When does the game end?

[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)