Ynnari Tactics - Initial impressions

Well... played against Sm today (MSU spam style) and I must say, NEVER take MSU against Ynarri lists... I tabled turn 2.

The coolest thing was my WK (melee) turn 1 charge (Move + souldburst Move for 24" then charge).
I basically Had 2 turns for his 1 and it was just ridiculous.


I'd say for SM Thunderfire Cannons are a great counter to Ynarri, 60" anything lange range that can kill MSU squads are good. Fliers i feel might be good too.

Melee DS armies (SW) would be good, sense Ynarri units wat to be close ish to each other, you can easily get a multi charge off and deny some of the souldburst, shooting the units around the melee stuck Eldar would prevent some more Soulburst.


Over all its extremely strong, 2 games in and its just stupid.

The Ynnari are only good if people know how to play them, so getting results out of them is entirely up to their wielder. If you don't know how to play them effectively then getting extra actions is just going to allow you to screw up faster and more frequently. That being said if you do know how to play them they will allow you to table people in record time, as amishprn86 demonstrates. Unfortunately, as much as I hate them, I feel obligated to learn to play them for tournaments now seeing just *how* effective they are.

I honestly dont think they will be allowed in tournaments for 3 reasons

1) Complexity of rules (to many rules lawering)
2) Large power cap
3) Turn complexity of players unit turns with another ynarii

Example, I have 3 units he has 3 units, I kill 1 so I get 2 soulburst but so does he, so I would have to take both of mine killing 1 more unit but I dont get my next soulburst action b.c he still needs to take his before moving on etc....

If it makes the game worse you can bet your bottom dollar the ITC is going to make sure it's not only tournament legal but encouraged. I have no doubt this entire supplement will be allowed and with the most generous rules decisions granted in its favor by their updated FAQ.

Of course it will be allowed... But the idea that ITC wants unbalanced and silly rules interpretations to make things worse and encouraged is laughable

If anything, the ITC will cross the street to black an Eldar player's eye. I'm sure the Ynnari will be allowed, but I fully expect every rules ambiguity to be decided against us.

Considering they chose to leave out DftS, the only supplement barred from the tournament scene that benefited lower tier armies, they clearly enjoy the status quo. And if anything is status quo, it's high powered Eldar lists.

They binned DftS due to it adding an entire new phase to the turn that was already taking too long at their chosen point level. Nothing whatsoever to do with power levels.

You mean the entirely optional dogfight phase? Thru also threw out every bonus it granted flyers and the detachments. The ITC are bad and they should feel bad.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to disagree.

Opinions are like rectums. Everyone's got one and some people spend a lot of time looking at them on the internet...

#NotHelping

TeenageAngst wrote:

You mean the entirely optional dogfight phase? Thru also threw out every bonus it granted flyers and the detachments. The ITC are bad and they should feel bad.

don't blame the ITC, blame the players. They gave the community the option to allow the rules without the dogfight phase. The community voted to just scrap the entire book wholesale.

Oh I know, but that's the only one they ever required a vote for. Wish we could have voted on these gathering storm ones.

they do quarterly votes. next vote should be soon.

If it's slated I hope they get shot down. Like I said though, requiring a vote for a GW supplement started with DftS, everything else was assumed to be good. I see no reason these ones will be voted on at all.

TeenageAngst wrote:

everything else was assumed to be good.

No it wasn't. Ranged D was nerfed because, at the time, it only existed on wraithknights and was voted in as a direct wraithknight nerf, along with only allowing 1 LoW/Superheavy(which they later made concession could be more than 1 model if you were allowed to take them in a group, such as the Tau GMC), or they scrapped the limit altogether if you wanted to play imperial knights, because LONG LIVE THE IMPERIUM!!!

LOTS of ITC voted nerfs are to the detriment of Eldar. Almost every single eldar-specific issue that is brought up, in fact, goes against Eldar interests, because it's a popular vote and over half of all players are space marine players of some variety, sharing the exact same attitude you're conveying here, where "eldar are super OP", when they're really not in the current meta. They even specifically gimped corsairs in a number of ways while allowing the obvious errors that were NOT in corsairs favor to remain as written.

I can't recall a single time when the ITC has ruled on something in a grey area that was in the Eldar's favor, in fact.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

TeenageAngst wrote:

everything else was assumed to be good.

No it wasn't. Ranged D was nerfed because, at the time, it only existed on wraithknights and was voted in as a direct wraithknight nerf, along with only allowing 1 LoW/Superheavy(which they later made concession could be more than 1 model if you were allowed to take them in a group, such as the Tau GMC), or they scrapped the limit altogether if you wanted to play imperial knights, because LONG LIVE THE IMPERIUM!!!

LOTS of ITC voted nerfs are to the detriment of Eldar. Almost every single eldar-specific issue that is brought up, in fact, goes against Eldar interests, because it's a popular vote and over half of all players are space marine players of some variety, sharing the exact same attitude you're conveying here, where "eldar are super OP", when they're really not in the current meta. They even specifically gimped corsairs in a number of ways while allowing the obvious errors that were NOT in corsairs favor to remain as written.

I can't recall a single time when the ITC has ruled on something in a grey area that was in the Eldar's favor, in fact.

This, and we will see Ynarri as another example as that.


Honestly tho if it must be nerf there are a couple nerfs that i would be fine with in general (after talking to my club members)

1) Soulburst is active only when the current active unit has been fully resolved (this will cut down on many rules quarrels)
2) Each unit can only soulburst once per game turn (this will cut down on game turn length, power creep and confusion of 2 ynarri players complexity).

The 1st one will or something like it happen just to not have to make 20 FAQ's... if they dont do that then we need 20 FAQs lol.

I'm fine with them not allowing it until it's been properly FAQed just like DftS wasn't allowed until there were FW rules. Now though, the latter is a travesty and the former is going to be an absolute nightmare to run in a tournament setting without a lot of clearly defined rules.

TeenageAngst wrote:

I'm fine with them not allowing it until it's been properly FAQed just like DftS wasn't allowed until there were FW rules.

I doubt they'd do that. You're suggesting them doing something that would ban an entire "faction" from the game. That isn't something the ITC is generally apt to do. They'd just nerf them to oblivion.

DftS is a small supplement that doesn't directly stop anyone from playing a given faction, and banning it is more akin to banning something like stronghold assault. And they basically DID ban a lot of stronghold assault, just not in it's entirety.

@BetrayTheWorld come on man at least let me dream. All I want is to not have to sit through some neckbeard trying to learn how to play his "new army" half way through a tournament round as he belligerently tells me rules he has that I know are wrong. If there is one bone the ITC can throw me after kicking DftS out it'd be denying the Gathering Storm factions.

Throwing you that bone would cost thousands of other players the hundreds of thousands of dollars they've invested in the gathering storm books and models, though.

And as for things you know are wrong...well, we shall let sleeping dogs lie, this time.

Thinly veiled insults aren't any more polite than blatant ones. Please refrain.

Jimsolo wrote:

Thinly veiled insults aren't any more polite than blatant ones.  Please refrain.

That wasn't an insult, veiled or otherwise, but rather a comment that it's difficult for ANYONE to say they "know" anything as a fact when GW's intent is at issue.

Please refrain from assuming the worst in what I write.

Way to NOT let sleeping dogs lie.

@Jimsolo Betray can say whatever he wants to me idc