Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Now I know a lot of people love banshees and how they are so great. Well I am just here cause I have grown tired of posting this in all the other threads that talk about banshees.
Please do not just respond with you are wrong, I encourage you to first read all of what I say and then check in the rule book and your eldar codex. Please only then respond with why I may be wrong and stat or tell me where in the rules you found this.
Fact 1: Banshee Mask.
Stats that a model wearing it has initiative 10 and that it negates any bonus for cover or grenades.
Fact 2: 5th Charging rules. (this is the second paragraph of the second column of page 36)
The second disadvantage is ..... if an assaulting unit had to take a difficult or dangerous terrain test during their assault move, all the models have their initiative value lowered to 1 when attacking, regardless of other initiative modifiers.
Fact 3: Rules for Grenades (page 36)
Assault grenades .... Models equipped with assault grenades don't suffer the penalty to their initiative for assaulting enemies through cover, but fight as normal.
- Note that it does not say anything about a unit gaining an initiative bonus from cover. It only stats that if you had to test for difficult or dangerous terrain you strike at initiative 1. Where the enemy unit is has no effect on this.
- Also as you can see by this units such as harlequins (for difficult only) and c'tan plus anything else that ignore the terrain never suffer this penalty as they never have to test for it.
Last edited by Lyzaru; June 9th, 2009 at 08:08.
- You must set fire to water or you will be extinguished.
I think it's the spirit of the rules that counts. No tournament I've heard of has ruled against Banshee Masks in this case.
you forgot 2 things n you analysis.
1. fact Codex rule precede Rulebook rule so if in codex it says it hits at I10 and negates any bonus it will
2. fact Cover do not give any bonus specifically in close combat so if you analyze the logic of those 2 rules together, the penalty for the attacker is the bonus for the defender. So the mask still apply!!!!
If i find someone who twist the rule so badly i`ll be waaaagh on him ... or i`ll remember not to let any IG player disembark from valkyrie without grav chutes cause they`ll not have 2 inches from exit point and other badly written rules.
I see your point, Lyzaru. However I do not agree with you, for two different reasons :
1. The "hard" one : as niraco says, the Eldar Codex says that in a first round of assault a fig with a Banshee Mask strikes at I10 AND negates cover bonuses etc. Now, Codex specific rules have precedence over BRB. Strictly speaking, the specific rule (strike with I 10) is enough, even if there was no reference whatsoever to cover. It is a positive rule that tells you figs with B. Mask strike at I 10, period.
2. The "soft" one : the second part of the Mask rule (and negates cover bonuses...) is clear in spirit, and was clear in its effect in 4th ed. You are right to point that with the 5th ed change on how cover (well... terrain, really) affect charges, there is no cover bonus anymore. However, I think the litteral application of the new rule you advocate will be felt as excessive rule-lawyering by a vast majority of players. As I said, this is a soft argument only. But I think it precisely fits with the spirit and mindset GW has tried to foster with 5th ed.
So my personal interpretation is as follows :
The Banshee Mask makes the fig strike at I10. Does it apply even if the assaulted models are in cover ? Yes, because of the second part of the Mask rule (negates cover). There has been a small oversight by GW about how the precise wording of 5th ed cover effect would interact with the 4th ed writing of the Banshee Mask. And, well, they've forgotten to put a FAQ on that. But most players agree on the intention of the Mask rule to negate cover effects.
A bit fuzzy on the second part of the argument, I grant you.
First the effect you suffer is clearly not a bonus, as it is even stated as a penalty, second it says that you suffer it regardless of other initiative modifiers (this is anything that modifies your initiative not just bonuses), so with out something saying it negates this penalty you don't negate it, it is really that simple. This is not a matter of codex over rides as the codex is not being over ridden by the rule book, it simply is not affecting it.1. fact Codex rule precede Rulebook rule so if in codex it says it hits at I10 and negates any bonus it willThat is a leap of hopes and dreams, as by your nonlogic anything that is negative on you counts as a bonus for me even though it is not affecting my units but is affecting yours.2. fact Cover do not give any bonus specifically in close combat so if you analyze the logic of those 2 rules together, the penalty for the attacker is the bonus for the defender. So the mask still apply!!!!
I am totally for the banshee mask working it just doesn't right now just as all the other little problems that we have. Things like assault cannons and storm shields having many different rules. I am tired of GW making only one errata per 2-3 years and leaving out half the problems, and spending 5-7 years to update most army rules, and then saying well it takes time to do the rules or we dont want to have lots of erratas, well the time they spend doesn't seem to help them so they should just fix the problems.
(sorry for the rant verse GW at the end, they just make me so angry as most of the problems could be fixed in a week on their part)
Last edited by Lyzaru; June 9th, 2009 at 14:49.
- You must set fire to water or you will be extinguished.
I see your point from a very strict RAW standpoint. This is yet another case of something that needs an errata. Too bad that is not the current GW style.
If you really take litterally the rule, that means a lot of every day logical assumptions about the rules are wrong. My example with the valkyrie is chosen because of that. Do you deny a IG player the ability to disembark from a valkyrie? If yes you are right in the strictess sense of the RAW but i wonder who would wanna play with you. I know i would not and i am one of the most RAW player in my gaming club.
You know the best way is common sense and logic.
What is did was not "nonlogic" but was a logical argument, with logical as the science. Is the logic of a cause effect ratio in a bilatteral relation. we both run to a point of a hill. You run from the top. I get the penalty in the contest that i have to run upside. My penalty is your bonus as you run downside. Pure logic. You cannot put "anything that is negative on you counts as a bonus for me" because is not a direct relation between that anything and the other anything. Logical relations appear between objective entities related by a single action at the basic level. Multiple logical relations can be splitted in the end in bilateral relations.
Niraco your posts make the english language cry.
If I understand you correctly you think that the rule as written does not correspond to the intended rule. Right ? So that RAW = Banshee Mask does not serve its apparent purpose in 5th ed anymore, while RAI = Banshee Mask grants I10 when charging through terrain.
If that is your point of view, then I must agree that from a very strict application of RAW (without ANY interpretation) you are right.
As you say the solution for GW would be very simple, and I support your rant ;-)
HOWEVER most gamers accept some fuzziness in the application of rules (which means really that they are working with RAI + "fuzzy RAW" rather than pure RAW...), and this means that pure RAW gamers are rejected by the majority.
In this case my vote goes to RAI + "fuzzy RAW", because I think the intention about how the Mask interacts with cover (now terrain in 5th ed...) is really clear. It is just the wording for the "mechanics" of how it works out that has gone out of synch between a 4th ed codex and the 5th ed BRB...
There will always be discrepencies when the system gets an update, older books will have rules that no longer make sense and newer books have a lot less but GW always manages to get a few F*** ups in their codexs.
Best solution, to have a sensible interpretation of rules, the combination of RAW and RAI is the best policy, but like I said within reason. So if i was playing against banshees, I'd let them have their I10 and I would let guard disembark from a valkilry (sp) because you have to look past the errors in the text and see the true intention of the rule.
Rules lawyers are never popular, by all means discuss mistakes in wording but always come to a sensible outcome, worse comes to worse, 4+ is the Law lol.