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 was a problem. Soulbursting double actions for free at no cp cost was a problem.

Now ynnari arent a ptoblem. Because they have been buried in the forget this was a thing wd pile. Theres some potential for gimmicky ynari builds fir some cc units for fun and might be effective. Monodex should always give you the stronger build so i dont think its a bad thing overall.

As a single 3 model kit box, it should never have been a faction and been the 'must take or loose' choice for space elf players. I think ynnari have found a place where they belong and where they should have been from the start:. Narrative play.

Ynarri needs own kits or it needs to remain gak. Just imo.

 Argive wrote:
Ynnari was a problem. Soulbursting double actions for free at no cp cost was a problem.

Now ynnari arent a ptoblem. Because they have been buried in the forget this was a thing wd pile. Theres some potential for gimmicky ynari builds fir some cc units for fun and might be effective. Monodex should always give you the stronger build so i dont think its a bad thing overall.

As a single 3 model kit box, it should never have been a faction and been the 'must take or loose' choice for space elf players. I think ynnari have found a place where they belong and where they should have been from the start:. Narrative play.

Ynarri needs own kits or it needs to remain gak. Just imo.

That’s a terrible opinion. Was it over powered and needed to be checked? Yes. Does it need to be gak? No. That’s just inecessary. The least they could have done is oh idk.. given them double actions FOR cp like other armies? It’s like they were afraid of the ynnari being even a sliver of its old self. Such a shame. It’s why I joined The Greater Good.

 Argive wrote:
Ynnari was a problem. Soulbursting double actions for free at no cp cost was a problem.

Now ynnari arent a ptoblem. Because they have been buried in the forget this was a thing wd pile. Theres some potential for gimmicky ynari builds fir some cc units for fun and might be effective. Monodex should always give you the stronger build so i dont think its a bad thing overall.

As a single 3 model kit box, it should never have been a faction and been the 'must take or loose' choice for space elf players. I think ynnari have found a place where they belong and where they should have been from the start:. Narrative play.

Ynarri needs own kits or it needs to remain gak. Just imo.

I can get behind Ynnari being worse than mono-codices, but why does it have to be unplayably bad? Would +1S instead of +1 to hit really have broken anything? Would dropping the special character requirements (or at least making it 1 character per army, rather than per detachment) really have made it any less niche?

Why do we have to chose between 'horrendously broken' and 'gak beyond all reason' with apparently no middle ground?

How often did GW get it right and instead of either overbuffing or over nerfing did deliver a just good codex?

Karol wrote:
How often did GW get it right and instead of either overbuffing or over nerfing did deliver a just good codex?

8th is full of them, actually.

Apart from a couple of outliers all codici stand about on the same ground, which is a first for a GW game.

It all depends on what you mean for "overbuffing or overnerfing". If it means "This unit now is mathematically worse than this one by 3% so it is obviously crap", then yeah they can't get it right.
If 2 codici can be defined good if the in the hands of 2 average players they get most of the time a fun and engaging game, then i can count on one hand the codici that do not fall in that category.

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Ynnari have 3 overcosted characters and you have to take one per detachment. This is bad. Yvraine isn't too bad imo (10-15 points maybe), but the Visarch is more like 30-40,

You're more generous than I am. Frankly, you could halve the Visarch's cost and I'd still have to think twice about using him.

I think this comes down to your bugbear on DE hqs. At say 60 points the Visarch would be very cheap. A meta problem? No, but still. How much do you think a normal archon should be? Or an autarch/troupe master? I can see the desire to just have a lhamaean that can hide and be cheap but many books have HQ taxes.

I tend to think the Yncarne could go to 200-220 but again he would be very good at that level compared to say a deamon prince. At his current cost though its a joke.

pm713 wrote:
I see why they have the requirement considering how tiny the Ynnari are as a faction. They really should have remembered that you're forced to take them as much as you are though.

Well - every model in an ynnari detachment is a ynnari follower...Isn't that enough? Also...I don't think Eldrad forgot how to cast fortune when he turned to ynnari.

 Xenomancers wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I see why they have the requirement considering how tiny the Ynnari are as a faction. They really should have remembered that you're forced to take them as much as you are though.

Well - every model in an ynnari detachment is a ynnari follower...Isn't that enough? Also...I don't think Eldrad forgot how to cast fortune when he turned to ynnari.

Ynnari are so small literally every fight they've been in has had at least one of the triumvirate present. Say with Craftworlders you can have a full scale army that doesn't include a named character but Ynnari really don't.

Maybe he did? I've always thought part of joining the Ynnari was a blow to the head so memory loss is easily possible.

Tyel wrote:

I think this comes down to your bugbear on DE hqs. At say 60 points the Visarch would be very cheap.

It would indeed be cheap. Because as HQs go it really doesn't do much.

It's combat ability is, quite frankly, mediocre. Especially when you consider that it's a dedicated-melee special character. Its weapon doesn't even equate to a Power Fist. And outside of its potential regeneration, it's no tougher than a standard Autarch.

All it brings in terms of support is a weaksauce reroll 1s aura that only works in melee. Even the godawful Archon has a better aura than that.

As HQs go, the Visarch is little more than a blade with legs, and quite frankly it's an unimpressive blade at best.

I could maybe go to 70pts but frankly even that is pushing it.

Seriously, the only reason 60pts looks cheap is because Archons are so overpriced. If they cost what they should cost (~45pts) or if they were even remotely worth their current cost then the Visarch would suddenly look a lot more reasonable at around 60pts (give or take).

 vipoid wrote:

Tyel wrote:

I think this comes down to your bugbear on DE hqs. At say 60 points the Visarch would be very cheap.

It would indeed be cheap. Because as HQs go it really doesn't do much.

It's combat ability is, quite frankly, mediocre. Especially when you consider that it's a dedicated-melee special character. Its weapon doesn't even equate to a Power Fist. And outside of its potential regeneration, it's no tougher than a standard Autarch.

All it brings in terms of support is a weaksauce reroll 1s aura that only works in melee. Even the godawful Archon has a better aura than that.

As HQs go, the Visarch is little more than a blade with legs, and quite frankly it's an unimpressive blade at best.

I could maybe go to 70pts but frankly even that is pushing it.

Seriously, the only reason 60pts looks cheap is because Archons are so overpriced. If they cost what they should cost (~45pts) or if they were even remotely worth their current cost then the Visarch would suddenly look a lot more reasonable at around 60pts (give or take).

Partially agree. I don't feel great about the points cost of a foot autarch. The visarch is basically a foot autarch who can't regenerate CP, can't shoot, can't get strength 6 in melee, and has a special ability that lets you move a wound from one expensive special character to another expensive special character. He'd feel about right at ~70 points. He's got the durability of an autarch with worse offense and fewer useful tricks.

Archons feel like they're priced about right to me. They have more attacks than any of the other generic aeldari HQs (except maybe troupe masters) and access to some decent melee weapons. Their shadowfield is a questionable design choice, but a lucky streak of 2+ invuls can be huge with just a small amount of luck. They have their drawbacks, but I wouldn't make them much cheaper than they currently are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:
How often did GW get it right and instead of either overbuffing or over nerfing did deliver a just good codex?

8th is full of them, actually.

Apart from a couple of outliers all codici stand about on the same ground, which is a first for a GW game.

It all depends on what you mean for "overbuffing or overnerfing". If it means "This unit now is mathematically worse than this one by 3% so it is obviously crap", then yeah they can't get it right.
If 2 codici can be defined good if the in the hands of 2 average players they get most of the time a fun and engaging game, then i can count on one hand the codici that do not fall in that category.

Well put. Generally speaking, it's pretty easy to throw two casual or moderately optimized lists at each other in 8th edition and get a good game out of it. I see far more lists that can have a good game against each other than lists that are clearly going to result in a blowout.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
Ynnari was a problem. Soulbursting double actions for free at no cp cost was a problem.

Now ynnari arent a ptoblem. Because they have been buried in the forget this was a thing wd pile. Theres some potential for gimmicky ynari builds fir some cc units for fun and might be effective. Monodex should always give you the stronger build so i dont think its a bad thing overall.

As a single 3 model kit box, it should never have been a faction and been the 'must take or loose' choice for space elf players. I think ynnari have found a place where they belong and where they should have been from the start:. Narrative play.

Ynarri needs own kits or it needs to remain gak. Just imo.

Pretty much everyone, including ynnari players, are glad that ynnari got nerfed. I think what we were hoping was that they'd retain their own flavor and/or mechanical niche after said nerfing. They seem to be trying to be "Stabby eldar," but they don't seem to do that better than or possibly even as well as non-ynnari eldar. Their fluff is all about how they're the every flavor of eldar alliance, but the special character tax makes it really tough to actually field three different flavors of eldar in the same army without lowering your overall efficiency even more. Units like incubi and special character strongly tied to the ynnari can't hang out with them without finding room for an extra detachment.

The problem to me isn't that they're no longer tournament winners; it's that they actively make it more difficult to field a flavorful army and don't really feel like they have a unique playstyle. I think I might be moving towards "non-ynnari aeldari with Yvraine in a non-ynnari detachment" to better represent their fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

Ynnari are so small literally every fight they've been in has had at least one of the triumvirate present. Say with Craftworlders you can have a full scale army that doesn't include a named character but Ynnari really don't.

In Ghost Warrior, Milleniel and his dracon buddy have to lead a ynnari force consisting of former craftworlders and drukhari (and exodites?) while Yvraine and the Visarch are halfway across the craftworld. The yncarne hadn't been conjured and thus wasn't present.

Plus, a given 40k tabletop battle can generally be assumed to be a zoomed in view of a wider conflict. Just because Yvraine is present on a planet that the ynnari are attacking and ransacking for relics doesn't mean she's present at every single battlefront simultaneously

The Ultramarines are only about a thousand dudes, right? I think the ynnari can safely be assumed to outnumber the Ultramarines, yet you don't have to include Calgar, Telion, or some other named smurf in every single Ultramarines detachment in your army..

 Imateria wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I really don't understand Phil Kelly at al.
The whole effort to release a new Ynnari (index) codex.
The codex goes definitely in the wrong direction.

Thas because he hadnt been writung rules for a few years now.

Then who does so?.
He's one of the experts when it comes to Aeldari (together with former Gav Thorpe).

Wyldhunt wrote:
Partially agree. I don't feel great about the points cost of a foot autarch. The visarch is basically a foot autarch who can't regenerate CP, can't shoot, can't get strength 6 in melee, and has a special ability that lets you move a wound from one expensive special character to another expensive special character. He'd feel about right at ~70 points. He's got the durability of an autarch with worse offense and fewer useful tricks.

Archons feel like they're priced about right to me. They have more attacks than any of the other generic aeldari HQs (except maybe troupe masters) and access to some decent melee weapons. Their shadowfield is a questionable design choice, but a lucky streak of 2+ invuls can be huge with just a small amount of luck. They have their drawbacks, but I wouldn't make them much cheaper than they currently are.

I disagree about Archons.

They only have 1 more attack than the Autarch but their melee weapons are awful. The Huskblade is the only one that's even remotely good, and even that is just a Force Axe on a S3 model (with basically no access to additional buffs).

What's more, unlike Autarchs they have no ability to gain CPs each turn, and their aura is orders of magnitude worse.

The Shadowfield is just awful. A 2++ that goes away the first time it's failed is simply not reliable. And unlike every other invulnerable save in the game, it can never be rerolled even with a CP. So if you roll badly and lose it to the first wound you can do absolutely nothing about it.

What's more, again unlike the Autarch, Archons have no mobility options. The DE codex has winged models, models riding Jetbikes and models riding Skyboards. And not a single one of those is available to the Archon. So if you want him to get anywhere, he has to be in one of the DE transports - none of which have extra space for characters.

He is, if anything, vastly worse in his role than the SoB Canoness - who costs just 45pts.

 Argive wrote:
Ynnari was a problem. Soulbursting double actions for free at no cp cost was a problem.

Now ynnari arent a ptoblem. Because they have been buried in the forget this was a thing wd pile. Theres some potential for gimmicky ynari builds fir some cc units for fun and might be effective. Monodex should always give you the stronger build so i dont think its a bad thing overall.

As a single 3 model kit box, it should never have been a faction and been the 'must take or loose' choice for space elf players. I think ynnari have found a place where they belong and where they should have been from the start:. Narrative play.

Ynarri needs own kits or it needs to remain gak. Just imo.

No. Nothing should be gak. If you think something should be gak then you have no place designing games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:
How often did GW get it right and instead of either overbuffing or over nerfing did deliver a just good codex?

8th is full of them, actually.

Apart from a couple of outliers all codici stand about on the same ground, which is a first for a GW game.

It all depends on what you mean for "overbuffing or overnerfing". If it means "This unit now is mathematically worse than this one by 3% so it is obviously crap", then yeah they can't get it right.
If 2 codici can be defined good if the in the hands of 2 average players they get most of the time a fun and engaging game, then i can count on one hand the codici that do not fall in that category.

Yea right. That's why imperial and eldar soups are only ones that are really good, soup is king and internal logic is gak.

8th ed is far from balanced. Hardly surprise seeing changes are made with profit first idea.

 vipoid wrote:


As an example, if Soulburst gave +1 to Wound instead of +1 to hit, virtually every (melee) Eldar, DE and Harlequin unit would be able to make use of it.

'

I don't know why this didn't occur to me (or GW more importantly) before! Either +1 to wound, or +1 strength, would be far more interesting. It's called STRENGTH from Death after all. Banshees would love this!

tneva82 wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Ynnari was a problem. Soulbursting double actions for free at no cp cost was a problem.

Now ynnari arent a ptoblem. Because they have been buried in the forget this was a thing wd pile. Theres some potential for gimmicky ynari builds fir some cc units for fun and might be effective. Monodex should always give you the stronger build so i dont think its a bad thing overall.

As a single 3 model kit box, it should never have been a faction and been the 'must take or loose' choice for space elf players. I think ynnari have found a place where they belong and where they should have been from the start:. Narrative play.

Ynarri needs own kits or it needs to remain gak. Just imo.

No. Nothing should be gak. If you think something should be gak then you have no place designing games.

By gak i mean not top table competative. Perhaps a wrong chooice of words on my part. I have no desire to be a game designer nor claim to be one. Nothing should be gak and nothing should be auto take; like soulbursting before nerf.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I really don't understand Phil Kelly at al.
The whole effort to release a new Ynnari (index) codex.
The codex goes definitely in the wrong direction.

Thas because he hadnt been writung rules for a few years now.

Then who does so?.
He's one of the experts when it comes to Aeldari (together with former Gav Thorpe).

Well, Robin Crudace is the head of the rules writting team. Given that just about every codex with his name on it in the past has been borderline terrible (Tyranid players despise him for a reason) I think there's a good chance he's whats wrong with every bit of rules writing in 40K.

Interesting thread.

Context to my reply is that my son and I went to a RTT last weekend - he took a mix of Alaitoc CWE and Reborn Drukhari because with the selection of models he had painted he thought that would be good. He went 3-0 (I just edged him out on VP) so he was right, it was good. Or at least it was good enough.

Wyches in particular like to fight first and do also tend to be "sticky" in melee even after they are the unit that charged. Consolidating into a second unit and still fighting first against that unit on the opponent's turn is quite nice for wyches and really works with their special trick of trapping infantry so they can't get away. Wych cult units getting reroll 1's from the archon is also a nice little boost on the transports and on the reavers. A lot of the problem with units like wyches is that they tend to be wounding on 5+, with multiple ways to reroll that they almost double their damage output which makes them actually quite scary.

Arguably you can do better but from what I saw it is arguable rather than the sort of black-and-white claims of vast superiority for other options over Ynnari. Results tell stories and he got the results.

Strength from Death actually isn't as bad as many are making it to be. Being able to fight first is pretty damn good if you have squishy T3 models that are trying to wrap and trap enemy units to avoid getting shot. Large wych and possibly harlequin troupes (especially since they can charge over models again) have the ability to trap a unit, not get shot, then all will activate before the enemy gets to fight as long as your opponent kills one of your units in their turn. It's not the best but has some potential to be decent if you give your opponent an easy kill.
The strategems are so so, melee Doom is not as good as regular Doom but reroll wounds is always useful. The warlord traits and relics are great for craftworld (who's warlord traits and relics are pretty awful actually) but are a step down for harlequins and drukhari. Wraithseers will love the Lord of Rebirth Wt and the Lost Shroud relic. Walker of Many Paths is also good, and the Hungering Blade is a really good power sword.

It certainly is not the greatest, but I feel I may have to try a 3 way Ynnari list just once, with some wyches, harlequins and wraith constructs. More than likely I will just be picking 2 of the factions though because of points.

 bullyboy wrote:
Strength from Death actually isn't as bad as many are making it to be. Being able to fight first is pretty damn good if you have squishy T3 models that are trying to wrap and trap enemy units to avoid getting shot. Large wych and possibly harlequin troupes (especially since they can charge over models again) have the ability to trap a unit, not get shot, then all will activate before the enemy gets to fight as long as your opponent kills one of your units in their turn. It's not the best but has some potential to be decent if you give your opponent an easy kill.
The strategems are so so, melee Doom is not as good as regular Doom but reroll wounds is always useful. The warlord traits and relics are great for craftworld (who's warlord traits and relics are pretty awful actually) but are a step down for harlequins and drukhari. Wraithseers will love the Lord of Rebirth Wt and the Lost Shroud relic. Walker of Many Paths is also good, and the Hungering Blade is a really good power sword.

It certainly is not the greatest, but I feel I may have to try a 3 way Ynnari list just once, with some wyches, harlequins and wraith constructs. More than likely I will just be picking 2 of the factions though because of points.

Every 3 list i build end with not having shooting or have to cut important piece of the army. Maybe such army can do something in ITC terrain but it look totally useless in ETC standard.

As someone who finds Ynnari dreadfully boring and poorly written...I have no issue with them being smacked around by the nerf bat.

 Elbows wrote:
As someone who finds Ynnari dreadfully boring and poorly written...I have no issue with them being smacked around by the nerf bat.

Then you’re part of the problem with the game. You don’t like a faction? Cool story bro. Others do and they’d like for their faction to have at least decent rules. I’m sure you’d be QQ’ing if you’re favorite faction was hit. Smh.

TO be fair Ynnari are not a separate line of models, so if you had a Ynnari army the only thing you lost is mechanical. You can still make a Ynnari "themed" force using the allies rules. So it isn't the same kind of loss as say Grey Knights being awful. I mean Black Templars basically got a worse treatment a few years back, it sucks if that is your army, but the minis were still playable. Ynnari are not the Squats.

That said I though prior to the nerf that Strength From death should have been a CP regenerating trait, and their stratagems would represent the soulburst actions. That and you should be able to soup detachments with all included Aeldari factions taking the Ynnari keyword.

 Elbows wrote:
As someone who finds Ynnari dreadfully boring and poorly written...I have no issue with them being smacked around by the nerf bat.

It's the only new thing Eldar got recently. Maybe it will be next new thing we will get again. So better go on a butthurt rampage to increase the chances of next new thing being better.

Breng77 wrote:
TO be fair Ynnari are not a separate line of models, so if you had a Ynnari army the only thing you lost is mechanical. You can still make a Ynnari "themed" force using the allies rules.

I know, right? I mean, who'd want to use Ynnari Artefacts, Warlord Traits or Psychic Powers?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
As someone who finds Ynnari dreadfully boring and poorly written...I have no issue with them being smacked around by the nerf bat.

Then you’re part of the problem with the game. You don’t like a faction? Cool story bro. Others do and they’d like for their faction to have at least decent rules. I’m sure you’d be QQ’ing if you’re favorite faction was hit. Smh.

I think "the problem with the game" is too many factions, including little dinky pointless factions which shouldn't actually be armies - it detracts and dilutes the attention normal armies get. They're just sales gimmicks. I'm free to dislike them as I please.

 Elbows wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
As someone who finds Ynnari dreadfully boring and poorly written...I have no issue with them being smacked around by the nerf bat.

Then you’re part of the problem with the game. You don’t like a faction? Cool story bro. Others do and they’d like for their faction to have at least decent rules. I’m sure you’d be QQ’ing if you’re favorite faction was hit. Smh.

I think "the problem with the game" is too many factions, including little dinky pointless factions which shouldn't actually be armies - it detracts and dilutes the attention normal armies get. They're just sales gimmicks. I'm free to dislike them as I please.

I think this would carry more weight if Ynnari had actually got releases. Instead, not only did they receive no new models, they didn't even get a codex. All they got was a few pages in White Dwarf.

Given that the model releases in the last two years can largely be summed up as: Marines, Marines, Marines, Marines, bigger Marines, more Marines, Evil Marines, even bigger Marines, more Evil Marines etc., you'll forgive me if I find it hard to believe that it's Ynnari that are diluting the attention paid to other armies.

It's because three models do not a faction make. It's a horribly written mis-managed and lazy attempt at introducing a faction.

Background-wise, Ynnari is pretty much the best thing that ever happend to Eldar-fluff in 40K, dragging the pile of dirt that was all about boring gak that happened thousands upon thousands of years ago and nobody cared about into something that had stuff happening in the narrative "here and now" of 40K, making pointy ears part of the ongoing story.

 Elbows wrote:
It's because three models do not a faction make. It's a horribly written mis-managed and lazy attempt at introducing a faction.

I think the idea of Ynnari is okay. The problem is that the execution has been unbelievably half-arsed.

I don't agree at all. Eldar of both stripes had multiple points of entry into the 'ongoing story' (Iyanden vs. Tyranids, eldar vs. resurgent necrons & chaos, what the giant warp nonsense means, how it affects the webway, etc, etc.)

None of that required a 'both sides' army glued together by a couple special characters which aren't even memorable enough to have names.

Any given farseer could have patched Roboute's neck and gotten a fast reaction force together to hit hotspots in the chaos surge, and various characters could have participated in post 8th edition events. GW just didn't bother.

Ynead was one of those cryptic un-detailed 'secrets' hanging around to flesh out the background for decades. They could have developed something interesting off of the hints and riddles, but instead decided to pluck that fruit, take a tiny bite and toss it.