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.

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.

The biggest tournament WR are IG, even the Ynnari can`t keep with them. If we count that SfD is the Ynnari strongest treat, IG have good numbers, that are competitive in every environment. It will be interesting to see how much really Ynnari are winning when non ITC rules are used.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:


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?

No you did not, you were just mean to me. If GW were to remove Grey Knight fromt he game then they shouldn't have writen down codex for them or tell people to buy CA, b because they are going to be fixed in that book.

Well, as a long-term Eldar player I think that we don't need Ynnari at all.
Not in the way it is configured as just three models introducing a strong special rule and one strong spell.

Marin wrote:

Ice_can 773368 10396143 wrote:

The biggest tournament WR are IG, even the Ynnari can`t keep with them. If we count that SfD is the Ynnari strongest treat, IG have good numbers, that are competitive in every environment. It will be interesting to see how much really Ynnari are winning when non ITC rules are used.

Ok, but was it always like that, or was it not realy IG, but a combination of IG+castellan+something that made them win. Pre castellan IG had their armies with baneblades and they were not winning as much as they do now.

Marin 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.

The biggest tournament WR are IG, even the Ynnari can`t keep with them. If we count that SfD is the Ynnari strongest treat, IG have good numbers, that are competitive in every environment. It will be interesting to see how much really Ynnari are winning when non ITC rules are used.

Really, I'd love to know what data set your looking at for that?

Quick look at 40k stats shows primary faction win percentage as the following
1 Yannari
2 Drukari
3 Thousand Sons
4 Astra Militarum
5 Asurani
All of them have above a 55% win ratio.

Quoting ITC results is not giving the whole picture. ITC events don't have a unified mission format, by this I mean you can be an ITC event but run whatever missions you like. They typically also run higher terrain amounts and they house rule those terrain sets.

Elsewhere in the world where people play actual 40k and not house rules Astra and Imperial soup as well as Ynarri are stomping stuff.

At GW they play true 40k but with piss poor levels of terrain and who won the recent heat...T'au. Whaddaya know, when you remove terrain the shooting army wins!

My general point is that its really hard to make meaningful conclusions from one set of tournament data.

Ice_can wrote:

Marin 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.

The biggest tournament WR are IG, even the Ynnari can`t keep with them. If we count that SfD is the Ynnari strongest treat, IG have good numbers, that are competitive in every environment. It will be interesting to see how much really Ynnari are winning when non ITC rules are used.

Really, I'd love to know what data set your looking at for that?

Quick look at 40k stats shows primary faction win percentage as the following
1 Yannari
2 Drukari
3 Thousand Sons
4 Astra Militarum
5 Asurani
All of them have above a 55% win ratio.

40k stats is good but incomplete site, it mostly have ITC data, maybe someday the data will be super accurate but it`s not.
http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

IG are winning more tournaments, before and after the IK were introduced. Having good WR, dominating the under powered factions is not like winning tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, as a long-term Eldar player I think that we don't need Ynnari at all.
Not in the way it is configured as just three models introducing a strong special rule and one strong spell.

Why would we want to get rid of one of our newest and coolest models ?
Don`t forget that we are the army with the most metal and resin models.

Marin wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Marin 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.

The biggest tournament WR are IG, even the Ynnari can`t keep with them. If we count that SfD is the Ynnari strongest treat, IG have good numbers, that are competitive in every environment. It will be interesting to see how much really Ynnari are winning when non ITC rules are used.

Really, I'd love to know what data set your looking at for that?

Quick look at 40k stats shows primary faction win percentage as the following
1 Yannari
2 Drukari
3 Thousand Sons
4 Astra Militarum
5 Asurani
All of them have above a 55% win ratio.

40k stats is good but incomplete site, it mostly have ITC data, maybe someday the data will be super accurate but it`s not.
http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

IG are winning more tournaments, before and after the IK were introduced. Having good WR, dominating the under powered factions is not like winning tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, as a long-term Eldar player I think that we don't need Ynnari at all.
Not in the way it is configured as just three models introducing a strong special rule and one strong spell.

Why would we want to get rid of one of our newest and coolest models ?
Don`t forget that we are the army with the most metal and resin models.

Really your refuting 40k stats with blood of kittens?
That is exclusively ITC and only counts top 3 finishes.
Not to mention that 40k now vrs 40k pre CA 2017, Pre CA 2018, Big FAQ 1&2 isn't the same game.

2017 results are about as relevant to 2019 8th edition as 7th edition tournament results.

Ice_can wrote:

Marin wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Marin 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.

The biggest tournament WR are IG, even the Ynnari can`t keep with them. If we count that SfD is the Ynnari strongest treat, IG have good numbers, that are competitive in every environment. It will be interesting to see how much really Ynnari are winning when non ITC rules are used.

Really, I'd love to know what data set your looking at for that?

Quick look at 40k stats shows primary faction win percentage as the following
1 Yannari
2 Drukari
3 Thousand Sons
4 Astra Militarum
5 Asurani
All of them have above a 55% win ratio.

40k stats is good but incomplete site, it mostly have ITC data, maybe someday the data will be super accurate but it`s not.
http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

IG are winning more tournaments, before and after the IK were introduced. Having good WR, dominating the under powered factions is not like winning tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, as a long-term Eldar player I think that we don't need Ynnari at all.
Not in the way it is configured as just three models introducing a strong special rule and one strong spell.

Why would we want to get rid of one of our newest and coolest models ?
Don`t forget that we are the army with the most metal and resin models.

Really your refuting 40k stats with blood of kittens?
That is exclusively ITC and only counts top 3 finishes.
Not to mention that 40k now vrs 40k pre CA 2017, Pre CA 2018, Big FAQ 1&2 isn't the same game.

2017 results are about as relevant to 2019 8th edition as 7th edition tournament results.

If you watch the show from the start, you will hear they don`t have all the data, because to many tournament and players don`t provide their list.
For instance if you click no ETC rules, you will find Ynnari perfectly balanced at 51.39%, Deathwatch, T'au Empire
Astra Militarum over 59% WR and the mighty Asuryani at 43.33% WR.

Regardless what you think IG were winning more tournaments at 2017 and are winning more at 2019.

Only thing I want is that my units (Craftworlds) would not be balanced (read nerfed) because Ynnari exist. And also I would like other 4 out of 5 Craftworlds to become better represented in the game as a viable style of play.

 Shadenuat wrote:
Only thing I want is that my units (Craftworlds) would not be balanced (read nerfed) because Ynnari exist. And also I would like other 4 out of 5 Craftworlds to become better represented in the game as a viable style of play.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:
Only thing I want is that my units (Craftworlds) would not be balanced (read nerfed) because Ynnari exist. And also I would like other 4 out of 5 Craftworlds to become better represented in the game as a viable style of play.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I think the clans/craftworld/chapter uniquness is neato but yea GW did not really balance them well... why would you take anything else when you can get a -1 to hit in any book.

I don't think they should handle ynarri by just sayng say... dark reapers need to go up 20% there should be a standalone points chart for ynarri so shining spears and reapers in a craftworld now cost less than they do in ynarri. if they balance craftworlds, harlies and dark reapers in points for extra activations then the onyl army that will be viabel is ynarri.

Alternatively I like the idea of changing the extra activations to strategems so they can only be used on one unit per phase and it costs CP plus something liek a unit cna activate when it dies sort of like space marines around an ancient. kill 3 reapers, those 3 reapers get oen more shot then off the table. want the reapers beside them to fire... sure but that is 2CP and that is the onlytime you cna use it that game phase

So when will this issue be coming out?

When will this issue be in stores?

Thanks

SG

too me the easy fix has always been having Ynnari being its own craftworld trait so you don't get craftword bonuses (cult etc). then make the SfD abilities stratagems with SfD being a CP generation ability based around units dying. so the craft world trait would be something like if a unit dies within x" of a ynnari unit roll a D6 on a x+ gain 1 CP

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:
Only thing I want is that my units (Craftworlds) would not be balanced (read nerfed) because Ynnari exist. And also I would like other 4 out of 5 Craftworlds to become better represented in the game as a viable style of play.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I think the clans/craftworld/chapter uniquness is neato but yea GW did not really balance them well... why would you take anything else when you can get a -1 to hit in any book.

I don't think they should handle ynarri by just sayng say... dark reapers need to go up 20% there should be a standalone points chart for ynarri so shining spears and reapers in a craftworld now cost less than they do in ynarri. if they balance craftworlds, harlies and dark reapers in points for extra activations then the onyl army that will be viabel is ynarri.

Alternatively I like the idea of changing the extra activations to strategems so they can only be used on one unit per phase and it costs CP plus something liek a unit cna activate when it dies sort of like space marines around an ancient. kill 3 reapers, those 3 reapers get oen more shot then off the table. want the reapers beside them to fire... sure but that is 2CP and that is the onlytime you cna use it that game phase

I really like this idea. It sells the fluff that Ynnari are united, but they do not have access to the same resources that both DE and CWE do. Finding and converting Dark Reapers to the cause SHOULD cost more than ones that are simply on that path for their craftworld. Fluffwise it makes sense they wouldn't forget their old tactics/training. No clue what would be a fair cost in points/CP.

I also hope they balance so that every unit is viable as Ynnari or not Ynnari.

That said, if any unit should be more viable as Ynnari than not, it should be Reapers. They revered Ynead before Ynnari was a thing.

I think the clans/craftworld/chapter uniquness is neato but yea GW did not really balance them well... why would you take anything else when you can get a -1 to hit in any book.

Absolutely. I collect Saim-hann, but when playing in tournaments I am handicapping myself by playing tanks and such without the Alaitoc trait.

I kinda wished faction traits were more unit focused instead of faction-wide. They kinda already do that with the Saim-hann(jetbikes get a bonus), but then they screw that up by making Alaitoc a faction-wide trait that is just so universally beneficial that you'd be an idiot to pass it up. Something like only infantry troops get a -1 to hit would have been so much better.

 Eldarsif wrote:

I think the clans/craftworld/chapter uniquness is neato but yea GW did not really balance them well... why would you take anything else when you can get a -1 to hit in any book.

Absolutely. I collect Saim-hann, but when playing in tournaments I am handicapping myself by playing tanks and such without the Alaitoc trait.

I kinda wished faction traits were more unit focused instead of faction-wide. They kinda already do that with the Saim-hann(jetbikes get a bonus), but then they screw that up by making Alaitoc a faction-wide trait that is just so universally beneficial that you'd be an idiot to pass it up. Something like only infantry troops get a -1 to hit would have been so much better.

I feel like that is a good idea if soup loses those bonuses otherwise it becomes, my infantry are one faction, my bikes are another faction, and my tanks are a third (3 detachments).

Breng77 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

I think the clans/craftworld/chapter uniquness is neato but yea GW did not really balance them well... why would you take anything else when you can get a -1 to hit in any book.

Absolutely. I collect Saim-hann, but when playing in tournaments I am handicapping myself by playing tanks and such without the Alaitoc trait.

I kinda wished faction traits were more unit focused instead of faction-wide. They kinda already do that with the Saim-hann(jetbikes get a bonus), but then they screw that up by making Alaitoc a faction-wide trait that is just so universally beneficial that you'd be an idiot to pass it up. Something like only infantry troops get a -1 to hit would have been so much better.

I feel like that is a good idea if soup loses those bonuses otherwise it becomes, my infantry are one faction, my bikes are another faction, and my tanks are a third (3 detachments).

The advantage of such a system is it would inherently limit some of the more broken souping options though.
Having to take 3 Craftworld detachments to minmax your infantry tanks, flyers etc is better than having them all minmaxed while mixing in Harliquins, Yannari, Drukari etc.
Forcing such min-max to cost detachments limts the soup abuse due to only having 1 detachment per 1k plus 1

Soup literally doesn’t need to be messed with at all.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Soup literally doesn’t need to be messed with at all.

good trolllllllll lololololol

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?

Hmmm, well, how many armies has GW officially squated in your world? Squats = One is the answer hence the name "squated"

What GW does do is make bad rules in general and horrible codex rules (on occasion), but the best part isn't that they intend to squat it, it's that they will ignore it to the point sales are so bad and then the release new rules and models for an almost deadline = instant sales.

The Squats got canned way back win not because of sales, but that the designers didn't know what to do with them in the future and didn't want to waste resources.. (Squat sales were actually not as bad as many thought). To be GW squated means to be sacked hard....not gradually.

Ice_can wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Soup literally doesn’t need to be messed with at all.

good trolllllllll lololololol

Yeah I’m not trolling. Idc if your army has soup, doesn’t have soup, you don’t like soup, don’t wanna play soup, whatever your parameters are. A lot of us like it and want to play it. There are multiple ways to play. You don’t have to play the way I do, not I the way you do. But no one. And I mean no one. Has a valid reason why my way of playing my army or armies should be changed. “Waaah but but I can’t do it, my army cant handle it, it’s not fluffy” I honesty don’t care. You have zero valid anything on why it should be nerfed. Luckily I know 100% for a fact it wont, as it’s a selling point and a main rule of GW. So that’s good news. Just means you can go cry some more somewhere else. Lolololol

 ServiceGames wrote:
When will this issue be in stores?

Thanks

SG

Dunno - subscribers should have it this weekend.

I feel like that is a good idea if soup loses those bonuses otherwise it becomes, my infantry are one faction, my bikes are another faction, and my tanks are a third (3 detachments).

Doesn't fix what I am talking about. Alaitoc Craftworld would continue to dominate other Craftworlds because it is the most flexible and useful of all the Craftworld traits. It's a MacGuyver tool.

I know people really want soup limited, but that's not going to fix the fact that some faction traits are currently broken.

At this point I am beginning to think faction traits were a really bad idea. Much worse than soups.

Considering what happened to Eldar Corsair's it's funny to read some of these posts. I don't think Ynnari will get hit too hard, maybe adjusted. They need to compete with the slaanesh release for narrative play. I wouldn't be surprised if they get nerfed into obscurity after though.

 Eldarsif wrote:

I feel like that is a good idea if soup loses those bonuses otherwise it becomes, my infantry are one faction, my bikes are another faction, and my tanks are a third (3 detachments).

Doesn't fix what I am talking about. Alaitoc Craftworld would continue to dominate other Craftworlds because it is the most flexible and useful of all the Craftworld traits. It's a MacGuyver tool.

I know people really want soup limited, but that's not going to fix the fact that some faction traits are currently broken.

At this point I am beginning to think faction traits were a really bad idea. Much worse than soups.

On one side if done correctly allow for a more personalised army, on the other, way more balance needed due to potential traits varying massively.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Honestly as much as they don’t need it could be a buff

It will fix the Ynnari according to an insider i spoke with at LVO. I have no way of knowing how he got his information but he seemed very sure that to play them moving forward might see them far less at tournaments. The Keywords are specifically the thing he mentioned. By reworking that piece it will make abuse of it a lot less prevalent. You'll probably still get to built a similar army but the cross synergies will not be there.

I couldnt get him to tell me more than that vague information but it was enoughto encourage me.

 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.

Giving up shooting in exchange for movement
An extra fightphase, after you've already been in combat a turn, 2 if you're the one charging, with Guardsmen
Firing your S3 Ap- Lasgun twice
Firing, at best, an Earthshaker Cannon twice, for 3CP

Doesnt really compare to Shining Spears/Dark Reapers moving, shooting, and/or fighting twice without any detriment to their normal functions.