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.

 vipoid wrote:
I mean, I certainly can't help but wonder if GW regrets even making Ynnari a thing, given that they've done naff-all with the concept since 7th.

I think Ynnari may have been the faction with the biggest dissonance between how GW thinks the game is played and how it's actually played, resulting in constant attempts to fix it ending in the 180 of flipping from shoots to melee, whilst hamstringing the majority of existing Eldar melee by taking away their faction bonus for a middling bonus

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I mean, I certainly can't help but wonder if GW regrets even making Ynnari a thing, given that they've done naff-all with the concept since 7th.

I think Ynnari may have been the faction with the biggest dissonance between how GW thinks the game is played and how it's actually played, resulting in constant attempts to fix it ending in the 180 of flipping from shoots to melee, whilst hamstringing the majority of existing Eldar melee by taking away their faction bonus for a middling bonus

Yup, not to mention units (such as Shining Spears) being priced on the basis of their effectiveness with Ynnari.

Waaaghbert wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but am I the only one who dislikes the fact that you HAVE to field one of the Triumvirate members to play Ynnari in the first place? I figured with that many aeldari "converted" for their cause there should be other leaders, archons, farseers, etc.
Given, I'm a massive fan of "your dude*ettes" but locking a whole army to three SCs just irritates me.

No, I'm absolutely in the same boat. I want to be able to play Ynnari without being shackled to those 3 sodding special characters.

I also just think the Ynnari army-construction rules in general are a convoluted mess.

 harlokin wrote:
I understand the PoV, but I feel the opposite; if you don't wan't to field one of the Ynnari characters, what exactly is the attraction to to the faction in the first place.

Speaking personally, I'd simply like to use aspects of the Ynnari rules to represent something different.

In the same way that I might use Poison Tongue to represent a custom Kabal that isn't actually Poison Tongue but which simply has similar themes.

 harlokin wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but am I the only one who dislikes the fact that you HAVE to field one of the Triumvirate members to play Ynnari in the first place? I figured with that many aeldari "converted" for their cause there should be other leaders, archons, farseers, etc.
Given, I'm a massive fan of "your dude*ettes" but locking a whole army to three SCs just irritates me.

I understand the PoV, but I feel the opposite; if you don't wan't to field one of the Ynnari characters, what exactly is the attraction to to the faction in the first place.

That said, I'm not the one to ask, as I would be overjoyed if the Yvraine mini was formally reboxed as Lady Malys, the Visarch as an alternative Archon.

So every ultramarine army should include guillimann? Every ig army should have yarrick? Every necron army should have silent king?

tneva82 wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but am I the only one who dislikes the fact that you HAVE to field one of the Triumvirate members to play Ynnari in the first place? I figured with that many aeldari "converted" for their cause there should be other leaders, archons, farseers, etc.
Given, I'm a massive fan of "your dude*ettes" but locking a whole army to three SCs just irritates me.

I understand the PoV, but I feel the opposite; if you don't wan't to field one of the Ynnari characters, what exactly is the attraction to to the faction in the first place.

That said, I'm not the one to ask, as I would be overjoyed if the Yvraine mini was formally reboxed as Lady Malys, the Visarch as an alternative Archon.

So every ultramarine army should include guillimann? Every ig army should have yarrick? Every necron army should have silent king?

Yes, of course that's clearly exactly what I said, thanks for the strawmanning, and go feth yourself.

tneva82 wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but am I the only one who dislikes the fact that you HAVE to field one of the Triumvirate members to play Ynnari in the first place? I figured with that many aeldari "converted" for their cause there should be other leaders, archons, farseers, etc.
Given, I'm a massive fan of "your dude*ettes" but locking a whole army to three SCs just irritates me.

I understand the PoV, but I feel the opposite; if you don't wan't to field one of the Ynnari characters, what exactly is the attraction to to the faction in the first place.

That said, I'm not the one to ask, as I would be overjoyed if the Yvraine mini was formally reboxed as Lady Malys, the Visarch as an alternative Archon.

So every ultramarine army should include guillimann? Every ig army should have yarrick? Every necron army should have silent king?

These armies you give as examples actually have models.
Playing Ynnari without any of these 3 models feels like playing inquisition without any Inquisitor or acolytes (performance on the tabletop aside).

For me, the main draw of playing Ynnari is the characters. Especially the Yncarne.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Cawl, Celetine, Guilliman and Voldrus are all still decent choices in their respective armies. The rest are fluffy choices and still good models.

Why would GW regret producing these boxes? They were well received and sold well didn't they?

The Ynnari one is edging towards unusable at this point.

Yvraine seems popular. Obviously they will need to get caught up to 9th ( as do most of these models ).

You and everyone else need to go and take a look at the previewed Drukhari rules, including any none Drukhari models in a list will now cost you your Power From Pain ability, the only time you'll see them from now on, maybe, is in a Harlequin list.

 Imateria wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Cawl, Celetine, Guilliman and Voldrus are all still decent choices in their respective armies. The rest are fluffy choices and still good models.

Why would GW regret producing these boxes? They were well received and sold well didn't they?

The Ynnari one is edging towards unusable at this point.

Yvraine seems popular. Obviously they will need to get caught up to 9th ( as do most of these models ).

You and everyone else need to go and take a look at the previewed Drukhari rules, including any none Drukhari models in a list will now cost you your Power From Pain ability, the only time you'll see them from now on, maybe, is in a Harlequin list.

i wouldnt be surprised if Ynnari get a rule that overrides this (for adding single character to Aeldari armies).

And personally i love the concept of the Ynnari, unlikely allies banding together in a last push against their extinction is pretty cool. The problem is that the armybuilding is total ass.

Make Ynnari able to take any Aeldari models in a single detachment but force them to lose all their faction-specific bonuses, stratagems, relics, psychic powers, etc. Basically revert the armybuilding to what it was before the WD massacre but keep the army rules from WD to keep it balanced. Once this is done, treat it like a completely standalone army and change the costs for Ynnari models specifically (so shiningspears or dark reapers don't pay the Ynnari tax even if theyre really saim-hann).

 Eldarsif wrote:
Yeah I don't get this criticism against BSF. Normal boardgames tend to have a much smaller lifecycle than tabletop wargames unless they become household names(Carcassone, Settlers of Catan, etc).

I think it's less about the game itself, and more that the minis just vanished into the ether rather than getting a separate release.

the_scotsman wrote:

Grey Knight Hammer Man: Honestly I don't know anything about this cat. Maybe he's doing fine. Chime in, I guess, GK players? Do you use Mr. Hammer?

After psychic awakening, he is quite good as he can cast 3 psychic powers and the GK character's psychic power are essential for the army mechanics. Besides that for an extra 22 points, he is a GM that comes with an in-build GK power hammer and is a better beast stick. Actually if you got the points and you just care about competitiveness, there is little reason besides a point-wise tight list to choose a regular GM over him.

So i guess that GW is not as angry with this box

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's less about the game itself, and more that the minis just vanished into the ether rather than getting a separate release.

I'm hoping that some of the mortal units either get bunched up with the next CSM codex. It'd be too much to hope for a GW-backed R&H army.

 Imateria wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Cawl, Celetine, Guilliman and Voldrus are all still decent choices in their respective armies. The rest are fluffy choices and still good models.

Why would GW regret producing these boxes? They were well received and sold well didn't they?

The Ynnari one is edging towards unusable at this point.

Yvraine seems popular. Obviously they will need to get caught up to 9th ( as do most of these models ).

You and everyone else need to go and take a look at the previewed Drukhari rules, including any none Drukhari models in a list will now cost you your Power From Pain ability, the only time you'll see them from now on, maybe, is in a Harlequin list.

Which is why you need to wait for ynnari to get updated...

Waaaghbert wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but am I the only one who dislikes the fact that you HAVE to field one of the Triumvirate members to play Ynnari in the first place? I figured with that many aeldari "converted" for their cause there should be other leaders, archons, farseers, etc.
Given, I'm a massive fan of "your dude*ettes" but locking a whole army to three SCs just irritates me.

Well, the whole point was to sell you that box of 3 minis.... So if you want to play that force, you need to play one of those models.

GW regrets nothing. You bought the models, didn’t you? To them that’s success - nothing for *them* to regret.

Now go out and buy The Silent King and the Void Dragon. GW will make sure they’ll be properly nerfed in about 2 years, just in time to buy something equally big and new.

dhallnet wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but am I the only one who dislikes the fact that you HAVE to field one of the Triumvirate members to play Ynnari in the first place? I figured with that many aeldari "converted" for their cause there should be other leaders, archons, farseers, etc.
Given, I'm a massive fan of "your dude*ettes" but locking a whole army to three SCs just irritates me.

I understand the PoV, but I feel the opposite; if you don't wan't to field one of the Ynnari characters, what exactly is the attraction to to the faction in the first place.

That said, I'm not the one to ask, as I would be overjoyed if the Yvraine mini was formally reboxed as Lady Malys, the Visarch as an alternative Archon.

So every ultramarine army should include guillimann? Every ig army should have yarrick? Every necron army should have silent king?

These armies you give as examples actually have models.
Playing Ynnari without any of these 3 models feels like playing inquisition without any Inquisitor or acolytes (performance on the tabletop aside).

How about playing Ulthwe without Eldrad? He's the only *strictly* Ulthwe model/character, is it even an Ulthwe list without one?

 Stormonu wrote:
GW regrets nothing. You bought the models, didn’t you? To them that’s success - nothing for *them* to regret.

Now go out and buy The Silent King and the Void Dragon. GW will make sure they’ll be properly nerfed in about 2 years, just in time to buy something equally big and new.

Fortunately for my VD and SK I play my games only worried about the here & now.
And whatever rules shifts do/don't come they'll always be great looking models - and I'll continue to use them simply for that fact.

Cronch wrote:
How about playing Ulthwe without Eldrad? He's the only *strictly* Ulthwe model/character, is it even an Ulthwe list without one?

I'll be interested to see if there are any updates on Ynarri fluff in the new DE dex; Lelith has supported the Ynarri cause with Vect's approval... Or at least tacit acceptance.

Given Lelith's activity in the Charadon Campaign, it makes me wonder how that impacts on relationships with both the Ynarri and Vect. Might give us an indicator what's to come.

I'll just say, I don't think they have anything against people who bought those boxes, I just don't think they give a poop about any of us in general.

dhallnet wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

Waaaghbert wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but am I the only one who dislikes the fact that you HAVE to field one of the Triumvirate members to play Ynnari in the first place? I figured with that many aeldari "converted" for their cause there should be other leaders, archons, farseers, etc.
Given, I'm a massive fan of "your dude*ettes" but locking a whole army to three SCs just irritates me.

I understand the PoV, but I feel the opposite; if you don't wan't to field one of the Ynnari characters, what exactly is the attraction to to the faction in the first place.

That said, I'm not the one to ask, as I would be overjoyed if the Yvraine mini was formally reboxed as Lady Malys, the Visarch as an alternative Archon.

So every ultramarine army should include guillimann? Every ig army should have yarrick? Every necron army should have silent king?

These armies you give as examples actually have models.
Playing Ynnari without any of these 3 models feels like playing inquisition without any Inquisitor or acolytes (performance on the tabletop aside).

Well you see that's where we disagree. It's different from the inquisition, as it is a thing of belief, not of command structure. I don't remember the codex, but in an older Eldar Codex there already was a hint to the Ynnari, that a small sect of Eldar started figuring that a "new" God could arise from all the dead eldar inside the infinity Circuit and combat Slaanesh once all Eldar are dead. What's with those dudes? They don't need to be commanded by one of those three to fight for that cause. Likewise a Farseer or Archon who pledged himself to Ynnead can go out and fight battles for himself, without a single one of the triumvirate.

 Gert wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's less about the game itself, and more that the minis just vanished into the ether rather than getting a separate release.

I'm hoping that some of the mortal units either get bunched up with the next CSM codex. It'd be too much to hope for a GW-backed R&H army.

Given that the Cultists of the Abyss feature in the Sisters of Battle 'Stained Glass Window of Unit Previews,' I suspect they're going to do something with them. Probably just plop them in the CSM codex given that they're in there with non-descript blue chaos marines, but I don't think we've seen the last of them.