Hedonites of Slaanesh 2021 battletome survey

[Enoby]

For those with even a passing interest in Slaanesh, you've probably noticed that there's a lot of controversy surrounding the book. From complaints about lack of synergy, the change to the locus, uninspired warscrolls, and most prominently points costs - this book has seen a lot of online negative attention. My own personal feelings aside, I thought the most productive way to address this controversy was with mild and hopefully helpful action - data collection.

I, with the help of the Hedonites of Slaanesh discussion thread (thank you for the suggestions), have created a small survey that aims to address thoughts on the battletome, most prominently points costs. 

Why? Well it's basically as a form of data collection to send to the Games Workshop rules team. I'd like to stress that this is not some sort of Les Misérables style protest where we march against GW - this is just to collect player opinions to help GW. The main goal of this survey is to provide data from fans in one collected place - I think it will be a more effective approach than complaining in private groups or sending an individual email. 

I would also like to stress that this survey is not scientifically sound, nor does it aim to be. Being a Slaanesh survey it is much more likely to attract Slaanesh fans who will want to see a points decrease or other beneficial changes; I do not expect the survey to be unbiased, but I do not believe it needs to be - it's simply to show fan opinion, which by definition will always be biased. 

The realistic ideal outcome of this survey would be a points decrease in the online document after this year's General's Handbook, but if there could be more 'severe' change in the future that would also be good to see. 

I would also like to ask that people only respond to the survey if they have at least some knowledge of the Slaanesh rules and points costs. That's not to say you need to be an expert, but please know the warscrolls that are being talked about before answering, and please answer truthfully. 

The survey can be found here: https://forms.gle/yxV5e4cY8ND5jMG8A

There is not a set date that I would end this survey, but it will likely be before the end of April so it can be sent to Game's Workshop in time. I will also like at least 100 responses (though hopefully more) before making any sort of statement to GW. Before sending it in, I will post the results online and in an Excel document, and I encourage anyone else who would like to use the data to use it to email GW with in a respectful manner. Also, if you are passionate about this, I would encourage you to share it around your gaming groups and any other parties that you think would find it interesting.

"But I don't care about Slaanesh? Why is this even here - go back to your own forum!"

I was debating whether to add this to the general discussions forum; obviously the main focus is Slaanesh and Slaanesh has their own forum where this belongs. However, after mulling it over I decided to post it here for two reasons:

1) The first is pretty simple and not exactly 'good', but posting it here will get more responses, especially from those with a different viewpoint to a Slaanesh fan (perhaps from someone who has had Slaanesh as an opponent, for example) 

2) The second reason is more compelling, and that is if this survey works (or at least seems to - I doubt we will get much in the way of confirmation), this could be big news for all armies. I don't suggest spamming every army group with new petitions, but it may at least show a willingness to listen to fan opinion without tournament data (which is often lacking for armies that don't show up in tournaments). I'm sure we've all had a moan about one army or another, being too strong or too weak, but it's easy to forget that most of those complaints will never reach GW; while it may seem obvious to you or I that X unit is too strong or weak, it may not be to GW and telling them is the only way they'd get to know. 

If this survey accomplishes nothing, then it's too bad or the player opinion was too split. At least we tried and it was worth that. If it does accomplish something, then it means a lot to AoS as a ruleset and the relationship with fans. I'd like to remain optimistic that the voices of fans can make an impact on the rules. 

If you have any further thoughts on the topic, please comment below and I will include these in the email as well so long as they are respectful (usernames removed).  

On a final note, please do not use this survey to spam GW's Facebook pages or other social media channels, and in any email that uses this survey please be respectful. The rules writers are human too and will not have made any perceived mistakes due to spite. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

[herohammer]

Submitted my response. I like the new slaanesh book a lot compared to the 2019 book as I think it permits a lot more builds but some of the units do have too high of a points cost. I do wonder why you don't inquire about daemon point costs in the survey? I think seeker chariots are fine as BL for god seekers for example but the KoS seems overcosted in the new book since it can't self-cast its CA.

[NinthMusketeer]

The new units seem overcosted in a lot of places, while the stuff that was already the strongest remained so. KoS healing hand being so much better that it would justify a split warscroll to get it's own cost, the ease to summon spamming, daemonette spam being more efficient than almost all other unit options, I could go on. It feels like the new stuff got nerfed to compensate for the strong stuff which is so nonsensical as to a antagonize players further.

It's like, remember those game breaking cheese Slaanesh lists? Still around. You want to do something different? Suck daemon nipple we don't support that playstyle.

Edited April 13, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[yukishiro1]

The big thing is how terribly it compares to the Lumineth tome that was released at essentially the same time. It is very difficult to understand how the same company could release these two books at the same time and think they were balanced with one another and reflective of the same attitude towards the game. 

[jeremym]

9 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

The big thing is how terribly it compares to the Lumineth tome that was released at essentially the same time. It is very difficult to understand how the same company could release these two books at the same time and think they were balanced with one another and reflective of the same attitude towards the game. 

it came out the same day as the dok book, which is arguably one of the best 5 books/armies ever written. In comparison its such a travesty 

[yukishiro1]

Yeah, it doesn't compare well with DoK either, though in different ways. 

[LuminethMage]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yeah, it doesn't compare well with DoK either, though in different ways. 

According to Vince you have  a lot of books to single out, why make this into yet another complain about LRL thread? 

[Killamike]

Imagine if you were a low/mid teir army as well and everyone complained about you.  

That's stormcast baby!! 

I responded,  I don't play them but I've played a good amount of games against the new book, I like it overall but the points comparisons are wild.  

[yukishiro1]

33 minutes ago, LuminethMage said:

According to Vince you have  a lot of books to single out, why make this into yet another complain about LRL thread? 

Wow.  It wasn't even a complaint about LRL (the "it" there clearly refers to the Slaanesh book, not the LRL book - did you miss that?), and the reason I chose LRL originally was right there in the post itself. Someone else pointed out that DoK was even closer in time and I agreed that yes, the Slaanesh tome doesn't match up well to the DoK tome either, though for somewhat different reasons than it doesn't match up well with the LRL tome. 

This is a thread about the Slaanesh tome, why make this into yet another LRL thread (and talk about irony there!)?

Edited April 13, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Enoby]

7 hours ago, herohammer said:

Submitted my response. I like the new slaanesh book a lot compared to the 2019 book as I think it permits a lot more builds but some of the units do have too high of a points cost. I do wonder why you don't inquire about daemon point costs in the survey? I think seeker chariots are fine as BL for god seekers for example but the KoS seems overcosted in the new book since it can't self-cast its CA.

Thanks for your response

On the Slaanesh thread, there was some conversation about what to include - either just the 'problem stuff', everything, or just the new stuff. As 'problem stuff' is different for everyone (and it's kind of what we're trying to find out), the choice was between everything or just new, and with everything we felt there would be too many questions and the number of responses would go down (especially as more people care about the new stuff than the old) alongside most old stuff not changing in points. The 'other thoughts' section or comments would be the place for daemon discussion, or if this survey is popular then I may create a second with the old stuff in

 

[Ragest]

5 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

The big thing is how terribly it compares to the Lumineth tome that was released at essentially the same time. It is very difficult to understand how the same company could release these two books at the same time and think they were balanced with one another and reflective of the same attitude towards the game. 

Cavalcade Alpha is one of the worst matchups for LrL, totally countered. 
 

For me, shardspeaker and foot infantry (archers, paladins and slangors) are priced to the sky but cavalry are very well costed. 
Btw you can’t solve the problems that paladins and slangors have just by points, everything that is not playing with keeper in dr or cavalcade battalion will be bad anyway, just the rules are pretty poor, uncohesive and lazy.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Ragest

[Doko]

I dont see where is the problem. Almost every unit is good,then have some undercosted units as glutos that is being used even as ally out of slanesh due to be too much good, and some overcosted units as slangors or paladins.

Every tome have this same problems isnt only for slanesh so lets do a survey for every tome as idoneths did and now slanesh.....

[Feii]

btw OP could you make it that we see the results when we fill out the form?  Not a reason not to 

[Enoby]

11 minutes ago, Feii said:

btw OP could you make it that we see the results when we fill out the form?  Not a reason not to 

Unfortunately I don't think Google Forms allows you to (though if you know how, please say) - so I'll show results before sending anything off tk GW The results currently are quite expected, so things like most (>90%) believing the Slaangors are too expensive. 

[Bosskelot]

I think it's a good idea to put this survey in other places as it's important to get viewpoints of potential Hedonite players (like me!)

As someone who plays and collects LRL I also completely agree with Yukishiro. This isn't about power, but just about how much care and attention has been put into writing the rules of the recent books. I've said this is another thread but HoS, DoK and LRL seem like they've all been individually written for completely different game systems. LRL are drowning in fluff and flavourful rules and unique mechanics to the point where it feels excessive; DoK are supremely powerful while not really having much variety in how they operate and Hedonites are just... bland white bread milquetoast slop. Points costs only go so far with many of the Warscrolls in there; many of them are just straight up bland and uninteresting.

I've brought it up before but comparing the Hurakan to the Blissbarb Seekers exemplifies this perfectly. The Hurakan manage to capture the idea of a fast, elusive horse archer style unit perfectly because of the way they manipulate and stretch the rules of movement. Seekers do not. They... move quick. That's it.

[Enoby]

5 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

I think it's a good idea to put this survey in other places as it's important to get viewpoints of potential Hedonite players (like me!)

As someone who plays and collects LRL I also completely agree with Yukishiro. This isn't about power, but just about how much care and attention has been put into writing the rules of the recent books. I've said this is another thread but HoS, DoK and LRL seem like they've all been individually written for completely different game systems. LRL are drowning in fluff and flavourful rules and unique mechanics to the point where it feels excessive; DoK are supremely powerful while not really having much variety in how they operate and Hedonites are just... bland white bread milquetoast slop. Points costs only go so far with many of the Warscrolls in there; many of them are just straight up bland and uninteresting.

I've brought it up before but comparing the Hurakan to the Blissbarb Seekers exemplifies this perfectly. The Hurakan manage to capture the idea of a fast, elusive horse archer style unit perfectly because of the way they manipulate and stretch the rules of movement. Seekers do not. They... move quick. That's it.

I've posted this on Facebook groups and Reddit as well so far we have over 300 responses which I think is a good basis, but I'm hoping for more before the end of April! @AngryPanda is also kindly asking some of the louder voices in the AoS community to share it around

I wanted to focus on points in this survey as they're the easiest thing to change and something we can hope GW would focus on rather than them deciding to wait it out for a new battletome for a full rewrite - that said, any comments on the rules will also be sent in for future reference.

As an aside, there are a few people who have answered that Slaangors are too cheaply pointed; while it's totally valid to have that view if they believe that, in combination with some of the comments I have a feeling there may be a small 'stop whining' counter protest. I don't mind so much, but I'd like to reiterate to anyone who may feel this way that this survey isn't meant to be a complaint, just a collection of opinions so please answer truthfully rather than to counter a perceived negative opinion 

[yukishiro1]

10 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

I've said this is another thread but HoS, DoK and LRL seem like they've all been individually written for completely different game systems. LRL are drowning in fluff and flavourful rules and unique mechanics to the point where it feels excessive; DoK are supremely powerful while not really having much variety in how they operate and Hedonites are just... bland white bread milquetoast slop.

Yep, this is exactly right. The three books show totally different attitudes to what the game is supposed to be. It's really floored me to see just how non-existent the overall supervision of the game is from a design point of view that these three books could be released at essentially the same time. They can't hire that design lead quickly enough, there's clearly a desperate need for a coherent vision.

It stands out especially badly in contrast to 9th edition 40k books; there is plenty to complain about how GW has handled 9th edition 40k, but the new codexes themselves are very much "of a piece" with one another in terms of what the game is supposed to be. What we've learned over the last month or two is that different people on the AOS team have vastly different ideas for what the game is supposed to be, and they either don't communicate with one another or have agreed to disagree and just do their own things, and that desperately needs to be addressed. 

Edited April 18, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Enoby]

15 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yep, this is exactly right. The three books show totally different attitudes to what the game is supposed to be. It's really floored me to see just how non-existent the overall supervision of the game is from a design point of view that these three books could be released at essentially the same time. They can't hire that design lead quickly enough, there's clearly a desperate need for a coherent vision.

It stands out especially badly in contrast to 9th edition 40k books; there is plenty to complain about how GW has handled 9th edition 40k, but the new codexes themselves are very much "of a piece" with one another in terms of what the game is supposed to be. What we've learned over the last month or two is that different people on the AOS team have vastly different ideas for what the game is supposed to be, and they either don't communicate with one another or have agreed to disagree and just do their own things, and that desperately needs to be addressed. 

Yeah, I think the disparity is the main issue. I enjoy playing Slaanesh with our new book, but I'm not a fan of how battletomes seem to be a lottery for the type you'll get.

To characterise the designers, it seems we generally have three outlooks: powerful and blunt, so very strong but not exactly creative (e.g. DoK, old Slaanesh, Seraphon maybe); loads of interesting rules and warscroll abilities that may be powerful or weak (e.g. Lumineth, Stormcast, Tzeentch, Gloomspite, maybe Nighthaunt); 'balanced' books that try hard to stop gamebreaking combos and have disadvantages to counteract their strengths (e.g. Sylvaneth, Slaves to Darkness, Beasts of Chaos, new Slaanesh). Not one of these philosophies is superior, but they don't work together and the 'balanced' books tend to be the ones you see at the bottom of the pile. 'Balanced' seems to be the more traditional approach with factions having little to no gamebreaking combos and advantages (e.g. teleporting through wildwoods) have disadvantages too (e.g. trying to fit the wildwoods somewhere and them blocking LoS). Loads of interesting rules seem to be the old school AoS approach, and admittedly it's a lot of fun but very hard to keep fair. I think most of the issues come from powerful and blunt, as they're not particularly interesting to build or play and they're usually pretty unbalanced.  

I personally would like the game to tone down damage wise and be on the same power level as Slaanesh (sans points), but I'm sure others would prefer everything to be on the same level as DoK. Regardless, the disparity between designs is the issue as it creates haves and have nots.

I'm not sure what the designing process is for the AoS battletomes, but they feel as if they are designed in a vacuum. I hope the new design lead helps unite the designers. 

[Enoby]

So, here's a document with the survey results on in full if anyone is interested in reading them https://docs.google.com/document/d/1utDTsRtI_sZRHMUhDeTa0XDbIzhhxjpAsBAK5PhI_Z0/edit?usp=sharing

For those who would prefer just to look at the graphs, here they are  Note, the smaller percentage answers are only visible in the document. There were 333 responses overall - thank you all for your help 

 

The question is now how to present this to GW with a friendly and helpful email 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MothmanDraws]

I would love to hear from people who think slaangore are correctly pointed.

 

Results are about as I expected, you might be able to take the % rate of overcosted to well costed as rough of idea of how far off points are.

-Glutos appears perfectly pointed

-Seekers seem roughly about right maby 5-10% over

-twinsouls and painbringers both overcosted roughly same amount

 

For most points cost doesnt stop most playing, but of those still planning to play them decent portion are adjusting spending habits based on how off the points feel for some units. 

[Skreech Verminking]

5 hours ago, MothmanDraws said:

I would love to hear from people who think slaangore are correctly pointed.

 

Results are about as I expected, you might be able to take the % rate of overcosted to well costed as rough of idea of how far off points are.

 

 

 

Yeah, I too find it very interesting to find the reason of why people find the Slaangors underpriced, or correctly pointed.

The models look fantastic, but I never gave them a chance to be adopted in my beasts of chaos, since they are just worse then almost any other beasts of chaos unit.

At 140points they almost do no damage, they aren’t tough enough to take damage worthy of their points, and they are incredible slow for a beasts of chaos army. (Considering that almost every other brayherds unit is able to run, or can fly 16 inches).

so from a a beasts of chaos perspective, your just better off taking dragon ogors, for the same price.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[DoctorPerils]

10 hours ago, Enoby said:

So, here's a document with the survey results on in full if anyone is interested in reading them https://docs.google.com/document/d/1utDTsRtI_sZRHMUhDeTa0XDbIzhhxjpAsBAK5PhI_Z0/edit?usp=sharing

For those who would prefer just to look at the graphs, here they are  Note, the smaller percentage answers are only visible in the document. There were 333 responses overall - thank you all for your help 

 

The question is now how to present this to GW with a friendly and helpful email 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This looks like a good initiative imo (especially since you stress it's not meant to be unbiased); however, I wonder if it might be more interesting to put off sending these findings to GW until we see Slaanesh's treatment in Kragnos - I for one am hoping for a re-work of the subfactions in it, since godseekers and pretenders don't make as much sense in the context of the twins being revealed; also, new points values for general's handbook or AoS3.0 are likely already finalized, so relaying that information before their release is likely going to fall on deaf ears.

I also think there should be some questions about whether the responder plays Hedonites, played Hedonites prior to this battletome but no longer does, would be interested in playing Hedonites were these concerns addresses, or aren't interested in playing Hedonites but would like to encourage friends to play were the battletome more balanced (magnify the message that they may sell more models for the faction with a few small tweaks ) Questions about warscroll and subfaction synergies would also be welcome, as some of these could be addressed in white dwarfs or campaign books, and not just in a new battletome or general's handbook

Edited April 27, 2021 by DoctorPerils

[Enoby]

3 hours ago, DoctorPerils said:

This looks like a good initiative imo (especially since you stress it's not meant to be unbiased); however, I wonder if it might be more interesting to put off sending these findings to GW until we see Slaanesh's treatment in Kragnos - I for one am hoping for a re-work of the subfactions in it, since godseekers and pretenders don't make as much sense in the context of the twins being revealed; also, new points values for general's handbook or AoS3.0 are likely already finalized, so relaying that information before their release is likely going to fall on deaf ears.

I also think there should be some questions about whether the responder plays Hedonites, played Hedonites prior to this battletome but no longer does, would be interested in playing Hedonites were these concerns addresses, or aren't interested in playing Hedonites but would like to encourage friends to play were the battletome more balanced (magnify the message that they may sell more models for the faction with a few small tweaks ) Questions about warscroll and subfaction synergies would also be welcome, as some of these could be addressed in white dwarfs or campaign books, and not just in a new battletome or general's handbook

I was in two minds about waiting for Kragnoss - on one hand it might fix some issues, especially with synergies. On the other hand, it might be too late; I want to get this across to them earlier rather than later so we don't miss the cut off point to the digital sheet after the GHB. 

I do agree with you on the subfactions - the hosts currently don't make sense, but with how the story is in AoS I think the current battletome is timeline where the newborn are just being born (it ends with a person looking at them). So narratives they're on the cusp of finding their god whereas in the new BR the demigod twins are out there. I can see the new BRs adding considerable changes tbh, but it may be too late to wait to hand in the survey on a hunch.

The survey is pretty basic, but I wanted to keep it simple just for the purpose of giving a clear message to GW last thing I'd want is the person reading the email to just switch off because there's too much data. That said, what you suggested would all be very interesting to know