AoS 2 - Hedonites of Slaanesh Discussion

[KrispyXIV]

18 minutes ago, azdimy said:

good luck finding the spare points for the lone hero in the back to keep summoning alive

I've found that the Fane of Slaanesh accomplishes this role for me perfectly, with most opponents not considering that it might be worth smashing with a Monster until AFTER I summon something from it, even though I told them it could do so at the start of the game.  

A particularly canny opponent may know to "smash it to rubble" asap as you say, but giving them that much access to the fane and all your heroes is something to be avoided...

Edited August 17, 2021 by KrispyXIV

[Enoby]

27 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:

A particularly canny opponent may know to "smash it to rubble" asap as you say, but giving them that much access to the fane and all your heroes is something to be avoided...

In recent games, I've found it beneficial to keep the Fane near the back, usually just giving a single +1 to hit for the game and being used for more reliable summoning. If the opponent does want to break it then they'll have to go well out of their way to do so with a monster, and there's no guarantee it will work. 

Glutos is also a massive help as he sticks around long enough to act as an anchor.

I don't think I've ever had issues summoning with new Slaanesh - that's not to say you can't have issues, but I've personally not. Usually I play to forward for the opponent to really be able to risk sending anything to deal with the fane.   

[Overread]

I think depravity is better now than it was, but I still say that the best way to handle a summoning resource pool is to have it at a fix increase every turn. The problem with basing it on performance is if you do really well and kill lots you get more power to summon more even though you're already doing a lot of damage and might well already be ahead. Meanwhile if you do poorly or have a poor match up you get less summoning potential when you might need it most.

 

Because of the variation in generation game to game it also makes it very hard to bake-in the cost to make the army pointed fairly. Play a load of test matches where you generate lots and you'd end up making the points very high; play loads where you get poor match ups and generate less and you can make the points too low.

 

Fix the amount per turn and you've got a fixed value being added. You've still got that summoning element, but now its controlled and managed and you can expect a set level of army performance. 

[KrispyXIV]

37 minutes ago, Overread said:

Fix the amount per turn and you've got a fixed value being added. You've still got that summoning element, but now its controlled and managed and you can expect a set level of army performance. 

Yeah, but if you do this you might as well just change costs downward since you're just baking "+x points over 5 turns" into the army.  

The current design is pretty clearly intended to reward a specific style of play, that is thematically and mechanically distinct from other armies.  It's probably safe to assume that alternatives that reduce the army to playing like other armies aren't what the designers intend or want.  The goal is to have an army that gets into combat and spreads around the hurt and draws it out over time, first and foremost - while that may be conflicted with the strategies that win tournaments, I not sure that's GWs primary goal. 

There's also a game design "goal" where it's considered a good thing/perk to "reward" players for good play (or help them recover from adverse situations) - which the current system does by rewarding you for leaning into it and playing to it, and by compensating you as your units are beat up.  

You can remove all those intricacies and just give the faction a fixed summoning resource - but from a design perspective that seems like a real bad idea.  It's not interactive, it's not "playable", and it's not rewarding. 

The current summoning system has a safety built in on the "high" end of things because you can only spend DP once per turn with a cap on effectiveness AND because "doing too well" results in less DP generated.  That does mean that the balancing of it relies on controlling what starts on the board, since there's a upper limit on what can be summoned during the game.  

If people are struggling to generate "enough" DP to summon things and play within the "expected" power level of the faction, then it seems to me the correct fix would be to add a safety that ensures players will at least be able to summon off the bottom end of the chart - though I can't speak to that.  I've always managed to be able to must at least 6-7 DP for turns 2-4, which has been very influential for playing the game.  I haven't won every game... but I shouldn't, either. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by KrispyXIV

[TimeToWaste85]

Be’Lakor is slowly making his way to being ready to hit the table for this army (and my other chaos armies)

[dicebod]

54 minutes ago, TimeToWaste85 said:

Be’Lakor is slowly making his way to being ready to hit the table for this army (and my other chaos armies)

Really effective use of drybrushing there so far. The rocks on the base especially!

[TimeToWaste85]

16 minutes ago, dicebod said:

Really effective use of drybrushing there so far. The rocks on the base especially!

Thanks! Skin and rocks are both about 5 layers of highlights, and the only contrast is the blood/lava and bones. 

[Enoby]

Here is the survey ready to answer  I added a question on what people like about the faction as well as a couple of tweaks here and there
 

https://forms.gle/syoTVZbmbbWgiMhk6

@Sorrow @AngryPanda @Carnith @CeleFAZE @LeonBox @Elazar The Glorified@azdimy @Nagashfan @Jaskier @MothmanDraws @TimeToWaste85  @Yoid @KrispyXIV @Selpharia @Lurynsar 

[Third]

We won't agree on the state of Slaanesh for a long while I belive  So i'll contribute with some hobby instead.. I finally finished my Synessa / Dexessa, with a twist! While the end results isn't perfect, I'm plenty happy about it (yeah yeah, I know it's grey!).

[CeleFAZE]

Got back from my major, with some insights:

1. Twinsouls are every bit as good as the hype. They crashed into a unit of 3 mini-gargants and wiped them on the charge with rerolling hits and all-out-attack. They died over the next couple turns from the return swings from a mega, but lasted long enough to generate some depravity after they made their points back. I'm realistically considering a list with 2 squads of 10, staggering their rotating buffs and running alongside a lord of pain to provide a potential 100% uptime on their rerolls.

2. Seeker chariots in battleline are okay, but largely seem to get a couple mortal wounds in and die. They're still our cheapest battleline choice, but I would've probably found a unit of myrmadesh to have better resilience and more offensive capability in its place. I could see some interesting side uses for a unit of three to try and get some lucky rallies, but I think we have much better uses for our generally limited CP.

3. Synessa needs cogs or another 2-cast wizard around to really shine. With just an exalted bladebringer and Synessa without cogs, I found my magic easily shut down, or if out of unbind range unreliable at best with pavane. Her shooting however is great, and gave me the ability to cherrytap the last few wounds off of monsters in some key moments to give me extra VP's when it mattered.

4. Sigvald is pretty great, but godseekers may not be the best place for him. Every game it was a question of whether or not he would be able to get into range early enough to do what he's supposed to. Probably best for him to live in lurid haze.

5. The Ghur command ability is amazing for keeping a single keeper in the fight. If not for it I probably would not have won my game against SoB.

6. Blissbarb seekers are really swingy, and probably benefit from running in a reinforced unit of 10 rather than the 2 5's I fielded, as they need to get the full benefit of AoA due to the really unreliable 4+ to hit.

7. The exalted bladebringer is a solid piece, but still dies fairly easily even with the amulet. I may instead relegate mine to the summoning bench to make room for something else in my starting list.

8. The fane being able to summon is a huge boon to us. Proper placement of it is a decisive element to winning games.

Overall I didn't do well (1-4), but I learned quite a bit. Unfortunately I only had the time for a single practice game with my list before the event, against an army (Nurgle daemons) that didn't come up in my pairings for the event itself. I'm going to be getting in more games soon, and hope to refine my list into something far more effective for the next one.

We are absolutely on the back foot compared to what other armies can do (I played against an annihilator spam list that was pretty oppressive), but we can still win games, and had I not made some critical mistakes in two games I may have been able to swing 3-2. I haven't lost hope that we can still keep up, but it's necessary to be incredibly precise to get the most out of every tool we have.

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

So I left some of my thoughts at the end of @Enoby's survey and wanted to share them and see what people think.

Our book feels like it's being pulled in different directions by different writers. On one hand we have rules on our top level (allegiances, hosts, etc.) that seemingly aim at a risk reward gambling playstyle, which is thematic but often ends up with added risks between us and effects other armies would just get easier. An example is many of our effects require an extra dice roll, whether it's a bravery check for some spells and artefacts, 4+ locus, fane buff on a 2+. Other rules try to get us to play risky like the depravity bonuses for hosts, risking our generals by playing them aggressively in invaders, charging more than necessary in godseekers or pretenders trying to get us to risk our already squishy generals in unfavourable combats.

Meanwhile on the unit level they seemingly rule us for a completely different playstyle. Instead of keeping the risk and reward theme (outside of maybe the keeper), we are seemingly and army that trades high rend and saves for speed and several buff/debuff tools. Glutos, fiends, shardspeaker, even smaller debuffs like forcing reroll 1s on battleshock for our daemonettes reinforces this theme of mobile debuff bullying with some abilities and spells to buff ourselves enough to make volume of attacks offset a lack of rend.

Problem is these two design philosophies don't compliment each other like other books do. OBR, Tzeentch and lumineth  all have allegiances that compliment their units and are directly themed around what those units are meant to do. Compound this fact with points costs that prevent us from taking many of the tools that would help us keep up offensively in the arms race of higher saves (overcosted heralds for rr1s, can't reasonably take multiple non-hero hammers like slickblades and twinsouls, our non-character monsters our unplayably overcosted) We suffer from a lack of cohesive design direction and have to rely on summoning as a crutch to stay relevant in games where we can't get a good alpha strike. Summoning being a mechanic we have seemingly only because GW deems all armies with daemons should have it.

[Enoby]

6 hours ago, CeleFAZE said:

I'm realistically considering a list with 2 squads of 10, staggering their rotating buffs and running alongside a lord of pain to provide a potential 100% uptime on their rerolls.

Thanks for the write up One thing to quickly comment on is the 2 squads of 10 twinsouls - I've tried it before and it's not bad, but they do struggle from being super expensive, quite squishy for their points, and hard countered by a 2+ save. They're fantastic in a unit of 10 as they normally have a perfect target, and then another few good ones. Two units of 10 often end up with one attacking, doing really well, and then the other being attacked and losing a lot of points.

That said, a single unit of 20 may be interesting... two lines of 10 for coherency's sake. Loads of points, but 24 average damage against a 3+ save when rerolling hits, and an utterly excessive 74 damage when against no save. If you want to go ham, give them +1 to hit and +1 to wound from the Shardspeaker and command ability for an amazing 36 damage against a 3+ save, and a totally unnecessary 107 average against no save. Even against a 2+ save they do a very respectable 18. In all honestly, at this point you've gone overkill, but if you want to punt an enemy unit into another realm, 20 twinsouls is the way to go. 

Okay, now I really want to use a unit of 20 twinsouls

---

Did you feel there was any particular unit/type of unit that you really struggled against? Was there any reason why, and do you think you could deal with them in another tournament?

[KrispyXIV]

3 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Thanks for the write up One thing to quickly comment on is the 2 squads of 10 twinsouls - I've tried it before and it's not bad, but they do struggle from being super expensive, quite squishy for their points, and hard countered by a 2+ save. They're fantastic in a unit of 10 as they normally have a perfect target, and then another few good ones. Two units of 10 often end up with one attacking, doing really well, and then the other being attacked and losing a lot of points.

That said, a single unit of 20 may be interesting... two lines of 10 for coherency's sake. Loads of points, but 24 average damage against a 3+ save when rerolling hits, and an utterly excessive 74 damage when against no save. If you want to go ham, give them +1 to hit and +1 to wound from the Shardspeaker and command ability for an amazing 36 damage against a 3+ save, and a totally unnecessary 107 average against no save. Even against a 2+ save they do a very respectable 18. In all honestly, at this point you've gone overkill, but if you want to punt an enemy unit into another realm, 20 twinsouls is the way to go. 

Okay, now I really want to use a unit of 20 twinsouls

---

Did you feel there was any particular unit/type of unit that you really struggled against? Was there any reason why, and do you think you could deal with them in another tournament?

Yes, but two reinforcement limit restricts you to 15

[Enoby]

2 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:

Yes, but two reinforcement limit restricts you to 15

Ah yes, you are right! Just kind of mind blanked and thought they came in base units of 10s - thanks

For those interested, a unit of 15 twinsouls (rerolling hits, no other buffs) does on average: 

2+: 9

3+: 19

4+: 28

5+: 37

6+: 47

-: 56

When getting +1 to hit:

2+: 11

3+: 22

4+: 32

5+: 43

6+: 54

-: 65

When getting +1 to hit and wound:

2+: 13

3+: 27

4+: 40

5+: 54

6+: 67

-: 81

So still pretty nice, but not quite 'one shot everything in the game' nice

[Nasrod]

On 8/17/2021 at 1:46 AM, LeonBox said:

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. 

The pleasure barge is on its base and has seen games at our shop, it only lacks the characters which I don't have the desire to paint when Sisters, Tyranids, Soulblight, and Idoneth are all just as fun to paint with mutable lists. 

Go back in the thread 30ish pages and you will find me saying he is so good at 400 points he may need a points nerf despite the book as a whole being weak. 

He was great and one of our best units.

Was...with the rest of our units going up and -1 to hit being capped with 3E, he shoild probably be 430 to 440.

Only model I have no tabletop experience with is Syn/Dex. They look good, but completely separated from what the articles and story tried to convince us of. These models should have been the central point of the battletome with a new Faction, and the explanation of a mortal resurgence. Not a villain of the week in a supplement book.

I was also there the night of leaks informing people Twinsouls would be one of the viable paths forward. They are good and likely where they need to be; maybe 5 points less, but probably fine. 

I love this army. I do. I still paint the daemon side and use them in 40k. I didn't even buy a Keeper in the years of our fresh battletome (Wanted to build up experience).

https://imgur.com/a/WJkNAGE

Progress on my Keeper (Can't find a current image) Magnetized poorly and still has a ton of work to be done but I poured my heart into this thing and pushed to the best of my capabilities.

I can't find success with him outside of summoning. Maybe I am a bad player; maybe we all are. But bringing my centerpieve in a "Maybe I get to use this" box is not what I signed up for. 

In my 40k Daemons list opponents are terrified of this model. Sometimes it gets shot before it makes it in... But it started on the table. The fact that I have more fun being deprived of using this model on turn 1 vs bringing it on the table turn 2 or 3 speaks volumes. 

Again, I love the army. I do. And I will offer any advice or input to list building I can. But we spent 2 years smiling and nodding with the nerfs. The book came out and was seen as a miss, we submitted feedback, and the 3E changes flew in the face of all of that.

So yes. I do see negativity as a possible option. Not toxic negativity, calling for people or directors to be fired. But negativity; unified, unquestioningly apparent consensus across all media platforms that GW can possibly see, expressing dissatisfaction. 

And I don't want triple keeper 70% win rates, let me make that clear. I literally want something in the range of 45 to 50 win ratio based on match ups and list design. 

My word choice and tone is harsh, but I feel my expectations are pretty reasonable... I just want to use my models. I own 12 armies between 40k and Sigmar, and even my Nighthaunt have semi viable builds like protect-Olynder. 

Only one feels bad every time I use it -- my favorite one.

[Elazar The Glorified]

@Enoby @CeleFAZE I haven't tried 2 units of 10 Twinsouls to be fair but I think it'd make me twitchy, not least because you're then leaning heavily into the Lord of Pain to keep them both at maximum efficiency so I'd be tempted to spend that second hefty block on a unit that can do a similar but slightly different job. Whether that's maybe looking at Slickblades to add a faster element that can also help a bit more with better saves or at those points perhaps even going all in and paying the extra 25pts to include some Varanguard and a Sorcerer Lord as they'll churn out some damage, especially if you can line up Daemonic Power and their double-fighting ability and again bringing some additional mortal wounds and rend so they can pick on some targets you don't ideally want to send your Twinsouls into.

@Nasrod I totally get some of the frustration, I suppose the issue for me is going to be that unified approach because I don't think we yet have a consensus on how stuff in the book works in the new edition.

As an example, I think Glutos is worth every point of his 475pts from my experience so far and he's regularly kept one side of the board held up in 2000pt games either by his lonesome or with minimal support. With the introduction of Heroic Actions, changes to Command Abilities and the abilities on his warscroll he can tank and heal regularly so to me and my regular opponents the idea of him being made cheaper would be met with surprise. 

Now that's not to say either of our opinions are wrong, purely that it's so early in an edition and lists following different formats are showing at least some level of success. I appreciate not in overwhelming numbers but I still think some of that ties into my comments on that meta report about the PR hatchet job on Slaanesh's competitiveness being a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I totally appreciate the amazing work by @Enoby to create the survey and collate some of the community's feelings and it'll be interesting to repeat again in the future because I do think positions will change as this season of competitive play continues (and that may be for the better or the worse) and then next season if they're going to change the Realms and focus as it appears they may there could be a huge shift in the meta separate to any changes to points and warscrolls. I think we have to remember that whilst it feels like a long time to us. From the perspective of GW this is one of many very new products they have where the community isn't happy (and remember the community is usually unhappy about something and not always with any justification) so they'll need to see how these stats continue to emerge, how people's opinions shift (or not) before they make too big changes because outside of a few real anomalies (Slaangor and Shalaxi spring to mind where the intent doesn't seem to follow into the rules) a lot of stuff is in the ballpark and probably just needs tweaking on points to leverage strengths or make units more appealing. As well remembering that the Tournament scene that informs everyone's opinion of the competitive meta is still only a fraction of GWs customer base. There's no divine right to the most competitive army (there will always be a loser) and until there's a greater sample of games from a greater sample of players it's still difficult to reliably use those statistics to inform any changes because they wouldn't be able to measure the impact without a better before picture to compare the after to. 

As for the back and forth discussion about army theme. It doesn't sound like a popular opinion necessarily but I really like Slaanesh having summoning as a part of it's identity (and with a good two-decades of playing mono-Slaanesh, I really, really love that Slaanesh has a real play identity now beyond just rules for a Mark on some units that lock you out of taking other stuff! ) and I really love how the new Depravity System works compared to the old. For me it feels fluffy too. There was some narrative somewhere (possibly 40k maybe Old World fantasy) where they made a point of Slaanesh's Daemons taking the greatest interest in the affairs of their patron's mortal followers. I love the way it plays out on the table that they're watching from afar and when there's enough maimed stuff in a world of pain they decide this is too good of a party to miss!

Again that seems an area where people are having mixed results but I'm regularly able to summon a couple of Keepers in a game (I don't always do so and instead pick what I will be most useful or that I want to get out of my case, but the points end up there to do so over the course). I would say that nobody has played to actively deny me depravity points but I can't think of a way they're doing that without either ceding ground/objectives or focusing all of their attentions on reacting to a semi-passive ability (maybe not the phrase I actually mean but I don't have to actively play for Depravity Points to earn them even though in theory I could lean into that harder - although again I think doing so would be ceding some advantage to my opponent) that my army has.

Anyway, I know that hasn't moved the tactics conversation on anywhere but been drafting half of this post for a couple of days as the conversation rumbles on. I don't think my opinion counts more than anyone else's of course but I think we're not at the point of being informed enough yet to be unanimous in our opinion or dissatisfaction. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Elazar The Glorified

[KrispyXIV]

31 minutes ago, Nasrod said:

Was...with the rest of our units going up and -1 to hit being capped with 3E, he shoild probably be 430 to 440.

See, and here I locally had to make a case that he wasnt massively undercosted at 470, with all he adds to the army and how well he interacts with the 3E hero rules - without all the liabilities that come with being a monster, like being targetable by anti-monster abilities and giving up VP if he's killed (hasn't happened yet, but that's just encouraging me to be more reckless with him - and my opponents to further avoid him to avoid getting tarpitted).  

At 430-440 there'd be no end to the jealousy and complaints.  As is, he's like the Exalted Chariot - probably somewhat more than he'd cost in another army, but paying a clear tax for summoning.  

In other words, the cost tuning on Glutos is probably where it should be for the KoS - expensive enough that you're uncomfortable with it, but not so much you're unwilling to do it regardless. 

[Enoby]

Just commenting on Glutos, he's been the only unit I've been asked by multiple people to never bring again as he's too much of a pain to deal with. That's not to say he's OP (I think he's an easy trap for a player to fall into fighting), but he is very strong and I don't think he has ever underperformed. With easy access to healing, his biggest weakness (chip damage) has disappeared and as mentioned above, he has no weaknesses to special monster targeting abilities. 

Not that anyone was calling for it, but if Glutos has stayed at 400 pts, I think he would be OP (not enough to carry Slaanesh to S tier, but enough to be seen in nearly every Slaanesh list). My initial reaction to Glutos's cost was that it seemed to be a bit much, but after playing with him, I've changed my mind - he's super strong and importantly very consistent. He's in a good place where his points are a big chunk of your army so he's hard to just throw in a list, but if you do put him in, he'll do his job. The KoS is a bit less consistent in that regard as they're 420 points but don't often do much damage (thanks to fluffing being easy with so few attacks and no rerolls), their CA can be turned off by monsters, and their spells are hard to cast with no bonus. I don't think they're bad by any stretch, and their potential is high, but I think the reason it's much harder to stomach 420 points for a KoS unlike Glutos'z 475 is because you're not sure if the KoS will do it's job. I've had times were it does 15 mortal wounds with its claws, and times it's done all of one damage. 

[KrispyXIV]

2 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I think the reason it's much harder to stomach 420 points for a KoS unlike Glutos'z 475 is because you're not sure if the KoS will do it's job. I've had times were it does 15 mortal wounds with its claws, and times it's done all of one damage. 

It's certainly frustrating to have to explain, "It normally doesn't work like this." after you've just rolled 3 sixes (one to hit, two to wound) on a Keeper and done an absolute pile of MW with it - in that moment, it looks really strong!  A model that can do 10+ MW, surely thats worth a ton!

Except that as noted, the attack count is too low and it's 3+ numbers, while "good"-ish, are too prone to whiffing when you really need it not to.  

Even before cost adjustments, I really wish the keeper were 2+ to hit and -2 rend with 2 more attacks on its sword.  It'd give it a "base" attack profile that was significantly more reliable (and intimidating) without being the "absolute" power increase it appears to be since it already has some armor bypass build in, and the 2+ accuracy wouldn't stack with the +1 hit that's already available from CAs and fane.  

While it's possible to roll well with it as it stands and do ok, it's low attack count and ease of which foes shrug those attacks lead to it whiffing completely way more than the number of times it lucks out and does something impressive. 

[Sorrow]

In my games thus far, Glutos and Sigvald rarely, if ever, disappoint.

I think they are absolutely not the problematic part of our faction.

[KrispyXIV]

3 minutes ago, Sorrow said:

In my games thus far, Glutos and Sigvald rarely, if ever, disappoint.

I think they are absolutely not the problematic part of our faction.

So, list of models that reliably perform "extremely well" for me (rarely disappoint, as noted) let's compare and discuss? -

Glutos

Synessa 

Sigvald

Bladebringer on Exalted Chariot

Exalted Chariot

Infernal Enrapturess

Be'lakor (he's here because he wins games and is on the menu currently with thematic reasons to believe GW will hesitate before removing that option)

 

Models that perform pretty/reasonably reliably well for me (they disappoint sometimes, but but not most games) -

Blissbarb Archers

Seeker Chariot

Daemonettes (in units of 10, where the tax isn't excessive)

Dexcessa

Seekers

 

Units I've not used much but have reason to believe fall into one of the above categories based on others reporting -

Contorted Epitome

The Masque

Hellstriders

Twinsouls 

Blissbarb Seekers

 

Units that are useful, but only when summoned  -

Keepers (because of Hero + Monster meta)

Daemonettes > 10 (perfectly good unit for zero points)

 

Honestly, listing it out, I feel like the "problematic part of the faction" is more limited than one might think.  I feel like we have a decent number of very good warscrolls, and a number of warscrolls that are at least "fine".  Then a number that would be fine if they were a bit less taxed, or that leave something to be desired but are at least playable in some scenarios.  

Only Shalaxi and Slaangors seem really bad at any cost (that isn't criminally low).

[CeleFAZE]

6 hours ago, Enoby said:

Thanks for the write up One thing to quickly comment on is the 2 squads of 10 twinsouls - I've tried it before and it's not bad, but they do struggle from being super expensive, quite squishy for their points, and hard countered by a 2+ save. They're fantastic in a unit of 10 as they normally have a perfect target, and then another few good ones. Two units of 10 often end up with one attacking, doing really well, and then the other being attacked and losing a lot of points.

That said, a single unit of 20 may be interesting... two lines of 10 for coherency's sake. Loads of points, but 24 average damage against a 3+ save when rerolling hits, and an utterly excessive 74 damage when against no save. If you want to go ham, give them +1 to hit and +1 to wound from the Shardspeaker and command ability for an amazing 36 damage against a 3+ save, and a totally unnecessary 107 average against no save. Even against a 2+ save they do a very respectable 18. In all honestly, at this point you've gone overkill, but if you want to punt an enemy unit into another realm, 20 twinsouls is the way to go. 

Okay, now I really want to use a unit of 20 twinsouls

---

Did you feel there was any particular unit/type of unit that you really struggled against? Was there any reason why, and do you think you could deal with them in another tournament?

You present a compelling argument, and I think I may instead go for one unit of 15, which also will give me some better opportunities to try and rally back when the unit gets diminished, or to try the lifeswarm to keep them topped off.

As for things I struggled against, vampire lords on zombie dragons featured in two of my opponents' lists, and were tough nuts to crack both times. Stormcast annihilator spam was also something that presented a major problem, though hopefully that gets toned down a bit with their new book, and beyond that I could've done more to try and zone out their ability to drop where they wanted. Gavriel Sureheart having a 2+ ignoring -2 rend and rerolling ones was a huge pain, and a good argument for more mortal wounding options in my list.

I have an opportunity to grab 3 more boxes of blissbarbs soon, so I think I may jump on that and utilize more foot archers, swapping the seekers for slickblades to give me more anti-armor punch. I also feel like acquiescence is a spell I need to make more use of, so I'll try playing around with using an epitome in my starting list to provide some desperately needed rerolls.

[Enoby]

32 minutes ago, CeleFAZE said:

As for things I struggled against, vampire lords on zombie dragons featured in two of my opponents' lists, and were tough nuts to crack both times. Stormcast annihilator spam was also something that presented a major problem, though hopefully that gets toned down a bit with their new book, and beyond that I could've done more to try and zone out their ability to drop where they wanted. Gavriel Sureheart having a 2+ ignoring -2 rend and rerolling ones was a huge pain, and a good argument for more mortal wounding options in my list.

Thanks for the info It definitely seems like good saves are a struggle we face, and one that's pretty tricky to get around considering our best damage dealers are Twinsouls and they don't exactly do brilliantly against good saves. I do think this is something a KoS can deal with more effectively, but their points are a bit too high at the moment. I guess Archaon also does the job, but Archaon isn't exactly a suggestion I like to make as a list with him in becomes an Archaon list. We do have some decent MW abilities - not amazing, but Slickblades and Painbringers can be pretty good for them, but again they're a bit pricey and can't be summoned. 

---

Also, I'll be putting out the form very soon   Not to spoil too much, but here's the response to the current Slaangor points cost:

 

[docofallplagues]

2 hours ago, Enoby said:

Also, I'll be putting out the form very soon

Very much a newer slaanesh player with only 3 games under my belt but I filled it out, stating no strong thoughts on units I haven't tried. Here's hoping shalaxi gets more interesting in the future.

[Enoby]

2 hours ago, docofallplagues said:

Very much a newer slaanesh player with only 3 games under my belt but I filled it out, stating no strong thoughts on units I haven't tried. Here's hoping shalaxi gets more interesting in the future.

Thanks for the response

We have 125 responses so far which is good to see - it will probably slow down a bit from here, but that's fine as we have enough to at least get some sort of consensus out of. 

A lot of the responses have come with really thought out comments too, which is very nice to see. 

I have noticed many more naysayers this time, which I don't really mind but there was certainly a less positive reaction to the survey this time. That could well be just because it's the second try, but I don't think we'll get as many responses as last time.