Okay I'm kind of confused right now can you have multiple copies of the same name characters in your army now like 4 Gor-roks with the new summoning rules?
Anything goes in this new setup - it's up to you and your opponent to decide how to build lists. Here's a decent guideline that's been working for me: 'Bring between x and x battalions (min. x), up to x warscrolls, x wounds per unit max, x wounds per army max.' But, really, it's about agreeing with your opponent.
Yes I understand that but with the summoning rules can I just spam the same name character over and over so I have multiple copies on the board that is the question
I saw a possibly official rumor that you can only have twice many summons as you started with, so if you had one Gor-rok, at the start you could only summon 1 more.
So you can have 2 of the same name character at the same time? How do they expect just play Aos with 4 pages are rules
Well, I think they want it, for now to be far more casual, sort of like a fun game you play with your mates I have a feeling that something like what Ixt referrers to will come into play once GW decides to give us a more well rounded description of the rules, but that is still to come. (I might be to optimistic) Here is the thing though, there are no rules saying anything against it just yet; thus you could potentially do what you and your opponent would find fitting. It is quite the nuisance that this has to be discussed over every new game, but better to get off the way before play off, then suddenly start arguing over the 8 Gor-Rok fielded on the battlefield
Actually it is about fielding whatever models you have/want to field, it is not about agreeing with your opponent, and as it stands it is expressly against the above guideline. Yes you can field multiple named models, the idea is that you get someone like them, I think gor-rok is called a sunblood or something like that and not that you summon another gor-rok. What you field is 100% up to you and you alone, anything else is house ruling it. That said I believe it is impossible for me to have a competitive game without enforcing house rules on this new system, which then invalidates any win (Kind of frustrating for my personality)
Well, sure... but it's a two-player game, ultimately, and it comes back The Most Important Rule. If you and your opponent are in concordance and would resolve a match like this, then you're set. If not, then the rules don't matter because you likely won't be playing a game. Most of the people that I've met and gamed with have wanted to know whether fight ahead of them could be called fair, and that's where the list-building structure comes in. Most of the discussion now is how to form that structure and implement it across the board. There's a rumor that it may be in the book release, but we'll see.
I agree but then you are now modifying rules to suite your desires, that would be like me not liking the fact that WoC can take hellcannons and discussing this with my opponent and him never fielding them. We may both agree and still have fun, but the fact remains that anytime I win it will be invalidated by the handicap we both decided upon and as such there is no real winner. And since I am hyper competitive and cannot remain unbiased this really messes with me. Even with the proposed restrictions the lists people are throwing up are not optimized and instead are built for fun, I though have fun playing as competitively as possible which means I would never bring saurus warriors or skinks.
Maybe what needs to happen @protector is to find out: "How many Skinks does it take to swarm and kill three Hellcannons?" Do some experimental benchmarking games.
The sad fact of the matter is that at the current moment in time AoS is simply not designed to be a competitive game. Without some sort of house-ruling system in place, the game is virtually unplayable (assuming the goal is to play a fair match-up between two players).
I agree. That is how the rules are set, for now. Do you have a mobile phone? Call your opponent and do your deployment phase over the phone. He deploys an Ubermonster; you deploy a WoC HCannon, and so on, tit-for-tat until you are both done. His force is: 5 rares, 7 specials, 1 core (as counted in 8th) but yours is 6 rares, 5 specials, 2 cores. Hopefully, it is similar power level. But you do it over the phone so that you both know what to bring. That is a way to conveniently test the notion that the game is self-balancing because each side can deploy something to counter what the other side just deployed.
That may work for players who have similar collections, but that doesn't work for me. Without an outside force limiting choices I can literally field monsters and characters that span the width and breadth of my entire side. Oh look I just brought 3 terrorgheist, 3 thundertusks, 3 stonehorns, 5 dragons, 5 stegadons, 3 bastiladons, 2 phoenix, 4 manglers, 4 hellpits, etc it just keeps going. and for me to not do that would be to limit myself competitively, which invalidates my opponents win.
Well there is already a first turn auto win combo for the hyper completive people. (Skaven Bell + Lord of change) (make the bell roll a 13)
This might work for pairs of people that get together to play occasionally ... I play at my LGS and any given Tuesday night any number of people could show up looking for a game. You never know who will be there. Sometimes we get someone that just started playing, sometimes we get a vet from out of town, and some mix of the regulars. We don't really know who we are going to play before hand. We just tell everyone to bring a 2500 point game and then anyone can play anyone. Now I guess you have to bring everything so you are able to field an army that doesn't offend the sensibilities of whatever random player you end up playing against.