AoS 2 - Hedonites of Slaanesh Discussion

[Oldshrimpeyes]

Is there anything in this new book that would compliment a build made around Archaon? 

[LeonBox]

30 minutes ago, Klamm said:

Just thinking, I've heard people complain about the lack of a mounted Lord of Pain type hero to support slickblade seekers, maybe a Slaanesh Daemon Prince would work. 12" fly so they can sort of keep up, the +1 to hit command ability isn't as good as a Keeper but they are 120 points cheaper. 

I'm thinking they give me a reason to field a Herald on Seeker Chariot for once. They're the fastest Herald Chariot variant and would make for a nice mobile CP bubble and potential acquiescence cast on the Slickblades' target. 

[Beliman]

4 minutes ago, umpac said:

Your math on the Slickblades is wrong, you must've forgotten something (champion, mount attacks, MW in addition, exploding hits). They should do 10.93 to 4+ .

Maybe I forgot something? That's what I gave them: 

[Gistradagis]

2 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Maybe I forgot something? That's what I gave them: 

Odd. The stats are correct, but the result is not. Perhaps whichever app you're using has some error in it, as I also get 10.93 against a 4+ with statshammer.

[Beliman]

14 minutes ago, Gistradagis said:

Odd. The stats are correct, but the result is not. Perhaps whichever app you're using has some error in it, as I also get 10.93 against a 4+ with statshammer.

I started from 0 (removed cookies too), still 7.56

/sadface

[Gistradagis]

Just now, Beliman said:

I started from 0 (removed cookies too), still 7.56

/sadface

And you're using statshammer? Maybe you have some odd configuration on the app itself or the "defending" unit?

[Beliman]

Just now, Gistradagis said:

And you're using statshammer? Maybe you have some odd configuration on the app itself or the "defending" unit?

Bingo

For whatever reason, I had rearolls save on defender. I will edit the post.

Thanks a lot!! 

[Enoby]

37 minutes ago, Oldshrimpeyes said:

Is there anything in this new book that would compliment a build made around Archaon? 

Glutos's command ability is fantastic with Archaon - and now Archaon has access to a decent healing spell from the daemon lore.

[Trav]

2 hours ago, Beliman said:

I was talking with friends and looking for dmg potential and sinergies, and I ended playing with stathammer. The points of the unit are on (), but some of them (the ones that move 6-8") have some support (to help a bit their numbers). A bit strange that Lord of Pain and the Shardspeaker have low range support... 

 

Edited: The previous pic was vs rerolls saves. Thanks to @umpac and @Gistradagis

Wow, I have been struggling to decide between painbringers and twinsouls. Twinsouls damage output is way higher than the painbringers! Though I guess painbringers habe better quality attacks and a rerollable save?

[LeonBox]

Somebody pointed out something regarding Glutos' command ability: only a single attack gets the benefit of healing wounds back, which means a max of 2 wounds healed back on Glutos if one of his palanquin-bearers were to kill something with one wound left. Not nearly as sexy as it first seems. 

[Enoby]

5 minutes ago, LeonBox said:

Somebody pointed out something regarding Glutos' command ability: only a single attack gets the benefit of healing wounds back, which means a max of 2 wounds healed back on Glutos if one of his palanquin-bearers were to kill something with one wound left. Not nearly as sexy as it first seems. 

Might be something to clear up in the FAQ - I can see it being read both ways, though still nice on Archaon who has D6 damage attacks.

[LeonBox]

13 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Might be something to clear up in the FAQ - I can see it being read both ways, though still nice on Archaon who has D6 damage attacks.

Also pretty good on a Keeper who kills something with one of her claws, since a flat damage 5 has a good chance of overkilling.

[umpac]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

Bingo

For whatever reason, I had rearolls save on defender. I will edit the post.

Thanks a lot!! 

You're archers are also higher than they should be, you accidentally gave them euphoric killers but its melee only. 20 archers sadly only does a meager 8.89 wounds.

[Beliman]

6 minutes ago, umpac said:

You're archers are also higher than they should be, you accidentally gave them euphoric killers but its melee only. 20 archers sadly only does a meager 8.89 wounds.

Fixed! Thanks for the input.
This army is a big turn around in the dmg output for the whole game, Even with the 1000+points batallion with double tap, it's not that great compared to other armies.
I suppose that summoning could help, but I really prefer mortals over anything demon (KoS and fiends being an exception... awesome miniatures).

Edited February 14, 2021 by Beliman

[Gistradagis]

15 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Fixed! Thanks for the input.
This army is a big turn around in the dmg output for the whole game, Even with the 1000+points batallion with double tap, it's not that great compared to other armies.
I suppose that summoning could help, but I really prefer mortals over anything demon (KoS and fiends being an exception... awesome miniatures).

It's a pity, but the overall conclusion I've arrived to after checking all the new units and such, is that mortals haven't been made to actually work by themselves. Perhaps due to the new summoning, they are all very overpriced, and the new battalions either make no sense or are useless with current points. So it would seem that the stronger iterations of Slaanesh are going to be... cavalry, like before. The one difference is that the new seekers are pretty good, so we DO have new units we can use, but you better want to play cavalry, cuz the rest is kind of a big miss.

The Blissbarb archers are sort of an exception, though. But you'll still have to play them either with cavalry on the front, or stuff such as Chaos Warriors.

[Enoby]

20 minutes ago, Gistradagis said:

Perhaps due to the new summoning, they are all very overpriced, and the new battalions either make no sense or are useless with current points.

On the bright side, even if we end up overcosted, the warscrolls themselves are pretty fitting and can be fixed in the general's handbook/December FAQ We're in a better situation than Slaves to Darkness who have ended up with a load of meh warscrolls (besides Marauders); they may go down in price, but warrriors won't feel fitting with their current warscroll. 

[Gistradagis]

3 minutes ago, Enoby said:

On the bright side, even if we end up overcosted, the warscrolls themselves are pretty fitting and can be fixed in the general's handbook/December FAQ We're in a better situation than Slaves to Darkness who have ended up with a load of meh warscrolls (besides Marauders); they may go down in price, but warrriors won't feel fitting with their current warscroll. 

Definitely, yes. Hopefully by summer we'll already get some discounts to make our new stuff actually be worth being used.

I mean, I am happy that we aren't disgustingly broken like Seraphon, and that our tricks aren't as dumb as LRL mortal wounds. But it does put a damper on my mood that so many of the new units are basically unplayable outside casual games. All I wanted was for a list with Siggy and Myrmidesh/Symbaresh, and these 3 precisely are the units you'll rarely see used in "good" lists.

[JonnyTheKing]

Anyone considered a 6 man unit of Fiends? I think they could provide  decent damage and also versatile with their different damage on the Stinger, also debuffing spell casting is great too

Edited February 14, 2021 by JonnyTheKing

[Klamm]

Yeah, I'm also mixed on the release. Certainly happy not to be playing a notoriously powerful faction, but I don't like that it only seems good when geared toward depravity summoning. The units I want to play are overcosted but have mostly alright warscrolls, which gives me hope for future points decreases. 

One thing I've decided I don't like is how bare the warscrolls are.

I remember the Warcry preview that first mentioned Slickblade Seekers, it talked about them being arrogant knights that didn't like getting upstaged. I thought maybe they gain an extra attack if there's another mortal slaanesh unit in combat within 6" or something.  Instead, the warscroll is just reroll charges and the same mortal wound on 6s ability that two other units have. 

I'm not complaining we have mortal wounds, but it's kind of weird that all the mortal units have 1 or 2 abilities which are generally good but commonplace. Where's the uniqueness? Where's the excess?

They managed to do that with some of the Heroes. Gluttos and Sigvald have a lot of flair, but the one I really love is the Shardspeaker. Great model, interesting lore which is translated well into rules (good spell, fun buff, flavourful conditional melee ability). Sure, a little overpriced like most of the mortal Hedonites are, but once she's dropped to 100 - 120 points she'll be in every list (maybe for S2D as well). 

I'm also heartened by how universal the panning of Slaangors has been. They're probably the worst on-release new unit of AoS 2nd edition, a 140 point scroll with a slightly better output and survivability than 70 points of Spire Tyrants. Considering a BoC update is likely coming this year or next, I'm hopeful for a full Slaangor redraft. I don't mind the 3 wounds with a 5+ save, considering the seekers have a surprising wound pool it would make sense for the Slaangor to be more of a glass cannon.  It's an interesting unit to write rules for because they need to fulfil a useful role in two different factions, I'd like them to be harder hitting but squishier Bullgors.

The mortal wounds at the end of the combat phase rule is a first draft of something interesting. Since they'll die like flies, that end of phase ability should be better, like D3 mortal wounds per Slaangor on a 3+. They probably won't live to the end of the phase, but now the opponent has to make sure of that or take the mortals, therefore being actually useful distractions. And of course, their weapon profiles have to be rewritten so that taking them in large units is ever an option.  And why don't they attack with their horns? 

[Rivener]

I encourage everyone in this thread who believes the costs and warscrolls are problematic to immediately email GW about this. They can, and will, change the costs if there is sufficient outcry. 
 

These are the worst costed releases in AoS to date, and possibly the most anticipated. If we make it clear that we are disappointed, that our enthusiasm for buying the models has greatly diminished, and that an early FAQ would restore our faith in the release, we can affect change.

I know people want to say to wait, but I assure everyone here of this unequivocal reality: the math is clear. These units are not costed for Matched Play.

[Enoby]

15 minutes ago, Klamm said:

One thing I've decided I don't like is how bare the warscrolls are.

I just had a quick look at the Seraphon warscrolls and I think ours are about as bare as theirs are. Same for Ironjawz, and Khorne mortals (who lost a lot of their interesting rules). It might be the same writer to take a guess. 

It's a shame, but I think there's been a slight push away from complex warscrolls recently, though some books have them still.

[Carnith]

1 hour ago, JonnyTheKing said:

Anyone considered a 6 man unit of Fiends? I think they could provide  decent damage and also versatile with their different damage on the Stinger, also debuffing spell casting is great too

6 man fiends i think are very attractive. They can go over big targets, and now make sense as an anvil with their -1 to hit and wound. 

[Enoby]

4 minutes ago, Rivener said:

I encourage everyone in this thread who believes the costs and warscrolls are problematic to immediately email GW about this. They can, and will, change the costs if there is sufficient outcry. 
 

These are the worst costed releases in AoS to date, and possibly the most anticipated. If we make it clear that we are disappointed, that our enthusiasm for buying the models has greatly diminished, and that an early FAQ would restore our faith in the release, we can affect change.

I know people want to say to wait, but I assure everyone here of this unequivocal reality: the math is clear. These units are not costed for Matched Play.

While I understand your concern - and I think that emailing them could help (certainly better than saying nothing if there's a problem) - I think we need to play some games with them first. Not only to see how they feel, but more importantly so the rules designers feel as if the models have been tested properly. 

If we go to the rules designers and say "these warscrolls look seriously overcosted and unplayable in matched play" they might take it into account, but it's far less convincing than explaining how this high cost affected a game you played. I agree that some of our units seem on the pricey side, but from GW's perspective they need data before they can make any changes.

[Overread]

11 minutes ago, Rivener said:

I encourage everyone in this thread who believes the costs and warscrolls are problematic to immediately email GW about this. They can, and will, change the costs if there is sufficient outcry. 
 

These are the worst costed releases in AoS to date, and possibly the most anticipated. If we make it clear that we are disappointed, that our enthusiasm for buying the models has greatly diminished, and that an early FAQ would restore our faith in the release, we can affect change.

I know people want to say to wait, but I assure everyone here of this unequivocal reality: the math is clear. These units are not costed for Matched Play.

I think its important to wait and see. The book is not even released to the public yet. Most have not had time to digest the results and are giving knee-****** reactions to everything and forgetting half the information as they do so. 

People need to pause, settle, read and process the information and see how the army performs in the real world. Math theory is only one part of game design; you have to match it with practical's. 

Right now is TOO SOON to get onto any doom and gloom train. There's no proof of the stats being bad nor good and math theory generally only compares limited rosters against each other; its less suitable for comparing an army performance. You want games, actual tests, data, experience and time before you can start to organise any kind of coherent feedback. 

[Rivener]

5 minutes ago, Enoby said:

While I understand your concern - and I think that emailing them could help (certainly better than saying nothing if there's a problem) - I think we need to play some games with them first. Not only to see how they feel, but more importantly so the rules designers feel as if the models have been tested properly. 

If we go to the rules designers and say "these warscrolls look seriously overcosted and unplayable in matched play" they might take it into account, but it's far less convincing than explaining how this high cost affected a game you played. I agree that some of our units seem on the pricey side, but from GW's perspective they need data before they can make any changes.

Then do both! Email them today saying the matched play costs for most units, especially the newest releases, are not correct based on even the most cursory comparisons to other options in the same army. That a basic mathematical comparison unequivocally agrees with that initial concern.

Then, say you are going to play with the points as written and provide additional data. These are not mutually exclusive, actually they are best together!

Just please, PLEASE don’t do nothing. Don’t just assume it’ll all work out in the end, or that silent play testing is the only path forward. Email GW today and tell them you are concerned, and if you need to get games in before you make any final decisions, fine, but tell them at first glance there are some real fears.