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.

Karol wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
If they nerf it into the ground their making a huge mistake. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen. If it does as I stated earlier, Craftworlds, harlequins, and drukhari as a whole need buffs to make up for the loss.

They won't nerf it to the ground. Despite loud opinions GW does actually understand the game and issues at hand.

This is the FOURTH nerf Ynnari have had in 8th. GW don't understand the game in any way, shape or form.

If GW nerfed Inari 4 times in 8th ed, and it still ends up in top 8, then either the nerfs aren't real nerfs or they really don't know what they are doing. When GW fixed, their own words, BA they reducted the whole army to type of HQ and scouts. That is a nerf.

Here is the problem. Right here. People think when something needs nerfed, it needs to no longer be able to compete. This is false. Should it be made to where other top armies don’t struggle as bad against it, and have a chance of actually beating it? Sure. Should it still be able to top 8 tournies? Absolutely. No reason why not what so ever that you can validly give me. “But it’s been there for forever” oh well. So what?

Karol wrote:

If GW nerfed Inari 4 times in 8th ed, and it still ends up in top 8, then either the nerfs aren't real nerfs or they really don't know what they are doing. When GW fixed, their own words, BA they reducted the whole army to type of HQ and scouts. That is a nerf.

That, or, maybe it's better to make small incremental changes instead of large ones that are destabilizing?

Bottom line is eldar units are not the problem. Eldar units in ynnari soup are a problem.

Trust me, monodex eldar are ok but by no means OP. CA has increaed points for those units because of their application in ynari lists rather than fix ynari abiltiies.

A mix of units form 3 codexes in a soup with double action shennanighans? Of course thats pisisng people off. I wouldint want to play against that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

If GW nerfed Inari 4 times in 8th ed, and it still ends up in top 8, then either the nerfs aren't real nerfs or they really don't know what they are doing. When GW fixed, their own words, BA they reducted the whole army to type of HQ and scouts. That is a nerf.

That, or, maybe it's better to make small incremental changes instead of large ones that are destabilizing?

Exactly. People just wanna see all Aeldari factions in the gutter because I feel like it’ll give them some sort of Napoleon complex? Little guy feeling big I guess? Eh.

At the end of the day, I just want Ynnari to be an alternate choice, not the ONLY choice, nor an invalid choice

That's been my issue with them so far. Depending on what FAQ you're playing by, Ynnari are either auto-take or auto-pass.
There has been no in-between

I want to be able to take mono-dex CWE and not feel like I am missing out on something "more" competitive because I didn't choose an Ynnari WL.
Or take a well-built Ynnari list and not feel like I'd be better off playing CWE because there are too many restrictions imposed.

This is why I'd rather YNNARI disappear as a playable faction and the 3 Characters be more like Assassins in that you can just add them to any Aeldari list for some extra Strats and buffs.
While many might see that as "boring", it's going to be the easiest way to limit shenanigans.

-

Ynnari are going to lose the ability to act twice on demand. That power is strictly reserved for guardsmen and sisters of battle, because reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
At the end of the day, I just want Ynnari to be an alternate choice, not the ONLY choice, nor an invalid choice

-

They aren't. You can make a wide variety of craftworld, dark eldar, and craftworld + dark eldar lists that compete well. Ynnari are a massive crutch that pushes Craftworlds into the stratosphere. I main Eldar in the competitive scene.

Some craftworld eldar units actually need a buff (scorpions/howling banshee's, wraithlords), and some need a nerf (the flyers are all undercosted. You cant be more maneuverable, just as deadly, and cheaper points than everyone elses flyers sorry.)

 Marmatag wrote:


They aren't. You can make a wide variety of craftworld, dark eldar, and craftworld + dark eldar lists that compete well. Ynnari are a massive crutch that pushes Craftworlds into the stratosphere. I main Eldar in the competitive scene.

Does that by your own description mean that Yannari as writen in the index are inherently broken if they take an ok- good soup and push it into the stratosphere.

You want an army that gets 8 turns to everyone else's 6 you should be paying for that 25 to 35% improvement in turns.

Multiple free actions every turn was never going to be balanceable especially when your doing it to units from other codex's for esentially free sacrificing a minor trait even -1 to hit vrs extra turns is a no brainer.

That people are trying to defend Yannari when it's still got the highest win percentage of any codex or index after multiple nerfs and makes craftworld and Drukari which are both achieving within the balanced to good win rates look poor highlights how much of a balance problem they are.

Karol wrote:


If GW nerfed Inari 4 times in 8th ed, and it still ends up in top 8, then either the nerfs aren't real nerfs or they really don't know what they are doing.

In the GW GT final Ynnari did not make a showing at all. Nor did the Castellan for that matter. Different missions and terrain rules matter. We just need to accept that the ITC meta is at least in part a result of ITC rules and not GW rules. I don't see why GW should fix balance issues that only exist within certain sets of house-rules which are nothing to do with them.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Karol wrote:


If GW nerfed Inari 4 times in 8th ed, and it still ends up in top 8, then either the nerfs aren't real nerfs or they really don't know what they are doing.

In the GW GT final Ynnari did not make a showing at all. Nor did the Castellan for that matter. Different missions and terrain rules matter. We just need to accept that the ITC meta is at least in part a result of ITC rules and not GW rules. I don't see why GW should fix balance issues that only exist within certain sets of house-rules which are nothing to do with them.

Because no serious tournament players go to a GW GT.

Ice_can wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


They aren't. You can make a wide variety of craftworld, dark eldar, and craftworld + dark eldar lists that compete well. Ynnari are a massive crutch that pushes Craftworlds into the stratosphere. I main Eldar in the competitive scene.

Does that by your own description mean that Yannari as writen in the index are inherently broken if they take an ok- good soup and push it into the stratosphere.

You want an army that gets 8 turns to everyone else's 6 you should be paying for that 25 to 35% improvement in turns.

Multiple free actions every turn was never going to be balanceable especially when your doing it to units from other codex's for esentially free sacrificing a minor trait even -1 to hit vrs extra turns is a no brainer.

That people are trying to defend Yannari when it's still got the highest win percentage of any codex or index after multiple nerfs and makes craftworld and Drukari which are both achieving within the balanced to good win rates look poor highlights how much of a balance problem they are.

Someone needs to watch and listen to Frontline Gamings newest podcast. They talk about layers like you.. that want points paid for specific and fluffy actions. And how it’s not the way the game is meant to be made and shouldn’t happen. Worth a watch

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Karol wrote:


If GW nerfed Inari 4 times in 8th ed, and it still ends up in top 8, then either the nerfs aren't real nerfs or they really don't know what they are doing.

In the GW GT final Ynnari did not make a showing at all. Nor did the Castellan for that matter. Different missions and terrain rules matter. We just need to accept that the ITC meta is at least in part a result of ITC rules and not GW rules. I don't see why GW should fix balance issues that only exist within certain sets of house-rules which are nothing to do with them.

1750 points has a bigger impact on lists than the missions will, but if you have a good source of all the lists in attendance I'd love to look through all of them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Karol wrote:


If GW nerfed Inari 4 times in 8th ed, and it still ends up in top 8, then either the nerfs aren't real nerfs or they really don't know what they are doing.

In the GW GT final Ynnari did not make a showing at all. Nor did the Castellan for that matter. Different missions and terrain rules matter. We just need to accept that the ITC meta is at least in part a result of ITC rules and not GW rules. I don't see why GW should fix balance issues that only exist within certain sets of house-rules which are nothing to do with them.

1750 points has a bigger impact on lists than the missions will, but if you have a good source of all the lists in attendance I'd love to look through all of them.

People will never stop saying ynnari this ynnari that. Here is hoping to a rework that at first makes them stop QQ and then we find how broken it is, remain top dog and enjoy our salty beverages. (Their tears)

The biggest driver in the current meta is freaking Imperial Knights and Imperial Guard.

If those things stopped crowding the space you'd see armies that present a nasty matchup for Ynnari actually able to exist. As it stands right now, if you cannot deal with Guard, and you cannot deal with Knights, don't even bother showing up.

Ynnari are using them as a shield to be relevant. It is a HUGE points dump to make a Ynnari detachment and you are putting all your eggs in one basket. There is considerable risk, especially since there are some brutal counters out there.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


They aren't. You can make a wide variety of craftworld, dark eldar, and craftworld + dark eldar lists that compete well. Ynnari are a massive crutch that pushes Craftworlds into the stratosphere. I main Eldar in the competitive scene.

Does that by your own description mean that Yannari as writen in the index are inherently broken if they take an ok- good soup and push it into the stratosphere.

You want an army that gets 8 turns to everyone else's 6 you should be paying for that 25 to 35% improvement in turns.

Multiple free actions every turn was never going to be balanceable especially when your doing it to units from other codex's for esentially free sacrificing a minor trait even -1 to hit vrs extra turns is a no brainer.

That people are trying to defend Yannari when it's still got the highest win percentage of any codex or index after multiple nerfs and makes craftworld and Drukari which are both achieving within the balanced to good win rates look poor highlights how much of a balance problem they are.

Someone needs to watch and listen to Frontline Gamings newest podcast. They talk about layers like you.. that want points paid for specific and fluffy actions. And how it’s not the way the game is meant to be made and shouldn’t happen. Worth a watch

Free additional turns isn't specific and fluffy it's game breaking.

Your saying you would be ok playing a game were your opponents always get 7 turns and you only get 5?

Thats what your saying in fair and balanced, then again at a certain point it reads more like your trying to troll rather than have an honest discussion about balance.

Ice_can wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


They aren't. You can make a wide variety of craftworld, dark eldar, and craftworld + dark eldar lists that compete well. Ynnari are a massive crutch that pushes Craftworlds into the stratosphere. I main Eldar in the competitive scene.

Does that by your own description mean that Yannari as writen in the index are inherently broken if they take an ok- good soup and push it into the stratosphere.

You want an army that gets 8 turns to everyone else's 6 you should be paying for that 25 to 35% improvement in turns.

Multiple free actions every turn was never going to be balanceable especially when your doing it to units from other codex's for esentially free sacrificing a minor trait even -1 to hit vrs extra turns is a no brainer.

That people are trying to defend Yannari when it's still got the highest win percentage of any codex or index after multiple nerfs and makes craftworld and Drukari which are both achieving within the balanced to good win rates look poor highlights how much of a balance problem they are.

Someone needs to watch and listen to Frontline Gamings newest podcast. They talk about layers like you.. that want points paid for specific and fluffy actions. And how it’s not the way the game is meant to be made and shouldn’t happen. Worth a watch

Free additional turns isn't specific and fluffy it's game breaking.

Your saying you would be ok playing a game were your opponents always get 7 turns and you only get 5?

Thats what your saying in fair and balanced, then again at a certain point it reads more like your trying to troll rather than have an honest discussion about balance.

Move move move
Fix bayonets
First rank fire, second rank fire
Emperor's Wrath

Cry me a god damn river.

I have an idea, let's make orders once per turn period, and require a 8+ to activate.

 Marmatag wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


They aren't. You can make a wide variety of craftworld, dark eldar, and craftworld + dark eldar lists that compete well. Ynnari are a massive crutch that pushes Craftworlds into the stratosphere. I main Eldar in the competitive scene.

Does that by your own description mean that Yannari as writen in the index are inherently broken if they take an ok- good soup and push it into the stratosphere.

You want an army that gets 8 turns to everyone else's 6 you should be paying for that 25 to 35% improvement in turns.

Multiple free actions every turn was never going to be balanceable especially when your doing it to units from other codex's for esentially free sacrificing a minor trait even -1 to hit vrs extra turns is a no brainer.

That people are trying to defend Yannari when it's still got the highest win percentage of any codex or index after multiple nerfs and makes craftworld and Drukari which are both achieving within the balanced to good win rates look poor highlights how much of a balance problem they are.

Someone needs to watch and listen to Frontline Gamings newest podcast. They talk about layers like you.. that want points paid for specific and fluffy actions. And how it’s not the way the game is meant to be made and shouldn’t happen. Worth a watch

Free additional turns isn't specific and fluffy it's game breaking.

Your saying you would be ok playing a game were your opponents always get 7 turns and you only get 5?

Thats what your saying in fair and balanced, then again at a certain point it reads more like your trying to troll rather than have an honest discussion about balance.

Move move move
Fix bayonets
First rank fire, second rank fire
Emperor's Wrath

Cry me a god damn river.

I have an idea, let's make orders once per turn period, and require a 8+ to activate.

Oh wow your evidence that Yannari the most broken faction aren't broken is Guard the second most broken really?

I mean, it fulfills the purpose of a counter point...

Neither should, but given one exists unoposed dont penalise the other

Ice_can wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


They aren't. You can make a wide variety of craftworld, dark eldar, and craftworld + dark eldar lists that compete well. Ynnari are a massive crutch that pushes Craftworlds into the stratosphere. I main Eldar in the competitive scene.

Does that by your own description mean that Yannari as writen in the index are inherently broken if they take an ok- good soup and push it into the stratosphere.

You want an army that gets 8 turns to everyone else's 6 you should be paying for that 25 to 35% improvement in turns.

Multiple free actions every turn was never going to be balanceable especially when your doing it to units from other codex's for esentially free sacrificing a minor trait even -1 to hit vrs extra turns is a no brainer.

That people are trying to defend Yannari when it's still got the highest win percentage of any codex or index after multiple nerfs and makes craftworld and Drukari which are both achieving within the balanced to good win rates look poor highlights how much of a balance problem they are.

Someone needs to watch and listen to Frontline Gamings newest podcast. They talk about layers like you.. that want points paid for specific and fluffy actions. And how it’s not the way the game is meant to be made and shouldn’t happen. Worth a watch

Free additional turns isn't specific and fluffy it's game breaking.

Your saying you would be ok playing a game were your opponents always get 7 turns and you only get 5?

Thats what your saying in fair and balanced, then again at a certain point it reads more like your trying to troll rather than have an honest discussion about balance.

Move move move
Fix bayonets
First rank fire, second rank fire
Emperor's Wrath

Cry me a god damn river.

I have an idea, let's make orders once per turn period, and require a 8+ to activate.

Oh wow your evidence that Yannari the most broken faction aren't broken is Guard the second most broken really?

Are you being sarcastic, my friend? Curious as to what you play now..

 IHateNids wrote:
I mean, it fulfills the purpose of a counter point...

Neither should, but given one exists unoposed dont penalise the other

This, acting out of phase for free is broken beyond reason, but let's not be selective about it when Guard are winning major events and Ynnari aren't.

 Marmatag wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
I mean, it fulfills the purpose of a counter point...

Neither should, but given one exists unoposed dont penalise the other

This, acting out of phase for free is broken beyond reason, but let's not be selective about it when Guard are winning major events and Ynnari aren't.

Ok just ban all free activation powers, orders, strategums etc from matched play

Ice_can wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
I mean, it fulfills the purpose of a counter point...

Neither should, but given one exists unoposed dont penalise the other

This, acting out of phase for free is broken beyond reason, but let's not be selective about it when Guard are winning major events and Ynnari aren't.

Ok just ban all free activation powers, orders, strategums etc from matched play

I would rather they just completely squatted Ynnari and gave every faction an Orders/Prayers/Acts mechanic (including Eldar). But i never get my way.

Why does everyone almost always default to wanting every army to have the same rules to be balanced....??

Hey pal, welcome to Earth where nothing is fair or balanced!

:-)

Ice_can wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
I mean, it fulfills the purpose of a counter point...

Neither should, but given one exists unoposed dont penalise the other

This, acting out of phase for free is broken beyond reason, but let's not be selective about it when Guard are winning major events and Ynnari aren't.

Ok just ban all free activation powers, orders, strategums etc from matched play

Bad idea.

Bear in mind most powers/orders/stratagems are for specific things. For example, the new Primaris Librarian power dictates they Must advance.

AFAIK, Ynnari dont have those kind of restrictions. It's a "I feel doing this"

Pain4Pleasure 773368 10396228 wrote:
Someone needs to watch and listen to Frontline Gamings newest podcast. They talk about layers like you.. that want points paid for specific and fluffy actions. And how it’s not the way the game is meant to be made and shouldn’t happen. Worth a watch

then why the hell when GW was writing Grey Knight rules did they make them pay for everything, including stuff they can't use. they limited the number of psychic powers the army has, so after 2 HQ and 3 units, most units have nothing to cast, they made GK cost as if they were deep striking their whole army, but they nerfed the deep strike mechanic. They gave GK bad special weapons, which were suppose to be balanced by psychic powers and smite, but then they nerfed the GK smite.

Or is it a new way of thinking about design GW just decided to implement ?

Karol wrote:

Pain4Pleasure 773368 10396228 wrote:
Someone needs to watch and listen to Frontline Gamings newest podcast. They talk about layers like you.. that want points paid for specific and fluffy actions. And how it’s not the way the game is meant to be made and shouldn’t happen. Worth a watch

then why the hell when GW was writing Grey Knight rules did they make them pay for everything, including stuff they can't use. they limited the number of psychic powers the army has, so after 2 HQ and 3 units, most units have nothing to cast, they made GK cost as if they were deep striking their whole army, but they nerfed the deep strike mechanic. They gave GK bad special weapons, which were suppose to be balanced by psychic powers and smite, but then they nerfed the GK smite.

Or is it a new way of thinking about design GW just decided to implement ?

Oh dear, someone doesn’t know how GW squats an army.. well, when GW producers and GW big wigs hate a codex very much, they uh.. well shoot, usually parents explain this I think, but oh well. They make terrible rules to eventually write it out of existence. Oh dear.. I hope I explained everything thoroughly for you?

Karol wrote:

Pain4Pleasure 773368 10396228 wrote:
Someone needs to watch and listen to Frontline Gamings newest podcast. They talk about layers like you.. that want points paid for specific and fluffy actions. And how it’s not the way the game is meant to be made and shouldn’t happen. Worth a watch

then why the hell when GW was writing Grey Knight rules did they make them pay for everything, including stuff they can't use. they limited the number of psychic powers the army has, so after 2 HQ and 3 units, most units have nothing to cast, they made GK cost as if they were deep striking their whole army, but they nerfed the deep strike mechanic. They gave GK bad special weapons, which were suppose to be balanced by psychic powers and smite, but then they nerfed the GK smite.

Or is it a new way of thinking about design GW just decided to implement ?

Because there is no overarching vision on the design team and individual codex writers have way to much freedom to feth about.

at Adepticon Games Workshop Studio Preview they implied the white dwarf index next month will change things for ynari and made joke about dark reapers.

 clodax66 wrote:
at Adepticon Games Workshop Studio Preview they implied the white dwarf index next month will change things for ynari and made joke about dark reapers.

Dark reapers, ynnari or not, destroy units and will be taken. Truth be told, ynnari gives an extra action. MAYBE. Two with good set up. If I’m gonna table you well, I’m gonna do it without the need from PfD. Dark reapers are gonna murder whatever they shoot at. Shining spears are gonna slice whatever they charge. Skyweavers are gonna bring down whatever they decide to point themselves towards. The solitaire will continue to be a beststick. 20 defender blobs will always be the best deepstrike unit. eldar fliers will continue to reign supreme. The list goes on and on. All without ynnari. Ynnari just takes that 9 to a 10. That’s it. So all these people complaining will just go from complaining of ynnari, to the Aeldari factions. In which case we will white glove slap them just like we are now, challenge them to a game, destroy them, and give them even more reason to complain. All hail the supreme Aeldari race. Master over the armored marines, chaos and laoyalist. Owner of the necron tier. Directors of the greater good. The race that dares oppose the chaos gods, specifically slaneesh. The owners of the idiotic orks. If I forgot your faction.. well you aren’t important enough then obviously

 BaconCatBug wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Karol wrote:


If GW nerfed Inari 4 times in 8th ed, and it still ends up in top 8, then either the nerfs aren't real nerfs or they really don't know what they are doing.

In the GW GT final Ynnari did not make a showing at all. Nor did the Castellan for that matter. Different missions and terrain rules matter. We just need to accept that the ITC meta is at least in part a result of ITC rules and not GW rules. I don't see why GW should fix balance issues that only exist within certain sets of house-rules which are nothing to do with them.

Because no serious tournament players go to a GW GT.

How is it there in Scotland?

(No True Scotsman Fallacy)