AoS 2 - Hosts of Slaanesh Discussion

[Overread]

9 minutes ago, Unit1126PLL said:

Where's the logical leap from "these are mounts" to "these aren't part of the hero keyword"? There's an implied logical leap there that I don't understand.

Sir David and his horse Bob - they might go on heroic adventures together but David is the hero not Bob. Bob is just the mount. 

Attacks made by the mount and the hero are separated into distinct groups. So its not out of the question to confirm if the chariot generates its depravity points from just the hero's attack or from the united attacks from the whole unit (mount and hero). 

Damage taken is a given as there's only one damage stat for the whole unit; but damage being dealt out is divided. It's something that I hope GW clarifies because it will have a serious impact on the generation of depravity points. 

 

[SwampHeart]

5 minutes ago, Overread said:

It's something that I hope GW clarifies because it will have a serious impact on the generation of depravity points. 

There is no need - mounts are only distinguished rules wise to prevent the application of artifacts to their attacks and command traits. Otherwise there is no distinction between mount and rider, every wound a Blademistress on (insert chariot of choice) does (that follows all other normal DP rules) generates DP. It worked this way prior to the new book and in the absence of specific instructions otherwise it still works the same way. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by SwampHeart

[CB42]

2 minutes ago, Overread said:

Sir David and his horse Bob - they might go on heroic adventures together but David is the hero not Bob. Bob is just the mount. 

Attacks made by the mount and the hero are separated into distinct groups. So its not out of the question to confirm if the chariot generates its depravity points from just the hero's attack or from the united attacks from the whole unit (mount and hero). 

Damage taken is a given as there's only one damage stat for the whole unit; but damage being dealt out is divided. It's something that I hope GW clarifies because it will have a serious impact on the generation of depravity points. 

 

There's no need to clarify because the rules are clear: the mount differentiation only applies where stated, with command traits and artifacts, or with abilities that specifically mention mounts. There is not ambiguity; all attacks from a hero unit (mount or not) count towards depravity point generation.

[Unit1126PLL]

5 minutes ago, Overread said:

Sir David and his horse Bob - they might go on heroic adventures together but David is the hero not Bob. Bob is just the mount. 

Attacks made by the mount and the hero are separated into distinct groups. So its not out of the question to confirm if the chariot generates its depravity points from just the hero's attack or from the united attacks from the whole unit (mount and hero). 

Damage taken is a given as there's only one damage stat for the whole unit; but damage being dealt out is divided. It's something that I hope GW clarifies because it will have a serious impact on the generation of depravity points. 

 

Well, yes, but if Dave and Bob are static objects permanently glued to eachother and had a sign that said HERO at the bottom, people might decide that "that object" is a hero...

this is getting increasingly tortured, but I think others have explained it really well.

[LordRogalDorn]

Just a friendly reminder, we have roughly 2.5 weeks of sending AoSFAQ@gwplc.com any questions that may come up with a chance of getting those questions answered when the faq drops 2 weeks after the book officially releases. I personally have sent about 9 emails asking many of the questions that have come up for me as I read through the warscrolls. We have this awesome window of opportunity to get questions answered by GW directly, let's use it. 

[Hebroseph]

Hero/Chariot question is easy. If you take a wound as a hero, do you get to allocate to the chariot for no depravity point, or to the hero to gain a depravity point. If they take damage as a hero, they deal damage as a hero 

[Hideaki]

Do you think Slave to Darkness will be a good addition to Slaneesh?

[Overread]

6 minutes ago, Hideaki said:

Do you think Slave to Darkness will be a good addition to Slaneesh?

Slaves works well with any of the Chaos gods, however because Slaves hasn't got a Tome at present they are not in their final form so might well change. Some might go up in points, some down, some might get new or important abiltiies. Heck GW might even rework how the chaos god marks work on them.

The neat thing is that Slaves can be good for Slaanesh just like Slaanesh can be good for Slaves. So you can always expand a supporting slaves allies pool into an army and ally in your slaanesh. 

[Hideaki]

4 minutes ago, Overread said:

Slaves works well with any of the Chaos gods, however because Slaves hasn't got a Tome at present they are not in their final form so might well change. Some might go up in points, some down, some might get new or important abiltiies. Heck GW might even rework how the chaos god marks work on them.

The neat thing is that Slaves can be good for Slaanesh just like Slaanesh can be good for Slaves. So you can always expand a supporting slaves allies pool into an army and ally in your slaanesh. 

I was asking since I often times see people not even talking about it as if it's just a really bad combo. I usually only see a STD and Nurgle mix, in rare cases STD with a Bloodsecrator. I never see tzeentch for example so I was curios if the would mix well with the new Slaanesh units

[Overread]

I think since Slaves don't have a Battletome many aren't going for them because their stats aren't "fixed" nor "up to date" as such. Plus with the each of the gods they've had pretty big shiny releases with loads of stuff so that's sort of swung people to using them are pure. Khorne also has a lot of internal variety of its own so something has to be really special to get allied in or be something the player wants for a theme. 

 

I figure Slaves chatter will pick up a lot when Slaves gets a Tome release of its own. Plus don't forget Slaanesh stuff hasn't even fully come out yet and many haven't cobbled up all the bits that have been leaked into a single tome understanding and might not until this weekend when stuff starts to go on sale and appear in peoples hands. 

[Poryague]

Does anyone havr anything rule wise that may indicate if we get dp from our endless spells. 

1. We get dp from all damage all the time

2. Just the turn we cast it. Because after the initial cast your oponnent may control it. Possibly only get dp for when we control it for movement when moving endless spells.

3. not all 

4. Wait for faq

Maybe some has something on this from there experince and understanding of the rules they can point to.

[Grimrock]

3 minutes ago, Hideaki said:

I was asking since I often times see people not even talking about it as if it's just a really bad combo. I usually only see a STD and Nurgle mix, in rare cases STD with a Bloodsecrator. I never see tzeentch for example so I was curios if the would mix well with the new Slaanesh units

Slaves units thrive in armies where there are a lot of buffs to get the most out of them. Khorne and nurgle are great at it, but tzeentch doesnt do much at all. Personally I mostly avoid them because the future is so uncertain, but I think currently they'd work quite well with slaanesh. Most of the abilities in the army only care having the slaanesh keyword.

[Templar101]

As Depravity Points are generated from attacks and spells do:

a) Endless Spells generate DP on enemy units if casted by a friendly Slaanesh model?

b) Do warscroll abilities like the KoS' challenge mortal wounds and the chariots mortal wound abilites cause DP? As neither of those are spells or attacks. Just abilities. Seems like RAI vs RAW.

[decker_cky]

Aren't slaves to darkness the only source of mortal sorcerers? The +1 to hit spell is amazing imo.

[Poryague]

The mesmerizing mirror d3 when models move away from it.

From core rules

NORMAL MOVES
Moves made in the movement phase 
are referred to as normal moves, 
to differentiate them from charge 
moves (made in the charge phase) 
and pile-in moves (made in the 
combat phase). A model making a 
normal move can move a distance in 
inches equal to or less than the Move 
characteristic shown on its warscroll

Move in movement phase, charge phase, and pile-in are all moves that can trigger it rule wise. However they could always come back and change it in an faq. I hope they leave it alone. 

[Poryague]

10 minutes ago, decker_cky said:

Aren't slaves to darkness the only source of mortal sorcerers? The +1 to hit spell is amazing imo.

The one on foot and manticore.

160 for foot guy has 5 wounds and 200 for manticore 12 wounds. Manticore better buy for depravity built in offensive spell swingy but can be a good spell. Foot sorcer spell reroll 1 on save,hit and wound rolls for target unit has an ability to give out a reroll 1 save to target unit. Im stuck on if I include 1 which 1 is better.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Poryague

[decker_cky]

Manticore sorceror right now is much better value, but the foot (can be mounted) sorceror has an awesome spell. 

 

I see the Chaos lord of slaanesh on daemonic mount warscroll isn't available in the app anymore, but is there any reason why the hedonites release would have removed it? It still has a grand alliance: chaos profile, and a GHB2018 points cost. Downside is that it isn't considered a hedonite which triggers a few abilities, but unless there's been a stealth FAQ, there's no reason why the unit would have changed with the hedonites battletome release. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by decker_cky

[firebat]

57 minutes ago, Templar101 said:

As Depravity Points are generated from attacks and spells do:

a) Endless Spells generate DP on enemy units if casted by a friendly Slaanesh model?

b) Do warscroll abilities like the KoS' challenge mortal wounds and the chariots mortal wound abilites cause DP? As neither of those are spells or attacks. Just abilities. Seems like RAI vs RAW.

Endless Spells would do until they say otherwise because it's still a spell the hero has cast. The abilities wouldn't because they're not a spell or an attack.

It's probably for another topic but there should never be an argument for RAI because you simply have no way of knowing the intention unless the person that wrote the rule tells you. Anything else isn't what was intended but your own assumption and if they do tell you then that becomes part of the FAQ and then is part of the rules.

[firebat]

5 hours ago, themortalgod said:

Yeah, I agree, all the base size switching has driven me nuts over the years since the loss of WHFB. I was really worried Nettes would go to 32s but after rebasing every single fantasy model I owned, then rebasing many of them again when the official base sizes came out coupled with rebasing 15 years of space marine collection I am def getting salty about bases.  

This is why for the most part I just base everything on the smallest I can do (or what still works for WHFB pretty much) and then use adapters to change the base size.

[kenshin620]

54 minutes ago, decker_cky said:

I see the Chaos lord of slaanesh on daemonic mount warscroll isn't available in the app anymore, but is there any reason why the hedonites release would have removed it? It still has a grand alliance: chaos profile, and a GHB2018 points cost. Downside is that it isn't considered a hedonite which triggers a few abilities, but unless there's been a stealth FAQ, there's no reason why the unit would have changed with the hedonites battletome release. 

I think they figured it was an old model that could be quietly retired despite the utility. Especially given the far more daemon emphasis on this book.

 

I would not be surprised if Fatemaster gets cut next Tzeentch book. Especially given how out of place the original Disk of Tzeentch looks.

That would leave the Harbinger Decay as the last of the old 4 God Mounted Heroes.

Edited May 1, 2019 by kenshin620

[Overread]

GW wants everything plastic with nothing metal nor finecast (FW Resin is a separate thing). So where possible they do remove those models. As this release didn't revamp the mortals for Slaanesh I figure that they simply made the choice to retire those models and likely update them at a latter point in time when they've the designs and production slots. Remember we don't actually know if the reason we didn't get mortals is because the design team didn't make them alone or if its simply because GW only had X amount of money for moulds in this time slot and X amount of production slots and fit the release to tie with that. 

 

Skaven (and likely Gutbusters when it is their turn unless they get a big update) are an exception because of their high popularity and because a lot of their models are considered very iconic. GW clearly made the choice to simply preserve their line as a one-off rather than remove a very large portion of the models. It's also likely that GW has plans to update many of them and that they also likely just drew a short straw on being updated with new sculpts.

GW is releasing models faster than ever but even now they have limits on what they can afford and can put into production. Whilst I'm sure they'd love to update every line they have realistic limits on their capacity, which is already pretty much running at maximum. 

[Carnith]

Watched the Miniwargaming Batrap of Slaanesh vs BoC. BoC WAS warherd, which is bad, but the slaanesh player did get around 60 dp that was legit, and an additional probably 12 that was suspect, like occasional getting dp from endless spells. All he lost was his keeper of secrets who was a Pretender with heal d3, reroll hits if alone, and +1 dmg vs monsters.

[Poryague]

47 minutes ago, carnith said:

Watched the Miniwargaming Batrap of Slaanesh vs BoC. BoC WAS warherd, which is bad, but the slaanesh player did get around 60 dp that was legit, and an additional probably 12 that was suspect, like occasional getting dp from endless spells. All he lost was his keeper of secrets who was a Pretender with heal d3, reroll hits if alone, and +1 dmg vs monsters.

They decided not to count endless spell damge.

Killed 11 bulgore with keep 33dp wounds and one more from an arcane bolt. So 34 dp

Killed a ghorgan with keeper 13 dp

2 dp from harp generation 

1 dp from using terrain piece.

Harp did 2 shots in the game into multi wound units each time scoring 3. So 6dp.

The keeper took 15 wounds before it died. So 14 dp because it healed 1 wound.

34+13+2+1+6+14 so 70dp I could be missing something but still decent.

[Unit1126PLL]

I just played a test game tonight as Pretenders. Definitely like Invaders better for the tri-Keeper build.

Vs. Seraphon with 3 engines, Slaan, skink priest, and 70 skinks, an astrolith bearer, 6 of the flyboys on pterodactyls, and ofc. summoning.

I had 3 Keepers (1 Pretender General in the Supreme Sybarite battalion for the +1 CP), 60 'Nettes, and 1 Enrapturess + Fane combo.
Deployed one keeper behind each Daemonette squad within ~1.5 inches of the 'nettes.
Got 76 depravity by the top of Turn 3:
- killed 6 of the pterodactyl after Locus of Disrupting them when they charged the 'nettes. Used my BN CP for 2 attacks with the keeper = 12 Depravity
- Bottom of Turn 1 (went second) got 2 from the Fane Sacrifice + Enrapturess, her shooting missed. Moved forwards and killed a load of skinks with Keepers and daemonettes.
- Top of 2 (didn't double turn) took 1 keeper worth of wounds (13 more depravity for 25) from the Engines, lost 1 on another keeper from skinks shooting, and a summoned bastilodon did 12 to my General (total of 38)
- Bottom of 2 got 2 again from Fane + Enrapturess, for 40. Summoned 1 Keeper and 10 Daemonettes for 39. General (with +d3 Damage and +1 DMG vs monsters traits, plus Sliverslash relic for +2 attacks from claws) made the charge and wiped out an Engine (9 more for 47), then the summoned Keeper made a charge and double-attacked for another dead engine (56). Attacks back from the other Engine did 8 to my Keeper (64).
- Top of 3 (double turned!) I got 2 more from the Enrapturess + Fane (66), then wiped out the Skink Priest with a round-the-base pile-in from the double-attacking wounded Keeper (3 more, 69), and 3 more summoned Pterodactlys (75). Attacks back did 1 wound to my wounded keeper, making it 76, with 37 in the bank, my opponent was looking at killing off all 3 of my keepers (4 more depravity from the General, 5 more from the wounded keeper, and 12 more from the other keeper for 58 in the bank) plus the 2 from the Fane + Enrapturess combo would give me 60 flat at the top of my next turn, letting me use the Enrapturess + Fane to bring in two more keepers with 2d3 refunded Depravity points.

It was now that we called it, and he said that Slaanesh had better summoning than Seraphon. 🤣

[Carnith]

Then maybe I missed something. Cause I could've sworn they did something wrong with dp generation, but if not, then I'm glad it worked as well as it did. Vito did forget to generation Loci during the enemy charge phase, and I felt they didn't utilize the Eptiome well enough, though Vito's ability to roll a 6 nearly every time with the claws was crazy.