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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I love the Ynnari! They made for excellent Slaanesh conversions!

Good.... goood.... I hope their souls and bodies are fed to slanesh forever....

 Red_Five wrote:
GW has literally shown us renders of the Sisters of Battle models they are making in plastic.

Which units?

Back on topic please, this is about the Ynnari.

But does anyone actually know if this is happening? It does seem kind of odd to single out Ynnari, instead of Rise of the Eldar, or whatever, since Ynnari use Eldar units. Unless they're pumping out exclusive units, which would be curious, to say the least. And, in my opinion, gives some hope for other minor factions (although based Corsairs will never be removed - please do not circumvent the language filter.

I mean, yes. They are getting a White Dwarf mini-codex next month. It's right there. New units down the road? Who knows expect the insiders.

I suppose if Assassins can get a "codex" for 4 units then Ynarri can get a "codex" for 3 units. Hopefully we'll get a 2 unit codex and then a 1 unit codex after that!

 Kirasu wrote:
I suppose if Assassins can get a "codex" for 4 units then Ynarri can get a "codex" for 3 units. Hopefully we'll get a 2 unit codex and then a 1 unit codex after that!

Then a 0 unit codex! We can call it a background book or something.

So when does this WD come out? It's April already. Or is this for the May issue?

 Galef wrote:
So when does this WD come out? It's April already. Or is this for the May issue?

It's the may issue. It's the leaked "coming next White Dwarf" final page from the April White Dwarf.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Galef wrote:
So when does this WD come out? It's April already. Or is this for the May issue?

It's the may issue. It's the leaked "coming next White Dwarf" final page from the April White Dwarf.

Thank you, this is very helpful

EDIT: I just realized that the Ynnari update would be a GREAT opportunity to update the Webway Gate rules (I mean it's in the background of the teaser pic and everything)
That thing needs a complete rules overhaul as it is currently unplayable unless you and your opponent lay down some ground rules prior to setting up terrain.
Then add the fact that the WWG stratagems are only available if you've taken a Harlie detachment for some reason

-

 Kirasu wrote:
I suppose if Assassins can get a "codex" for 4 units then Ynarri can get a "codex" for 3 units. Hopefully we'll get a 2 unit codex and then a 1 unit codex after that!

Remember the original codex Imperial Knights? 2 unit codex, basicly the same model.

 Galef wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Galef wrote:
So when does this WD come out? It's April already. Or is this for the May issue?

It's the may issue. It's the leaked "coming next White Dwarf" final page from the April White Dwarf.

Thank you, this is very helpful

EDIT: I just realized that the Ynnari update would be a GREAT opportunity to update the Webway Gate rules (I mean it's in the background of the teaser pic and everything)
That thing needs a complete rules overhaul as it is currently unplayable unless you and your opponent lay down some ground rules prior to setting up terrain.
Then add the fact that the WWG stratagems are only available if you've taken a Harlie detachment for some reason

-

Urban Conquest was a missed opportunity to update a lot of terrain rules to make them better.

They updated terrain rules in chapter approved, hard cover for +2 to saves, soft for +1, -1 to hit units where something is blocking line of sight to it, and a bonus to AP if you're higher than the target to force more vertical movement.

I am hoping this update is substantial, I have a mixed eldar force because I was running corsairs, so this toning down strength from death and maybe a later change to the stupid strong pistols on my corsairs (and give me back my prince you monsters!!!) Will let me run my army without feeling like an arse.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They updated terrain rules in chapter approved, hard cover for +2 to saves, soft for +1, -1 to hit units where something is blocking line of sight to it, and a bonus to AP if you're higher than the target to force more vertical movement.

I am hoping this update is substantial, I have a mixed eldar force because I was running corsairs, so this toning down strength from death and maybe a later change to the stupid strong pistols on my corsairs (and give me back my prince you monsters!!!) Will let me run my army without feeling like an arse.

Cities of Death rules are *not* standard terrain rules.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They updated terrain rules in chapter approved, hard cover for +2 to saves, soft for +1, -1 to hit units where something is blocking line of sight to it, and a bonus to AP if you're higher than the target to force more vertical movement.

I am hoping this update is substantial, I have a mixed eldar force because I was running corsairs, so this toning down strength from death and maybe a later change to the stupid strong pistols on my corsairs (and give me back my prince you monsters!!!) Will let me run my army without feeling like an arse.

Of course that's not standard for all game modes. And not sure how good -1 to hit's(resulting in lots of '6's) widely available is. It's bad enough as army traits.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They updated terrain rules in chapter approved, hard cover for +2 to saves, soft for +1, -1 to hit units where something is blocking line of sight to it, and a bonus to AP if you're higher than the target to force more vertical movement.

I am hoping this update is substantial, I have a mixed eldar force because I was running corsairs, so this toning down strength from death and maybe a later change to the stupid strong pistols on my corsairs (and give me back my prince you monsters!!!) Will let me run my army without feeling like an arse.

The CA Cities of Death rules are almost unchanged from whats in the BRB, and nobody used them there either.

Turning Ynnari into a White Dwarf codex means that there are no new models planned for the near-future.

Together with the recent release of the Spiritseer in Wake the Dead, I'm quite positive that they won't shelf the Craftworlds range (at least not more than currently) in favour of a new Ynnari range, like they did with many classic Fantasy ranges in Age of Sigmar (Fyreslayers and Kharadron in favour of Dispossed, Ironjawz in favour of Greenskins...).

 Galas wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I suppose if Assassins can get a "codex" for 4 units then Ynarri can get a "codex" for 3 units. Hopefully we'll get a 2 unit codex and then a 1 unit codex after that!

Then a 0 unit codex! We can call it a background book or something.

Honestly a separate book for army rules and army fluff would be flipping amazing.

I have a couple of friends- well, an actual couple... and they play both varieties of the Eldar and the Ynarri is their 'team up' army, and I absolutely love playing against them.

Well, you want more in depth terrain rules, and they gave them to you.

Soft and hard cover are new, they added dangerous terrain, they gave a more standard bonus to moving on roads, and added the possible penalty to hit with giving everyone the chance to hit on a "6" because of the extra modifier in addition to giving +1 AP for height instead of ignoring cover bonuses. So no, it isn't just a reprint of the cities of death rules from.the core rule book.

These all force more tactical movement, which many feel isn't present in the game. That is a good thing and a lot of folks are ignoring it while complaining about the thing it fixes.

I think a big thing that the Ynnari Index does is that it gets the Ynnari out of the Index: Xenos book and gives them updated rules without needing to commit to a Codex and model release that they just might not be ready for.

Why couldn't they throw this into Chapter Approved? I have no clue. Either way, we have to get through April's White Dwarf before we even GET to the Ynnari Index, so it's going to be another month.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Well, you want more in depth terrain rules, and they gave them to you.

Soft and hard cover are new, they added dangerous terrain, they gave a more standard bonus to moving on roads, and added the possible penalty to hit with giving everyone the chance to hit on a "6" because of the extra modifier in addition to giving +1 AP for height instead of ignoring cover bonuses. So no, it isn't just a reprint of the cities of death rules from.the core rule book.

These all force more tactical movement, which many feel isn't present in the game. That is a good thing and a lot of folks are ignoring it while complaining about the thing it fixes.

It has huge problem with the -1 to hit. Those are awful. They hurt game so much. It's bad enough when you have -1 to hit as army trait(if it's available just take it). Now with those -1 is even more common and -2 is pretty standard as well. Have fun vs -2 and -3 without effort alaitocs. Enjoy those -2 to hit dark eldars.

Then move forward and punch them in the face.

Enjoy a 2+ save with terminators versus missile launchers and a 3+ versus plasma based weapons in addition to your -1 to being hit. Or sniper scouts up top dropping guardsmen almost twice as fast due to the bonus to AP.

Anyway, I am hoping for easier rules for the ynarri and maybe some stratagems for a mixed force.

You understand that only a tiny, tiny fraction of players use the Cities of Death rules right?

tneva82 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Well, you want more in depth terrain rules, and they gave them to you.

Soft and hard cover are new, they added dangerous terrain, they gave a more standard bonus to moving on roads, and added the possible penalty to hit with giving everyone the chance to hit on a "6" because of the extra modifier in addition to giving +1 AP for height instead of ignoring cover bonuses. So no, it isn't just a reprint of the cities of death rules from.the core rule book.

These all force more tactical movement, which many feel isn't present in the game. That is a good thing and a lot of folks are ignoring it while complaining about the thing it fixes.

It has huge problem with the -1 to hit. Those are awful. They hurt game so much. It's bad enough when you have -1 to hit as army trait(if it's available just take it). Now with those -1 is even more common and -2 is pretty standard as well. Have fun vs -2 and -3 without effort alaitocs. Enjoy those -2 to hit dark eldars.

Modifiers stacking on a 1d6 curve is probably the biggest flaw with the new edition in terms of the basic combat engine.

tneva82 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Well, you want more in depth terrain rules, and they gave them to you.

Soft and hard cover are new, they added dangerous terrain, they gave a more standard bonus to moving on roads, and added the possible penalty to hit with giving everyone the chance to hit on a "6" because of the extra modifier in addition to giving +1 AP for height instead of ignoring cover bonuses. So no, it isn't just a reprint of the cities of death rules from.the core rule book.

These all force more tactical movement, which many feel isn't present in the game. That is a good thing and a lot of folks are ignoring it while complaining about the thing it fixes.

It has huge problem with the -1 to hit. Those are awful. They hurt game so much. It's bad enough when you have -1 to hit as army trait(if it's available just take it). Now with those -1 is even more common and -2 is pretty standard as well. Have fun vs -2 and -3 without effort alaitocs. Enjoy those -2 to hit dark eldars.

Yep. it also adds a basic rule that causes 6s to always hit irrespective of modifiers, and two 1CP stratagems that make a charge against a unit in a ruin almost guaranteed (1cp to ignore vertical movement entirely, 1cp to change one die to a 6 in your charge roll). It is much, much easier to get into combat with those dark reapers than it was under CoD rules.

Reapers camping on top of a ruin in CoD terrain rules are definitely very powerful. That does not make it not a much much better terrain system overall.

 LunarSol wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Well, you want more in depth terrain rules, and they gave them to you.

Soft and hard cover are new, they added dangerous terrain, they gave a more standard bonus to moving on roads, and added the possible penalty to hit with giving everyone the chance to hit on a "6" because of the extra modifier in addition to giving +1 AP for height instead of ignoring cover bonuses. So no, it isn't just a reprint of the cities of death rules from.the core rule book.

These all force more tactical movement, which many feel isn't present in the game. That is a good thing and a lot of folks are ignoring it while complaining about the thing it fixes.

It has huge problem with the -1 to hit. Those are awful. They hurt game so much. It's bad enough when you have -1 to hit as army trait(if it's available just take it). Now with those -1 is even more common and -2 is pretty standard as well. Have fun vs -2 and -3 without effort alaitocs. Enjoy those -2 to hit dark eldars.

Modifiers stacking on a 1d6 curve is probably the biggest flaw with the new edition in terms of the basic combat engine.

All the more reason to switch to D8. Especially with the new wounding chart, it is too easy to wound everything with anything. I'm not complaining about Lasguns causing a single wound on a Baneblade or Knight, but it should be considerably lower odds than it is now. D8 would fix that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Well, you want more in depth terrain rules, and they gave them to you.

Soft and hard cover are new, they added dangerous terrain, they gave a more standard bonus to moving on roads, and added the possible penalty to hit with giving everyone the chance to hit on a "6" because of the extra modifier in addition to giving +1 AP for height instead of ignoring cover bonuses. So no, it isn't just a reprint of the cities of death rules from.the core rule book.

These all force more tactical movement, which many feel isn't present in the game. That is a good thing and a lot of folks are ignoring it while complaining about the thing it fixes.

It has huge problem with the -1 to hit. Those are awful. They hurt game so much. It's bad enough when you have -1 to hit as army trait(if it's available just take it). Now with those -1 is even more common and -2 is pretty standard as well. Have fun vs -2 and -3 without effort alaitocs. Enjoy those -2 to hit dark eldars.

Modifiers stacking on a 1d6 curve is probably the biggest flaw with the new edition in terms of the basic combat engine.

All the more reason to switch to D8. Especially with the new wounding chart, it is too easy to wound everything with anything. I'm not complaining about Lasguns causing a single wound on a Baneblade or Knight, but it should be considerably lower odds than it is now. D8 would fix that.

There's a reason I keep describing Legion as someone's wishlist for 40k fixes.

Whats the model that seems to have fur on its shoulder? Looks like an incubi but never seen one like that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Well, you want more in depth terrain rules, and they gave them to you.

Soft and hard cover are new, they added dangerous terrain, they gave a more standard bonus to moving on roads, and added the possible penalty to hit with giving everyone the chance to hit on a "6" because of the extra modifier in addition to giving +1 AP for height instead of ignoring cover bonuses. So no, it isn't just a reprint of the cities of death rules from.the core rule book.

These all force more tactical movement, which many feel isn't present in the game. That is a good thing and a lot of folks are ignoring it while complaining about the thing it fixes.

It has huge problem with the -1 to hit. Those are awful. They hurt game so much. It's bad enough when you have -1 to hit as army trait(if it's available just take it). Now with those -1 is even more common and -2 is pretty standard as well. Have fun vs -2 and -3 without effort alaitocs. Enjoy those -2 to hit dark eldars.

Modifiers stacking on a 1d6 curve is probably the biggest flaw with the new edition in terms of the basic combat engine.

All the more reason to switch to D8. Especially with the new wounding chart, it is too easy to wound everything with anything. I'm not complaining about Lasguns causing a single wound on a Baneblade or Knight, but it should be considerably lower odds than it is now. D8 would fix that.

Not going to happen, given the relative price and availability of d6 dice vs d8 dice.