[Yon Penguin]

must... say... it...

How tactically interesting are Iyanden compared to Tau?

There. I apologize for cluttering up this board with more of my useless wishy-washiness. :-\

[Wargamer]

The two armies play very differently.

One is an army of strong, mid-long range infantry with tactically flexible niche-support units.

The other is an army of high-durability, but tactically limited infantry, backed up by powerful, yet overestimated mega-infantry, and supported by a myriad of ultra-specialised, but exceedingly deadly troops.

However, neither are more "interesting" than the other... different, yes, but it depends what you want out of an army.
My suggestion would be to proxy both, try them out in a few test games, and find which suits your style of play best. Iyanden, I would imagine, are harder to use, but far superior to Tau in the hands of a master.

what army do you already play,if any? that often affects decisions. i decided to go for Dark Eldar because they were a compromise of Tau they went fast and they were both good at shooting.

[Yriel of Iyanden]

Hi Yon Penguin,

For a quick overview of Iyanden, have a look here. If you have any specific questions feel free to post them on the Eldar forum.

The other is an army of high-durability, but tactically limited infantry, backed up by powerful, yet overestimated mega-infantry, and supported by a myriad of ultra-specialised, but exceedingly deadly troops.

I agree with Wargamer's assessment. It's on the money. Iyanden is often misunderstood, tactically challenging, but utterly devastating in capable hands.

[Spiritbw]

....and with that to keep the always problematic flames and bashing out......