AngryPanda
-
Posts
229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by AngryPanda
-
-
30 minutes ago, TheArborealWalrus said:
Alright, so I've played 6 games based around the idea of it being a competition between 15 chaos warriors and 10 mymadesh painbringers.
1st game vs a purposefully minimally synergized Khorne list with solid units. Hard fought win, but never was in doubt. (battle for the pass) Chaos warriors killed 10 blood warriors in the time it took painbringers to kill 10 blood warriors and 5 skullreapers. Both units lost 6 members. (painbringers rolled well)
2nd game vs a strange Nurgle list based around beasts of nurgle. Kind of stomped him. (starstrike)
3rd 4th and 5th were vs a synergized mortal khorne army led by an insensate rage thirster. The blender was in full effect. 3rd: hard fought loss. Very back and forth. The blood thirster singlehandedly cleared half the board (the paibringer half). The chaos warriors were wiped by by waves of wrathmongers and skullreapers. Lost by 2 victory points turn 5 (battle for the pass)
4th: Hard fought victory. Victory became obvious come turn 3. Switched to lurid haze list that functioned differently this game. went back and forth many times, but opponent couldn't catch up on points. Summoning and locus saved my bacon from a skullreaper unit and in grabbing an objective. Painbringers took their objective but lost it to a lucky set of rolls from a skullreaper unit. Chaos warriors were wiped out instantly by insensate thirster. (scorched earth)
5th: Hard fought minor loss. Not enough objectives to split the enemy. Opposing blender held against the cavalry wave and the skullreapers chewed through both contestants. Chaos warriors survived better because of mortal wound resistance and more wounds. Held my own objective but failed to take theirs. Both armies were severely depleted but I had lost more points. This is where I learned the flaw of trying for depravity points (Total commitment)
6th battle vs a new khorne opponent. Hard fought but decisive loss. They took a tyrants + gore pilgrims list with Skarbrand. Had the faction that makes all thirsters even better too. [Yes, basically the net list] Wasn't any objectives to split my opponent on which is always a bad start with our cavalry. Chaos warriors held the right flank for a while but couldn't finish the 3+ armor save insensate thirster. Painbringers and lord held the center against blood warriors and a second thirster (killed theirs) but were removed by slaughterpriest mortal wounds. Left had skarbrand on it and was abandoned in the hope to kill the first assault before he got there. We didn't. Between skarbrand and the insensate's explosions [plus not counting as having lost any wounds *sad face*] lost half the army to excessive mortal wound damage. Killed all 3 thirsters and the blood warriors but I had 4 painbringers left. Was tabled by the end of turn 3. (Knife to the heart)
As reference, this was the core of the list with 660pts of swapping around with my limited resources.
Host: Invaders
Lord of pain - General, artifact: rod of misrule, trait: glory hog
10 painbringers
2x5 twinsouls
15 chaos warriors
2x5 hellstriders
5 slickblade seekers
I used all of these at one time or another in the list. 5 scourgestriders, 1 keeper of secrets, 1 shardspeaker, 10 blissbarb archers, 1 darkoath warqueen, 20/40 marauders, aspiring ... hero? champion? whatever the mini hero is, and a contorted epitome. I changed up the list when I used the marauders. Went lurid haze and replaced the lord of pain with the keeper. It should be noted that my rolls were often not stellar the entire time.
These are my conclusions from the contest:
1: between the two units, in a vacuum, I prefer the painbringers. A 6 always being good, for both hit and wound, make them more fun to play. There is also no magic number for their re-roll, and synergies work on them.
2: Both units' success relies heavily on dice rolls. Yours for the painbringers, the opponent's on the chaos warriors.
3: ... ... It feels dirty to say, because I like both units, but neither felt very useful overall. The only times they felt useful was when the opponent didn't have high burst damage. When that happened, the painbringers performed better because of their superior attacks. Admittedly, vs a insensate rage bloodthirster, neither performed well, being annihilated in one attack sequence. It hurts every time I spend 300pts on 1 unit of 2 wound models too. (My opponent assures me that given what they do, plus summoning, they're worth their points though. I don't agree. *shrug*)
As for the rest of the army:
1: Hellstriders are pretty good. Even at 140pts they felt okay. Not great, but not bad. The whip ones weren't bad either. Harder to find targets for though.
2: Slickblades were very swingy for me. Admittedly, they weren't fighting their best match ups, but they felt not too useful if I didn't roll enough 6s to wound. The 5+ save and low bravery don't help them out. They feel a little like worse tzangor enlightened. Have more wounds though. Still a good unit, but not a unit wiper.
3: Shardpeaker didn't feel helpful outside of protracted combats. A hard sell when I was struggling to survive one combat phase. (also got popped by the mortal wound bomb of the insensate thirster early on both games I used her)
4: Keeper seems swingy (an excellent target for the lurid haze artifact though). When I used her, I swung well, but I could see the opposite very easily happening.
5: Good lord the locus is so very good if you use it right. In some way responsible for 2 out of 3 wins. Stopped an opposing hammer and let a large chaff unit get picked apart. Also stopped blood warriors' ability from going off.
6: Twinsouls are a solid unit. Not too resilient, but not bad. A good attack profile and solid special rules. You have to pick their targets though. They'll bounce off of the wrong one and butcher the right one. Hurt spending the points on them, but always useful in the game.
7: The -1 rend being neutralized by the battalion in the 3rd - 5th games didn't do the marauders or warqueen any favors. With the rend I feel like they're pretty good. Also thematically fit how I picture a slaanesh army working. Lots of shirtless people. The masses of revelers. I don't have any problem with daemonettes (beyond it being hard to snakify them) but I see more humans and less daemons. Maybe a horde of each?
8: The contorted epitome is fantastic. (the twins on the mirror) Two rerolling casts, reasonably fast and good potential damage and survivability with it's abilities. Will try to bring it more often. 210 isn't bad for her either. a little high but worth it.
9: It usually felt like I was in need of like 100- 150 more points to get all of what I wanted. Everyone has talked about the points problems though. (If they drop the painbringers to 120-130pts, I'd totally center my list around them)
Conclusion: I need to fight something other than khorne. Between the battalion abilities and insensate rage thirster wrecking everything this wasn't a wholey fair testing. My impressions from these however are that I'd be better off using something else as battleline/shields/chaff. Nothing seems to survive the higher tier armies' damage anyways so I might as well stick with something that serves another purpose. I think I might change up the base list. We'll see.
Thanks for reading my extensive thoughts, and I hope you have a good week.
Nice write up, I like the analysis; my experiences have pretty much been the same when it came to using Painbringers. With support, they’re a nice anvil that can swing back and do decent damage. However, a 150 pt price tag is too much; 120 pts would make them far more attractive.
The shardspeaker has the potential to be great, but is just too unreliable and easy to kill (especially against mortal wounds and shooting) for her point cost. That, and the mortal spells are pretty weak. Pretty much all the foot slogging mortals are overpriced, and if they were brought down in points, list building will be a lot more flexible and balanced.
I really like the idea of using a Contorted Epitome, but the point costs are just so high. If they were to bring down the points for mortals, I would try to include one in a list to dispel enemy casters, or to cast from the far better daemon spells. I also feel that if I am to take Painbringers, they’re better paired with a Lord of Pain to get all reroll hits at the cost of a command point, and not from a spell which can be denied; especially in a Lurid Haze list where CP are very abundant.
I haven’t had the chance, but it seems like it will be fun trying a few matchups against other melee centric armies such as OBR, stormcasts, Orruks, or Ogors. I want to see how the Painbringers with support (Lord of Pain and an emerald swarm) do against a wall of mortek guard.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Feii said:
To be fair DW being SM army specialized in not dealing with SM but xenos will make you weaker because up to 40% of the field can be SM in a tournament.
I think DW is in a much better spot than Slaanesh they just need to rework special issue ammunition for primaris gear or rework the stratagem to cost 1 CP and to not change the weapon type to Heavy 1. Also DW has 240ish separate rules altogether. Great psychic powers and good squads, which cannot be said about slaanesh. (and their best squads cost $$$$)Honestly, I just think a point reduction would solve a lot of the problems the Slaanesh book has. If everything was reasonably costed, we’d be B or A tier; S tier would still belong to Seraphon, KO, and Idoneth (which are 100% going to receive a nerf). Lurid Haze is pretty potent, especially with Sigvald or something else that’s nasty infiltrating from the side of the board. Godseekers with Slickblades/other calvary or chariots in a Seeker Cavalcade are hands down one of the best calvary-based forces in the game. Glutos is good for castles or some “fun” lists (Archaon and Glutos tag team is gonna rock the tournament scene). The ability to summon means I can always bring in an Infernal Entrapturess at 7 DP to mess with spell caster armies like Lumineth; I can also drop a unit of fiends or Daemonettes to cause damage and hold objectives respectively.
It’s mostly the foot slogging mortals that need the most attention via point decreases. Fiendbloods need a rework or buff to their warscroll, and maybe a point decrease; there’s no exception to the rewrite of the rules.
In my opinion, Deathwatch are worse because even though they have great psychic powers, they lack the powerful special rules that other SM chapters have, which have made SM’s at the top of the competitive scene. Particularly, super doctrines and general strategems that would be useful in most situations that are available to other SM chapters; DW strats are only useful against the handful of Xenos in an otherwise Imperium dominated meta. If they brought back SIA via paying additional points to purchase, it would make the faction a lot more unique, essentially becoming a super doctrine in itself; but as it stands they’ve been performing very poorly compared to other SM armies who have superior rules and abilities.
As an example, why take DW Eradicators in a mixed squad when you can take them as Salamanders that are much better, or why take a DW eliminators when you can take them as Raven Guard? Why go DW melee when Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves are far more rewarding to that play style? Sure, these mixed squads would be troops, but you can just buy the cheap tactical or Primaris marines by themselves to fill those slots, and then spend the rest of your points on all the Killy stuff. You’re even penalized in some cases for taking mixed squads, as nobody would keep outriders or assault intercessors in the same squad as normal intercessors. DW lack the incentive to bring mixed squads because they lack rules that make them comparable to other armies, and along with the lack of flavor, has fundamentally crippled an already bleeding army.
I believe that once Slaanesh gets some point reductions (if or whenever this will happen), we will be in a much better spot and the battletome will have a chance to shine. However, there needs to be an organized and coherent petition or emails sent in order for this to happen, as I believe GW only makes changes like this if the community responds in abundance, which I’m all for so long as it’s done respectfully and not with pitch forks.
-
4
-
1
-
-
I want to play an army that will be challenging but balanced for my opponent, unique and flavorful to play, and also fun to collect and build lists with. The models are fun to collect, and the book is somewhat unique, but it does feel weak.
On a related note, back in October I was super exited about the Deathwatch release for 40k, and I purchased the Star Collecting! box of Vanguard Primaris Marines and painted them in a woodland forest camo theme. The book aged very poorly (2017-2020), and unlike every other SM faction that received the new primaris units, we received none; Deathwatch were arguably the most neglected imperial army within 40k.
You would think they would receive a nice and well-deserved, much needed update to breath life back into the faction.
When the book dropped, I and many DW players were super disappointed: they essentially gutted an already outdated and struggling army, and replaced it with a hollow shell of a book. They got rid of Special Issue Ammunition (which they lied and said that they were going to include it), they removed the benefits of taking multiple models within a squad (pushing players to create “monosqauds” that are extremely unfaithful to the lore), and failed to give us a super doctrine.
Months later, the DW have yet to do well in any tournaments. In fact, they’ve actually went down in effectiveness! I know it’s the covid and tournaments haven’t been super common, but 40k is more popular then AoS in terms of competitive play, and the books been out for a long time and there’s been enough data at this point to come to some conclusions. Linked below is the Goonhammer meta watch that recently went over the data:
Goonhammer Metawatch for March 2021
The reason I mentioned Deathwatch is because GW has made some crappy design choices in the past when it came to building new codexes or battletomes. Sometimes, they’re afraid of making bold choices (which they may believe will break the game, but this is speculation), and they mess up and give us products that are underwhelming.
Sadly, many within the DW community took it with a grain of salt and approached it with “positivity” by glancing over all the problems the book had, and didn’t want to take action. A lot of players have left, and now the army and book are in another state of disarray just a few months after release, which is just sad.
Sadly, I now have the same feeling towards Hedonites of Slaanesh.
Now, the good news is that it’s not as an extreme case as Deathwatch. The warscrolls and rules have me excited, and although they do lack some uniqueness/flavor, it isn’t as overarching. Contrary to popular opinion, I believe there is synergy within the army, especially within the sub-allegiances and from heroes. The issue is the point costs, which mostly everyone within the community has agreed are pretty absurd.
Games workshop is stubborn with its decisions, and often refuses to make corrections or admit to being incorrect even when mistakes are clearly made. The recent FAQ should of changed Fiendbloods, which I truly believe are the worst unit in AoS; the lack of change indicates the decision to make them this weak was on purpose. Which is strange, considering the Fiendblood in Dread Pageant has stats that are theoretically what we’re originally planned for the units debut in AoS.
I agree that we wait for the Lumineth, but if the release is superior then ours, then I highly suggest we organize some respectful means of communicating our displeasure with the release.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Ragest said:
I can see a tone down in damage (not in mechanics and abilities) in my new book, in your book and even in dok’s book aswell.
That’s interesting, in that case I’m sort of hoping we get a tone down of the damage or power of units within the next GHB, similar to what happened in 9th edition (point increases across the board and tighter lists). I sort of hope that the game plays similar to Total War: Warhammer in the context that it’s a prolonged battle, and not an activation-deletion war where first or double turns define the outcome of a game.
2 hours ago, Sorrow said:Excellent idea, that being said, let us wait a bit more until we get a look at Lumineth rules and their cost
I agree, after the Lumineth release it would be best to reevaluate the book before any petitions are made; but if it seems the Lumineth came out strong then I would be all for an organized communication to GW.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Enoby said:
Yeah, if it's true it means we've probably been so highly costed due to summoning, which obviously has some issues considering our options in non-Hedonite Slaanesh. However, points are easily fixed.
Which reminds me, who is planning to write in about it? I was thinking the best tactic would be to have a number of polls (including on this forum). Not as a way to whine, but a bit more like a petition to show interest and to show a bit of solidarity when sending an email.
I think it will be more effective and more useful to the rules team for us to be able to say 90% of people who answered the poll said they believed the majority of Slaanesh Hedonite units are overcosted than it is to just say "I think they are". Obviously it isn't a scientifically rigorous study (after all, only people who care about Slaanesh will answer so it's likely there'll be more on the 'overcosted' side), but it's better than nothing.
If people are interested, I'll set up a poll on this forum and have a replica on Facebook groups and Reddit.
100% for this, and I completely agree. I wrote a respectful email to GW about the day or two before the FAQ, but I’m not very faithful a single email will suffice in convincing them. I think a number of people expressing it, via a respectful petition or collection of emails, would be the best way to go. If you post a poll, I’d be down; I say we also have a single poll to represent the whole of the community and not individual polls on each platform.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, herohammer said:
I actually think pain bringers are fine unless you face nothing but super heavy, and more importantly, super abundant units with shooting. By this I mean more something like KO or LRL star archers rather than change host or OBR catapults. With the speed of other units and the fact that we have access to our own shooting I think you can minimize the impact of good but not numerous shooting. Where I think Slaanesh in general and in particular the pain bringers with their melee tankiness get into trouble is when faced by a large number of shooting units that can output either high rend or mortals like KO or LRL.
I have a list with 3 pain bringer units in nobles of excess to reduce drops with gluttos for the -1 to hit and battleshock immunity that I have been meaning to try once the damn nurgle plague ends and the lockdown lifts.
I want to experiment with them against Orruks, OBRs, or another (mostly) dedicated melee armies. I feel that many opponents are going to be surprised that they’re fighting against a castle Slaanesh army that is able to hold the line and punch back decently.
Anything with very heavy shooting is going to be difficult to deal with in the current meta, unless you also have a heavy shooting army, or you have a lot of calvary that can close the gap. For the Lurid Haze, I’m taking Sigvald and least one unit of Slickblade Seekers to flank from the side to cause pressure or assassinate anything that needs to be targeted. I’m also a bit excited to see the rules for Bel’akor; I have a feeling he will make a good ally to many chaos list.
Something I’m also considering when it comes to list building is which types of units to summon in, as I’m a bit unsure which units are best to spend DP on. The Infernal Enrapturess seems like a nice addition against magic-heavy lists, and is very much affordable at 7 DP. If I have the opportunity to play against a LRL list, I feel the Enrapturess is going to be a huge pain b/c of the force to reroll casts, and the ability to snipe characters as the battle progresses. I’m also looking to potentially summon in a unit of fiends when facing multi-wound units, or for the late game to summon blocks of Daemonettes to hold objectives. The KoS seems like a trap, for by the time a player’s generated 12 DP, it would most likely be too late into the game.
-
1
-
-
At the beginning of the release, I had a lot of pushback against the book, and I still believe that our book is in need of point adjustments and a warscroll change (Fiendbloods). However, I will admit that it isn’t as bad as I assumed; the biggest issue that’s clouding our book is mainly the point costs. The units themselves are actually pretty decent for what they’re designed to do, and being able to keep the subfactions from Wrath of The Everchosen is great.
I’ve been tinkering with lists, and like many others, I really like the Painbringer models. For points, yes they’re over costed and need to be cheaper, but excluding point costs they’re the chaos warriors I’ve always wanted. They’re tough, can swing back in combat with decent rend, and have the ability to cause mortal wounds. With a Lord of Pain supporting them, and potentially a Shardspeaker, I’ve seen them preform decently well against blobs of infantry, both elite and horde focused. Without support, like most units in the game, they’ll crumble or preform inefficiently.
I want to make a list that centers around the use of painbringers, and I was wondering how you guys think it can be done via a castle-type list that defies the speed lists that HoS are known for.
One of the lists I’ve tried tinkering with is a Lurid Haze army with Supreme Sybarites and a Rod of Misrule, which would give a lot of command points for rerolls, battle shock immunity, and +1 save to our reroll saves in the combat phase.
The other idea that I’ve been floating around with is an army centered around using Glutos to provide -1 to hit and battleshock immunity. I’m a bit hesitant to use him in Lurid Haze, as I don’t want my heroes to cancel one another out, and I am leaning towards using him within either a pretenders or godseekers host. Both this list and the previous one could also take advantage of using the emerald swarm endless spell, which could somewhat consistently revive dead models and heal damaged ones.
-
2
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Lucky Snake Eyes said:
MWG never played AoS correctly, they handwave rules and ****** stuff up all the time. Which while normal for your average person is a little disappointing if it's supposed to be your job. They where prime amongst the butthurt when fantasy was replaced by AoS and the gap in quality between there AoS and 40k content is drastic. MWG are a joke among the AoS community here in Canada.
Interesting lol, I have always imagined MWG to be somewhat close to players. I’ve seen their videos since 5th edition of 40k from over 10 years ago, back when Killa Kan walls were a thing and Dan was the studio’s Ork player. However, I rarely watch their content these days; the Hedonites battle report was the only one I’ve seen recently.
I don’t disagree, they’re extremely casual when they play and often make mistakes that would otherwise ruin the batrep, at least when I used to watch them more frequently. I sort of understand the butthurt when Warhammer Fantasy was replaced, but now that GW has announced its return via Forge World and the coming expansion of the setting (Cathay and Kislev are gonna have awesome models), there’s not much to be upset by at this point. Especially considering Total War has really nailed it with their Warhammer series.
-
3 hours ago, Enoby said:
While I get what you're saying, I think this may be a case of we should attribute it to incompetence rather than maliciousness. After all, they showed BoC rules previews and Slaves to Darkness chaos warrior previews which are considerably weaker.
Even if they only showed the unarguably good stuff, they could have made 5 days of content:
1)New allegiance changes
2)Look at Sigvald and rules
3) Lore and art
4) Look at the new battalions and some random rules
5) Look at Glutos's rules
Considering they got some rules wrong (pretenders rr 1s and saying Sigvald made a good pretenders general), and that they didn't even preview our exciting good rules, I think whoever was writing the articles was told to pull something together without the book. It sounds weird but it felt like there was surprisingly little effort put into those posts even when they could have (and totally ignored Slaangors and points), so I think it's either mismanagement (e.g. not having a book available somehow) or the person asked to write it was new or just didn't care at all for Slaanesh.
It's odd and disappointing, but I think it was just a mess up than trying to hide rules.
On the bright side, I think there's been quite a lot of talk from big names on how they are disappointed so we can hope that GW are paying attention.
I honestly believe that it’s a mix of poor design from the design team, and miscommunication and lack of understanding of how the game plays from the marketing team. As you pointed out that they had gotten some rules wrong , there were also the very strange rule teasers such as Twin Souls being the perfect unit for hunting characters, even though they’re not designed to character hunt at all.
It just seems like a disorganized mess, and there’s no doubt in my mind something was happening behind the scenes, whether it was intentional or not. I heard a rumor that one of the writers for the book was on Twitter talking about how they purposely wrote the rules to be weak, but I’m not sure of the validity of this.
On a side note, miniwargaming released a battle report against OBR:
In all honesty, it’s a pretty bad report; they made a lot of mistakes (gameplay and rule-wise) that really worked against Slaanesh; it was extremely frustrating seeing the Slaanesh player not use the exploding 6s, and seeing Sigvald’s sword not ignore the deathless minions rule. However, even with thre mistakes, they performed better then I expected, despite almost being tabled at the end.
-
2
-
-
So, I kind of noticed something weird; recently GW has been releasing a number of rules previews for the new Lumineth release coming out, which is completely opposite of what we received.
Back in late January/early February I speculated that one of the reasons why we were not seeing a healthy number of rule teasers for HoS was because GW wasn’t confident in the warscrolls and rules, and didn’t want to deflate hype going into the release (which would potentially decrease sales).
However, we can see the opposite is true of Lumineth, who are getting much more coverage. This could indicate that the design or marketing team is more confident with what’s being released, which if true reflects that they knew the HoS release was going to be bad coming out of the gate.
I sort of expected that the FAQ would not have point adjustments this early, but it should of at least fixed Fiendbloods. Anyways, the whole thing feels really weird and sketchy.
-
6 hours ago, Loyal Son of Khemri said:
Hey everyone,
I finally started my army and was wondering what paints are you all using for skin color?
Much obliged.
It depends, I paint a variety of skin colors into my army, as it adds to the overall beauty and look, and is fun to paint different styles.For daemon skin I do a base coat of Rakarth Flesh, then a thinned down contrast of Voluptuous Pink to wash over the recesses, sometimes mixed with Riekland Fleshshade to give a flesh undertone.
For pale skin, I use Rakarth Flesh over Pale Flesh from Vallejo, and Pallid Witch Flesh for a highlight.
For a darker skin color, I use Rhinox Hide, then a wash of Fleshshade, and then a layer of Doombull brown over the risen layers of muscle or skin.
For tan/brighter flesh, I use Elf Skintone from Vallejo, a Fleshshade wash, and a fine highlight of Rosy Flesh from Vallejo over scars or areas where the light really hits.
-
2
-
-
39 minutes ago, PiotrW said:
And on a more general note: any interesting backstory ideas for Hedonites you guys came up with?
My army is going to be based with a sandy-beach theme, with the ocean effects made from resin, hobby water gel to simulate ripples in the water, and some traditional shells, starfish, and skulls scattered in. The lore is that these followers are worshippers or descendants of Slaanesh’s 6th circle, The Circle of Indolency; wherever they travel a warm and soothing beach always appears underneath their feet. This warmth strengthens those blessed with Slaanesh, but is hazardous to anyone else, as the beaches will put those unfortunate enough to spend too long in proximity into a coma.
-
2
-
3
-
-
41 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
Which tournament was allowing the new battletome pre-FAQ?
I’ve been looking through the data, it really depends cause they’re private events; some don’t allow playing the army until the FAQ drops, while other smaller tournaments have allowed its use. I’m using the data from best cost parking and FLG; from my local meta HoS have also been having a hard time.
Slaanesh did decent here coming in at 4th
There’s a handful of others towards the end of February and very beginning of March, but the results are similar. Once we go into March we don’t really see many playing HoS, and it could be indicative of not allowing pre-FAQ armies to play, but it could also be evidence that interest in the army is scarce.-
1
-
-
I’ve been keeping up with the tournament data that’s been being published via Goonhammer and BoLS since the battletome dropped, and the stats aren’t looking too hot. Take a look at this:
Hedonites have not breached the top 10 of most winning armies since the release, nor within the top 10 of most played armies. This is not good, considering that every new release within AoS has seen at least a decent spike in win and play rates within tournaments (even if it’s for a brief period of time). This is a single source, but it’s been pretty consistent for the past couple of months with other tournament reporting sources.
-
5 hours ago, Enoby said:
Has anyone considered taking varanguard? I don't think they're great (especially outside of the sixth circle and without Archaon), but they do have a good save and the potential of some MW output. However, for 280 points they're probably not worth it - what do you guys think?
Slickblades are better by miles, considering they’re faster and do a similar amount of damage/mortal wounds. They’re survivability is lower, but with 4 wounds in a unit of 5 it’s not that bad.
5 hours ago, Enoby said:The daemon prince is a source of always strikes first, but without EK they may struggle to put out damage. Their CA is a bit useless mind, but he has a 3+ save and flying, so they're comparable to Sigvald in their role. Outside of Lurid Haze where you can't teleport Sigvald, the 12" move and fly makes the daemon prince considerably more mobile, but I'm not sure it'll do the work when it gets there.
Daemon princes are a good assassin unit that can fly over enemy models and tie things up, or remove specific threats. Sigvald may have more damage potential, but a Daemon Prince is a nice utility piece.
5 hours ago, Enoby said:I think I'm the only person who likes chaos chosen (not their models, but their rules), but without EKs and a CSL, I think they fall behind twin souls even at a lower price, especially without the chance of battleline.
I agree, and personally I believe they should be brought down in points to around 100-110. The buff they give after killing a model is decent, but they’re too easy to kill and are very expensive for what you’re paying for. I like the unit design and play style philosophy of the StD book, but there are some holes that need to be patched up (not to mention that the marauder and chosen models are terribly outdated).
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, kahadin said:
I wanted to post this last night but I was tired. This was my first game with hedonites since they received a book of any kind (I did not play the old book)
So I saw people talking bravery and it does feel like a big problem, I got Bravery bombed! ;_;
My opponent got off voice of the mountain (-2 bravery 1 turn and -1 until their next hero phase) and turn 1 made my blissbarbs all run away. On my turn I had to burn all my CP to inspiring presence my slickblades so they didn't run... However they ran next round. I thought their wounds would make up for the low saves, but they didn't feel like it. I did not end up taking sylesske or glutos, but they would have helped heaps.
My slaves to darkness units were solid as could be and performed well, but all my hedonites either did too much damage or died to fast (denying a lot of DP in the game) I was only able to summon 1 unit of fiends.
I had the contorted epitome who saved the game for me by pure luck. Her mirror worked 2 of the three times I used it letting me bully the special character spirit of the mountain. The fiends killed the mountain plus some cavalry that had been scoring a lot during the game.
I learned quite a lot in the game, but I feel like I really needed to be invaders and have a battalion just for the CP to stop BS. Or have glutos -1 hit bubble and sylesske's battleshock bubble.
The army feels kind of awkward to me. I almost feel like I want to make a summoning focused build of all ranged to spread out as much chip dammage on as many units possible. A big demon summon each round feels like the way to go. Maybe if points are open chaos warriors or blightkings to make sure I'm not tabled till summons arrive.
It is weird, which is why a point reduction would do a lot for our army and make list building a lot more viable. As it stands, most of our mortal units are flimsy and overpriced for what they do, and being vulnerable to low bravery only adds more fuel to the fire.
Slaanesh armies are hungry for CP, and anything that can boost the number of points we generate is always going to be welcome. One strategy you can consider is running an invader host with the rod of misrule, and a battalion for the extra CP at the beginning of the game. If you also take the Supreme Sybarites battalion, depending on the number of heroes you take, you can reasonably generate 2-3 command points a turn. On average, it would give you more command points to use when you really need that battleshock immunity on a unit.
-
4 hours ago, azdimy said:
Jervis explained in a recent white dwarf article how the point calculator they use to point units work from a 10 thousand foot view and he specifically emphasized on summoning allegiance abilities weighing on units points from such battletome. Yes, all this pricing nonsense is because we have access to summoning. They more than likely didn t take into account how our summoning is much more restricted than it used to however. Oh well!
In that case, let’s hope we get those point reductions! I’m writing an email to them tonight with some feedback and suggestions on how to better balance the book.
Summoning in the book feels like more of a “utility” because it’s only allowed once per turn, which I like a lot because it adds strategy to our play style. If I’m playing against a caster heavy list, I’ll have the option to summon an Infernal Enrapturess, or if I’m going against multi-wound units I can summon in some fiends. Certain builds will be created around the prospect of generating DP as fast as possible, but being able only summon once a turn isn’t going to break the game. The point reduction is going to put us into a much better place, assuming that GW receives and listens to the feedback.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Enoby said:
Here's a wild and likely unfounded rumour I've just heard (apparently from the 'playtesters') - the DoK battletome was meant to come out before our own, around the same time as BR Morathi and ours was meant to be out in January. Our points are high on "purpose" as a new standard for armies in AoS 3, a bit like they did with 40k 9e.
Unlikely to be true but some speculation thrown in there
That’s a good point, and that would indicate that GW is “downsizing” AoS to be smaller on the tabletop. Which means games would be faster, less bloated with models, and could save money in the long term for newbies and veterans alike.
1 hour ago, Yoid said:If that is the case, they should have waited for a General's Handbook to do the edition jump, just to balance the points of every army in the same way at the same time.
Which I also agree with. If it is true that GW developed our battletome in favor of the new handbook, then it means we have to wait longer until our units are more reasonably priced, and even with the point increases we still wouldn’t know if our army is balanced.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Archaon and Fatakros are gonna be a powerful combo at tournaments, and it’s good to see that it’s becoming prominent to a degree. Archaon is already a beast, but with the ability to heal himself and a -1 debuff bubble, it would make him Herohammer x2. Mix in summoning and cheap units to hold objectives, and it’s a dangerous list to go up against.
On a side note, I really want to play a matchup with Sigvald against Gortrek, or Lady Olynder/Nighthaunt in general. It would be really satisfying to see Sigvald cut through and ignore their usual saves after the saves.
-
24 minutes ago, Enoby said:
I agree here that we should be cautious, but on the other hand the fixes to those armies seem harder to do than points - they seem systemic to the army. While points changes would help, the complaints seem to be more along the lines of those armies being fundamentally poor, whereas most of our complaints are "they cost how much?". That's not to say we're guaranteed a points fix, but at least the community consensus is clear.
That said, if we do get a change I think it'll be minor at first to be careful; so maybe a 20 points decrease here and there, and then a larger additional decrease in December if complaints continue. While frustrating, it's better for changes to be carefully thought out.
I agree, and I am careful to assume that we will see point reductions because even though they’re deserved, that does not mean that they are guaranteed, which is why I believe it is wise to email GW if the same sentiment is shared. With BoC, Sylvaneth, and NH, the changes that need to be made are more fundamental to their design, and not just to point costs.
With HoS, I feel we also have the same problem (issue in our design), as there is little synergy within the book. Our battalions are somewhat strange, and we don’t have many generic mortal heroes, such as a decent General. The Lord of Pain and Shardspeaker are more akin to a lieutenant then the leaders of an army. If we were to get another release far ahead in the future (either through an expansion/campaign book or a new battletome), I hope to see heroes that would fill this role and increase synergy capabilities, or new battalions and rules that would do the same.
The biggest controversy right now is the points, and I want to emphasize that if the community wants change, this needs to be voice in a polite and constructive means via email or other healthy avenues.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Sorrow said:
I had 17 games with new Hedonites. Lost 11, won 6.
I lost against armies that had actually strong melee and/or magic/shooting such as OBR, Seraphon, Lumineth and Tzeentch.
There are viable units and combinations, but overall the faction lacks direction and as @Gistradagis already said, there is little to no meaningful synergy.
That’s rough, I’m sorry to hear that lol. I like an army having some challenge and thought when playing, but to have such an up mountain struggle in list building against other armies makes it frustrating, at least from my perspective.
With the number of people in the community criticizing the book, like Honest Wargamer, Goonhammer, and other prominent figures, I think we’re gonna see something come out of this. If we don’t, then it shows a a decent detachment from the community, and would look bad on GW’s part.
Who knows? We might see some massive point decreases; a Shardspeaker for 90-100 points would be awesome, and I don’t believe it would be OP. However, realistically I would imagine a 20-30 point drop on stuff across the board, which I would still be happy about. The only unit that really needs a complete revamp is the Fiendbloods, which have sort of became a meme because of how badly they’ve been designed.
Next week I plan to write the design team a positive and constructive email with some suggestions on point decreases, and how to improve the army in the future. I also suggest that for people who feel the same to do this as well, as the more voices that are heard, the more likely change will happen.
-
3
-
-
Now that Goonhammer has given the re-evaluation, in addition to the general negative feedback that the book has received from other prominent figures and the community as a whole, I have a feeling GW will have to address the point costs. If the OBR are able to get a point reduction to their necropolis stalkers, we should definitely be getting some sort of reduction. Otherwise, it would be insane if we didn’t.
-
2
-
-
51 minutes ago, Fyrenn said:
I have heard often that the review process on the books isn't always robust, so it was more a ... hmm, is this really what was intended, or did something legitimately get left out? I don't think they'd change it in a month unless it was a just correcting some sort of error or misprint, etc etc.
I think it’s a mix of different factors that caused our book to be of a poorer quality then other releases. Compared to DoK, it was a simple points update with added endless spells and minor rule changes. HoS needed to be redesigned in order to fix the “hero hammer” play style that pigeon holed a lot of lists, while also ensuring that summoning wasn’t op like it was when our first book dropped. This, in addition to the new mortals in the book, made it a far more daunting challenge.
I have a feeling that the design team was worried about releasing something that was too powerful, for in the past they’ve made similar mistakes with other books and didn’t want it to happen again with HoS. However, I also believe that due to the covid being around for a year now, that to some capacity it had impacted play testing and balancing; the book could have been rushed or developed in an environment that wasn’t optimal. GW also has released a statement stating that due to the lack of tournament data, they were not confident in making any changes to point values during the winter faq, which made a lot of Sylvaneth and BoC players pretty upset.
Is this a legitimate excuse? To some degree it probably is not, but also is. I’m honestly unsure, but my instincts are telling me there’s a number of factors that led to where we are now that were both out of GW’s hands, but also in their control.
On a personal note, when I play AoS I like to have an army that can pose a challenge to my opponent, but isn’t so strong that it will curb stomp the local meta without effort. Back in 2015-2016 when AoS was in its infant stages, I played BoK against a Seraphon player in my local meta who did everything in his power to win, spamming flying units to place on cliffs to block my ability to attack them, MW spammed, and fielded blocks of Saurus warriors with Skink Priests that gave rerolls to saves. He loved to win and made some pretty powerful lists back then, but it wasn’t fun to play against because of how strong it was.
Same can be said of OBR’s when they first dropped: Petrifix Elite dominated the tournaments and completely overshadowed the other subfactions. Now, at least according to the most recent data, KO and Seraphon are winning and placing high in a significant number of tournaments. This was also the case when DoT and HoS first dropped as well, as they were powerful for their own reasons. Hopefully when the new GHB releases, GW address some of the issues with shooting, as well as some specific concerns with individual armies.
The good news is that GW does sometimes adjust the rules/point costs when necessary, and if they begin making changes despite the lack of tournament data, we will probably get some decreases in point costs; this is especially true if players continue to email them suggestions on how to improve our release.
But, when will this happen?
I’m hoping it’s in the near future (before the GHB), and that we get enough discounts to make list building a lot more flexible and rewarding, but not to an extent where we are able to spam Painbringers or archers to ruin someone’s day.
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Enoby said:
Why do you think the cavalcade is a one time use battalion? Except if the unit dies before they can use it again, you can retreat and pile in
Just wondering if there's something I'm missing
Ah, my mistake; I meant to refer to the Exalted Speed-Knights. The tax for this battalion (in points and minimum unit requirements) is way too much for what you’re getting. If someone were to take this, then they would be wise to build their army around it, preferably within a Godseeker army. However, the random D6 number of units is sad and too risky for how much you’re investing. The Seeker Cavalcade is actually pretty decent, as cavalry that’s able to attack from 6” away and pile in from 3” is pretty great. This would make our fast units even more consistent, especially considering Slaanesh is already known for being speedy.
27 minutes ago, Carnith said:The other battalions are the ones that end up needing help.
I agree, there needs to be a significant review of these battalions. Even with point decreases, many of them are very situational. The Sybarites Supreme would probably be best in an Invaders list, as you’ll be able to spread out a number of heroes around to get the best benefits, especially in Lurid Haze; but in pretenders it’s a massive debuff and isn’t worth taking. The other battalions have little to no synergy with the units and one another, and paralleling with your sentiment, the Depraved Carnival is a good example. It’s very expensive, has no synergy between the heroes and the units, and is not worth the cost even though we are getting double shots. A few rule changes might help, but being that GW just published the book I’m unfaithful that they’ll make a buff or change to the rules that fast, especially considering that they have used the excuse that there is “no data” to base balancing on.
-
1
-
Just wondering if there's something I'm missing
AoS 2 - Hedonites of Slaanesh Discussion
in Hedonites of Slaanesh
Posted · Edited by AngryPanda
Those look magnificent!I like the creative Windigo theme you’ve centered your army around; it looks terrifying yet oddly Slaanesh-beautiful to see approaching from the distance. If only the warscrolls were as scary as they look 😬
Speaking of Fiendbloods, what would you guys think if they were reworked to be -2 Rend and 2 Damage at their current point cost, mirroring the warscroll from Dread Pageant? If we do decide to petition, I’m curious to see if we can also include a desire to update the warscroll to these stats, which I feel would justify their points.