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.

Ynnari is the issue. The stacking buffs really makes everything else that much better. They should FAQ Ynnari units to no longer have Craftworld keywords, which solves the stratagem problem. People could still take extra detachments, but it would remove a layer of synergy. This results in no actual nerfs to units, but it nerfs that strong army pairing of Ynnari and Craftworld.

Reapers absolutely need a point increase (why they were reduced from index to codex boggles the mind). Adding in a max unit cap of 5 for them with a 5 point increase and the removal of Ynnari use of stratagems should keep them as a solid choice, but prevent them from being too strong as they are currently.

I'm interested to know, has anyone had any luck with Warp Spiders in 8th?

I want to add some to my list for the models, but looking at the rules they seem weak compared to last edition without their jump-shoot-jump ability. The only way I can think to use them is fire support to soften up a unit before a charge from Spears, Wraithblades or whatever.

If anyone is having any success, in what squad size and role are you using them?

They are hot garbage. Shadow Specters, even after the overwhelming nerf, are still better at everything you'd actually want Warp Spiders for.

craftworld_uk wrote:
I'm interested to know, has anyone had any luck with Warp Spiders in 8th?

I want to add some to my list for the models, but looking at the rules they seem weak compared to last edition without their jump-shoot-jump ability. The only way I can think to use them is fire support to soften up a unit before a charge from Spears, Wraithblades or whatever.

If anyone is having any success, in what squad size and role are you using them?

They are in a weird position. There are units that do their job and better so I feel like I am wasting points on them. Which makes me a bit sad since I own two units of them.

mokoshkana wrote:
Ynnari is the issue. The stacking buffs really makes everything else that much better. They should FAQ Ynnari units to no longer have Craftworld keywords, which solves the stratagem problem. People could still take extra detachments, but it would remove a layer of synergy. This results in no actual nerfs to units, but it nerfs that strong army pairing of Ynnari and Craftworld.

You can't remove the Craftworlds keyword, because it would break many interactions (transports and auras mainly). But it would be easy to add one line before the stratagems' list, saying you can't use a Craftworlds stratagem on a unit with the Ynnari keyword.
But I still believe it would be better to forbid Craftworlds/Ynnari allies. Just make the Ynnari transformation apply to all detachments or none.

fresus wrote:

mokoshkana wrote:
Ynnari is the issue. The stacking buffs really makes everything else that much better. They should FAQ Ynnari units to no longer have Craftworld keywords, which solves the stratagem problem. People could still take extra detachments, but it would remove a layer of synergy. This results in no actual nerfs to units, but it nerfs that strong army pairing of Ynnari and Craftworld.

You can't remove the Craftworlds keyword, because it would break many interactions (transports and auras mainly). But it would be easy to add one line before the stratagems' list, saying you can't use a Craftworlds stratagem on a unit with the Ynnari keyword.
But I still believe it would be better to forbid Craftworlds/Ynnari allies. Just make the Ynnari transformation apply to all detachments or none.

How so? It just means the transports have to be Ynnari, and the auras have to come from "Ynnari" units instead of them staying as "Craftworld".

Kdash wrote:

fresus wrote:

mokoshkana wrote:
Ynnari is the issue. The stacking buffs really makes everything else that much better. They should FAQ Ynnari units to no longer have Craftworld keywords, which solves the stratagem problem. People could still take extra detachments, but it would remove a layer of synergy. This results in no actual nerfs to units, but it nerfs that strong army pairing of Ynnari and Craftworld.

You can't remove the Craftworlds keyword, because it would break many interactions (transports and auras mainly). But it would be easy to add one line before the stratagems' list, saying you can't use a Craftworlds stratagem on a unit with the Ynnari keyword.
But I still believe it would be better to forbid Craftworlds/Ynnari allies. Just make the Ynnari transformation apply to all detachments or none.

How so? It just means the transports have to be Ynnari, and the auras have to come from "Ynnari" units instead of them staying as "Craftworld".

You would therefore have to rewrite every transport and hero datasheet, so instead of affecting <craftworld> units, it affects Asuryani. You can't say it affects Ynnari units, otherwise it would allow CWE/DE/Harlies to share transports and auras, so Craftworlds would have to become Asuryani, Kabals and Wych cults Drukhari (which would create new interactions that don't exist at the moment), and Masque become Harlequins.
On top of a very tedious errata, this change would allow cross-craftworlds interactions: biel-tan guardians in Alaitoc wave serpents etc.
Putting a one line errata on CWE stratagems (and DE/Harlie ones when they eventually come out), or change the way Ynnari armies are created seems like an easier fix.

fresus wrote:

Kdash wrote:

fresus wrote:

mokoshkana wrote:
Ynnari is the issue. The stacking buffs really makes everything else that much better. They should FAQ Ynnari units to no longer have Craftworld keywords, which solves the stratagem problem. People could still take extra detachments, but it would remove a layer of synergy. This results in no actual nerfs to units, but it nerfs that strong army pairing of Ynnari and Craftworld.

You can't remove the Craftworlds keyword, because it would break many interactions (transports and auras mainly). But it would be easy to add one line before the stratagems' list, saying you can't use a Craftworlds stratagem on a unit with the Ynnari keyword.
But I still believe it would be better to forbid Craftworlds/Ynnari allies. Just make the Ynnari transformation apply to all detachments or none.

How so? It just means the transports have to be Ynnari, and the auras have to come from "Ynnari" units instead of them staying as "Craftworld".

You would therefore have to rewrite every transport and hero datasheet, so instead of affecting <craftworld> units, it affects Asuryani. You can't say it affects Ynnari units, otherwise it would allow CWE/DE/Harlies to share transports and auras, so Craftworlds would have to become Asuryani, Kabals and Wych cults Drukhari (which would create new interactions that don't exist at the moment), and Masque become Harlequins.
On top of a very tedious errata, this change would allow cross-craftworlds interactions: biel-tan guardians in Alaitoc wave serpents etc.
Putting a one line errata on CWE stratagems (and DE/Harlie ones when they eventually come out), or change the way Ynnari armies are created seems like an easier fix.

I think, the better solution is to have the "Ynnari" keyworld replace the "Craftworld" keyword. This then becomes part of the Ynnari ruleset.

craftworld_uk wrote:
I'm interested to know, has anyone had any luck with Warp Spiders in 8th?

I want to add some to my list for the models, but looking at the rules they seem weak compared to last edition without their jump-shoot-jump ability. The only way I can think to use them is fire support to soften up a unit before a charge from Spears, Wraithblades or whatever.

If anyone is having any success, in what squad size and role are you using them?

I find them to be decent objective grabbers. They are fast, durable and cheap(ish). I often take a unit of 5 to complete an outrider detachment and they usually grab a couple of objectives. They can also be good at screening against T2 deepstrikers; if the rangers screens are killed on T1 spiders can jump in the gap.

I can't really recommend taking them but I don't feel like I'm totally shooting myself in the foot when I do.

Kdash wrote:

fresus wrote:

Kdash wrote:

fresus wrote:

mokoshkana wrote:
Ynnari is the issue. The stacking buffs really makes everything else that much better. They should FAQ Ynnari units to no longer have Craftworld keywords, which solves the stratagem problem. People could still take extra detachments, but it would remove a layer of synergy. This results in no actual nerfs to units, but it nerfs that strong army pairing of Ynnari and Craftworld.

You can't remove the Craftworlds keyword, because it would break many interactions (transports and auras mainly). But it would be easy to add one line before the stratagems' list, saying you can't use a Craftworlds stratagem on a unit with the Ynnari keyword.
But I still believe it would be better to forbid Craftworlds/Ynnari allies. Just make the Ynnari transformation apply to all detachments or none.

How so? It just means the transports have to be Ynnari, and the auras have to come from "Ynnari" units instead of them staying as "Craftworld".

You would therefore have to rewrite every transport and hero datasheet, so instead of affecting <craftworld> units, it affects Asuryani. You can't say it affects Ynnari units, otherwise it would allow CWE/DE/Harlies to share transports and auras, so Craftworlds would have to become Asuryani, Kabals and Wych cults Drukhari (which would create new interactions that don't exist at the moment), and Masque become Harlequins.
On top of a very tedious errata, this change would allow cross-craftworlds interactions: biel-tan guardians in Alaitoc wave serpents etc.
Putting a one line errata on CWE stratagems (and DE/Harlie ones when they eventually come out), or change the way Ynnari armies are created seems like an easier fix.

I think, the better solution is to have the "Ynnari" keyworld replace the "Craftworld" keyword. This then becomes part of the Ynnari ruleset.

Just doing a one for one swap for each main faction (CWE/DE/Harlies) would actually result in any ynnari unit being able to take any transport from those three factions. This would probably end up being too strong. A clever solution would be to replace <Craftworld> with Ynnari<Craftworld>, Ynnari<Masque>, etc. This would allow the unit to keep it's "flavor" but it would actually not allow the Ynnari<Alaitoc> unit to use Craftworld<Alaitoc> stratagems as they would be two different things.

As Fresus said, the easiest way to fix this is to simply add a line to the index that states "Ynnari units may only be targeted by Ynnari stratagems" and be done with it. No awkwardness with transports and auras.

The other nerf needs to be a charge increase, complete rework, or removal of word of the phoenix. It's single handedly what makes Ynnari as broken as it is.

Dark reapers should be brought back to their index pricing and the maximum squad size should be reduced to 5, maybe also increase the points on the tempest launcher too.

Thanks for the Warp Spider feedback guys! Looks like I'll take them as fire support, rapid reaction gap fillers and objective grabbers - I'll see how it goes.

craftworld_uk wrote:
Thanks for the Warp Spider feedback guys! Looks like I'll take them as fire support, rapid reaction gap fillers and objective grabbers - I'll see how it goes.

Windriders are trash, and they are still better at all of those things.

Before saying anything else about "nerf this, nerf that", Eldar got 21st place in the GT tournament

FarseerReborn wrote:
Before saying anything else about "nerf this, nerf that", Eldar got 21st place in the GT tournament

.

That is the GT heat in the UK? That doesn’t attract a lot of the Uks best players, I think for w/e reason they dont attend the GW sponsored events in large numbers. That’s not to say it’s a bad event or anything’s. Just that for LVO level events in the UK A far better representation is indie events like Caledonian uprising where Eldar were in the final I believe just losing out to flyrant nids.

I think it’s pretty fair to say things like reapers are criminally undercosted. Personally I think soulburst has no place in the game, it’s a crazy too powerful mechanism with how it currently interacts with reapers and Shining Spears.

Eldar reapers defiantly need a points adjustment and if Ynnari stays the same it too needs a much bigger tax imo. One poor, essentially RTT result doesn’t change that. Hopefully we will see other factions tweaked as well to create more options for every codex.

FarseerReborn wrote:
Before saying anything else about "nerf this, nerf that", Eldar got 21st place in the GT tournament

You also have to consider the fact that the missions and scoring are vastly different to ITC missions. We also, don't know what any of the lists actually contained, so we cannot fully pass judgement either way.

It does raise the question though - do you balance of GW Chapter Approved missions, or balance off something else?

Kdash wrote:

FarseerReborn wrote:
Before saying anything else about "nerf this, nerf that", Eldar got 21st place in the GT tournament

You also have to consider the fact that the missions and scoring are vastly different to ITC missions. We also, don't know what any of the lists actually contained, so we cannot fully pass judgement either way.

It does raise the question though - do you balance of GW Chapter Approved missions, or balance off something else?

I'll bet I know what GW balances off, and they're the ones who pull the trigger...

 Eldrad Ulthran wrote:

FarseerReborn wrote:
Before saying anything else about "nerf this, nerf that", Eldar got 21st place in the GT tournament

.

That is the GT heat in the UK? That doesn’t attract a lot of the Uks best players, I think for w/e reason they dont attend the GW sponsored events in large numbers. That’s not to say it’s a bad event or anything’s. Just that for LVO level events in the UK A far better representation is indie events like Caledonian uprising where Eldar were in the final I believe just losing out to flyrant nids.

I think it’s pretty fair to say things like reapers are criminally undercosted. Personally I think soulburst has no place in the game, it’s a crazy too powerful mechanism with how it currently interacts with reapers and Shining Spears.

Eldar reapers defiantly need a points adjustment and if Ynnari stays the same it too needs a much bigger tax imo. One poor, essentially RTT result doesn’t change that. Hopefully we will see other factions tweaked as well to create more options for every codex.

Its surely worth pointing out that the GT was HEAT 3. And that then the top 40 players from all 3 heats go through and play the final in a meta that has shifted considerably since Heat 1. Although the Heat 3 results are interesting some of the UK's more well known players were involved in the earlier heats - like Lawrence with his Guilliman + Razorback list in Heat 1 which was meta back then.

It will be more interesting, and of more relevance, in the GT Finals when all the 120 winners from all 3 Heats are grouped up with the same current meta.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

craftworld_uk wrote:
Thanks for the Warp Spider feedback guys! Looks like I'll take them as fire support, rapid reaction gap fillers and objective grabbers - I'll see how it goes.

Windriders are trash, and they are still better at all of those things.

Why? Spiders can deep strike, which helps them stay alive and grab objectives in the opponents back field. They will usually be at -1 to hit with a 2+ save in cover. Bikes only get a 4+ and don't get the cover bonus as easily. The spiders are also easier to hide out of LOS in my experience.

FarseerReborn wrote:
Before saying anything else about "nerf this, nerf that", Eldar got 21st place in the GT tournament

No copious amount of points from ITC secondaries to score off of while the eldar plunk away from inside their chosen piece of terrain.
More Hordes (again because no ITC secondaries to punish them) who care less about all the Dark Reapers and who Ynnari Shining Spears can't kill in 1 combat to get a Soul Burst.
Like the Nurgle list in the finals that had 89 plague bearers.

Spartacus wrote:

Kdash wrote:

FarseerReborn wrote:
Before saying anything else about "nerf this, nerf that", Eldar got 21st place in the GT tournament

You also have to consider the fact that the missions and scoring are vastly different to ITC missions. We also, don't know what any of the lists actually contained, so we cannot fully pass judgement either way.

It does raise the question though - do you balance of GW Chapter Approved missions, or balance off something else?

I'll bet I know what GW balances off, and they're the ones who pull the trigger...

I hope they base balance on their own event. ITC rules are essentially a set of fairly well thought out and tested house rules (not meant negatively), and these house rules affect the performance of units.

For example, a horde army is hard to play when you're limited to ~2 hours per game. Hordes don't do well in LVO so they'd need to be buffed. My dinner table has no time restrictions, but my hordes would still receive a buff. This means my battles will be unbalanced unless I adopt the tournament format for all games.

This would also introduce an external dependency on balancing for gw. Gw has no influence on if and when the ITC guys change their rule pack.

This is why I think ITC should adapt to gw, not the other way around.

Gw 40k missions are stupidly swingy or largely irrelevant depending on the one you’re playing. A mission where you score on the last turn is entirely an invitation to ignor the mission and gunline it up for four turns. Which, I’ll let folks know, isn’t very fun

Has anyone here fielded Corsair Reavers or Skyreavers? I'm tempted to do some conversions for them as Troops for a Ynarri battalion or brigade.

They have major limitations, in that they don't have any stratagems and there aren't any transports they can use currently. But I love their story aspects and their appearance, and they can unleash an almost absurd amount of light dakka to help clearing hordes.

They need to be in Ynnari otherwise you lose CWE traits.

Against melee hordes they are amazing. Anything else.... no

Atlatl Jones wrote:
Has anyone here fielded Corsair Reavers or Skyreavers?

Reavers are the only Troops worth using for Craftworlds.

Yes, I realize you need other detachments to get access to stratagems, and the 2 HQs in their detachment won't get a Craftworld ability. Doesn't matter. If you want to use anything with a compulsory Troops slot, Reavers are the only option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:
Gw 40k missions are stupidly swingy or largely irrelevant depending on the one you’re playing. A mission where you score on the last turn is entirely an invitation to ignor the mission and gunline it up for four turns. Which, I’ll let folks know, isn’t very fun

Fortunately that isn't how most of their missions designed for matched play work.

shortymcnostrill wrote:


I hope they base balance on their own event.

For example, a horde army is hard to play when you're limited to ~2 hours per game. Hordes don't do well in LVO so they'd need to be buffed. My dinner table has no time restrictions, but my hordes would still receive a buff. This means my battles will be unbalanced unless I adopt the tournament format for all games.

This would also introduce an external dependency on balancing for gw. Gw has no influence on if and when the ITC guys change their rule pack.

All versions of armies should have a chance .....if its in the rules and its strong....then time should not eliminate it. Enough with the game focusing on elites. Either scale 40K down like 2nd ed or make it so you can play 100+ models. Just figure it out and make it work ....like half the dice rolls would help a loooooooooooong way for horde armies

This is why I think ITC should adapt to gw, not the other way around.

THIS!!!!!

stratigo wrote:Gw 40k missions are stupidly swingy or largely irrelevant depending on the one you’re playing. A mission where you score on the last turn is entirely an invitation to ignor the mission and gunline it up for four turns. Which, I’ll let folks know, isn’t very fun

That is why 12+ pieces of 'blocking' los terrain is a must.....change overwatch....less dice....and make better terrain rules would fix most of that.

I hate the games where I have 20+ different missions. Heck....most opperations tell the force to achieve 1 or 3 things at most....making your units run around the board like some Looney Toons is very unfun....trust me. I play for Thematic reasons...and if it looks stupid on the board then it probably is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also think its funny how the last several tournaments Eldar were not on the radar. They have one great showing and the sky is falling again.....actually they had one good showing....the Ynarri had a great showing at LVO.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Atlatl Jones wrote:
Has anyone here fielded Corsair Reavers or Skyreavers?

Reavers are the only Troops worth using for Craftworlds.

Yes, I realize you need other detachments to get access to stratagems, and the 2 HQs in their detachment won't get a Craftworld ability. Doesn't matter. If you want to use anything with a compulsory Troops slot, Reavers are the only option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:
Gw 40k missions are stupidly swingy or largely irrelevant depending on the one you’re playing. A mission where you score on the last turn is entirely an invitation to ignor the mission and gunline it up for four turns. Which, I’ll let folks know, isn’t very fun

Fortunately that isn't how most of their missions designed for matched play work.

Most eternal war is scored at the end between the two mission sets, and maelstrom is entirely random.

So... yes it is.

Also, rangers are troops. There's your compulsory. They're your best option because they claim the board and are annoying to remove for their cost. Eldar have skads of weapons to use to kill things with. Board control wins games when you can easily back it up with fire power.

Also the guardian bomb is good enough for the captain of the US ETC team to run it, so, yeah.

stratigo wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Atlatl Jones wrote:
Has anyone here fielded Corsair Reavers or Skyreavers?

Reavers are the only Troops worth using for Craftworlds.

Yes, I realize you need other detachments to get access to stratagems, and the 2 HQs in their detachment won't get a Craftworld ability. Doesn't matter. If you want to use anything with a compulsory Troops slot, Reavers are the only option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:
Gw 40k missions are stupidly swingy or largely irrelevant depending on the one you’re playing. A mission where you score on the last turn is entirely an invitation to ignor the mission and gunline it up for four turns. Which, I’ll let folks know, isn’t very fun

Fortunately that isn't how most of their missions designed for matched play work.

Most eternal war is scored at the end between the two mission sets, and maelstrom is entirely random.

So... yes it is.

Also, rangers are troops. There's your compulsory. They're your best option because they claim the board and are annoying to remove for their cost. Eldar have skads of weapons to use to kill things with. Board control wins games when you can easily back it up with fire power.

Also the guardian bomb is good enough for the captain of the US ETC team to run it, so, yeah.

The majority of the Chapter Approved Missions, which were used at the Heat, score Eternal War points at the end of each turn.

stratigo wrote:

Also the guardian bomb is good enough for the captain of the US ETC team to run it, so, yeah.

And when he wins anything with it, without it being Ynnari, I'll care.

And what exactly makes Rangers difficult to remove? When was the last time you heard anyone complaining about the difficulty of removing Tactical Marines? The answer is never. Well, rangers are easier to kill than those guys.

Alatioc Rangers at distance are somewhat hard to remove for some armies at -2 hit and 3+.