Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fire arcs, armour facings, fewer cards, low cover becoming relevant to the game again.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Ynnari need their own stuff in general. That whole thing where they borrow other faction's units is just lazy army design.

Eldar could use a bit of a nerf in terms of their defenses. I've always found them to be too durable for a race that's meant to be fragile and reliant on speed and trickery to survive.

What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.

Ummm all of the troops are T3 1W....

Don't they get a bunch of cover buffs and debuffs to enemy accuracy though? I mean, stat wise they are weak, but they get a bunch of abilities that increase their resiliance. Or maybe that's just the vehicles.

these buffs are the in-game representation of their speed and agility.

Aspect warriors and every other gaping hole in existing product lines (including plastics for the failcast DE).

EC and WE, because they've committed halfway already.

A coherent release schedule. It currently feels like an empty void, and occasionally random things get tossed in.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.

I am almost certain that Ynnari is a derivative of Ynnead using the -ari suffix common to most of the GW Eldar words for "Followers of" or "From".

Ynnead is actually pretty old lore, from 3rd edition at least and perhaps before. It's just been used as GW scramble to bring copyrightable concepts up to the forefront of their brand. It's a lot like how Imperial Knights were an obscure Epic 40,000 lore tidbit from the pre-3rd edition Warhammer 40k days until they brought them to the forefront because selling 20 pence of plastic for £100 is profitable.

I've got an old GW catalogue somewhere and knights were certainly not "a lore tidbit" They had a range of different knight classes for the tabletop. Far as I recall only the standard knight that we see today (gun and chainsword) got made in plastic, the rest were all in solid metal.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.

I am almost certain that Ynnari is a derivative of Ynnead using the -ari suffix common to most of the GW Eldar words for "Followers of" or "From".

Ynnead is actually pretty old lore, from 3rd edition at least and perhaps before. It's just been used as GW scramble to bring copyrightable concepts up to the forefront of their brand. It's a lot like how Imperial Knights were an obscure Epic 40,000 lore tidbit from the pre-3rd edition Warhammer 40k days until they brought them to the forefront because selling 20 pence of plastic for £100 is profitable.

Bah of course, I forgot about Ynnead. Yeah, that makes sense. No idea how to pronounce it though. Is it In-Nah-ri, or Yin-Nah-ri?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
I've got an old GW catalogue somewhere and knights were certainly not "a lore tidbit" They had a range of different knight classes for the tabletop. Far as I recall only the standard knight that we see today (gun and chainsword) got made in plastic, the rest were all in solid metal.

Yeah, knights did exist on the table top, but I think that was just for Epic.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Yeah, knights did exist on the table top, but I think that was just for Epic.

Yep back then the biggest was something awesome huge like dreadnought or dragon (the old serpentine ones) and they were solid metal. It was only once GW got the skills and investment to make larger and larger plastic moulds that we saw things like hive tyrants grow to two or three times the size of the original and huge models like knights became finanically viable outside of Forgeworld Resin.

'Just for Epic' is a weird phrase. For a long time it was a much better system, and all this big junk actually had a functional place in it.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Fire arcs, armour facings, fewer cards, low cover becoming relevant to the game again.

Go play 30k if you want the fire arcs. Terrible in practice.

pm713 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Give me back formations.

Gross.

Formations were one of the worst parts of 7th.

Way better than 8th though. I actually liked some of them and they made more sense than magic weapons.

Only for the Chosen few who got them or just the broken ones like the Cheesetide Wing or free everything for Ad MEch or free vehicles for Marines

Its bad enough that Vigilis started this again with some factions getting SFA and stuff like Artillery getting a boost!

DE heroes would be greta to welcome back

Hardly the chosen few when everyone had them. Plus not everyone is a tournament player who just looks at how to win.

If your suggestion is adding something to the game that you acknowledge will ruin the tournament scene, then it's a godawful suggestion.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Fire arcs, armour facings, fewer cards, low cover becoming relevant to the game again.

Go play 30k if you want the fire arcs.

Don't even need to go that far. Just house rules those things into 8th edition. None of them seem particularly hard to implement at a local level.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Ynnari need their own stuff in general. That whole thing where they borrow other faction's units is just lazy army design.

Eldar could use a bit of a nerf in terms of their defenses. I've always found them to be too durable for a race that's meant to be fragile and reliant on speed and trickery to survive.

What is Ynnari derived from anyway? Aeldari is obvious, as its just a copyright-friendly way of saying Eldar, but how did they come up with Ynnari? Did they really just put a blindfold on and picked letters at random, because that's a stupid way of doing it.

The problem is it doesn't make much sense for them to have their own units. Ynnari comes from Ynnead. You just replace ead with ari. It actually makes much more sense than the Aeldari, Asuryani, Drukhari nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Give me back formations.

Gross.

Formations were one of the worst parts of 7th.

Way better than 8th though. I actually liked some of them and they made more sense than magic weapons.

Only for the Chosen few who got them or just the broken ones like the Cheesetide Wing or free everything for Ad MEch or free vehicles for Marines

Its bad enough that Vigilis started this again with some factions getting SFA and stuff like Artillery getting a boost!

DE heroes would be greta to welcome back

Hardly the chosen few when everyone had them. Plus not everyone is a tournament player who just looks at how to win.

If your suggestion is adding something to the game that you acknowledge will ruin the tournament scene, then it's a godawful suggestion.

I really thought it would be obvious that I'd want balanced formations. Not that GW could make them.

Emperor's Children, because I'm selfish.

pm713 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Give me back formations.

Gross.

Formations were one of the worst parts of 7th.

Way better than 8th though. I actually liked some of them and they made more sense than magic weapons.

Only for the Chosen few who got them or just the broken ones like the Cheesetide Wing or free everything for Ad MEch or free vehicles for Marines

Its bad enough that Vigilis started this again with some factions getting SFA and stuff like Artillery getting a boost!

DE heroes would be greta to welcome back

Hardly the chosen few when everyone had them. Plus not everyone is a tournament player who just looks at how to win.

If your suggestion is adding something to the game that you acknowledge will ruin the tournament scene, then it's a godawful suggestion.

I really thought it would be obvious that I'd want balanced formations. Not that GW could make them.

Formations are still god awful design even if every single one was evenly balanced.

But fun. Which is more than 8th.

I'm of the opinion that the new formations are far less game breaking than those back in 7th. Although, not all formations were that bad. I really liked the one where you had a tank, a commissar and an infantry squad and the squad had 4+ cover if they were within 6" of the tank I guess. Armoured Shield it was called IIRC.

pm713 wrote:But fun. Which is more than 8th.

8th is fun.

pm713 wrote:

The problem is it doesn't make much sense for them to have their own units.

I don't think they need to have their 'own' units per se.

However, the way in which Ynnari detachments are constructed currently is an absolute mess.

At the very least, it would be far better to reprint all the Eldar, DE and Harlequin units in a Ynnari codex (altered as appropriate). Personally, I think you could easily have auras overlap (especially considering the degree to which they've been hit with the nerf-bat) - e.g. allow a Ynnari-Autarch to buff Ynnari-DE units. But even if they wanted those factions to remain separate, they could just approach it in the same manner as the DE codex (effectively counting them as 3 subfactions).

It just seems like a much neater way of doing things, and could allow Ynnari-lists to be constructed without the ridiculous special character requirement (a concept I thought we'd buried with 5th edition).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

pm713 wrote:But fun. Which is more than 8th.

8th is fun.

Agree to disagree. I'd much rather play 7th than 8th.

Formations were awfull. Even in Age of Sigmar were you pay points for them, they are so relevant and important because they add so much stuff.


But how they where done in 7th? Pfff.

"Here do you have this to-buy-list of miniatures like a Supermarket. For that you receive free rules, or even models. Isn't this FUN?!"

pm713 wrote:
But fun. Which is more than 8th.

No, it really wasn't. It was the opposite of fun. 8th isn't that great to me either, but it's leaps and bounds over the garbage that was formations.

Yeah, Formations were a bold faced attempt by Kirby to introduce a pay-to-win model to 40k, where if you field this exact configuration of models, you get some heavy buffs. It wasn't great.

 Wunzlez wrote:
Emperor's Children, because I'm selfish.

Just like Emperor's Children should be

Advancements to the narrative.
Progress on moving from finecast to plastic
Some new releases for Xenos factions
A unification of the various materials needed to actually play the game now.

More alien allies for the Tau, especially more kroot.

The top of my wishlist is to see a quick-start .pdf with all the base rule changes and errata in one place, including the sidebar for how Plasma interacts with to-hit modifiers (and anything else like it) from the main rules.

The next thing on my list is for them to make another pass over the next CA after any other adjustments specifically looking for places where one weapon/unit changed price and another that is clearly based on it did not. Stormbolters -> Hurricane Bolters, Twin-linked Lascannon -> Lastalon, Intercessor -> Hellblaster, that sort of thing.

In no particular order after that:
Custodes could really use the option to take Custodian Guards with a Misochondria and an Assault Bolter (or something like it) in addition to that squad's other weapon load outs. Having some actual ranged ability in the troop slot wouldn't make them viable as a monocodex, but it would let them play without ranged support from another faction being mandatory.

For marines, four words: "Captain in Centurion Armor".

Imperium in general doesn't need a lot of new releases. Focus on new/updated Xenos kits instead.

Marine codex v2. Marines need new rules a lot more than they need new models.

GK codex v2. I don't even play the sorry [expletive] and I want to see them get better.

Seriously, some sort of downside to taking allies. We've been complaining about that since the edition dropped, you'd think GW only cared about the sales figures or something.

-new subtype of “lesser” mortal wounds that don’t fully ignore saves.

-new character rules like joint charging so melee support characters can do their job a lot easier.

-nerfs to fall back mechanic. Make it less of a no-brainer option and simultaneously remove the need to use the very finicky methods of denying fall back that make casual players instantly hate you.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Wunzlez wrote:
Emperor's Children, because I'm selfish.

Just like Emperor's Children should be

'Licking his cyanotic lips with his purple tongue, he nodded his agreement while rubbing his thigh'

"Exactly!"

'It was at this point the restaurant told him to leave. He responded by turning his phone up LOUDER'

- New plastic guardsmen for all of the regiments in codex.
- tyranids Super heavies from gw.
- tyranids rules update
- tau "formations"/ special detachment.
- good Apocalypse, with 28mm figures, 8th edition rules, and loads of new content.

New, not-potato guardsmen (ideal kit for me would be leaner, slightly more 'adronymous', or neutral sculpts, with a flak torso, sleeved arms with Lucius-pattern lasguns, and options for heads with both exposed and visored faces, and trouser legs/greatcoat legs options.

Plastic sisters.

More primaris.

A white dwarf series on 'how to narrative'. Show the thought process behind the game-building that is narrative gaming, and 'matching' armies appropriately for this. rather than just 'take 2000pts, pick ascenario and GO!'.