Jump to content

Enoby

Subscriber
  • Posts

    2,687
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Everything posted by Enoby

  1. Any rumours about Slaanesh on there by chance?
  2. A bit off topic, but I play against Big Waagh Ironjawz almost all the time and I'm not sure if I'm alone in the feeling that they're a very boring subfaction? Maybe not to play, but when playing against them their army's on 2s and 2s all the time - I can still beat them, it just seems a bit dull to have pretty much all attacks hit and wound with very little luck involved. This is Big Waagh rather than Ironjawz (allegiance), so I'm not sure how large the gap is, but the design does seem a bit too blunt even for orks. Was mostly wondering if this was a common perception or just a me issue 😛
  3. If it makes you feel any better, you can just get away with a KoS or fiends (which are generally considered the nicer looking daemons) - it's not optimal, but I don't like transporting daemonettes and so really just stick with these options and don't feel like I'm missing out much.
  4. Quite unrelated, but I think Malifaux does a good job of this - because you see what is effectively the "battleplan" and choice of "battle tactics" (strategies and schemes) before you make your crew, most crews have strengths and weaknesses so you'll only see them when the game would facilitate it. E.g. you have some crews that are good at scheming and some that are good at killing, and some games require more or less killing or scheming. In terms of AoS, while you do get different battleplans, the inability to change your army midway through a tournament means that armies have to be designed with the ability to do everything in mind (or have a way to make up for what they can't do), and armies that are too specific or have bad match ups struggle to see high level play as they have a much higher chance of being walled compared to a generalist faction. That's not to say they should make AoS more like Malifaux, or than Malifaux doesn't have its issues, but I do think the flexibility of list building and every game being randomised (e.g. random strategy, random scheme, random deployment) really helps keep a fresh meta.
  5. I think, until that December changeover was announced, we were all in a bit of a limbo with an army that felt like it could be much better - now there's some hope! I am cautious still, but even a small change would be welcomed. My worry is that, if we see no change (or worse, a bad change), we can pretty much give up hope on any timely improvement. A small change would at least show a willingness to listen (even if it doesn't help now, they've accepted there is a problem). Even if Slaangors remain a joke, a relatively significant (like 10% across the board) points drop would help a lot. That would mean Keepers going to 380, Myrmadesh going to 145, Slickblades to 210, and Blissbarbs going to 160. It may not seem like a massive improvement, but I think it'd get the ball rolling a bit. If we're really lucky, we might see some of the requested allegiance ability changes, but I don't think we will now (I think they'll charge us for it in a White Dwarf or expansion book in a number of months).
  6. I definitely think you raise some good points, and unfortunately it's true that Slaanesh's rules have always been more thin on the ground than other armies, which is quite ironic because they had one of the most extensive GHB allegiance abilities. I wrote a long post on it ages ago, but to sum up, the reason summoning became such a big deal was because it's what initially boosted the army up competitively in the GHB, which went over the top in 2019's battletome, and subsequently ended up becoming their identity as it was the biggest problem. Now I think a lot of people would like the focus to swap from summoning - or at least for there to be a choice. I'm personally not a huge fan of relying on daemons when I'd prefer my army to be all mortal, and would like that to be a viable option. I'm hoping, with how negative fan reaction has been around the book, either the next battletome or rules supplement does some cleaning work. @AngryPanda I think you're right to be concerned with their track record of other books, but on the other hand, I've never seen such a vocal outcry compared to Slaanesh. I personally think the Blades of Khorne book is the worst (not weakest) book in AoS, and it's had every single person in our community who used to play Khorne stop playing them (5 people). However, the discussion online seemed relatively mild to kind of disappointed. Slaanesh discussion is (fittingly) the exact opposite and personally I think some people overstate how bad the book is, to the point that it seems like they want the book to be made even worse so they complain more. Regardless, the wider AoS community has basically only bemoaned the book and some streamers/YouTubers take every opportunity to dunk on it. Even though there are weaker books, and in my opinion, some worse written books, I doubt you can find one more reviled.
  7. For those interesting, here is my recent email to the AoS team for the survey. Hi, I hope you're well For a small amount of introduction, I'm Enoby and I've been pretty involved in the AoS Slaanesh community for a few years now. I'm a massive fan of the faction and, as you likely know, they have one of the most passionate communities in the game. When the most recent Slaanesh battletome was released, it was met with rather mixed reception. Many people liked how it was much more open with its list building (no longer relying so heavily on heroes), but some felt like some of the warscrolls were a bit bare. One of the most repeated complaints was that the points were too high. During this time, I (alongside other members of the community) conducted a survey to see what people thought about the new battletome, which garnered hundreds of responses. We sent this to you earlier in the year and I hope you found it at least a bit helpful (or at least insightful). In late August, after the release of AoS 3 and the dust had began to settle on where battletomes stood in the new edition, I thought it would be a good opportunity to see how people felt about Hedonites with another survey. The results have been compiled, and you can find a a collection of all of the answers in a detailed report here. I've also compiled a smaller report, as well as created a conclusion for your convenience. I'll copy the conclusion in this email, but I would strongly recommend visiting this forum post for a full overview. I'd like to stress that this isn't some big protest or some list of frustrations we want to vent - this survey was created for ease of information, a way to gather the nebulous consensus of the internet and put it in one easy to digest place. At the end of the day, what you will find in the answers and the stats is just subjective opinion, and we're certainly not demanding that you change everything at the drop of a hat - or even that some of the ideas in the survey would work. This isn't an attempt to try and make our faction stronger, but rather genuine fan passion for the rules; most of us didn't enjoy being too strong during the 2019 release and we're not trying to get back to that point. All we're asking is you take the time to read the survey and get a feel for the fan consensus - we're not asking for (or expecting) another book or any sort of preferential treatment, we're just hoping that when Slaanesh's time does come around again, you can have another look at this and maybe see if you like some of the ideas proposed. Which brings me on to my final point before giving the conclusion of the survey's findings. It was mentioned in a community post that there would be an attempt to create a bit of a balance-scroll for some factions or warscrolls that were lagging behind. All I'm asking is that in light of the upcoming balance sheet and/or the December FAQ is that you take a quick read through some of the findings and consider them in relation to any changes you may be thinking of making please. I don't think anyone is expecting any sort of drastic change or rewrite of the entire tome, but the suggestions (mentioned in the conclusion of the survey below) would go a long way to helping the Hedonites community - and those wanting to join but who have currently been put off by what is currently thought of as a weaker book (in internet consensus terms). Please note that, while the conclusion of the survey can be understood on its own, I'd recommend reading the full forum post to get a complete understanding if you haven't done so already. Conclusion Overall, there is a neutral to negative view of the battletome, with the majority of people saying they like the rules (60.5%) but also a larger majority saying they believe the battletome is below the average quality compared to other battletomes (66.5%) and a significant majority (88.6%) believing the majority of units are overcosted. Of the units people are most concerned about points-wise, Slaangors, the Keeper of Secrets, and Blissbarb Archers have highly significant numbers of people believing they are overcosted (P < 0.05), and the Daemonettes and Shalaxi Helbane are thought of as significantly overcosted (P < 0.1). I believe that these units should have another look over as there is a low probability (sub 5% and sub 10% respectively) that these units were considered overcosted due to chance, meaning that these are the units that drew the most powerful reaction from survey answers. No units had the answer “No I think they are too cheaply costed” as a majority. While it is expected (if not confirmed) that the units are priced so highly due to the army’s powerful ability to summon, it may be worth revising this or at least giving it another think over as Slaanesh players and opponents alike believe many of the points are too high regardless. Looking at some of the comments, some would prefer summoning to get worse and points to get lower, or for Slaanesh units not to pay for it at all. On the topic of summoning, 8.2% of people believe that it should be the main ‘theme’ in a Slaanesh army, though 38.1% of people say they like it when not asked about it specifically, and 46.6% of people like it when asked about it specifically (compared to 45.2% of people disliking it in some capacity). Overall, summoning is a controversial part of the battletome and, looking at these stats, I think it would be beneficial for the focus to be moved from summoning to another part of the faction’s theme. In addition to points and summoning, there was also a call for a rewrite on some warscrolls. The most called for was Slaangors, when not asked about them specifically 73% of people liked the idea of them getting a rewrite, and when asked specifically 76.3% of people wanted them to get a rewrite over a points adjustment. Other notable calls for a rewrite, 45.2% of respondents wanted to see a rewrite of the Shalaxi Helbane warscroll. From a more financial/popularity perspective, 64.7% of respondents have said that the points costs have negatively affected their purchases on Slaanesh models, with 22.4% of people saying they haven’t bought anything for Slaanesh because of the points costs but would have otherwise, and 42.3% saying they have bought some but would have bought more if not for the points. Of the positives of the book, the most popular part of the book was the innate speed of the army, with 62.3% of people saying they liked this aspect of the book. In addition, the other liked parts was the frequency of rend in the faction (45.2%) and the new mechanics of Depravity Points though not necessarily the summoning (45.2%). When asked about what the preferred theme of a Slaanesh battletome should be, the responses were mixed but the highest one was “a finesse playstyle” (31%), followed by “speed” at 23.8%. Looking to the future, a number of responses were given to what they would like to see in the future. The most popular of these requests is a rewrite to the Slaangor warscroll, with 70.8% of people asking for this. Other popular requests included “More support within the allegiance abilities for mortal only armies” (50.2%), “Synessa getting an extra spell” (54.1%), “An alternative way of using depravity points” (48%), “More synergies available” (48.4%), “More hosts/host options to theme an army around” (47%), and “An expanded mortal spell lore” (44.8%). While many of these options may be a struggle to include quickly, I think it would be fantastic if they could be included in the next battletome or in supplementary books (such as Wrath of the Everchosen) or a Tome Celestial. Overall, I think that there is a good base for future rules in this battletome, but it faces two major issues - the first is oppressive points costs, with some players feeling as if they are restricted in list building. The second is that the tome feels a bit bare bones - it’s a good foundation, but there’s not much meat to get into with lists; e.g. there are very few synergies or combos, the hosts give very minor bonuses, the daemon spell lore is multiple ways to do mortal wounds and the mortal spell lore is weak and very sparse. That said, with a few tweaks (hopefully using some of these answers as a guide) I think that the book could be fantastic and I fully appreciate that the previous battletome was a bit too strong as so a lot of effort had to be spent on toning it down. --- Thank you very much for your time, and I hope you have a lovely rest of the week.
  8. Nice to see you around again! I think, regardless of how well Slaanesh sold, it's very likely it would have sold better had their rules been better - but even then, it's hard to get hard knowledge from internet feelings. I can say with confidence (though admittedly no hard facts, just anecdotes and what we can take from the survey) that Slaanesh would have sold better had the reception of its rules been better. There have been countless people who have said "loved the models, but heard they were in a really bad spot competitively". It almost didn't matter if they were bad or not, all that mattered was the internet consensus was "book bad" and that was enough to put some people off - and definitely not a good luck on the rules team as a whole. In fact, I'd say this is the most negative the community has been about a book in AoS. In a way, if the book did sell badly and they could trace it back to rules, I'd hope they'd at least take that as a good reason to take a second look at the rules and make some public changes before the battleforce went on sale. Even from a pure corporate greed perspective, if they buff Slaanesh significantly then the battleforce box will likely win those over who are on the fence, whereas doing nothing would likely not sway them. I do think that, if any warscroll needs a change, it's the Slaangor - and the vast majority of people in the AoS online sphere agree on this. Maybe they'll think it's not worth buffing, or think it's too risky to buff (rather than nerf) such a recent release, but I'd like to think they can add extra end and extra damage as an easy fix that would be very unlikely to break them. Give them extra rend, +1 damage, and run and charge and they'd actually be a pretty great unit in my opinion (and much closer to their lore). Finally, it's almost certain that the rules team know the general consensus of the battletome - it'd be close to impossible for them to not to, not just from the survey but also from pretty much every online discussion surrounding Slaanesh. I think the GHB, regardless of how strong or weak we turned out to be, would have had the same points. The AoS 3 FAQ would have given us the changes we got as they were all standard changes that looked like nerfs (e.g. removing rerolling saves was game wide). I'd say that this coming FAQ is the only FAQ that we can say was definitely made with the appropriate amount of hindsight and data available. If we see no changes here, then we can assume GW does not see a problem at all - at least not yet. That doesn't mean the changes will be big (after all, it would be reckless of them to give out too many buffs and risk creating a monster), but if we see something positive then we know GW is listening. If we're lucky, we'll see some larger scale changes, but I wouldn't count on it.
  9. ++Mod Hat++ While you've edited your post now, your previous language was totally unacceptable for TGA, and despite the language change the message in general is not at all what we want to see. Transphobic language (or any content in general) is not tolerated.
  10. This is the exact issue I've had (and am still having). I don't mind taking never before used units, but I do mind being asked to use said units in a bad way. My list was something like (at 750pts) - Chaos Lord - Chaos Sorcerer lord - Darkoath Chieftain - Darkoath Warqueen - Untamed Beasts - Untamed Beasts - Spire Tyrants - Chaos Spawn - Chaos Spawn (Path to Glory so 2 extra heroes allowed from territory) It is, narratively, the dregs of warriors and cultists (hence no armoured S2D units) gathering under the banner of a Chaos Lord and Sorcerer. So not exactly the most intimidating list in the world, and when it's going against Blood Knights and Goregruntas on the regular, it feels bad to be asked to not summon or to play more 'casually' (which, when asking for elaboration, seemed to be playing objectives less, less screening and less retreating). It's a tricky one, because I do see their point - it is very frustrating to feel as if a game never goes your way and summoning does seem blatantly unfair in a 'common sense' way (as in, "wait, so you get points for free? I had to pay for my units!"). But I think blaming an opponents list rather than trying to look for weaknesses doesn't help someone improve as a player (should they want to), and can diminish the fun of the opponent. In addition, intentionally playing badly can feel quite patronising and really takes the wind out of your sails if you find out you only won because someone let you.
  11. While it there are certainly unfair units to use against unprepared or new opponents, I have noticed that a lot more people seem to ask "please don't use that again" rather than "how best can I beat that?" I think it's very easy to focus on an opponent's strengths but not realise their weaknesses. I've been playing Path to Glory with Warcry cultists in Ravagers; the summoning (of more cultists, not maraurders) seems to throw a lot of people off, enough that they don't play into the army's weaknesses (that it can't take or land a hit) and I've been asked to just not summon at all. I don't mind accommodating people, and I have limited my summoning, but I do think it's a shame that people will ask the opponent to play worse rather than trying to get better. Again, sometimes a list is a bit much, but as you said it's very easy to blame outwards rather than looking inwards.
  12. I looks kind of Slaaneshi, but it would be weird to get something Slaanesh so soon, so I'd wager Eldar/elves.
  13. Well I hope you're ability to see the future is malfunctioning That said, revert to battletome points would actually help a decent amount. Not the Slaangors, but it'd be a massive boon for Glutos and the KoS.
  14. Yeah, I would also be surprised if we were totally ignored - I do think, especially with what has been said to you - something will change. If I were to guess, we'll get: + A moderate points decrease, especially on the mortal side + A minor but significant warscroll change to Slaangors; something like an additional -1 rend and +1 damage I don't think we'll get: - Any full warscroll changes, even if only because they'd rather have new warscrolls in print - A very large points drop (e.g. below our old points); while this may happen in time, I don't think they'll do it too quickly - An allegiance ability change, including any changes to summoning (I think if these do change, it'll be in a White Dwarf)
  15. I can't imagine we'll be nerfed (certainly, I really hope not), but my worry is we'll be ignored totally. In a way, that would be almost worse - it'd show that they don't think there's an issue at all, rather than a botched attempt to fix an issue (which would likely be attempted to be fixed later). I am going to be baffled should Slaangors not get touched up in the 'warscroll fixes' they're planning on doing.
  16. I think I'll be sending them the survey results again tonight/tomorrow - just as a last final push to try heighten the odds if they've somehow forgotten us. I mean, I don't think I've seen a more bemoaned unit than Slaangors, but you never know...
  17. Yeah, while Hedonites are not the weakest army, they are the army I've seen the most complaints and disappointment about. So many people saying "would have played this army, the models are beautiful but the rules just suck". While I don't necessarily agree the rules are that bad, I do understand people's complaints and I can imagine it would have cost a considerable number of sales.
  18. Apparently there's an FAQ coming in December to boost weaker units - let's hope our survey paid off!
  19. The body is basically the same as the plastic one, but the head is old N'Kari: I do prefer the new head, mind.
  20. Hopefully a good deal for anyone wanting to jump in to Hedonites Tbh, besides Slaangors, all of these can see play.
  21. One thing I would recommend to those interested in our place in the meta is sending the survey results, as well as their (as in GW's) own Meta results, to the AoS FAQ email. They should be writing the December FAQ soon, so giving them a gentle reminder may sway a bit more attention our way. At least we know that they know we perform poorly, and they should know fan reception is very mixed. With any luck, we should see some reletively large changes this next FAQ.
  22. I keep reading that and I don't know if it's an intentional double negative. They're saying, "they can't no longer bring new editions every three years", which would mean "they have to bring new editions every three years. Or they meant "they can no longer bring...", which would mean an end the three year edition cycle. Even with the context, I can't tell if they're saying "they're no longer capable of 3 year cycles because of covid" or "they can't help themselves but to release 3 year cycles, even with covid". Personally I do hope time between editions increases - I don't think AoS has settled long enough as a game to see where the best place for it would be, and would probably need another 4 years at least to see what the next best steps would be.
  23. With the Slaanesh SC not on this page, I wonder if we will get a Vanguard box soon - hopefully with mortals... Of course, it could just be that they've left us off as our SC isn't exactly exciting (with older models and no proper 'big' model in it), and we're not the only ones missing (Tzeentch isn't there either). But it may be a sign of something.
  24. Slaanesh mortals and daemons are probably the most joined of the Chaos gods - unlike the others, they're not split based on mortals and daemons. If anything, the other Chaos tomes would become more like Slaanesh if the aim was to have more combined forces. Slaanesh buffing spells/abilities (e.g. Acquiescence, Excess of Violence, Twisted Mirror) almost always affect daemons and mortals the same. Their artifact lists are the same, their allegiance abilities are almost always the same (besides locus). In what way aren't mortals and daemons joined? Also, no matter how much you don't like a book, don't call for someone to be fired over it. There are so many reasons the book could have turned out like it did, including trying to fix the issues of the previous book (which came from a lot of community pressure).
  25. Unfortunately I think it's just the case that Xenos hardly sell as well as Space Marines. While it was ridiculously priced, Blood of the Phoenix stuck around for ages. In addition, the Ork box didn't sell out too quickly (nor did the limited edition book). It's a vicious cycle - not just about a lack of model support, but having the fanbase behind it not being as large or invested.
×
×
  • Create New...