How would you fix summoning?

[Squirrelmaster]

Imagine you're writing the General's Handbook MkII. You can change anything, but working to the goal of having Matched Play rules that work for competitive games.

Ideally, we want summoning to be part of that. Not an overpowered must-have, but a viable option, including all the odd little random-summoning abilities like Alarielle's Amphorae.

What would you change about summoning to improve on the current system? Or would you leave it exactly as-is?

[amysrevenge]

One... weakness in the summoning system is that it tries to be fair in both open/harrative play, and in matched play, with the same rules.  The fallout of this is that super tough things end up getting "paid for" twice in matched play - first by paying more points, and second by requiring a higher casting result.  Sort of a double tax.

So I think the trick might be to make a generic universal Summon Ally spell for Matched Play, with a fixed casting cost (6? 7?), immune to the Rule of One (or modified Rule of One - can only use it to summon one of each warscroll per turn), that replaces every other summon spell on any warscroll - that way, you pay the increased points cost without also needing an elevated casting roll.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I'd think about command traits, alliegance abilities and battalions that gave bonuses to casting roles on allowed summoned units to be set up closer to the enemy maybe. 

Being able to drop your units across the board is a very powerful tool, there's a number of very powerful Stormcast builds that rely on it, making summoning more reliable might make people keener on it. 

[mmimzie]

I think base as is summon is fine, but command traits, artifacts, and slells from battle tomes should have abilities that make thier summoning better. Otherwise it works well

[SeanMaguire1991]

Regular Summoning = what summoning currently is

Conditional summoning = Set ups that require a specific condition (e.g boon of mutation) draw from a prepaid unit in reserve to avoid paying the full unit cost for 1 or 2 Models.

Thats my idea at least.

[MrCharisma]

I prefer the WHFB version of summoning where no points were allocated but there were restrictions on what you could summon.

If somebody wants to summon a powerful unit, perhaps points... or make it exceptionally hard.

The Slann attempting to summon a Dread Saurian with an 11 (?) is a good example of how it should be done. I don't think having to roll an 11 + having 400+ summoning points in the pool is "fair". 

NOTE: I'm not a summoning army so I couldn't care less what the end result is.

[Minkster]

As a death player I think certain wizards can only summon certain units based on key words so a morngul can only be summoned by a nighthaunt wizard and add flexibility that a necromancer can take a certain key word with some work other summoning armies could work round similar rules and key words 

[bottle]

I am on the side that summoning units is already a viable tactic - especially in a single list tournament because not only does it let you deep strike like Warrior Brotherhood, it also let's you tailor your army list each game.

Where the summoning rules fall down in my opinion are the little boons you have to pay points for like turning stuff into Chaos Spawn's or Neferata's Mortarch of Blood ability (creating a vampire each time she slays a hero). 

I don't think abilities like that should need reinforcement points, so my solution would be to dedicate a page in the GHBII to list every spell that requires reinforcement points, and then anything missed off is free game. Of course this would also require future battletomes post GHBII to list which spells and abilities required reinforcement points too.

Lastly, as a little boost to summoning I would consider allowing a successful summon to place a unit up to the max size. That might be a bit broken, so we would have to play test first, but it seems a bit weak sauce when you can only bring on 10 zombies and your opponent is dropping squads of paladins out the sky, left right and centre.

[TerrorPenguin]

I know this isn't realistic but

I would change the rules for summoning units so that a high roll doesn't allow me to set up more models but instead allows me to set them up closer.

e.g summon skeletons - on a roll of 6 you may set up a unit of skeletons within 9" of an enemy unit - if the roll is 10 or more you may set them up within 5" of an enemy unit.

To be honest though, I think we are just going to have to accept that there are rules which work in narrative that are just not going to work in matched.

[wayniac]

I would do a few things:

1) No behemoths

2) Units that are summoned cannot also summon.  So no chain-summoning horrors nonsense

3) To summon a unit, you must actually have that unit type on the battlefield.  So for example, if you want to summon skeletons, you need to actually have a unit of skeletons in your army.

Those, i think, would kill the major abuses but leave summoning powerful and viable for the factions that seriously need it (i.e. Death).  Points required is a stiff subject for me because right now I feel summoning is rarely, if ever, worth the points.

[Squirrelmaster]

Just throwing out a thought, but what if, instead of "victory points", scenarios awarded additional reinforcement points for controlling objectives, and whoever had the most points saved up at the end of the game would win, even if they were wiped out?

That way, you'd never run the risk of wasting reinforcement points by setting them aside and not using them, or having your summoners wiped out turn one, instead it'd be a case of looking at the value of the objectives, and deciding whether the unit you're about to summon would be able to earn its points back by the end of the game.

You'd need to get the value of the objectives right — make them too low-scoring and players will just take minimum leaders + battleline, counting their starting reinforcement points to win them the game without ever summoning them. Make them too valuable, and summoning becomes a no-brainer, giving too much advantage to players with access to summonable units.

[Siegfried VII]

Summoning is fine as it is and it doesn't need any fixing, just capable players to use it.

A capable general can make the summoning work as it is, which is a way do control the battlefield and deploy in a tactical way and a way to use "sideboard" in your battles.

There is really no need for free points. It is unfair and imo good riddance...

[Lord Veshnakar]

Summoning is fine.  Being able to pop units up has great implications in an objective based game. Not to mention it allows you to tailor your army to a certain degree depending on the opponent you face. 

[Jaze]

think summoning as a whole is difficult to manage, but would like to have a way to make it more common place without going back to broken (chaos summoning army of tears).

possibly some of the bellow.

- can have summoned force Upto 25% of the game agreed points value at any time.

- can have 1 successful summon per turn( rule of one for "summon *", but only on success). Possibly with battalion or allegiance ability increasing this to 2 for certain builds.

- abilities that create a unit as part of an effect not costing points, such as killed models become a chaos spawn etc.

 

i think the above may not be good in matched play. But would be a good direction for a game type more constrained than narative but mor casual than matched.

 

[DarkBlack]

Summoning is fine and a powerful tool. Everyone pays for all their stuff, just balance the units.

The only thing that needs fixing is rules clarity, just using consistent wording (with defined definitions).