AoS 2 - Hedonites of Slaanesh Discussion

[KrispyXIV]

8 minutes ago, Cambyses said:

35% win rate is not even close to what I call reasonably viable, it's literally the 3rd worst result in the game.

 

And before you comment on play rates, there's a reason why people who want to win tournaments aren't picking the faction.

 

I'm all for finding solutions and positivity but let's not overstate things either.

Assuming you're talking about the 8/7 metawatch post...

Aren't we also talking about a sample size small enough where adding just the two 4/1 records from the weekend would alter the ratio from 8/1/14 to 16/1/16?  If those were the main adjustments to those figures, then a 35% win rate would already be frighteningly out of date. 

I mean, I don't know how other slaanesh players have done since then to factor that in - but the overall sample size and games played IS frighteningly small beyond any real doubt when even a small addition would skew it that dramatically. 

An army doesn't have to be so good people will choose it just to win tournaments in order to be good/fine - in fact, that's a pretty universal red flag something is op. 

[azdimy]

15 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:

I mean, I don't know how other slaanesh players have done since then to factor that in - but the overall sample size and games played IS frighteningly small beyond any real doubt when even a small addition would skew it that dramatically.

Other players didn t do nearly as well at the two events

It was win/draw/loss

2/1/2

0/0/5

2/0/3

1/0/4

Enough for the good results of this week end to not affect the 35% that is being thrown out so far but yes, more data is needed

[Carnith]

If we were to get a points decrease, I'd rather summoning go up to compensate. I want more models to be on the board at the start. Having this does a few things for Slaanesh players.

-Allows them to bring more of the new mortals to the table. They look so much better than most of our daemon units. 

-Field HEDONITE models. Everyone who talked about bringing herd units and slaves units was a major feels bad, at least for me. I want our book units to be good and desirable.

-Allows the Slaanesh player not to bring 2k of daemons to potentially summon with there being fewer opportunities to summon

[Sorrow]

More data is needed, indeed, but there are reasons why competitive players are rather choosing to play Soulblight, which were released after Hedonites.

And @Cambyses is right.

 

 

[Cambyses]

42 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:

 

An army doesn't have to be so good people will choose it just to win tournaments in order to be good/fine - in fact, that's a pretty universal red flag something is op. 

 

I would also like to bring an army to an event without feeling like I'm actively shooting myself in the foot.

 

But I think it's about time I bowed out of this forum and the game for a while. While Slaanesh will always be my faction, the changes to the faction and to the game in general in recent months have put me in a bad head space to properly enjoy AoS for the time being, and I don't believe I'm contributing much value to the discussions here.

 

For those that still enjoy the faction and the game, more power to you and keep trucking on.

[Sorrow]

1 minute ago, Cambyses said:

 

I would also like to bring an army to an event without feeling like I'm actively shooting myself in the foot.

 

But I think it's about time I bowed out of this forum and the game for a while. While Slaanesh will always be my faction, the changes to the faction and to the game in general in recent months have put me in a bad head space to properly enjoy AoS for the time being, and I don't believe I'm contributing much value to the discussions here.

 

For those that still enjoy the faction and the game, more power to you and keep trucking on.

Sorry to see you leave.

Looking back, a lot of fellow Slaanesh players who posted here a year ago, are no longer posting.

[Enoby]

10 minutes ago, Carnith said:

-Allows them to bring more of the new mortals to the table. They look so much better than most of our daemon units. 

-Field HEDONITE models. Everyone who talked about bringing herd units and slaves units was a major feels bad, at least for me. I want our book units to be good and desirable.

At least, in AoS 3, looking at some of the most successful lists they tend to consist of our mortals now Really the only non-Hedonite model that people use is Be'lekor (and neither of the 'top' lists used him), and then there's Archaon in S2D (who is technically a Hedonite) but he's kind of filling the same role in all Chaos God armies. 

Slaves to Darkness (mostly Chaos Warriors) and Beasts were talked about a bit, but I've personally rarely seen them successful in my own lists or in other lists (not to say they can't, but I've not personally seen it) in AoS 3. They definitely seem more common in AoS 2 when they could be battleline. 

Our own Hedonites do seem to be in a comparatively better place in AoS 3, and the two lists that did well were pure Hedonites. 

18 minutes ago, Carnith said:

-Allows the Slaanesh player not to bring 2k of daemons to potentially summon with there being fewer opportunities to summon

I totally agree here. Even from a narrative perspective, it's nice to not be 'forced' to use daemons in a list that was meant to be mortals. My own army strongly dislike daemons so I don't like summoning them in narrative games (or even in casual matched play). I can see this being an additional rule in a Tome Celestial in the same way the Syll'Esske host tried to encourage more mortals in 2019 (despite it ending up being the best way to run 3 keepers and Syll'Esske for those double depravity). 

[Carnith]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

At least, in AoS 3, looking at some of the most successful lists they tend to consist of our mortals now Really the only non-Hedonite model that people use is Be'lekor (and neither of the 'top' lists used him), and then there's Archaon in S2D (who is technically a Hedonite) but he's kind of filling the same role in all Chaos God armies. 

Slaves to Darkness (mostly Chaos Warriors) and Beasts were talked about a bit, but I've personally rarely seen them successful in my own lists or in other lists (not to say they can't, but I've not personally seen it) in AoS 3. They definitely seem more common in AoS 2 when they could be battleline. 

Our own Hedonites do seem to be in a comparatively better place in AoS 3, and the two lists that did well were pure Hedonites. 

I totally agree here. Even from a narrative perspective, it's nice to not be 'forced' to use daemons in a list that was meant to be mortals. My own army strongly dislike daemons so I don't like summoning them in narrative games (or even in casual matched play). I can see this being an additional rule in a Tome Celestial in the same way the Syll'Esske host tried to encourage more mortals in 2019 (despite it ending up being the best way to run 3 keepers and Syll'Esske for those double depravity). 

And that is true about the first two points. Good points. 

[Elazar The Glorified]

I think there's a place for Coalition stuff but trying to lean into it in lists tends to feel more like a fun theoryhammer exercise because by the time you have a General and three Battleline from the Hedonites book you're already in deep and have only have enough units for 1 Beasts of Chaos coalition unit so far. I haven't managed to write a decent looking list getting to 3 Beasts of Chaos units without having to pad out numbers with Slaves to Darkness Chaps Spawn. 

Having said that I've got a game on Wednesday and I'm not sure if I'm going to run my Beasts of Chaos or put some into a Hedonites list (my angry cows and goats have been being neglected) but I still think there may be some play in Bullgors to support Symbaresh Twinsouls. With Great axes 3 of them put more wounds into 2+ saves than 10 Twinsouls (on the turns they're not rerolling hits) and it's only when fighting against 6+ saves that the Twinsouls catch up on a points to damage ratio. Obviously it's not just as straightforward as that and the Twinsouls damage spikes significantly on turns they're getting the reroll (which to be fair is most turns with the Lord of Pain and he can instead buff Glutos on the in-between turns if he's near enough) but I want to try them and see how the Bullgors feel, particularly as something that I'm happier to throw at tanky enemies. They're also not that expensive (by our unit standards anyway so could have some merit as something to throw away without wasting a battleline unit for Battle Tactics etc) 

Currently tempted by a Battle Regiment of something like:

Glutos

Synessa

Lord of Pain

11 Blissbarb Archers

11 Blissbarb Archers

10 Symbaresh Twinsouls

3 Bullgors w/ Great Axes

3 Bullgors w/ Great Axes

Leaves some points for Endless Spells or maybe some cheap coalition/allied cannon fodder. Could be interesting to run in Lurid Haze perhaps

[Nasrod]

1 hour ago, Sorrow said:

Sorry to see you leave.

Looking back, a lot of fellow Slaanesh players who posted here a year ago, are no longer posting.

That's what happens when you release some incredibly expensive, difficult to build and paint models, and reward your fans with the 4th nerf in a row over a 2 year span while having the audacity to make a 110 dollar centerpiece kit not even 3 months later that is completely detached from the book. 

Then hype them up lorewise as the children of a Chaos god, only to have no reference to this plot shift in the book and in the lore they job to two humans and a Stormcast. Refer to then as Greater Daemons in the hype articles and deprive them of that keyword in their scroll...

My Gluttos is still in sub assemblies. 

It has been months since this book came out and talking about it or thinking about it for more than a minute still makes me livid. They had a slam dunk and missed it; then the ref paused the game and gave them a ladder to climb up on their own with the advent of 3rd edition points change and they threw the ball into my face and broke my nose in response.

I know this forum really encourages positivity where possible but pretending like the way this was handled is peaches and cream, and that it is okay to just be sub 40% win rate for 3 years until our next book is actually insane, and nothing will change unless there is unanimous outrage.

A reminder to spark your frustrations if you somehow forgot: Slaangor Fiendbloods received the same points hike as Lumineth Sentinels into the 3E transition.

There is nothing to delve into or uncover from the book and our points. Playtesters got it wrong. We need a change.

Winter FAQ cannot get here soon enough.

[KrispyXIV]

4 hours ago, Enoby said:

After using Archaon, I think the Sorcerer's Daemonic Power is an almost manditory spell on Archaon - he's so many points it's hard to risk a whiff. 

Speaking of, here's a dumb list I put together using Pretenders:

Allegiance: Slaanesh
- Host: Pretenders Host
- Grand Strategy: Prized Sorcery
- Triumphs:

Leaders
Keeper of Secrets (420)
- General
- Sinistrous Hand
- Command Trait: Master of Magic
- Artefact: Amulet of Destiny (Universal Artefact)
- Host Option: Hunter of Godbeasts
- Spell: Slothful Stupor

I'm honestly not convinced that Slothful Stupor isn't the reason Keepers are Ludicrously expensive.  It absolutely destroys most of the models that are super good in the current meta - Morathi (no double shoot, or shut down TSQ), Gotrek, MBMK, Zombie Dragons, etc.   Archaon 50% of the time. 

For any giant hero-monster that wants to be stomping face in melee, it's not far off from Be'lakor... and you can try for it every turn.  Spell portals fixes the range, and unlike Synessa a Keeper can handle both spells and theoretically has access to a command trait to help make it happen...

It seems stupidly meta to me on reflecting on it. 

[azdimy]

27 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:

I'm honestly not convinced that Slothful Stupor isn't the reason Keepers are Ludicrously expensive.  It absolutely destroys most of the models that are super good in the current meta - Morathi (no double shoot, or shut down TSQ), Gotrek, MBMK, Zombie Dragons, etc.   Archaon 50% of the time. 

For any giant hero-monster that wants to be stomping face in melee, it's not far off from Be'lakor... and you can try for it every turn.  Spell portals fixes the range, and unlike Synessa a Keeper can handle both spells and theoretically has access to a command trait to help make it happen...

It seems stupidly meta to me on reflecting on it. 

Maybe but as you state you need the command trait to cast reliably and invest in a portal to get the range needed. That is quite an investment 

[Enoby]

For those interested, please find the first draft of the AoS 3 survey

https://forms.gle/hAb6QiqAJYvJCyYd8

Additions can be made onto it - and please say if you see any mistakes.

@Sorrow @AngryPanda @Carnith @CeleFAZE @LeonBox @Elazar The Glorified@azdimy @Nagashfan @Jaskier @MothmanDraws @TimeToWaste85  @Yoid @KrispyXIV @Selpharia @Lurynsar If you're interested - be warned, it's quite a bit longer now!

38 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:

I'm honestly not convinced that Slothful Stupor isn't the reason Keepers are Ludicrously expensive.  It absolutely destroys most of the models that are super good in the current meta - Morathi (no double shoot, or shut down TSQ), Gotrek, MBMK, Zombie Dragons, etc.   Archaon 50% of the time. 

For any giant hero-monster that wants to be stomping face in melee, it's not far off from Be'lakor... and you can try for it every turn.  Spell portals fixes the range, and unlike Synessa a Keeper can handle both spells and theoretically has access to a command trait to help make it happen...

It seems stupidly meta to me on reflecting on it. 

I definitely want to give it a try; while I think generally we have a pretty poor spell lore, a spell that casts on a 7 with the potential to reroll (and we can stick two command traits on a keeper if we really want to) with a fantastic shutdown ability (as shutting down command abilities this edition is so much more important now) really sounds like it could be great. Of course, certain lists will shut it down and it is much better if the portal can go off, but even if everything goes wrong it's just a small part of what the KoS can do - it has decent (though swingy) damage and a fantastic command ability.

Overall, it's worth a test if nothing else. 

[pnkdth]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

For those interested, please find the first draft of the AoS 3 survey

https://forms.gle/hAb6QiqAJYvJCyYd8

Additions can be made onto it - and please say if you see any mistakes.

At first glance, both Symbaresh/Myrmadesh are listed as Twinsouls/Twinsouls instead of Twinsouls/Painbringers.

Will check again and see if I can spot anything.

[TimeToWaste85]

So there’s almost no way this is better than Be’Lakor added in; but has anyone considered that a GUO (besides adding further wizardry into the list and refusing to die) with a bell can boost Archaon a further 3” in his movement? That’s 17”, plus 2D6, plus a Godseeker/Cogs bonus, if chosen. Food for thought. And it’s slightly cheaper than Be’Lakor. 
 

plus it would allow me to add this Gluttonous beauty into my Slaanesh army:

Edited August 16, 2021 by TimeToWaste85

[Enoby]

2 hours ago, Nasrod said:

I know this forum really encourages positivity where possible but pretending like the way this was handled is peaches and cream, and that it is okay to just be sub 40% win rate for 3 years until our next book is actually insane, and nothing will change unless there is unanimous outrage.

While I get what you're saying and I totally understand being upset or angry at the current book (like I said, I agree with a lot of the criticisms in at least some way), it's important to not get consumed by "outrage". 

Even from the most Machiavellian point of view, games designers don't want to listen to outrage - it's often not helpful and can be dismissive of their work, not offering the designers a chance to explain their reasons without being met by more outrage. I think meeting the rules team with anger will just lessen the chance of any change - why would they bother to read something insulting, or something that's so negative that it makes them think "this person doesn't have a clue what they're talking about".

I'm not sure who's familiar with the World of Warcraft community, but to give a bit of a look-in for those who aren't, nearly every fan discussion of the game is overwhelmingly negative (pre sexual harassment lawsuit, which while abhorrent isn't related to this) to the point that an outsider looking in would think WoW was some unplayable rubbish. All discussion is unanimous outrage, complaining about close to every part of the game. Does it lead to change? Well, Blizzard does make changes but it never satisfies the outraged 'fans' - so it doesn't lead to enough change in their eyes. But I don't think it leads to very investing discussions as it swings so far into the negative it's just white noise that a designer would struggle to pick apart, and they certainly wouldn't know the parts to keep because close to nothing is talked about positively. More than that, the criticism is so over the top and usually untruthful that any developer looking in would probably think "these people have formed their video of a rage baiting YouTuber/never played the expansion" and not see any reason to listen to someone who is obviously too angry to see the game in good faith. Finally, fans of the game get shut out of discussions and get called liars if they say anything positive about the game. I think many people see negativity as something that's "correct" - a criticism needs less evidence than praise, because at least evolutionarily speaking, it's better to err on the side of caution. 

It's super easy to become overwhelmingly negative. I could go on and on about the parts of the book I don't like, but I don't really see a reason to - after all, what would it achieve? We'd be no better players as discussions would end with "faction bad, don't bother", criticism to the developers would likely come across as insulting rather than helpful, and there's a good chance we'd be blinded by our own outrage that we would forsake anything good about the faction. 

Of course, theoretically, we could have reasonable negative discussions that pick apart the issues with the book - that's partially what the survey is meant to represent. However I have never ever seen internet discussion based purely on unanimous outrage produce anything useful in the long run, and the majority of the time it poisons discussion so that it becomes one big toxic circlejerk. Even when it starts with good intentions, after a while the only people who stay about are those that want to rant, and I can't see how that will help anyone. 

Personally I think it's important to accept the bad, and then move on with the good, or move on from the faction full stop if that's impossible. Yes, Slaangors are a load of rubbish, but we all get that so let's send the designers a polite note and move on from Slaangors onto something actually good. When we have no power to change something at this very moment, we may as well focus on what we like because sending GW angry messages won't get anything changed - it hasn't made them release a public statement about Cursed City, it hasn't made them comment on the copyright situation, it didn't get any more ork news in Orktober, it hasn't made them release the two new AoS battletomes more quickly, it hasn't made them release fewer Space Marines, and in fact I don't think it's ever made a change in GW even when support was much higher than anything we could muster. 

Toxic positivity can definitely exist and it can stifle discussion - criticising the book isn't bad, so long as there's a reason to do it that's not just to vent negativity onto everyone else continually (this being a key word). I would argue, from experience in other communities, toxic negativity chokes discussion even more so as it creates a culture of outrage and also a stubborn refusal to allow things to get better (or to just move on). For an example, making excuses as to why a Slaanesh army doing well in a tournament doesn't count rather than looking at how it managed to win, which would be much more constructive.

I don't mean to have a go at you, I just know from experience how much anger at something you can't control can eat you up and how it's usually self perpetuating and unhelpful

[Carnith]

2 hours ago, Enoby said:

For those interested, please find the first draft of the AoS 3 survey

https://forms.gle/hAb6QiqAJYvJCyYd8

Additions can be made onto it - and please say if you see any mistakes.

@Sorrow @AngryPanda @Carnith @CeleFAZE @LeonBox @Elazar The Glorified@azdimy @Nagashfan @Jaskier @MothmanDraws @TimeToWaste85  @Yoid @KrispyXIV @Selpharia @Lurynsar If you're interested - be warned, it's quite a bit longer now!

I definitely want to give it a try; while I think generally we have a pretty poor spell lore, a spell that casts on a 7 with the potential to reroll (and we can stick two command traits on a keeper if we really want to) with a fantastic shutdown ability (as shutting down command abilities this edition is so much more important now) really sounds like it could be great. Of course, certain lists will shut it down and it is much better if the portal can go off, but even if everything goes wrong it's just a small part of what the KoS can do - it has decent (though swingy) damage and a fantastic command ability.

Overall, it's worth a test if nothing else. 

I cannot take the survey. Says no longer accepting answers.

 

[Enoby]

7 minutes ago, Carnith said:

I cannot take the survey. Says no longer accepting answers.

 

At the moment, answers are off just in case any questions are added (so no one needs to take the survery again) - I'll be turning them on in about 24 hours

[LeonBox]

8 hours ago, Nasrod said:

That's what happens when you release some incredibly expensive, difficult to build and paint models, and reward your fans with the 4th nerf in a row over a 2 year span while having the audacity to make a 110 dollar centerpiece kit not even 3 months later that is completely detached from the book. 

Then hype them up lorewise as the children of a Chaos god, only to have no reference to this plot shift in the book and in the lore they job to two humans and a Stormcast. Refer to then as Greater Daemons in the hype articles and deprive them of that keyword in their scroll...

My Gluttos is still in sub assemblies. 

It has been months since this book came out and talking about it or thinking about it for more than a minute still makes me livid. They had a slam dunk and missed it; then the ref paused the game and gave them a ladder to climb up on their own with the advent of 3rd edition points change and they threw the ball into my face and broke my nose in response.

I know this forum really encourages positivity where possible but pretending like the way this was handled is peaches and cream, and that it is okay to just be sub 40% win rate for 3 years until our next book is actually insane, and nothing will change unless there is unanimous outrage.

A reminder to spark your frustrations if you somehow forgot: Slaangor Fiendbloods received the same points hike as Lumineth Sentinels into the 3E transition.

There is nothing to delve into or uncover from the book and our points. Playtesters got it wrong. We need a change.

Winter FAQ cannot get here soon enough.

I mean... if your Glutos is still in sub-assembly it sounds like you're not really playing many games, especially with the newer models, and you're basing all your outrage on tournament win rates (which, with the peculiar global situation we're currently in, are not necessarily representative of the faction's true status). 

Slaangors are bad, nobody's disupting this. Our units are overcosted. However, our units are overcosted because our summoning is crazy strong. It's super easy to generate 10-12 depravity per turn and if you're not seeing a Keeper and 20-30 daemonettes every battle then either your opponent is denying you DPs or you're doing something wrong. 

I've played a good number of games in 3.0 now (6 maybe?) and my opponents don't see my army as a pushover. They fear Glutos, they really fear Sigvald and they have to always plan for the fact that I'm gonna drop a Keeper or a big Daemonette blob anytime from turn 2 onwards. Slaanesh is still viable. 

[Third]

2 hours ago, LeonBox said:

However, our units are overcosted because our summoning is crazy strong. It's super easy to generate 10-12 depravity per turn and if you're not seeing a Keeper and 20-30 daemonettes every battle then either your opponent is denying you DPs or you're doing something wrong. 

I cannot not comment on statements like this anymore.. This is blantly false against any player whom has experience playing against Slaanesh. 

I have played mostly against the same player with the new book, practicing for tournaments.. In 3.0 I'm struggling to even get 12 depravity throughout the the match. 

The opponent has soooo much control over how many points he gives you. Often my friend doesn't even shoot or charge in, simply to deny depravity. So even if I try and max it out, I'm at 12 points+ the earliest round 3. And this only happens if I don't kill any of his units, and split attacks where possible. 

FYI winning a game with a squishy army where you don't eliminate any of the opponents units, is really hard. 

 

Slaanesh at its core is broken, but has a chance against people with no knowhow on playing against depravity/summoning. 

I'm not sure how it is best fixed.. But I'm hoping something is done.. 

[Sorrow]

I think it would be wise of us to continue with the survey path.

GW does listen to proper feedback and the individual I plan to send final version of survey, has told me half a hour ago, that he will send it to proper GW departments. The survey will not get lost but will reach destinations, beyond that, it is up to people working in those departments.

[KrispyXIV]

1 hour ago, Third said:

I have played mostly against the same player with the new book, practicing for tournaments.. In 3.0 I'm struggling to even get 12 depravity throughout the the match. 

The opponent has soooo much control over how many points he gives you. Often my friend doesn't even shoot or charge in, simply to deny depravity. So even if I try and max it out, I'm at 12 points+ the earliest round 3. And this only happens if I don't kill any of his units, and split attacks where possible. 

Are you not running with options for generating depravity?

First turn of the game I get to go, I'm generally gaining as much as...

Synessa +2 (pavane and ranged attack, sometimes one of these fails)

Blissbarbs +4 (split fire and ping two units each)

Enrapturess +2 (sacrifice to Fane, ping a unit)

Turn 1 Charges +2 (generally I can land a charge or two with fast units)

Arcane Bolt +1

Any Damned terrain rolled that I can deploy near is more. 

If one of the charges was my general, theres +1-4 more.  

While not all of that always happens, I have the agency in my lists to generate at least 6-7 or so my first turn independent of my opponent.  Because a lot of that is spread out, I have some flexibility in how I play it- for example, if I get a lucky Pavane with lots of damage on a high value target, I can pivot into focusing my shooting on eliminating that target. 

On my opponents turn, they're going to want to kill stuff entirely to deny DP (if they avoid attacking at all as suggested to deny DP, that's complete damage reduction, and amazing).  Survival focused decisions like keeping CP for Defense and running things like Glutos and Amulet of Destiny helps.  Unleash Hell is another DP they can't really avoid.  

Generally, I have no issues summoning a Chariot (exalted preferred) every turn as my go to for MW and spamming attacks.  I've had games where I pull three Keepers, I've got so much DP.  

Generally the games where I'm starved are the ones where I'm doing too well, eliminating enemy units from the table and not getting hit back in return.  

[Enoby]

23 minutes ago, Sorrow said:

I think it would be wise of us to continue with the survey path.

GW does listen to proper feedback and the individual I plan to send final version of survey, has told me half a hour ago, that he will send it to proper GW departments. The survey will not get lost but will reach destinations, beyond that, it is up to people working in those departments.

Thanks for the confirmation

I think I'll include a "what do you like in the battletome" question so we don't end up having the baby thrown out with the bathwater. Preferably it would be good to have two questions, one asking about what you like in concept and one in execution, but I feel that would be a bit much.

[Overread]

I think the key to any good survey is to ensure that questions are also not too leading. It can be easy to end up with a survey with a very specific agenda and theme by asking too many leading questions that present one argument, but perhaps don't show the whole viewpoint. 

You want something that shows a balance of opinions and inputs and ideas that can be presented in a way that gives GW something to work with. Telling them what doesn't work is great, also telling them what does work is essential. Otherwise any fix might fix what doesn't work by breaking something that does work. 

It also helps them understand what viewpoint is being presented when some "problems" or issues might be things they consider features or concepts they don't want to drop etc..

 

Any critical review needs to include the good and the bad and the ugly bits. 

[azdimy]

3 hours ago, Third said:

I cannot not comment on statements like this anymore.. This is blantly false against any player whom has experience playing against Slaanesh. 

I have played mostly against the same player with the new book, practicing for tournaments.. In 3.0 I'm struggling to even get 12 depravity throughout the the match. 

The opponent has soooo much control over how many points he gives you. Often my friend doesn't even shoot or charge in, simply to deny depravity. So even if I try and max it out, I'm at 12 points+ the earliest round 3. And this only happens if I don't kill any of his units, and split attacks where possible. 

FYI winning a game with a squishy army where you don't eliminate any of the opponents units, is really hard. 

 

Slaanesh at its core is broken, but has a chance against people with no knowhow on playing against depravity/summoning. 

I'm not sure how it is best fixed.. But I'm hoping something is done.. 

I agree that the depravity generation is very match up dependent both from an army and an opponent perspective. I can face a 600pt of sce and generate 12 DPs every battleround but against a 2k SOBs or OBR generate very little because they have so few units yet we are paying for it no matter what we face. 

I would much prefer we do not get rewarded for failing to kill an enemy unit and don t pay for the potential of DP we may get. The DP generation we get for surviving is also pretty difficult with an army that is a lot more glass than cannon. Pretty much any unit my opponent will focus on will be deleted and will therefore generate zero depravity

While I like the fact that we don t only need heroes to generate DPs anymore, I think the current mechanic need to be modified because yes it has the potential to net us 60 DPs in the form of Deamonettes and kos in the best case but you could also get nothing being tabled turn 2 because of how little wounds you can have on the table from the DP tax or you lost all your heroes and your fane got smashed to rubbles. Denying Slaanesh summoning is still a thing and good luck finding the spare points for the lone hero in the back to keep summoning alive

Edited August 17, 2021 by azdimy