 2... 6.. Turn 3 5+... So on and so on...

Heck, technically, there's nothing that says you can't just bring on units from reserve any time you want. There's no set definition of what an "army" is, so if you have models with you at the game, and you have the rules for them on hand, it's perfectly legal to count them as reserves and bring them on, with the same stipulation that summoned models have of them not counting for purposes of killing percentage. (Indeed, this can lead to a game ending with one player winning by killing 825% of the opposing force as opposed to his opponent killing 566% of his force.)

Bahaha... I love you... But we do play wound battles... So only allowed to bring say 50wounds...

- - - Updated - - -

I think I my post got lost... About agreeing on ammount of summoning a wizard can do before the game... As in a caster can only have one unit under its control... And agreeing on game length... Turn 2 6+... Turn 3 5+...

[Erik Setzer]

Okay, so you're limiting it already, then... which should mitigate most of the problem.

If not, just fight fire with fire.

[Mr Mystery]

You can always out penis the penis.....

Someone planning summoning lols? Do they think simply spamming you is tactical genius? Got a dodgy interpretation?

Simply point out that Wizards can only cast spells that are on their warscroll. So they may well claim to know every single summoning spell ever....shame they can't ever actually attempt to cast them :p

[Cutter]

You can Simply point out that Wizards can only cast spells that are on their warscroll. So they may well claim to know every single summoning spell ever....shame they can't ever actually attempt to cast them :p

Oh? Where does it say that?

[Mr Mystery]

Rules for casting spells :)

[Cutter]

Rules for casting spells :)

So necromancer's can't actually summon anything?

Glad we got that sorted out :)

[Mr Mystery]

They can if they're in range of a Garden of Morr - but even then it's only Zombies.

And even then, only if you insist on being a WAAC bellend and placing your victory of higher importance than an enjoyable game.

[ColeVVatkins]

You can always out penis the penis.....

Someone planning summoning lols? Do they think simply spamming you is tactical genius? Got a dodgy interpretation?

Simply point out that Wizards can only cast spells that are on their warscroll. So they may well claim to know every single summoning spell ever....shame they can't ever actually attempt to cast them :p

I want to agree with you... I really do... But all summoning spells say something like...
Chaos Wizards know the Summon Herald of Nurgle spell, in addition to any others they know.
Now a lot of house rules require you to bring the warscroll to summon... But when you just read the the warscrolls all the wizards know all the summons...

[Houghten]

They can if they're in range of a Garden of Morr - but even then it's only Zombies.

I appreciate that you are deliberately attempting to be the world's second biggest git, but you're not being consistent about it. The spell on the Garden of More warscroll is not on the Wizard's warscroll.

[Al Shut]

Oh? Where does it say that?

Only inside his head

[Mr Mystery]

All in the wording :)

Casting Spells

All Wizards can use the spells described below, as well as any spells listed on their Warscroll.

And a fair point about the Garden of Morr. It uses the same wording, albeit with an additional caveat, to other spells listed on random unit Warscrolls....

Deathly Awakening
Wizards from your army know the following spell, in addition to other spells they know, whilst they are within 3" of the Garden of Morr.

So knowing a spell is not the same thing as being able to cast it.

If you're setting out to rules lawyer your way to victory.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and I confused the wording of Numinous Occulum with the Garden of Morr (read them in quick succession)

Magical Fulcrum
Wizards within 3" of the globe on a Numinous Occulum can attempt to cast the Piercing the Veil in addition to any other spells they are normally allowed to attempt in their hero phase.

So that one specifically states you can cast the additional spell.

No.

I am not proud of myself.

[ColeVVatkins]

So no wizard will ever cast any summons spells then? They "know" them all... But can't cast them?

[Mr Mystery]

Bingo ;)

[ColeVVatkins]

Bingo ;)

I like your style...

[Al Shut]

Only inside his head

I thought Mystery was still talking about the need to "take a warscroll" to gain the spell.

The difference between knowing and using a spell is, while being insane nonsense, obviously less imaginary.

[Mr Mystery]

Not nonsense.

Truth.

You can never summon unless the summoning spell is on your Warscroll.

[ColeVVatkins]

Not nonsense.

Truth.

You can never summon unless the summoning spell is on your Warscroll.

Do you have summoning? I don't... So who cares... If the enemy I'm fighting decides to summon... I will have thanquol and his grey seers summon every demon... But not til after we have a roll off whether summoning is legal or not :-P

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

Remember, just like a Fire Axe, this bit of rules lawyering is in case of emergency, and for a specific purpose. Do not swing it around willy-nilly.

[ColeVVatkins]

True... I will probably just summon greater demons... If someone wants to play age of summonar(sigmon)(Sigmar + summon = ?

[Cutter]

When does the game end?

Well, it might be when you've tabled you opponent, or been tabled.

It might be when you've run out of time or energy and have calculated casualty percentages (top tip, don't be a summoner).

It might be when you or your opponent concedes defeat, not wishing to play out another pointless few rounds when the writing is on the warscroll.

Or, and this only happens occasionally, it might be when you leap across the table and stove your opponents head in for being a supercilious f**k, ideally with a conveniently hidden copy of 8th edition.

So, in the words of the great Phil Esterhaus,

"Hey, let's be careful out there."

[Erik Setzer]

They can if they're in range of a Garden of Morr - but even then it's only Zombies.

And even then, only if you insist on being a WAAC bellend and placing your victory of higher importance than an enjoyable game.

Personally, I feel that's the attitude people are taking when they claim Necromancers have no summoning spells just because the spells are listed on different warscrolls for practical purposes.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

I think it's clear exactly how both elements are intended to work, but with one being a natural counter to the other (and a lot less ropey!) the simple lesson is - be careful when you rules lawyer!

[odinsgrandson]

Not nonsense.

Truth.

You can never summon unless the summoning spell is on your Warscroll.

So... My Lord of Change host is unaffected by all of this crap, and can summon Lords of Change until doomsday/I run out of minis. But other summoning spammers have issues.

That's fine. The LoC horde was the stupidly broken one anyway, and this averts the issue of running up against some other faction that wants to try the same thing.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd need to have a look at the LoC Warscroll to confirm :)

[odinsgrandson]

Personally, I feel that's the attitude people are taking when they claim Necromancers have no summoning spells just because the spells are listed on different warscrolls for practical purposes.


Well, yeah.

You'd figure that they didn't intend to use such disparate wording that spellcasters end up "knowing" tons of spells that can never be cast or used. I mean, who would devote that kind of space to stuff that isn't supposed to ever work, right?

...But that same argument can be used to back up the Fateweaver/Screaming Bell victory (because otherwise the Screaming Bell has a rule on its card that is never intended to actually be used).

[nsc]

I'd need to have a look at the LoC Warscroll to confirm :)

You're a fool, your insistence that no wizard can summon anything is the worst nonsense I've ever heard.

From the Chaos Sorceror Lord warscroll:


Magic
A Chaos Sorcerer Lord 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 Daemonic Power Spells.

SO, from your argument, he knows these spells but he cannot cast them :)

Which as we know is wrong, wizards cast spells that they know and thus RAW, any wizard with the chaos keyword can summon daemons, unless you mean to argue that RAW wizards cannot cast spells.

[odinsgrandson]

Please understand, nsc- we're all aware that this is nonesense. Clearly, GW's rules people included summoning thinking that it should be used... at all. This is just an exercise in rules lawyering with a poorly worded system.

Please understand, there's plenty of sarcasm to go around here. We all know that summoning is meant to play a part in this game sometimes. They just weren't too careful about the way they worded the rules.


...that said, your argument doesn't quite stand up to the stupidly strict rules as written that Mr. Mystery is bringing forward.

His insistence is that wizards may only cast spells from their warscroll (plus the two from the core book) and that "knowing" a spell isn't the same thing as being allowed to cast it (the rules don't state otherwise). That doesn't mean that they can't know the spells on their warscroll, it simply that they may not cast any that are not on their own warscroll.

By this reading, the Chaos Sorcerer Lord does get to both 'know' and 'cast' the spells on his warscroll (plus the two generics) but he still does not get any spells from other scrolls.

*As a side note, the Lord of Change's "Spell Thief" ability not only allows them to 'know' the spell that they've unbound, but also allows them to "cast" it. Clearly, the LoC host is the way to go with this rules-lawyering.

In conclusion, even this clearly wrong take on the rules as written still fails to stop the most broken summoning force from having an infinite number of Change Lords swooping about.

[Mr Mystery]

Odinsgrandson gets it :)

Lord of Change can indeed summon his Bros, as he has access to Summon Lord of Change on his own Warscroll.

But, whilst if we accept that he has access to all Chaos Wizard Summon X spells, he can't actually cast any others, as they're not on his scroll.

I'd also like to introduce more correct rules reading....

Lord of Change can't actually summon his Bros, and the same goes for any other summoning spells unless specifically listed as one of the spells the Wizard knows, such as a Branchwraith, who comes with a summoning spell as their third.

Pour quoi?

Simple.

A Lord of Change is Chaos; Wizard, these being two clearly defined key words upon its Warscroll.

Summon Lord of Change is known to Chaos Wizards - presented as a single Key Word.

If we take it as two separate key words, then all Wizards know all summoning spells all the time...

[Erik Setzer]

I'm still confused on how someone can simultaneously claim AoS is an awesome system with no issues, and then continue to show a huge issue with how the rules are written and laid out... and also complain about "competitive" players ruining the game, but then at the same keep arguing the cheekiest attempt at a RAW argument I've heard in a long time, an argument that goes against the "narrative" and the concept of just having a fun game. These arguments just make it clear the rules aren't written well and need expanding to explain them, and they're the worst kind of "competitive" nonsense I've seen lately.

- - - Updated - - -


Odinsgrandson gets it :)

Lord of Change can indeed summon his Bros, as he has access to Summon Lord of Change on his own Warscroll.

But, whilst if we accept that he has access to all Chaos Wizard Summon X spells, he can't actually cast any others, as they're not on his scroll.

I'd also like to introduce more correct rules reading....

Lord of Change can't actually summon his Bros, and the same goes for any other summoning spells unless specifically listed as one of the spells the Wizard knows, such as a Branchwraith, who comes with a summoning spell as their third.

Pour quoi?

Simple.

A Lord of Change is Chaos; Wizard, these being two clearly defined key words upon its Warscroll.

Summon Lord of Change is known to Chaos Wizards - presented as a single Key Word.

If we take it as two separate key words, then all Wizards know all summoning spells all the time...


Are you reading what you're writing? This post is one of the single best anti-AoS posts I've seen on this site. Forget pricing or the Warmachine/old-school-Warzone style of the Sigmarines. This right here is like a huge sign reading "AoS is an awful game!"

So they include spells that were previously known, and in the narrative should be know, but because they tried to compact the rules into as small a space as possible, you're arguing that wizards can't know or cast them (and even if they did know them, they still can't cast them). The only way you can actually win that argument is to accept the game is badly, horribly broken.

I guess "congratulations" on being able to show everyone just how much of a mess AoS is as a game.

[Mr Mystery]

Because I'm deliberately pointing out very daft counters to very daft claims.

Intention to me is perfectly clear - if a unit is on the board and it has a summoning spell listed on its Warscroll, then Wizards of the correct allegiance have access to, and can cast, that spell - and yes I'll even agree that stands if the unit is wiped out before you get a chance to cast.

Just because I know how to rules lawyer, doesn't mean I ever actually do it. There's a lot of stuff I know how to do and do well that I see as inimicable to actually having fun, and ensuring my partner in said fun has an equally agreeably good time :)

[nsc]

Just because I know how to rules lawyer, doesn't mean I ever actually do it. There's a lot of stuff I know how to do and do well that I see as inimicable to actually having fun, and ensuring my partner in said fun has an equally agreeably good time :)

Phew, you had me going for a minute, sorry I'm used to some other...forums and they usually say things the way you do, but actually mean it.

Although you incorrectly concatenate two keywords into one, these keywords have been previously defined as separate entities and are presented together as a means to define units, to combine them together would be referencing your own set of keywords and not rules as written.

I weep for the day when any rule system needs a legal glossary to accompany them :P

[Mr Mystery]

Aha! So all Wizards know all summoning spells :p

Quickly Damsel! Summon a.....I dunno...erm...GREAT UNCLEAN ONE!

Don't wanna! Is icky!

DO IT, WOMAN!

- - - Updated - - -

Ooop, hold on.....

Part of the argument for 'know all, all the time' is that one spell specifically requires the presence of a specific unit in order for Wizards to know it.

Time to piss on the chips of those hoping to spam summon.....

The necessity to be say, a Death Wizard as opposed to merely Death; Wizard is fully, 100%, ain't nowt you can argue here, supported by the Empire Battle Wizard scroll, which lists them as Wizard; Empire Battle Wizard. Two Key Words for the price of one, establishing that it is in fact only Chaos Wizards, Death Wizards et al that know the summoning spells, as dictated on a case by case basis.

Not of course that they can then cast them, the spells not being on the Casters own Warscroll, but someone else's. Provided of course you can find a Chaos Wizard Key Word in the first place.

Ithankyou.

[Erik Setzer]

I think the intent is pretty clear, that "Death Wizards" know the Undead summoning spells (which are actually limited from End Times), and "Chaos Wizards" know the Chaos summoning spells, without having to have a unit on the table, making summoning a moot point, and "Death Wizards" refers to warscrolls with "Death" and "Wizard" in their keywords while "Chaos Wizards" refers to warscrolls with "Chaos" and "Wizard" in their keywords.

Unfortunately, the rules are ambiguous, because they opted for four pages of core rules (eight pages would have likely given the room to clear up some of this stuff, but wouldn't be as cheap to print, I guess), and they tried to avoid having to repeat the same set of spells on every model who could cast them (which would have unnecessarily bloated the compendiums like crazy). Trying to go simple on the rules meant a poorly worded rule that's being used to argue against a narrative interpretation that makes a lot more sense.

If they do bother to do an FAQ and Errata, I have a feeling they'll actually be longer than the rules.

[odinsgrandson]

Odinsgrandson gets it :)

Lord of Change can indeed summon his Bros, as he has access to Summon Lord of Change on his own Warscroll.

But, whilst if we accept that he has access to all Chaos Wizard Summon X spells, he can't actually cast any others, as they're not on his scroll.

I'd also like to introduce more correct rules reading....

Lord of Change can't actually summon his Bros, and the same goes for any other summoning spells unless specifically listed as one of the spells the Wizard knows, such as a Branchwraith, who comes with a summoning spell as their third.

Pour quoi?

Simple.

A Lord of Change is Chaos; Wizard, these being two clearly defined key words upon its Warscroll.

Summon Lord of Change is known to Chaos Wizards - presented as a single Key Word.

If we take it as two separate key words, then all Wizards know all summoning spells all the time...

Except that the core rules do not require that a wizard "Know" a spell- he simply has to have it on his warscroll.

Lord of Change is a wizard
Lord of Change has "Summon Lord of Change" on his warscroll
Lord of Change may cast "Summon Lord of Change"

[Mr Mystery]

Well struck sir, well struck

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee267/Floatingaxe/Animated/tipofthehat_zps2f86e05a.gif

[odinsgrandson]

Intention to me is perfectly clear - if a unit is on the board and it has a summoning spell listed on its Warscroll, then Wizards of the correct allegiance have access to, and can cast, that spell - and yes I'll even agree that stands if the unit is wiped out before you get a chance to cast.


I honestly think the intention is for there to be no need for the unit to have been on the table for you to have access to the spells, and I honestly believe that is the intention (for you to be able to summon hordes or daemons or skeletons out of nowhere).

[Mr Mystery]

Nah. I just don't buy that.

I kind of see where people are coming from, I just don't think that's the designer's intent.

[Al Shut]

Why not? The basic design idea seems to be less limitations and more choice, doesn't it? Why go restrictive with summoning all over sudden?

[Mr Mystery]

It just doesn't make sense to me.

But hey, to each, their own. My silly nonsense rules lawyering in this thread is just that - silly nonsense serving as a warning about what can happen when you rules lawyer.

[nsc]

It just doesn't make sense to me.

But hey, to each, their own. My silly nonsense rules lawyering in this thread is just that - silly nonsense serving as a warning about what can happen when you rules lawyer.

Really? The fantasy trope of an army marching against a lone necromancer who summons forth skeletons from the ground to fight for him doesn't make sense to you? :P

I get that you're just playing the asshat, and choosing to interpret the rules as wildly as possible, but this just goes back to the start of this whole debate. Where GW is telling us to talk it out with our opponents. In my club if you stoutly argue these Mystery rules then you won't have anyone to play with. You can do whatever you want all by your lonesome, heck feel free to make roaring noises as the dragon eats up the goblins :P

[Mr Mystery]

Just makes no sense that one day you pop on your 'My First Skullcap' and boof - instant knowledge of all Necromantic rituals ever.

Instead, knowing an enemy is near (seems that's universal in the mortal realms, let alone when you're actively at war) you'd have your standard bodyguard around you, showing you've got mates, and you can get more of their kind.

And on a rules lawyery level - I just find the initial premise 'spells printed elsewhere to save space' decidedly ropey.

[Erik Setzer]

Nah. I just don't buy that.

I kind of see where people are coming from, I just don't think that's the designer's intent.

Um... Yeah. It's totally their intent.

There's two ways you can look at it:

The positive view of "They wanted to make a narrative game where we could tell any story we want!" Okay, then Necromancers can raise existing dead without having to bring their army with them, Daemons can be summoned right out of the warp, etc. So from that view, there'd be no need to have them on the table (and it'd make no sense).

The cynical view of "They want people to buy as much stuff as possible and spend more money." To that end, summoning stuff from off the table is perfect, as it likely means a player will buy more stuff so they can summon more stuff.

- - - Updated - - -


My silly nonsense rules lawyering in this thread is just that - silly nonsense serving as a warning about what can happen when you rules lawyer.

More accurately, it's showing the problem when you try to condense the rules too much and leave vague explanations that end up requiring the players to just make up their own rules to clear up confusion. You're not making "rules lawyers" look bad so much as you're making the rules themselves look bad. (And in the case of not reprinting the summoning spells dozens of times, I actually agree with their approach to only put the spell to summon a unit on its own warscroll. Very convenient.)

[odinsgrandson]

Erik does have a point- there are other games out there where a strict reading of the rules gives you an accurate picture of how it should play.

Matching key terms like "know" and "can cast" is something that the writing in Warmachine or Malifaux would make sure to homogenize.

I don't think that's the fault of the 4 pages. G-dub has never been great at making rules that always read clearly.

Of course, I don't believe them when they claim that the vagueness of the rules is actually a virtue as players don't really benefit from it.


Just makes no sense that one day you pop on your 'My First Skullcap' and boof - instant knowledge of all Necromantic rituals ever.

Instead, knowing an enemy is near (seems that's universal in the mortal realms, let alone when you're actively at war) you'd have your standard bodyguard around you, showing you've got mates, and you can get more of their kind.

And on a rules lawyery level - I just find the initial premise 'spells printed elsewhere to save space' decidedly ropey.

Hey, the skull-cap is like a doctorate hat. We don't let the undergraduate necromancers wear those.


I thought about it quite a bit, and I came to the conclusion that the 'spells printed elsewhere' was only in part to save space (it does seem tough to fit them all onto one warscroll). But I think there is a larger element of losing the barrier to adding in more new units.

They don't want to create a new Chaos Sorcerer errata every time they release a new daemon unit, or make sweeping alterations to Nagash.

The other option would be to give each wizard a generic summoning spell that covers every daemon/undead/lizardman, and let everyone choose who they'll summon each time from the whole list with a generic difficulty of something like 7.

Of course, that puts summoning little imps at the same level as summoning Bloodthirsters. I don't think this is about balance (I'm skeptical that anything in AOS has to do with balance). I think it is about narrative- Bloodthirsters require a lot of power, and don't answer to puny wizards most of the time.

Now, just because you have a necromancer doesn't mean that he knows all of the spells. I mean, you'd have to also buy the other minis before he can summon them, right? So your own necromancer will be learning more and more spells as you increase your collection.

Also, if you want to play a low level necromancer, then simply don't use those other spells. That makes the most sense to me, and fits in well with the narrative emphasis the game holds.

[Mr Mystery]

I think I've put my finger on what's not sitting right with me about that take....

I shall now attempt to articulate.

In essence, both takes under discussion result from the same lack of specific wording.

I just feel that the 'space saving' take isn't in line with what I understand the spirit of the game to be, as it quickly becomes a back-door way to horrifically outnumber your opponent, and leaves many armies wide open to such things (for instance my beloved Ogres have no internal summoning option)

But, that's just my take on things - but I do look forward to the inevitable FAQ so we can at least put it to bed, one way or another.

[Al Shut]

But isn't the difference between the two takes the choice in different units the summoner has, rather than the ability to outnumber the opponent.

A normal wizard can try to summon one unit per turn, whether he has a full compendium to choose from or whether he's limited to what the player brought to the table in the first place.

[Mr Mystery]

And if you've taken 5 or 6 summoners, that's up to 6 new units, of quite wildly varying potency being added. You can make a balanced army with nothing but Zombies and basic Skellies, and then suddenly start spamming really really hard stuff. Like Vampire Lords riding Zombie Dragons, who can then join in the summoning fun, summoning MORE Vampire Lords on Zombie Dragons.

Like I said, for the moment both sides just have an opinion on how it should be, so I await the FAQ :)

[nsc]

There won't be a FAQ, there hasn't been a FAQ for the new 40k codices (if you prefer codexes please read that as codexes and don't shoot me) and 40k is the golden goose that GW loves.

The golden goose doesn't get FAQs, so there's no way AoS will get an FAQ.

Maybe a second edition of free pdf rules as sort of a "living" document (I say living with quotes because even the age of sigmar app hasn't been updated despite several obvious typos which has wormed its way in)

[Erik Setzer]

Okay, so the rule might not be balanced... So what?

The new faction they introduced has a pair of formations that you can double up to, on the first turn, drop in the first formation 9" away from the enemy, then use them as "homing beacons" to drop the second formation 5" from the enemy, having most of your army in charge range on Turn 1. As an added bonus, it completely ignores the "balancing" rule that models that come in from reserves and don't start on the table don't count as part of your army. There's nothing "balanced" about that formation.

The game's rules and armies aren't balanced. We've already established that. How many times have we heard, "Well, the gamers should talk and balance it themselves, unless you're anti-social losers!"? So that's what you do. Do you think being able to summon as many models as you have in your collection isn't fair? Well, agree to change the rules with your opponent, or to a limit (which is still technically a rules change).

We also hear all the time that balance isn't necessary because AoS is all about telling stores and playing narrative battles, and it's entirely narrative to come to a battlefield, raise your army there, and keep raising new stuff as the battle goes on, whittling down your opponent as time goes on. Or a Chaos sorceror begging the gods for aid and getting daemons to come support him (or perhaps just pleasing the gods enough to get them to send him some help when he asks). Those are narrative. Balanced? No. Narrative? Yes. Which matches what we're told the theme of AoS is.

It's strange now to see the argument reversed, to move away from narrative over balance to balance over narrative.

And hey, my primary army is Orcs and Goblins, with Ogre allies. The army I'm building for AoS is Dwarfs. Do either of those come with summoning? Nope. So I'm not exactly arguing in favor of something that benefits me here. (Sure, I also have a massive Undead army, but they're all set up for massed units and would feel weird in AoS.)

[odinsgrandson]

I think I've put my finger on what's not sitting right with me about that take....

I shall now attempt to articulate.

In essence, both takes under discussion result from the same lack of specific wording.

I just feel that the 'space saving' take isn't in line with what I understand the spirit of the game to be, as it quickly becomes a back-door way to horrifically outnumber your opponent, and leaves many armies wide open to such things (for instance my beloved Ogres have no internal summoning option)

But, that's just my take on things - but I do look forward to the inevitable FAQ so we can at least put it to bed, one way or another.

My reading of the design philosophy for the Age of Sigmar is that the "Rule of Cool" takes precedence above all else.

Age of Sigmar isn't meant to be balanced in the rules- it is meant to be balanced by players deciding to play nice (we've debated that enough already). So the fact that some forces have access to awesome tricks that others don't seems perfectly in line to me.

And seeing a daemon horde pop up out of nowhere is pretty cool, and totally fluffy.

Sure, not every force can do it... except that every force can take every model from every 'faction' and therefore can totally do it.

[Mr Mystery]

There is that.

However, rule of cool can only carry someone so far.

Now, this is a worst case scenario, so please excuse some out of character negativity.....but.....

The whole set up of the game, including how one deploys their army is about rule of cool - and not just the look or feel of cool, but being a cool opponent.

The 'all spells all the time' approach doesn't gel with that.

Undead players in particular tend to be dedicated, long term meddlers in The Dark Arts, and as such tend (very generally speaking!) to have extensive collections of models.

Currently, the onus is 'stop deploying units well before you look like you're being a dick'. And that's very, very cool with me. I've got a large collection comprised of various armies. Now I can drop into my local GW, Club or mate's house with whatever, and by act of mutual respect deploy into a relatively fair game.

But with summoning, an opponent can 'one up' whatever I choose to deploy at any point, just by dipping into their case for whichever unit is best placed to counter whatever I'm up to tactically. Going for a big monster breakthrough? Bugger. He's summoned a poo load of Zombies to just sort of get in the way, and stop me flattening his summoners. If I've got lots of infantry bearing down? FFS. Two Zombie Dragons just appeared...

The game is now about player cooperation to arrange things to mutual agreement - as PW has mentioned elsewhere on the board, the old 'don't blame me, the rules allow me to do this' excuse of the hardcore WAAC Wanker is gone - it's now clear from the outset if your opponent has placed their win over your enjoyment of the game.

So I just don't see 'all spells all the time' fitting with what I perceive the spirit of the game to be.

But hey, as I said above Age of Sigmar is clearly intended to be a collaborative effort. If my opponent asks, rather than insists, I may be game for that take. But if they insist on it, and refuse to make any concession to their starting force for such a colossal advantage, and indeed spam dozens of casters, I'll refuse the game, or use my own insistence on 'raw' to piss on their chips and show them how little fun the game can be when one of the players has no respect for the other.

Might have come off a bit high and mighty there...apologies!

[Erik Setzer]

If "player collaboration" works for setup, why wouldn't it work for summoning during the game? If summoning really is broken (or has the potential to be that broken), and you can't trust your opponent not to take advantage of that, then how can you trust them not to be a jerk during game setup?

[Mr Mystery]

Kind of my point.

'All spells, all the time' opens one up to the stealth jerk.

As I said, I am look at 'worst case scenario' here, but one could go from 'yep, that looks about right' on setup, to 'wow, what a ****' by the third turn.

[Erik Setzer]

And...? So you change the rules of the game because you can't trust the game's rules to avoid those situations?

I was talking about this with some guys at the latest GW store, and pretty much everyone agreed on how summoning spells work, and were baffled that anyone would think it's different. But it sounds like you don't think they work different, you're just arguing to change how the rules work to prevent douchebaggery... which has been something people have been doing the last month. And really, people should just stop. Don't try it. Have a bad game? Well, don't play that person again. But just stop bothering with all these attempts to balance the rules, because the game isn't meant to have checks and balances, and we were told from the start how that's really just the best part of it.

On a side note, I saw another wonderful 2v2 AoS match on Saturday, which only managed to get through two turns (MAYBE they squeezed out a third), despite going the entire time the store was open Saturday. Dwarfs and Sigmarines vs. Chaos and Chaos (pretty much all Khorne). It wasn't quite the number of models that Warhammer Fantasy games had, but even then, the Sigmarine army would cost someone about $500 to build, and one of the Khorne armies had four Bloodthirsters (started with three), while the other was based around models from four starter boxes with some add-ons. Did an amazing job of showing how people completely miss that AoS was set up so people could play smaller matches that don't cost hundreds of dollars per force (well, Sigmarines still do), and also that the rules can make for longer games than larger model-count games of WFB.

[odinsgrandson]

Honestly, I totally understand the desire for a rules set that prevents douchery. I just don't think that's what we got with Age of Sigmar. I think that razor's edge balance in games is what prevents douchery.

I think it would be interesting to see what happens if Games Workshop soon released some sort of optional rules that added at least attempted balance to the game- while leaving the core rules free from point values or limitations. Like a competition rules set.

There'd be a segment of the audience that would really embrace balance, and never play without the 'competition rules,' but if the default setting for the game is still "Throw anything you own on the table" then maybe they'll have a strong segment of their audience that keeps playing that way.

[Erik Setzer]

Honestly, I totally understand the desire for a rules set that prevents douchery. I just don't think that's what we got with Age of Sigmar.

Considering the rules literally say "bring what you want," we certainly didn't get that with AoS. I've seen more cases of douchery with AoS than I have with Unbound matches of 40K since Unbound became a thing.

[nsc]

Considering the rules literally say "bring what you want," we certainly didn't get that with AoS. I've seen more cases of douchery with AoS than I have with Unbound matches of 40K since Unbound became a thing.

I've seen only the opposite, depends on your club and the people honestly.

In 40k my club has pages and pages and pages of forum posts about comping lords of war, d weapons, formations, allies, what other tourneys are doing for comp.

For AoS it's been much less and there are a lot more happy people.

There has never been a GW system which prevents douchery and it is up to the players to take responsibility for their opponent's enjoyment. I've seen people cheat in tournaments, I've seen people have lots of fun in tournaments with "casual" lists. People are to blame for bad behavior, not some rulebook for playing with toy soldiers.