Gistradagis

Older than AoS 2. If memory serves me right, this January the Maggotkin book made 3 years. How would you teleport the Marauders in a Hedonites army?

The whole "DoK players are crying about their new book" makes me think of that scene from the first Harry Potter movie where Dudley (DoK) is complaining about receiving like a gazillion presents, but a few less than the previous year, while Harry (Slaanesh) looks at them from his spot under the stairs. To kinda pile in on what swarmofseals is saying, though, I do believe good builds exist, albeit we'll still somewhat feel bad about not being able to use all our toys. In all honesty, to anyone trying to make lists that "work" I recommend to just forget that Myrmidesh and Symbaresh exist, and focus on ample use of both new seekers and archers on foot for a combination of damage and DPs generation. What looks most promising to me is Godseekers and Lurid Haze. The first using the Seeker Cavalcade for a drops-efficient list with a neat activation wars trick, the second to pull a more traditional list but hide a couple juicy pieces like Sigvald or even a Keeper for ambush while you play a more methodical list (still seekers here and there, but probably no battalion and then some Chaos Warriors and/or Dameonettes, and Blissbarb Archers). All in all, I still sincerely hope GW will come (sooner rather than later) and say "alright, yeah, was a bit of a swing and miss with the points prices, here's a generalized reduction on like 60% of the book."

It's also worth adding that the new Hedonites want you to have a TON of daemons to summon practically every single turn, so you will need many daemons (meaning the SC and more).

The problem with your explanation is that it's purely theoretical. Precisely one of the reasons the most hated shooting is stuff like LRL or Seraphon is that it does NOT involve any choices in the defending player. Heck, the command for re-rolling 1s to save is Combat Phase only, you don't even have that. Why does Volley Fire exist, but no defence against it? What are these decisions that allow counter-play (or at least defence) against a unit with good range who doesn't care about armour, positioning or Look Out Sir? I'm not even sure what do you mean with "the process involved particularly in the shooting phase is a very long one and involves the individual choices of both players." The Shooting phase, by design, heavily involves one player and little to not at all the other. Your description only applies to the Combat Phase, where many abilities and alternate selection of units actually happens.

Yes, groupthink with actual data on how current shooting is the nº1 most hated part of the game, to the point it's currently mostly thought of as an NPE instead of one of the phases of the game. 0 risk, 0 interactivity and, for many units, 0 mitigation makes for an intensely boring experience, surprise. If I get crushed in melee, I'll blame my positioning, my screening, my tactics, and applaud the other player's skill. Perhaps scream about dice gods. If I lose a game where I never had a chance no matter what I did, where screening is useless, where Look Out Sir is a joke, with units and tactics that appear to belong to a single player game, it'll simply feel like there was no point to the game whatsoever. The data from honest is also a joke. The problem with those results is a clear imbalance on feedback; a ridiculous sample size with some armies placing high or or low because they have 7, 4, 2 or even 1 player (STD is D tier with tournament results better than most of the higher tier armies? I feel like they -and you- are sort of not understanding what faction and meta tiers actually are, as opposed to winrates of games per faction overall). BoC holds hands with Sylvaneth as profoundly low tier armies due to being mostly unsupported, but it so happens that this statistics, which we must guess are somehow genuine, put them as tier A as they win games that no one is seeing? Yeah, sure, ok. You could, I don't know, even use the official metawatch data (even if GW ignores it), but I guess you're not because that completely deflates your point, seeing how magic and shooting is indeed the name of the game in the current meta, and that tournaments that aren't purely casual tend to see the domination of stuff like Seraphon and Tzeentch (with a clear exception in IDK, who got a very juicy buff in BR and it shows, and who can actually counterplay shooting). It's always surprising to see shooting and magic crush so much, and still see people claim that a problem of mechanics and interactivity doesn't exist, and that shooting is not a problem whatsoever. Although seeing that you have a clear vested interest as you seem to play one, it's not surprising that the person doing the one-sided crushing fails to see why would people have no fun.

It's quite hilarious to see you write this, considering that you have a video from Venturella from just a couple weeks ago with the results of a poll he ran regarding NPE. Not only was Shooting/All-shooting armies part of what is considered NPE, it WON by a landsline as the nº1 source of NPE feeling in AoS players. Go watch his video if you believe this to be a ruse, but the results state the truth plain for all to see. Not only we know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of the top armies in the meta rely either heavily or completely on shooting to win, we also have this data (which we all knew already, but more as a common complain/criticism of the current rules and meta) which shows that intensive shooting is not only strong, but absolutely hated by players. You claim to be trying to simply give a "balanced perspective" but instead you're lying to people about what NPE is, and how shooting, despite what data and meta analysis literally show, isn't actually game-winning right now. Also, citing some outlier units or specific examples is actually an objectively bad argument. For a defence against shooting to exist, it needs to be amply accessible, otherwise it's not a real defence. In the case of Sentinels, or KO, as two examples, this does not exist. The vast majority of armies has 0 defence against Sentinels, who care about neither armour nor vision, and KO will out-manoeuvre and shoot what they want (even if they are "less difficult" to content with, as screening does partially reduce the problem with them).

That's a fair point, but it then begs the question: why release mortal Hedonites that do not work well, be it by themselves or with daemons? I'd be totally a-okay with the faction basically telling me that you can play mortals, but always in a mixed lists to cover the "holes" those units have. But right now, it's more like Seekers and archers are good enough to fit in most lists, while half the heroes, all the battalions and all the infantry fit in 0 lists and punish you for trying to make them work. I totally get a unified vision/mechanic for the faction. While it would have been cool for it to be like Seraphon, as some people are commenting, with a sub-faction based around DPs factories and summoning, while the other rewards more field presence from your list, it's also fine to be told that the book is meant to be used in its entirety when list-building, no matter the sub-faction/Host. But then we need for this to be achievable. Why does Depraved Carnival tax you with 3 whole heroes, with 2 options where neither makes sense as a complement to the archers and their playstyle? For Nobles of Excess, ironically, it would fit to have a tax of a Lord of Pain and/or Shardspeakers, mechanically, but instead it consists of the 2 chief unplayable units by themselves, with an ability that you'll get off perhaps once, perhaps twice in the entire game. Exalted Speed-Knights are interesting, but it's a battalion that takes 1180 points at its minimum, but neither of its 3 units are battleline, so you're left with almost no building space, and still needing heroes. This is basically what I mean, with how it feels like most of the new range of stuff seems to punish you for trying to use it. I've been playing around with Slaanesh, both with list-building and actual games, and I'm both very happy with the changes to the faction itself (DPs are more interesting, the new Locus is so tactic and fun to try and use with imagination and skilfully), but saddened that most of my lists are daemons + some seekers in either no battalions or the old ones. I guess my question is, what was the design space for the new mortals? Were the battalions meant to work, and something went wrong between design and rules/points? Did they get rules written in a vacuum, but then later on got taxed in points and battalions due to the strong summoning? With the feedback that's starting to pour in, was this the aim of the team? Or did they expect lists of mortals/mixed units? I mean, both Myrmidesh and Symbaresh were so hyped, and are so beutiful, and yet are very clearly the worst offenders of "these are useless as they stand."

To be fair, I'd say the vast majority of players would happily take that trade. It all feels very dramatic because Slaanesh just got both updated AND their mortal "faction" release, but this new iteration of the army seems to practically punish you for wanting to play with your new toys (overcosted units, no Locus of Distraction (not even for Sigvald!? He has 0 interaction with both armies, no buffs for you, no Locus or impact on the opponent), battalions that make little sense and have harsh unit taxes, etc) and instead declares that you'll either live or die by summoning, whether you like it or not. So while the update makes Slaanesh way more fun to play, it also feels extremely restrictive in what type of list you can actually have fun with (seekers and/or daemons basically).

Definitely, yes. Hopefully by summer we'll already get some discounts to make our new stuff actually be worth being used. I mean, I am happy that we aren't disgustingly broken like Seraphon, and that our tricks aren't as dumb as LRL mortal wounds. But it does put a damper on my mood that so many of the new units are basically unplayable outside casual games. All I wanted was for a list with Siggy and Myrmidesh/Symbaresh, and these 3 precisely are the units you'll rarely see used in "good" lists.

It's a pity, but the overall conclusion I've arrived to after checking all the new units and such, is that mortals haven't been made to actually work by themselves. Perhaps due to the new summoning, they are all very overpriced, and the new battalions either make no sense or are useless with current points. So it would seem that the stronger iterations of Slaanesh are going to be... cavalry, like before. The one difference is that the new seekers are pretty good, so we DO have new units we can use, but you better want to play cavalry, cuz the rest is kind of a big miss. The Blissbarb archers are sort of an exception, though. But you'll still have to play them either with cavalry on the front, or stuff such as Chaos Warriors.

And you're using statshammer? Maybe you have some odd configuration on the app itself or the "defending" unit?

Odd. The stats are correct, but the result is not. Perhaps whichever app you're using has some error in it, as I also get 10.93 against a 4+ with statshammer.

You probably want some melee in there, and with those choices I'd say Slickblades over Twinsouls.

Well, I made a first list with Seekers, then remembered that they are not battleline and, consequently, my list was super duper illegal . I'm gonna see if I can try this list. It's 1970 points, and might run it in Godseekers.

I'd say the mortals definitely need one. The real question is, will we get it? (I don't think so, either due to a general points increase with AoS 3 or due to our strong summoning) You can always get the models and play them as Chaos Warriors 😛

It's definitely what I'm seeing everywhere. People are kinda disappointed in both the Myrmidesh and Symbaresh, so cheap Chaos Warriors can be good for screens and DPs. Especially if you want to play an archers-heavy list.

Yeah, it's why I was curious. While relatively cheap, I don't see much reason to take vanilla seekers.

A unit of 10 what. Vanilla Seekers? Or you mean 10 Slickblades?

That's the kind of list I'm checking. Probably with both Slickblade Seekers and Blissbarb Seekers. Making full use of putting the first at 6" to activate them to fight one unit at a time, while the second keeps its distance and fishes for mortal wounds. Not sure about heroes though. Thinking a Keeper, perhaps Glutos (wish Sigvald was a better fit for lists).

Fiends with Glutos perhaps, two-dipping the minus to hit.

Absolutely. I'm beginning to think the new battalions are sort of points traps. The hero tax in Carnival is awful, having to charge in Nobles (and the fact both units are kinda worse than just bringing Chaos Warriors), and the cost of so many Seekers in Knights. I think I'll start to think lists with no battalions.

I guess, but they could have made it at least 2 heroes or smth. 3 is such a tax, when they don't even fit.

I'm already doing some work thinking lists and must say that Depraved Carnival absolutely baffles me in its requirement. 3 units of archers? Cool. 3 heroes between Lord of Pain or Shardspeaker? Why? The Shardspeaker is nice, but really short range focused, which kinda runs counter to wanting the archers to keep their distance at all times, especially with run and shoot. But the Lord of Pain is just straight up silly. A melee-only hero with a FnP and a CA that only works in combat phase (so can't give his re-rolls to the archers). Man, they really want to sell more Lords of Pain huh? Because they absolutely do not fit into this battalion.

He leaves some things up to imagination, which sometimes exceeds reality :^)

Who knows? I mean, this setup must give him great manoeuvrability and freedom!