AoS 2 - Hedonites of Slaanesh Discussion

[Enoby]

A bit by the by, but I was having a think about one of the criticisms of this book being that it doesn't have many combos. And by that, they usually mean that units and battalions don't work well together due to complex reasons. 

To give an example of how a combo may have appeared in our book, let's imagine we had a cavalry hero who had a command ability which said "At the start of the hero phase, choose one unit. Add one to the damage characteristic in the combat phase of that unit's melee weapons if no enemy units within 3" have fought in that phase". Sounds great and it would combo brilliantly with the Seeker Cavalcade battalion.

On one hand, this one hypothetical hero existing would give seekers a massive boost and possibly other units too. It sounds great and a reason to get excited at the list building stage. 

On the other hand, adding even just this one CA to our book could lead us into the Idoneth Eel problem. The 'best unit' far and away becomes Slickblade Seekers in that one battalion. 

This is just a random made up example, but the key point was more wondering if it's a blessing in disguise that we don't have many combos in our book as combos tend to (though not always) be what makes Deathstar units. Very rarely are all combos created equally, and having a good ability that benefits one unit above another usually ends with that one unit being used to the exclusion of others. 

This isn't always the case of course. I'm wondering how others feel as, despite our book having some definite duds, most of our units are relatively equal in power and it almost gives us more viable options rather than thinking "well I could take Painbringers but they're nowhere near as good as Slickblades" (while one may be better than the other, it's not to the overwhelming degree as synergies can cause). That said, comments that say it leads to less interesting list building as there's less to 'solve' in an army are also valid; our units are generally 'as seen' with a few potential rerolls or pile in shenanigans.

What do you guys think?  

[umpac]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

What do you guys think?  

Yeah I know a lot of people dislike the lack of direct synergy in the book, but I much prefer lack of obvious synergy to "synergy on rails". At first it's daunting and a bit overwhelming when there are no clear sign posts to how to build your army but this is the only thing I miss from the old WHFB days. You took a variation of different units to fill different roles. You took whatever core part you wanted the tailored the rest to properly support it. It felt rewarding and creative and I get a similar feeling from our book.

When seraphon got their new book I dusted off and rebased my 7th Lizardmen but was disappointed that the book quickly put you on rails. I wanted to play skinks cause I like and had the models, so I started with 2x40 skinks then just put whatever unit buffed skinks (starpriests, priests, kroak, fangs of sotek). Whenever I tried to fit something in, the book basically just told me "no!". I wanted a bastiladon because dinosaurs but they're bad without the Thunderlizard CA, and my skink focus forced me into FoS. I wanted some I wanted some Saurus Knights because dinosaurs riding dinosaurs but without Koatls Claw and Saurus heroes they have 25% of their potential damage output. The entire list building phase felt automatic, basically pick a battleline, pick the obvious sub faction, pick all the obvvious synergies and then maybe you get a few hundred points to take something that actually feels like customization. 

[Popisdead]

On 2/24/2021 at 12:50 PM, Brother Mayhem said:

Warscroll builder doesn't have blissbarb seekers or blissbarb archers, where do we ask GW about them?

 

On 2/24/2021 at 1:46 PM, BOTTL said:

GW have stated that White Dwarf subfactions and their battalions are still valid - they keep WDs with them in print permanently in case someone wants them - so Syll'Esske's Host is still valid. It might need some updates to account for new points/depravity, but it's legal.

Sort of, GW has a FAQ stating which Celestial Tomes they are supporting.  So... if they ever get around to another set of AoS FAQs the Syll'Esske celestial tome would likely disappear from the list,.. well maybe,. they seem to have no team/development lead in AoS at the moment as COVID has turned off what feels like all AoS community support

On 2/25/2021 at 6:41 AM, Enoby said:

Just curious, for those who have issues with the book, have you written into the rules team yet with your thoughts? If so, what did you say 

What?!?!!  Don't you mean complain more on forums to people trying to make sense and find the good in the book?  

On 2/26/2021 at 4:46 PM, Carnith said:

Has anyone watched the entirety of the Warhammer weekly Slaanesh Review? 

It is worth it.  you can run youtube on x2 and skip the firs,.. 45ish minutes?  

On 2/26/2021 at 10:14 PM, Carnith said:

I agreed with a lot of their points,

They make a lot of good points.  I also think the Seekers battalion? is a good way to look at this.  Kinda like how you never see an Eldar psycher on foot.  Always on bikes.  Slaanesh should be fast and mobile.  I'm kinda interested if anyone tries regular seeker chariots.  They have retreat and charge and are in the battaltion.  Perhaps larger units could surprise people with the 6" sudden charge/pile in.  Or even singles like how Great Eagles and Razorgors were used in 8th ed fantasy (only better now).

On 2/27/2021 at 7:30 AM, Carnith said:

It was just on your thoughts on what they had said. BS immunity, sure, but BS is just a poorly designed part of the game that they have yet to fix. I don't want every army to just ignore a phase of a game to be good. 

What do you think of 40k BS coming to AoS?  Would that be a change you prefer?

On 2/27/2021 at 5:48 PM, Yoid said:

I think the day Daemonettes get an update (probably many years in the future. Unless we get new basic Daemons in a Be'Lakor Legions of Chaos Ascendant release) they will simply sculpt them on the new exalted seekers and retire the old seeker mount model. Hellstriders may be retired too in the next battletome, 

I really hope we get some Daemonettes more akin to Diaznettes some day. 

I don't like the current Daemonette sculpt and only play cause I have an army's worth of Juan Diaz sculpts which are a joy to paint.  

I like the FW Keeper way more than the current.  I like the current GW keeper but,.. it doesn't strike me like the FW one does.  While it's a technical? marvel it's also a little "plain" in some manner?  It is both amazing and dull.  Guess that could be very slaanesh.

I am not sold they will retire Hellstriders.  A plastic kit that isn't 16 years old. (cough cough Dryads survived book 2).  

On 2/28/2021 at 11:03 AM, Yoid said:

I was just telling my personal opinion, i really like nudity as a design space. By the way, nudity is not equal to sex, otherwise we would say that Bloodletters are sexified too. 

When asked what the difference between pornography and art Picasso replied "there is a difference?"  

On 2/27/2021 at 11:47 AM, swarmofseals said:

40 Ungor Raiders

What are your thoughts on Raider spam?  Like 90...  

One of my issues with the book is this thread's emphasis on shooting for a book that has zero benefits to shooting.  It isn't like Cites of Sigmar or even Sylvaneth, I don't know of a single shooting buff or bit of synergy.  

So why not just spam raiders.  They are still decent.  

3 hours ago, Enoby said:

A bit by the by, but I was having a think about one of the criticisms of this book being that it doesn't have many combos.

I think along with Sylvaneth and Beasts of Chaos, AoS is a Synergy game and armies that lack effective synergy for the missions suffer.  

[azdimy]

26 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

I don't like the current Daemonette sculpt and only play cause I have an army's worth of Juan Diaz sculpts which are a joy to paint.

Do you have any recommendation to glue the deamonettes claws. Mine  keep falling off if I even look at them sideways! 

[Enoby]

5 hours ago, umpac said:

Yeah I know a lot of people dislike the lack of direct synergy in the book, but I much prefer lack of obvious synergy to "synergy on rails". At first it's daunting and a bit overwhelming when there are no clear sign posts to how to build your army but this is the only thing I miss from the old WHFB days. You took a variation of different units to fill different roles. You took whatever core part you wanted the tailored the rest to properly support it. It felt rewarding and creative and I get a similar feeling from our book.

When seraphon got their new book I dusted off and rebased my 7th Lizardmen but was disappointed that the book quickly put you on rails. I wanted to play skinks cause I like and had the models, so I started with 2x40 skinks then just put whatever unit buffed skinks (starpriests, priests, kroak, fangs of sotek). Whenever I tried to fit something in, the book basically just told me "no!". I wanted a bastiladon because dinosaurs but they're bad without the Thunderlizard CA, and my skink focus forced me into FoS. I wanted some I wanted some Saurus Knights because dinosaurs riding dinosaurs but without Koatls Claw and Saurus heroes they have 25% of their potential damage output. The entire list building phase felt automatic, basically pick a battleline, pick the obvious sub faction, pick all the obvvious synergies and then maybe you get a few hundred points to take something that actually feels like customization. 

Yeah, I've found this too when looking in other books. I know Lumineth has an archer problem in some lists, but ignoring them I quite like the LRL book as nothing stands out as having a massive advantage over another thing. It leads to more varied lists because you don't feel hemmed in. 

Imagine if we got an alternate host for Godseekers that was focused on giving us better seekers. It gave significant bonuses (maybe +1 to hit, or rend, or damage, or rerolls) to seekers (inc the ones pulling chariots) and exalted seekers. It would let us make a seeker focused list that excels at what it aims to do, but at the same time it might well end up as the seeker list. Not that you couldn't use seekers elsewhere, but you may find it underwhelming when you use them as they become strictly worse in any other faction. Casting a casual glance to other books (though correct me if I'm wrong), subfactions tend to have a dominant choice. Less optimal ones are rarely chosen in matched play and the same units often appear again and again. That's not to say an army will only have a single unit, but rather oftentimes one unit will have a way to be buffed massively and can fill all roles.

If anything, our book has some units that are better than others but most have a place in an army. Even in the totally unoptimised list I ran with just all the new stuff (a list I was almost certain I'd lose with) felt well balanced with how things interacted well within play (even if there was no interaction in list building). 

3 hours ago, Popisdead said:

I think along with Sylvaneth and Beasts of Chaos, AoS is a Synergy game and armies that lack effective synergy for the missions suffer.  

I agree and disagree. Certainly you're right that some books just have very little to offer all around - they're neither fun to build with, or powerful, or have much to offer missions. I think our current book does have synergy with the missions (during play) but not as much overall synergy compared to other high tier armies.

I say I disagree because our last book had zero synergy and pretty much zero choice, but we brute forced our way to number 1 I think this was a very niche case of being horrendously overtuned, mind. 

As an aside, it's crazy thinking back to the Syll'Esske host giving double depravity. Just so bizarre of a choice that I wonder if the rules writer wrote it as a joke. I really liked the rest of it too, but any time I told my opponent what the host did they looked at me like I was crazy. 

[Fyrenn]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know about when we should expect a FAQ / Errata to Hedonites?  I know some folks have already been sending in questions/opinions and what have you, and I read somewhere it's often about 2 weeks after release... and while I know it's often not doing much, I still try to hold out hope they'll do something with Slaangors or something like that (we don't really know - there could have been a typo or mistake in the profile, for example if it was rushed and then too late to update. ex would be the fact that the claws are used both in singular and plural form - usually this has an ability descriptor (paired weapons reroll 1s, etc, while singular would not). 

 Wishful thinking, perhaps - but you never know... that is, until the FAQ comes 🙂

 

[Gistradagis]

I'd say the criticisms about the thematic oddness and synergy regarding the book are fair. A battletome can be thematic and not ridiculously strong, it's not a black or white situation, so it doesn't make much sense to me when people say "I prefer our book having no synergy whatsoever," when that should be an objectively bad thing. It IS odd how many non-bos we have, and how the book almost seems to punish you for trying to be original or run the new units.

On a personal note, I'd also agree to those complains, although moderately. For example, battalions. I like Nobles of Excess, even though it'll be unusable until both Myrmidesh and Symbaresh go down like 40 points. But Carnival punishes you with a steep hero tax that doesn't work with its key unit/theme, while Speed-Knights forces you to spend half your points on it, while still having 0 leaders and 0 battleline, which is baffling to me. It's really odd because they feel so easy to fix. Make the tax less punishing, or have the Lord of Pain actually synergise with Blissbarb Archers. Have Seekers be battleline. Done.

I also believe part of the problem is the sensation current lists give. Due to how ridiculously overpriced 90% of our range is, most Slaanesh lists win or lose by summoning (undercutting the importance of what list you want to play), meaning that you're kinda forced to play a slow and methodical game as Slaanesh and counter-punch by round 3, or launch a hail mary turn 1 attack hoping half your army isn't wiped immediately.

On a more positive note, certain lists have been giving me some success. I'd say that a seekers-heavy godseekers plays the fast game well enough, and hellstriders can be a good option. You get a relatively low drops list with everything but heroes in a Seekers Cavalcade, and can abuse its effect to take an advantage with activation wars (as sad as it is to win through NPE abuse, ofc). Some Lurid Haze also seems to be working, with it being Siggie's more natural house and, perhaps ironically, also rewarding some slower play with typical Chaos Warriors as battleline, and trying to farm DPs rather than caring too much about scoring in rounds 1-2.

[ibel]

14 hours ago, Enoby said:

What do you guys think?

Yes u are Right, there are not many Synergie but the Mechanik between Shooting, Selfhurting and Co. for Summoning is okay. Not super exciting but u Need it.

Yesterday i lose against a Seraphone with Kroak, AstBearer, 2 Starpriest, 2 Priest, 30 Skinks, 10 Skinks, 5 TGuard, 2 Batsilladon, 3 Salamder (the Stars of the Game)

The Game was okay, The Peformance of the Hedonits but it was very very hart to Play. For Hedonits u Need to know what u do and when and were an the Tabel.

I will Play testing more but I believe it will  be very Hard. Lets wait and hope of the FAQ (because every Unit of us is Minimum 20% to espensive (excluding Glutos O.)

[umpac]

6 hours ago, Gistradagis said:

I'd say the criticisms about the thematic oddness and synergy regarding the book are fair. A battletome can be thematic and not ridiculously strong, it's not a black or white situation, so it doesn't make much sense to me when people say "I prefer our book having no synergy whatsoever," when that should be an objectively bad thing. It IS odd how many non-bos we have, and how the book almost seems to punish you for trying to be original or run the new units.

But there is a lot of synergy in the book, just not the forced kind. The balance is a little wack but taking Painbringers to defend your objectives, place archers behind them to deal damage from behind protection while lightning fast Seekers steal your opponents objective or hammer into whatever is stuck in your anvil is synergy. It just doesn't have a lot of unit that are forced to be played together. I do think the criticism is fair, I just don't agree with it, but the again I find myself loving this book for the exact reason other people dislike it.

I think LRL is another good example. The stone bois are kind of forced to play in a specific subfaction with specific units and battalions but the rest are very easy to mix and match freely and they have great synergy without directly making each others warscrolls be twice as good for taking them together.

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by umpac

[Gistradagis]

1 hour ago, umpac said:

But there is a lot of synergy in the book, just not the forced kind. The balance is a little wack but taking Painbringers to defend your objectives, place archers behind them to deal damage from behind protection while lightning fast Seekers steal your opponents objective or hammer into whatever is stuck in your anvil is synergy. It just doesn't have a lot of unit that are forced to be played together. I do think the criticism is fair, I just don't agree with it, but the again I find myself loving this book for the exact reason other people dislike it.

I think LRL is another good example. The stone bois are kind of forced to play in a specific subfaction with specific units and battalions but the rest are very easy to mix and match freely and they have great synergy without directly making each others warscrolls be twice as good for taking them together.

 

But that's not synergy, it's basic wargame strategy. What would you oppose it to, putting archers in front of the anvil unit and not using cavalry for its mobility? And this isn't being achieved by any element of the book, it's smth 99% of armies will do as it's straightforward strategy. "Forced" synergy is such an odd concept, too, when you consider that buying a battletome to play is literally purchasing rules for playing an army that synergises with itself. What's the point of these units being together in a list as Hedonites specifically if there's nothing especial about it? If you don't have any strategy, combo, synergy, that rewards you for playing your army together?

I feel like you're describing something quite different from synergy; the idea behind the concept is the sum being greater than the separate parts due to how well they work together, specifically because it's them working together. An example of LRL snyergy is the Cathallar taking the -1 to bravery for using their drug magic and throwing it onto an enemy unit, among other shenanigans. The two work better due to being together, and having real synergy that rewards having them together. Your first example works in every army ever, including Grand Alliances, because it doesn't reward any synergy, but basic planning.

[Enoby]

1 hour ago, Gistradagis said:

But that's not synergy, it's basic wargame strategy. What would you oppose it to, putting archers in front of the anvil unit and not using cavalry for its mobility? And this isn't being achieved by any element of the book, it's smth 99% of armies will do as it's straightforward strategy. "Forced" synergy is such an odd concept, too, when you consider that buying a battletome to play is literally purchasing rules for playing an army that synergises with itself. What's the point of these units being together in a list as Hedonites specifically if there's nothing especial about it? If you don't have any strategy, combo, synergy, that rewards you for playing your army together?

I feel like you're describing something quite different from synergy; the idea behind the concept is the sum being greater than the separate parts due to how well they work together, specifically because it's them working together. An example of LRL snyergy is the Cathallar taking the -1 to bravery for using their drug magic and throwing it onto an enemy unit, among other shenanigans. The two work better due to being together, and having real synergy that rewards having them together. Your first example works in every army ever, including Grand Alliances, because it doesn't reward any synergy, but basic planning.

I don't know if this is going to make any sense because it sounds weird, but I'll try explain at least what I mean.

Generally, synergy is good to have in an army - a way units combo together to make the most of themselves is interesting and leads to more engaging list building (e.g. "I'm going to use X and Y to make Z much better"). However, I've found in AoS synergy often fits into two categories - either synergy that only affects one type of unit (e.g. the Chaos Lord on Manticore's command ability) or it can affect multiple units but there's usually a clear winner (e.g. old witch brew on Witch Aelves).

In addition, it often seems like many lists are hemmed in as "unit" lists. For example, the Gloomspite list I went against was a "squig" list; the allegiance abilities and battalions were all geared around them. They couldn't effectively add Troggoths because they'd not synergise with any of the other allegiance abilities. Same as in a "Troggoth" list, squigs would be a bit of a waste of time. 

Our lists do lack synergy, and normally I'd agree that it's a bad thing, but I'm wondering if it's a blessing in disguise because of the way AoS synergy tends to manifest. If we could have synergy without the risk of having a unit become heads and tails better than the rest, I'd love that, but I think AoS struggles with list diversity as most units have flat stats (as in, they interact with all other enemy models the same) so it becomes about taking the best flat stats, buffing them, and applying it to all scenarios. 

While some of our units are overcosted, I think our lack of synergy has (likely accidentally) left us in a place where we can create diverse lists because most units can have a place. For example, Twin Souls do more damage than Slickblades to poor saves, but Slickblades are faster and better against good saves, Painbringers are better at defending against mass poor quality attacks but Slickblades are better at shrugging off mortal wounds (due to large number of wounds and MWs usually being sparse) and Twin Souls are better at defending against a large number of high rend attacks due to the shrug. You could argue that this is like a normal GA allegiance rather than anything special to Hedonites, but we still do have allegiance abilities that give us active things to do in the game such as Depravity Points and Locus of Diversion. 

In an ideal game, I agree synergy would always be a good thing, but when looking at buffs in AoS they are often too specific or have a clear winner in the recipient. In addition, buffs can often create Deathstar units which go back to wiping units of the face of the earth every time they attack. Granted I have only played one game, but from the one I played I enjoyed the fact I could use what I wanted in my army without feeling I was crippling myself or that I was going to have a game so easy it's boring. 

Hope that made sense - it's a little rambly :P

Edited March 3, 2021 by Enoby

[Gistradagis]

43 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I don't know if this is going to make any sense because it sounds weird, but I'll try explain at least what I mean.

Generally, synergy is good to have in an army - a way units combo together to make the most of themselves is interesting and leads to more engaging list building (e.g. "I'm going to use X and Y to make Z much better"). However, I've found in AoS synergy often fits into two categories - either synergy that only affects one type of unit (e.g. the Chaos Lord on Manticore's command ability) or it can affect multiple units but there's usually a clear winner (e.g. old witch brew on Witch Aelves).

In addition, it often seems like many lists are hemmed in as "unit" lists. For example, the Gloomspite list I went against was a "squig" list; the allegiance abilities and battalions were all geared around them. They couldn't effectively add Troggoths because they'd not synergise with any of the other allegiance abilities. Same as in a "Troggoth" list, squigs would be a bit of a waste of time. 

Our lists do lack synergy, and normally I'd agree that it's a bad thing, but I'm wondering if it's a blessing in disguise because of the way AoS synergy tends to manifest. If we could have synergy without the risk of having a unit become heads and tails better than the rest, I'd love that, but I think AoS struggles with list diversity as most units have flat stats (as in, they interact with all other enemy models the same) so it becomes about taking the best flat stats, buffing them, and applying it to all scenarios. 

While some of our units are overcosted, I think our lack of synergy has (likely accidentally) left us in a place where we can create diverse lists because most units can have a place. For example, Twin Souls do more damage than Slickblades to poor saves, but Slickblades are faster and better against good saves, Painbringers are better at defending against mass poor quality attacks but Slickblades are better at shrugging off mortal wounds (due to large number of wounds and MWs usually being sparse) and Twin Souls are better at defending against a large number of high rend attacks due to the shrug. You could argue that this is like a normal GA allegiance rather than anything special to Hedonites, but we still do have allegiance abilities that give us active things to do in the game such as Depravity Points and Locus of Diversion. 

In an ideal game, I agree synergy would always be a good thing, but when looking at buffs in AoS they are often too specific or have a clear winner in the recipient. In addition, buffs can often create Deathstar units which go back to wiping units of the face of the earth every time they attack. Granted I have only played one game, but from the one I played I enjoyed the fact I could use what I wanted in my army without feeling I was crippling myself or that I was going to have a game so easy it's boring. 

Hope that made sense - it's a little rambly :P

That's fair enough, and I do understand what you mean, but from personal experience I feel like we're being forced on doing the opposite. Due to our very poor synergy, most of our lists are pigeonholed into very specific tactics to have an actual chance at winning, usually living or dying by summoning, or abusing activation wars NPE through Seeker Cavalcade. I'd call that the opposite of list building freedom. And one reason this is happening, in my opinion, is lack of synergy. We're not going to run Twinsouls, because it's not worth it. Not only are they overcosted, their only real sensible combination is with a Lord of Pain but, due to a lack of real synergy, the 2 units don't make much sense together (they already re-roll hits at least half the game, so having a LoP with them isn't particularly good or efficient). They are also a unit that really wants to get the charge, so being able to get run & charge for our stuff through some combination or ability would be great for more lists and possibilities but, again, no synergy there.

I see what you mean, but that is precisely why we need good synergy. Buffs that affect "HEDONITES" for example, as that does not limit our options in the way that LRL temples do, and actually rewards you for playing, well, Hedonites (as opposed to how many lists just run StD's Chaos Warriors, for example, since they are simply better and more cost-effective, and have the same synergy as some of our other units: none). And Death Stars are difficult when our army has kinda crappy shooting that's only good for farming DPs. In regards to your last point, that's kind of the problem. Our lack of synergy and non-bo cripple us. Our units don't work particularly well together, so we can play whatever we want simply because there's no reward in doing otherwise. We can play any list in the same way you can play Grand Alliance Chaos. You'll lose most games, but you can certainly play what you want.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Gistradagis

[ibel]

3 hours ago, umpac said:

The balance is a little wack but taking Painbringers to defend your objectives, place archers behind them to deal damage from behind protection while lightning fast Seekers steal your opponents objective or hammer into whatever is stuck in your anvil is synergy.

Mhmm Maybe, but better than the Painbringer are Chaosworriorer, the Archer die instantlie if anithing is Shooting an them, and the Hammer Objective Steeler is fast, but not flying and not a Hammer of Plastik.

And everything from the Things u Count ist TOO EXPENSIVE on Points. to expensive. Painbringers 30 to 50 Points down = great, Archer for 160 Points... ?!?! Maybe for 120 Okay. Seekers seems okay but if u look at say DemigKnights the new seeker are 20 Points to much.

Again if ONE or TWO Units in your 10 Units Army are 20 Points to high, okay, thats okay.... but in Hedonit EVERY UNIT (exkluding GO) is to expensive!!!!

[Tasman]

2 hours ago, ibel said:

Mhmm Maybe, but better than the Painbringer are Chaosworriorer, the Archer die instantlie if anithing is Shooting an them, and the Hammer Objective Steeler is fast, but not flying and not a Hammer of Plastik.

And everything from the Things u Count ist TOO EXPENSIVE on Points. to expensive. Painbringers 30 to 50 Points down = great, Archer for 160 Points... ?!?! Maybe for 120 Okay. Seekers seems okay but if u look at say DemigKnights the new seeker are 20 Points to much.

Again if ONE or TWO Units in your 10 Units Army are 20 Points to high, okay, thats okay.... but in Hedonit EVERY UNIT (exkluding GO) is to expensive!!!!

Truth! I'd love to include pain bringers. But 150 POINTS FOR 5? That's too rich for my blood. Even in the old mentality of points per wound, that's a whopping 30 per guy.   120 seems about right to me.

[umpac]

4 hours ago, Gistradagis said:

But that's not synergy, it's basic wargame strategy. What would you oppose it to, putting archers in front of the anvil unit and not using cavalry for its mobility? And this isn't being achieved by any element of the book, it's smth 99% of armies will do as it's straightforward strategy. "Forced" synergy is such an odd concept, too, when you consider that buying a battletome to play is literally purchasing rules for playing an army that synergises with itself. What's the point of these units being together in a list as Hedonites specifically if there's nothing especial about it? If you don't have any strategy, combo, synergy, that rewards you for playing your army together?

I feel like you're describing something quite different from synergy; the idea behind the concept is the sum being greater than the separate parts due to how well they work together, specifically because it's them working together. An example of LRL snyergy is the Cathallar taking the -1 to bravery for using their drug magic and throwing it onto an enemy unit, among other shenanigans. The two work better due to being together, and having real synergy that rewards having them together. Your first example works in every army ever, including Grand Alliances, because it doesn't reward any synergy, but basic planning.

Yes, but also no. Synergy is as you say when the whole is greater than the sum of its part, but that's the case for Hedonites now, otherwise people would spam the  best unit and take nothing else. In WHFB you didnt have anything that buffed a specific unit or unit type, everything was universal, but units still had plenty of synergy which led to a lot less streamlined list building. Working together doesn't just mean mechanics that directly buff one another. A hammer and an anvil works better than 2 hammers or 2 anvils, because they have synergy, even if that's just basic strategy. Books that doesn't have good synergy are the ones where you see a single unit being spammed.

Maybe forced synergy is the wrong term, the point I was trying to make was that I dislike books were list building is basically put on rails because some units only work when combined with specific units. If I feel like the lists has so many sign posts pointing me into a certain direction then they basically builds themselves. This leads to all lists of the same archtype looking pretty much the same. Competitive FoS, TLTQ and Koatls Claw lists all look extremely similar because the book rewards you for going with the outlined path and punishes you for breaking away from it.

The LRL synergy in your example is the type of synergy I like, because it works on all units. It doesn't matter who burns their aetherquartz, it works with everything in the book. It also shores up a big weakness in the army: low bravery. I do agree that the book could use more of this type of synergy and it has some issues in this regard, like they way Shardspeakers buff doesn't help shooting but they are in the shooting battalion or the way our support heroes have 2-8" less move than units it wants to support.

[AngryPanda]

A good number of us are mentioning that there is little to no synergy within the book, and I can’t agree more. This, along with the units being generally overpriced, is really hampering the new books potential. 
 

A while ago when we were speculating, I posted that even if the units themselves have below average warscrolls, strong allegiance abilities, battalions, and hero buffs can make up for it. Unfortunately, the “synergies” are all over the place, and there is no direction or significant bonuses that are clearly defined. 
 

For example, let’s talk about the battalions. Single or “one time” abilities, in my opinion, are the worst types a unit can have because they aren’t consistent. This applies to battalions, especially considering you’re investing the additional points. Also, the best battalions buffs strengthen the corresponding units strengths. A battalion that brings heavy hitting melee units should reasonably increase they’re capability in melee or survivability; a battalion that takes shooting units should increase the units capability to shoot. 
 

The battalions do this to a degree, but either they are not enough to justify the points, or the additional abilities are weak and don’t correlate with their strengths. The worst are the Nobles of Excess, who get rerolls to wound on a successful charge. Painbringers and twinsouls are one of the slowest units in the book: why give a bonus ability that plays to their weakness? Giving the benefit of the doubt, let’s say you do make the charge. Rerolling is nice...but it’s only for the first round of combat. The Seeker Calvacade has same problem, as it’s a limited single use use bonus for an expensive price tag. Depraved Carnival is alright, but is extremely expensive to make work and very risky as it’s essentially a glass cannon. 

The heroes are ok, and what’s great about our book is that Daemon abilities also apply to mortals; this is very unique within our tome compared to the other god factions. However, there are no consistent ways to buff our shooting, or our calvary. In my opinion, the Shardspeaker should of provided +1 to wound on general, so that Blissbarbs can get the bonus while shooting. Best way to buff our Seekers is taking a Herald on a Seeker Chariot to get rerolls to hit of 1. 
 

I’m crossing my fingers that within the FAQ they decrease the points about 20-30 across the board for the mortal units, and for the Fiendbloods (which have no synergies at all) decrease to 90-100 points, or give them a bonus to damage 2 or something. However, I have a feeling that if we’re to get any point adjustments, it will be in the new GHB that’s rumored to be coming out. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by AngryPanda

[Gistradagis]

1 hour ago, umpac said:

Yes, but also no. Synergy is as you say when the whole is greater than the sum of its part, but that's the case for Hedonites now, otherwise people would spam the  best unit and take nothing else. In WHFB you didnt have anything that buffed a specific unit or unit type, everything was universal, but units still had plenty of synergy which led to a lot less streamlined list building. Working together doesn't just mean mechanics that directly buff one another. A hammer and an anvil works better than 2 hammers or 2 anvils, because they have synergy, even if that's just basic strategy. Books that doesn't have good synergy are the ones where you see a single unit being spammed.

Maybe forced synergy is the wrong term, the point I was trying to make was that I dislike books were list building is basically put on rails because some units only work when combined with specific units. If I feel like the lists has so many sign posts pointing me into a certain direction then they basically builds themselves. This leads to all lists of the same archtype looking pretty much the same. Competitive FoS, TLTQ and Koatls Claw lists all look extremely similar because the book rewards you for going with the outlined path and punishes you for breaking away from it.

The LRL synergy in your example is the type of synergy I like, because it works on all units. It doesn't matter who burns their aetherquartz, it works with everything in the book. It also shores up a big weakness in the army: low bravery. I do agree that the book could use more of this type of synergy and it has some issues in this regard, like they way Shardspeakers buff doesn't help shooting but they are in the shooting battalion or the way our support heroes have 2-8" less move than units it wants to support.

Oh, I agree with most of that, but that is why I'm talking about synergy in the forms of stuff that works on "HEDONITES" for example. Because it doesn't limit us when building lists, and simply creates more playstyles and consistent, well-rounded play styles.

I say that we have bad design/synergy because we have stuff like the Carnival battalion, which has a huge cost and forces us to take heroes that do not work well (or rather, at all) with the unit you're getting. Or how Speed-Knights takes half your points but has no battleline or heroes. There's many cases of this type of 0 synergy or non-bo that I feel the opposite of freedom, because I simply feel that the book is punishing me for trying to play it. I can't use either battalion if I want to have a half decent game against any given army. Or how our factions don't really have interesting choices for us to make. We use Godseekers because it helps us summon + charge, and that's pretty much it.

So what I would really want is for our army to not feel so disjointed, and that our book rewarded us for good list building, rather than say "here's like 8 new things, but only 3 are usable."

[Carnith]

It would be nice if lord of pain changed to making a unit reroll hits in the shooting phase or combat phase. Would allow your archers to be good. or Let the shard speaker let all units get +1 to wound. It would definitely make the point costs of those units worth thier cost if you could get archers to a good profile of 4 rerolling by 2. Or let depraved carnival get the ranged units to have access to the double taps on 6's instead of a hero phase shoot. 

[Enoby]

26 minutes ago, AngryPanda said:

The Seeker Calvacade has same problem, as it’s a limited single use use bonus for an expensive price tag.

Why do you think the cavalcade is a one time use battalion? Except if the unit dies before they can use it again, you can retreat and pile in Just wondering if there's something I'm missing 

27 minutes ago, AngryPanda said:

I’m crossing my fingers that within the FAQ they decrease the points about 20-30 across the board for the mortal units, and for the Fiendbloods (which have no synergies at all) decrease to 90-100 points, or give them a bonus to damage 2 or something. However, I FLGS be a feeling that if we’re to get any point adjustments, it will be in the new GHB that’s rumored to be coming out. 

I reckon it'll be in the GHB, but if people do keep writing in I think we'll see some pretty nice changes overall. I think a 20-30 drop on some of the more overcosted (Painbringers, LoP, and Shardspeaker) units would do fine, with possibly some tweaks on Sigvald and Twin Souls. Shalaxi could come down too but that's by the by. 

Overall, I do understand your issues with lack of synergy - our book does have problems and you've pointed a lot of them out - but at the same time it feels a lot more fun to play than some of the 'better' battletomes. Very subjective, I know, but I think the points reduction will go a long way into helping us

Unrelated, but I'm convinced Glutos's best spell to take is the battleshock immunity one. Casts on a 5 (so he only needs a 4), most people don't care to dispell it if they have limited dispells as his other spell is more lethal, and saves the hassle of Slickblades running off out of inspiring presence range. Also, as silly as it looks, Glutos is best drifting sideways along the battlefield to make the most of his auras.

[LeonBox]

48 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Why do you think the cavalcade is a one time use battalion? Except if the unit dies before they can use it again, you can retreat and pile in Just wondering if there's something I'm missing .

I think he means the Exalted Speed Knights battalion, rather than the Cavalcade. The one that allows D6 units from the battalion to move 6" before the start of the battle. 

[Carnith]

Exalted speed knights is still very strong for the pre-game move. The downside is no battleline in the battalion. And the other seeker battalion is good with 6" tokyo drift action.

The other battalions are the ones that end up needing help. 

Epicurean Revellers still has nothing to give your fiends in that list.

Pretenders neuters the choice of ever running sybarites Supreme, an already poor subfaction made worse with its unneeded nerfs. 

Depraved Carnival contains units that do not work at all together. The heroes in that battalion do nothing for the archer units, except for providing a potential reroll 1's to hit in the shooting phase (so not effecting their hero phase shooting) and with the tax of 3 heroes, you are spending quite a lot for that battalion. Points decreases will help it if nearly every unit in the battalion goes down about 30 points each as it would free up 180 points, or just a rewrite that would allow the lord of pain to let the blissbarbs reroll their hits near him. I dislike battalions where units inside of it gain zero benefit and this is the only main buff archers get in the whole book. 

Nobles of Excess do have a nice buff, but this would honestly be the battalion to contain a lord of pain. For a situational buff, I would expect maybe something for consistent. 

 

[AngryPanda]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

Why do you think the cavalcade is a one time use battalion? Except if the unit dies before they can use it again, you can retreat and pile in Just wondering if there's something I'm missing 

Ah, my mistake; I meant to refer to the Exalted Speed-Knights. The tax for this battalion (in points and minimum unit requirements) is way too much for what you’re getting. If someone were to take this, then they would be wise to build their army around it, preferably within a Godseeker army.  However, the random D6 number of units is sad and too risky for how much you’re investing. The Seeker Cavalcade is actually pretty decent, as cavalry that’s able to attack from 6” away and pile in from 3” is pretty great. This would make our fast units even more consistent, especially considering Slaanesh is already known for being speedy. 
 

27 minutes ago, Carnith said:

The other battalions are the ones that end up needing help. 

I agree, there needs to be a significant review of these battalions. Even with point decreases, many of them are very situational. The Sybarites Supreme would probably be best in an Invaders list, as you’ll be able to spread out a number of heroes around to get the best benefits, especially in Lurid Haze; but in pretenders it’s a massive debuff and isn’t worth taking. The other battalions have little to no synergy with the units and one another, and paralleling with your sentiment, the Depraved Carnival is a good example. It’s very expensive, has no synergy between the heroes and the units, and is not worth the cost even though we are getting double shots. A few rule changes might help, but being that GW just published the book I’m unfaithful that they’ll make a buff or change to the rules that fast, especially considering that they have used the excuse that there is “no data” to base balancing on. 

[Gistradagis]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

I reckon it'll be in the GHB, but if people do keep writing in I think we'll see some pretty nice changes overall. I think a 20-30 drop on some of the more overcosted (Painbringers, LoP, and Shardspeaker) units would do fine, with possibly some tweaks on Sigvald and Twin Souls. Shalaxi could come down too but that's by the by. 

Overall, I do understand your issues with lack of synergy - our book does have problems and you've pointed a lot of them out - but at the same time it feels a lot more fun to play than some of the 'better' battletomes. Very subjective, I know, but I think the points reduction will go a long way into helping us

I feel like we can ask for much more. Perhaps it's due to how gross the overcost is, but I feel that most of the units could easily go down like 40 points each. Blissbarb archers at 120 would already be somewhat pricy for weak archers that will die/run against anything. Seekers are great but also a hefty investment in points with their bad save and now that amazing damage (slickblades can do a good amount of damage, but let's not fool ourselves, it's the standard for any unit meant for damage dealing). Same for Myrmidesh and Symbaresh, who could and should be closer to 100-120 respectively, Sigvald being 200-220, or the Lord of Pain, who was like 100 points on the box he first showed up in, and now he's suddenly 50 points more expensive because "reasons."

Stuff like Glutos is priced well, though. And I do feel that our summoning is already self-limiting enough, and not broken. So I do not subscribe to the idea that our entire range somehow has baked in a "broken summon mechanic," because it's not true.

[Popisdead]

21 hours ago, azdimy said:

Do you have any recommendation to glue the deamonettes claws. Mine  keep falling off if I even look at them sideways! 

I pinned mine.  it sucked.  But it's what you gotta do.  Grind it out, maybe put on some tunes or a bat rep or two,.. or 8   But yeah pinning 09 ish arms wasn't fun.

17 hours ago, Fyrenn said:

Out of curiosity, does anyone know about when we should expect a FAQ / Errata to Hedonites?  I know some folks have already been sending in questions/opinions and what have you, and I read somewhere it's often about 2 weeks after release... and while I know it's often not doing much, I still try to hold out hope they'll do something with Slaangors or something like tha🙂

Used to be 2 weeks, now I think it's 1 month?  Regarding Slaangors it is unlikely the warscroll will change.  This is how it is for now.   To me the bigger issue is the Depraved Drove wasn't updated, nor did the Warscroll have the Brayherds keyword.  Granted the Tzaangor warscroll didn't have Brayherd until BoC was released.  

[azdimy]

39 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

I pinned mine.  it sucked.  But it's what you gotta do.  Grind it out, maybe put on some tunes or a bat rep or two,.. or 8   But yeah pinning 09 ish arms wasn't fun.

Yeah pinning this size parts is quite tedious. Not looking forward to go through so many arms