AoS 2 - Hedonites of Slaanesh Discussion

[Rock Lobster]

4 minutes ago, CB42 said:

Nope. Absolutely incorrect. They affect every unit within 1” of the model that just finished a charge. It’s one sentence discussing being near a model after the model finishes a charge, but you and dark are trying to interpret them as separate sentences and then ignore the second part.

As stated you dont need to interpret or ignore the later part of the sentence at all per my post above. Surely you would agree it explicitly states that you 'roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of a model from this unit" right? Every model in the unit is a model in the unit - there is no way around that. I completely agree with you that this is done after the model you are moving finishes a charge move per the 2nd half. Per units of multiples you move each model and calculate all the mortal wounds inflicted after each move - completely consistent with that entire sentence. I think you are trying to tie things together that dont exist, dark and I are simply reading the rule as it is written.

[CB42]

Just now, Rock Lobster said:

I dont think it changes anything, you can bold that too if you like. It explicitly states that you have to roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of a model from this unit after the model from this unit finishes a charge move. So you dont get a choice in the matter, it has to affect every unit within an inch of any model in this unit. The use of 'the' refers to the model being moved and indicates it is per model being moved and explicitly reinforced by the next section on multiple models in a unit where each is moved and mortal wounds are inflicted after each move. I'm afraid that is correct.

Within 1” of a model after the model finishes a charge: it’s the same model. Other models in the unit are not the model that finished a charge.

The later section states that mortal wounds are inflicted after each move because those models may also move within 1” of units and you’d roll for those units. That has no bearing on rolling multiple times for the units that are not next to a totally different model from the model that finished a charge.

You’re looking at the controlling wording being “next to a model” and then assuming that “the model finishes a charge” is completely, 100% independent. But it’s not. It’s the same sentence. The model that finished a charge is the same model that a unit must be next to to roll for mortal wounds.

[Rock Lobster]

11 minutes ago, jackmcmahon said:

Disagree

Could you elaborate on your point of disagreement, I'll be honest I'm not trying to be nitpicky, I just cant see where the disconnect is.

[CB42]

1 minute ago, Rock Lobster said:

I think you are trying to tie things together that dont exist, dark and I are simply reading the rule as it is written.

I think I am simply reading the rule as it is written and you and dark are adding a line break in the middle of a sentence so that the two parts of the sentence no longer reference each other.

[jackmcmahon]

3 minutes ago, Rock Lobster said:

Could you elaborate on your point of disagreement, I'll be honest I'm not trying to be nitpicky, I just cant see where the disconnect is.

I disagree that RAW give enough information to make a judgement because "a" and "the" are not clarified enough.  I read it as "units within 1" of the charging model after each model has charged" and you read it as "units with 1" of the unit after each model has charged" and the actual wording is somewhere in between.  In these situations, I usually explain to opponent and we come to an agreement on how to play until FAQ comes.

[Rock Lobster]

1 minute ago, CB42 said:

Within 1” of a model after the model finishes a charge: it’s the same model. Other models in the unit are not the model that finished a charge.

The later section states that mortal wounds are inflicted after each move because those models may also move within 1” of units and you’d roll for those units. That has no bearing on rolling multiple times for the units that are not next to a totally different model from the model that finished a charge.

You’re looking at the controlling wording being “next to a model” and then assuming that “the model finishes a charge” is completely, 100% independent. But it’s not. It’s the same sentence. The model that finished a charge is the same model that a unit must be next to to roll for mortal wounds.

I would agree with you if the rule was written differently, it is structured unfortunately as it is for a different affect. I would agree with you if it just said 'Each time a model from this unit finishes a charge move, roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of the model.' That would be your interpretation written in rule form.

The reality is though that they explicitly state that you Result = 'roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of a model from this unit' (surely no disagreement on this one) Trigger = 'after the model from this unit finishes a charge move'. And as we know from the next sentence you move each charger separately and total up the mortal wounds.

[Rock Lobster]

3 minutes ago, jackmcmahon said:

I disagree that RAW give enough information to make a judgement because "a" and "the" are not clarified enough.  I read it as "units within 1" of the charging model after each model has charged" and you read it as "units with 1" of the unit after each model has charged" and the actual wording is somewhere in between.  In these situations, I usually explain to opponent and we come to an agreement on how to play until FAQ comes.

I think my last reply to CB42 will really help clear this up. Its not that it is somewhere in between the 2, it is not at all the former that it is within 1" of the model that has charged. It is explicitly within 1" of a model from the unit - I think its pretty clear. If it is not Their intent, they can FAQ the language, but it is the rule as is written.

[jackmcmahon]

2 minutes ago, Rock Lobster said:

I would agree with you if the rule was written differently, it is structured unfortunately as it is for a different affect. I would agree with you if it just said 'Each time a model from this unit finishes a charge move, roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of the model.' That would be your interpretation written in rule form.

The reality is though that they explicitly state that you Result = 'roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of a model from this unit' (surely no disagreement on this one) Trigger = 'after the model from this unit finishes a charge move'. And as we know from the next sentence you move each charger separately and total up the mortal wounds.

This comment is separate from the rest of conversation: 

Narratively, your way would be funny because it's like a 5car pile up on highway. First car crashes in then second car hits first car which further pushes into wreckage etc etc.  Just thought it was a funny visual I had that I'd share.

[CB42]

5 minutes ago, Rock Lobster said:

I would agree with you if the rule was written differently, it is structured unfortunately as it is for a different affect. I would agree with you if it just said 'Each time a model from this unit finishes a charge move, roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of the model.' That would be your interpretation written in rule form.

The reality is though that they explicitly state that you Result = 'roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of a model from this unit' (surely no disagreement on this one) Trigger = 'after the model from this unit finishes a charge move'. And as we know from the next sentence you move each charger separately and total up the mortal wounds.

Result and trigger = ‘roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1” of a model from this unit after the model from this unit finishes a charge move’. It’s all referencing one model.

Full unit clarification: Do this each time you move a model as part of the charge phase, though it’s still only units next to the one model that moved each time.

Again, you are arbitrarily separating the sentence into completely independent parts that don’t interact. It’s one sentence.

sidenote: The fact that it says “after the model finishes a charge move” instead of “after a model finishes a charge move” shows that the model finishing the charge move is the same as the model an enemy unit is next to. “The model” means it’s a dependent clause.

Edited May 23, 2019 by CB42

[Rock Lobster]

2 minutes ago, jackmcmahon said:

This comment is separate from the rest of conversation: 

Narratively, your way would be funny because it's like a 5car pile up on highway. First car crashes in then second car hits first car which further pushes into wreckage etc etc.  Just thought it was a funny visual I had that I'd share.

I like that! Especially since they have basically no wounds and save so the end result regardless of how you play it is 3 wrecked chariots if they hit anything that can fight.

[Rock Lobster]

2 minutes ago, CB42 said:

Result and trigger = ‘roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1” of a model from this unit after the model from this unit finishes a charge move’. It’s all referencing one model.

Full unit clarification: Do this each time you move a model as part of the charge phase, though it’s still only units next to the one model that moved each time.

Again, you are arbitrarily separating the sentence into completely independent parts that don’t interact. It’s one sentence.

I only split it up into 2 to try and convey the point to you since there is disagreement, your using the same sentence just to draw a different conclusion but without the justification I put in as to why my interpretation works.

Result and trigger = ‘roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1” of a model from this unit after the model from this unit finishes a charge move’. It references the model charging as the trigger  and then the result is roll a dice for every unit within 1" of a model from this unit, of which all 3 are models from this unit.

Full unit clarification: Do this each time you move a model as part of the charge phase (there was no basis for your second part here)

You are ignoring the result stated in the sentence and attributing it to one model where that is not what is written. I wrote an alternative for you to give you the result you are looking for, but the main rule is unfortunately not it.

I am not going to be responding further to this at this point, not because I dont like a good joust or to be rude, but unfortunately I need to get back to work, so Ill let you have the closing word.

[CB42]

2 minutes ago, Rock Lobster said:

I am not going to be responding further to this at this point, not because I dont like a good joust or to be rude, but unfortunately I need to get back to work, so Ill let you have the closing word.

I think we’re going in circles. That said, if someone tries to use your interpretation at a tournament, I would expect a judge to be called, and I would also expect the judge to side against you. If the wording is ambiguous and open for argument, they’re likely to lean towards the decision that doesn’t allow triple stacking mortal wounds because it feels more like a semantics exploit. My 2 cents as someone who plays Slaanesh at tournaments.

[jackmcmahon]

If you have the exalted, it's just one car crashing in, but at start of combat he gets out of the car and yells at you for cutting him off. Road rage=d3

[Rentar]

The trick here is to remember that, during a charge, models move one at a time. It is not the unit that moves, but the models.

So, with this sentence in 4 parts:

1. Roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of a model from this unit after the model from this unit finishes a charge move.
2. On a 2+ that enemy unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
3. If this unit has more than 1 model, roll to determine if mortal wounds are inflicted after each model completes its charge move,
4. but do not allocate the mortal wounds until after all models from this unit have moved.

Seems simple enough. 

Step 1: Move 1 model.
Step 2: Determine number of enemy units within 1" of that model.
Step 3: Roll a d6, on a 2+ that enemy units suffers D3 mortal wounds BUT DO NOT YET ALLOCATE THESE WOUNDS. Suffering and allocating wounds are two separate steps.
Step 4: If there are more models to be moved, repeat steps 1-3 until there are no more models within this unit. Once there are no more models within this unit to be moved, proceed to step 5.
Step 5: Allocate the mortal wounds rolled for in step 3.

Example:

X  X  X  X  X  O  O  O  O  O [X and O represent enemy models from X unit and O unit, each 1" apart.]


               Y1  Y2  Y3 [Y represent models from the chariot unit]
 

Roll for charge.

Step 1:
X  X  X  X  X  O  O  O  O  O
                        Y2

               Y1         Y3   
Step 2: A model from both X and O are within 1" of Y2.
Step 3: Roll a d6 for X, roll a D6 for O. For each 2+, roll a D3 to determine mortal wounds suffered.
Step 4: Go back to step 1.
Step 1: 
X  X  X  X  X  O  O  O  O  O
               Y1    Y2

                              Y3   
Step 2: While Y2 is within range of both X and O, Y1 (the model which just moved) is only within 1" of X.
Step 3: Roll a d6 for X. If 2+, roll a D3 to determine mortal wounds suffered.
Step 4: Go back to step 1.
Step 1: 
X  X  X  X  X  O  O  O  O  O
               Y1    Y2     Y3
Step 2: While Y2 is within range of both X and O and Y1 is within 1" of X, Y2 (the model which just moved) is only within 1" of O.
Step 3: Roll a d6 for O. If 2+, roll a D3 to determine mortal wounds suffered.
Step 4: No more models to be moved, so step 5.
Step 5: Allocate wounds.

 

Roll a dice for each enemy unit that is within 1" of a model from this unit after the model (this is not a dangling participle, and therefore the earlier segment should not be construed as referring to any model of the unit as a whole, as will be clarified later. It clearly refers to "the" as the aforementioned "a model") from this unit finishes a charge move (referring specifically to the the model). On a 2+ that enemy unit (referring to each individual enemy unit) suffers D3 mortal wounds. If this unit (this, therefore the chariot unit) has more than 1 model, roll to determine if mortal wounds are inflicted after each model completes its charge move (i.e. repeating the first sentence), but do not allocate the mortal wounds until after all models from this unit have moved.

To clarify with regards to the "the model"

<<Roll a dice for each enemy unit>> <<that is within 1" of>> <<a model from this unit>> after <<the model from this unit>> <<finishes a charge move>>.

Each segment in parentheses is a different segment of the sentence. You cannot argue that <<a model from this unit>> refers to ANY model, because if so, the "the" in <<the model from this unit>> no longer refers to anything, and becomes a dangling participle, which is no longer grammatically sound. Were that to be the correct interpretation, then both the "a" and "the" would be replaced with "any". While I would never say that Games Workshop never makes a grammatical error, I would definitely argue that, absent a clarification to the negative, we should always take the most grammatical interpretation as correct (and if there are at least two equally correct interpretations, then the one that makes more sense should be chosen).

If anyone wants to continue this dispute, please explain how exactly the "the" is not a dangling participle should we consider the "a" as referring to "any model from this unit".

Edited May 23, 2019 by Rentar

[jackmcmahon]

Haha thanks.  It has been a while since I have heard the terms you used, but that concept was how I read it as well.

[Yoid]

So guys. When you get Daemonettes or Seekers back with the Icon effect (in a 1 on a battleshock test) can you get back the champion, musician, banner or other icons that has been slain? I cannot find an old FAQ or something that clarify this, but since all daemons do the same, i think is probably already somwhere. Otherwhise it would bring back only regular Daemonettes or Seekers i assume, but i see a lot of people fishing for the 1 when the unit is almost depleted and about to run, like leaving only the Icon as the last model of the unit in the table, so i wonder if you can bring back the other special models that are dead.

[jackmcmahon]

18 minutes ago, Yoid said:

So guys. When you get Daemonettes or Seekers back with the Icon effect (in a 1 on a battleshock test) can you get back the champion, musician, banner or other icons that has been slain? I cannot find an old FAQ or something that clarify this, but since all daemons do the same, i think is probably already somwhere. Otherwhise it would bring back only regular Daemonettes or Seekers i assume, but i see a lot of people fishing for the 1 when the unit is almost depleted and about to run, like leaving only the Icon as the last model of the unit in the table, so i wonder if you can bring back the other special models that are dead.

You can, but the warscroll has limits on how many of each leader/bearer can be in unit so no brining back 6 leaders with +1 attack each.

[Yoid]

21 minutes ago, jackmcmahon said:

You can, but the warscroll has limits on how many of each leader/bearer can be in unit so no brining back 6 leaders with +1 attack each.

Does that mean if you only have one Daemonette model being the icon live, and you roll to bring back 1 single model, that model cannot be the musician because you no longer have 10 models to be able to have one musician? I understand the limit on the unit like, you may bring one champion and only one because thats the limit and dosnt require any amount of models to be there, but for the other member of the group of command, do you got to respect the actual limit based on your actual number of models? Seem a little weird, but since the rule is "adding models" and not "bringing back models" i guess is a rule hole that may work that way.

[Fredster001]

7 hours ago, Yoid said:

Does that mean if you only have one Daemonette model being the icon live, and you roll to bring back 1 single model, that model cannot be the musician because you no longer have 10 models to be able to have one musician? I understand the limit on the unit like, you may bring one champion and only one because thats the limit and dosnt require any amount of models to be there, but for the other member of the group of command, do you got to respect the actual limit based on your actual number of models? Seem a little weird, but since the rule is "adding models" and not "bringing back models" i guess is a rule hole that may work that way.

I would suggest that most 'special models' are part of a minimum unit size,  therefore you can bring back whatever you like whilst conforming to the minimum unit size i.e. you can bring back the champion, musician, other banner bearers first, but any further additions have to take you to the minimum unit size before any allowed additional specials are added.

 

[Rentar]

Any feedback on which list I should run for a 2k tournament next month? The Daemon Prince is mostly there because.... well, he's kinda important to my army's visual theme. No other real reason.

I can build any list from the following (Unable to make more non-paint purchases until I finish this. Personal commitment.)

Current stuff:
1 Infernal Enrapturess
1 Exalted Chariot
1 Daemon Prince
1 Contorted Epitome (Currently in sub-assemblies)
1 Masque

30 Daemonettes
5 Hellstriders with Claw Spears 
5 Hellstriders with Claw Spears (Half-assembled; riders are complete, mounts are still on sprue)

In box:
2 Infernal Enrapturess 
1 Exalted Chariot (I don't want to build it as anything else)
1 Keeper of Secrets
1 Syll'Esske

20 Daemonettes
10 Seekers

I can't make the Whip Hellstriders because I'm converting them from Seekers.

Any opinions/alterations/suggestions on the lists? (I'm also considering, for the Invaders list, giving the Rod-holding Infernal Enrapturess a General position, since she'll be at the back and I'll at least get something out of it if she dies).

Edited May 24, 2019 by Rentar

[Tasman]

17 hours ago, jackmcmahon said:

Haha thanks.  It has been a while since I have heard the terms you used, but that concept was how I read it as well.

Yeah,  a lot of work explaining something that was pretty obvious from the get-go. This is clearly what the designers are after.

[SwampHeart]

56 minutes ago, Rentar said:

I like the first list out of the group the most - Slaanesh summoning is very good but you need some bodies to try and hold objectives for a few turns. I'm interested in your decision to go trail-sniffer over speed-chaser. In my experience Speed-Chaser is the go to, especially with a thermal rider cloak. The added flexibility in positioning and ensuring you are always generating an extra d3 depravity a turn seems to be well worth the trade off against potentially more attacks. I think the rest of the list is pretty steady and consistent HoS options. 

[Rentar]

3 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

I like the first list out of the group the most - Slaanesh summoning is very good but you need some bodies to try and hold objectives for a few turns. I'm interested in your decision to go trail-sniffer over speed-chaser. In my experience Speed-Chaser is the go to, especially with a thermal rider cloak. The added flexibility in positioning and ensuring you are always generating an extra d3 depravity a turn seems to be well worth the trade off against potentially more attacks. I think the rest of the list is pretty steady and consistent HoS options. 

To be honest I just threw in the "add more damage" pick. With some math, it adds around 1.67 damage/combat before saves, which.... isn't all that great. On second thought I think I'd go with Speed-Chaser, yeah. Thanks

 

[SwampHeart]

3 minutes ago, Rentar said:

To be honest I just threw in the "add more damage" pick. With some math, it adds around 1.67 damage/combat before saves, which.... isn't all that great. On second thought I think I'd go with Speed-Chaser, yeah. Thanks

 

I'm also super interested in the performance of the Masque if you stick with her. She's a piece I always say 'I see value here' but never manage to actually slot into a list properly. 

[Grimrock]

Got a game against another slaanesh player last night. He was pretty new to the book so hadn't had a chance to tweak his list yet, but the mirror match was pretty brutal. He ran pretenders with two keepers, exalted bladebringer, enrapturess, in the sybarites and 2x20, 1x10 daemonettes in the revelers. I had a keeper, exalted bladebringer, epitome, enrapturess, masque, in sybarites, 1x30 daemonettes, 2x5 hellstriders and 2x5 seekers. 

Scenario was knife to the heart. He chose to go first to try for the alpha and moved half his army up (general, chariot, 20 daemonettes) while keeping the other half back to defend the objective. Unfortunately for him due to scenery and deployment he failed his chariot charge and the daemonettes were too far out. That was the only turn he got. I charged his general with a keeper and chariot, killing it with just the chariot. His chariot and forward daemonettes died to a contorted, daemonettes, and a unit of hellstriders. Locus and mirror meant he only got to attack with his damonettes and kill a few of mine. The masque and one unit of seekers started to flank.

I got the double, hit his enrapturess and 10 daemonettes in the backline with my masque and seekers, charged my keeper into his and sent my other heroes into his last unit of daemonettes. Locus whiffed on both sides so my keeper went first and one shotted his, and my masque and seekers killed his enrapturess. He had 46 depravity but no heroes left so we called it there.

So for anyone planning on running fewer heroes make sure you have at least one that's extremely well protected. He could have come back that round and done some real damage but losing that last hero clinched it. Also when a glass cannon hits a glass cannon, stuff dies shockingly fast. Go figure haha.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Grimrock