Banshees vs Swarm Lord

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.

**Nachoman11**

Hey me and my friends were having a game and my howling banshees assaulted the Swamp Lord and the swamp lord has the tail whip or whatever that makes you Initiative 1 and my banshees has the masks which make them Initiative 10 we decided to just leave the Initiatives at normal Initiative but its been bugging me who would win??

**Gwar!**

Nachoman11 wrote:Hey me and my friends were having a game and my howling banshees assaulted the Swamp Lord and the swamp lord has the tail whip or whatever that makes you Initiative 1 and my banshees has the masks which make them Initiative 10 we decided to just leave the Initiatives at normal Initiative but its been bugging me who would win??

The Swarm Lord doesn't have lash whips...

A quick search for Lash whips:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/jforum.page?module=search&action=search&search_keywords=Lash+Whip&match_type=all&forum=15&daterange=-1&daterange2=0&sort_by=time&sort_dir=DESC&resulttype=1

2nd result:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/318643.page#1955100

In short, the Lash Whips do win.

**Nachoman11**

haha sorry i dont play nids that much i knew it was someone with lash whips but i wasnt sure

**Formosa**

wait in that link you gave it has the FAQ, that clearly states the banchees win.

**Gwar!**

Formosa wrote:wait in that link you gave it has the FAQ, that clearly states the banchees win.

-sigh-

DISCLAIMER TO THE MODS: Yes, I know what Y.M.D.C has to say about F.A.Qs, but I am now going to answer with my own opinion. Please don't ban me for this again.

The GW FAQ, quite simply, ignores the rules. The GW FAQs tend to do that a lot. Luckily, by GW's own admission, they are nothing but House Rules, so, in my own and several other peoples view, completely worthless.

I find that the game is significantly improved if you just ignore the FAQ part and stick to using the errata. That way you don't get idiotic things like "Omfg this paper thin bit of vehicle hull can protect me from t3h wrath of the Mive Hind" and other moronic things that ignore the clear rules as written.

So, ok, fine. If you want to play by the FAQs, the Banshees win. If you want to play by the actual rules, the Lash Whips win.

There, everyone is happy now.

**insaniak**

Gwar! wrote:DISCLAIMER TO THE MODS: Yes, I know what Y.M.D.C has to say about F.A.Qs, but I am now going to answer with my own opinion. Please don't ban me for this again.

Save the histrionics, Gwar.

You're perfectly entitled to have an opinion on the game, and to decide for yourself whether or not to follow the FAQs. It's how you choose to present that opinion that determines how the post is received, just as for any other poster on these boards.

**BSent**

I disagree with you. I think it would be the banshees. The banshee mask inflicts damage to the nervous system of the enemy, so the banshees aren't initiative 10 but the enemys reaction to it is so slow it's equivalent to them being initiative 10. But the lash whip is physically slowing the attacker so they strike slower.

So basically the swarmlord's reaction time(initiative) is reduced so much that the banshees will strike first regardless of physically incapacitated they are.

But this is just what makes sense to me fluff wise. The real question, is why banshees are in close combat with a swarmlord in the fist place.

**Gwar!**

Soulx wrote:I disagree with you. I think it would be the banshees. The banshee mask inflicts damage to the nervous system of the enemy, so the banshees aren't initiative 10 but the enemys reaction to it is so slow it's equivalent to them being initiative 10. But the lash whip is physically slowing the attacker so they strike slower.

So basically the swarmlord's reaction time(initiative) is reduced so much that the banshees will strike first regardless of physically incapacitated they are.

But this is just what makes sense to me fluff wise. The real question, is why banshees are in close combat with a swarmlord in the fist place.

Fluff ≠ Rules though.

If fluff were rules, I would win every game with my orks (because they can never lose) and clean house at any tournament I go to.

The RaW is 110% clear. The Lash Whips win out.

**insaniak**

Gwar! wrote:The RaW is 110% clear. The Lash Whips win out.

The RAW, which on this forum includes the FAQs, is 110% clear in the opposite direction.

For what it's worth, I agree with the FAQ on this one. The lash whip modifies the model's actual initiative, with anything else that affects their initiative then applying on top of it.

As an alternate way of looking at it, the Banshees have an effect that kicks in specifically in the first round of combat. The Lash Whip is an effect that will apply the rest of the time.

**Gwar!**

insaniak wrote:
Gwar! wrote:The RaW is 110% clear. The Lash Whips win out.
The RAW, which on this forum includes the FAQs, is 110% clear in the opposite direction.

That is not the RaW though. That's the RaTheForumSaysWithExtraHouseRules.

-shrug- Whatever. The fact that I even feel I need to put in such a disclaimer in my post speaks a lot, in my opinion.

I have said my bit, I'll leave any further discussion to other peeps.

**insaniak**

Gwar! wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Gwar! wrote:The RaW is 110% clear. The Lash Whips win out.
The RAW, which on this forum includes the FAQs, is 110% clear in the opposite direction.
That is not the RaW though. That's the RaTheForumSaysWithExtraHouseRules.

No, Gwar, that's the RAW, as it is interpreted on these forums.

The whole point of the tenet clarifying what was included as 'official rules' was to stop every single rules thread from devolving into yet another discussion over whether or not to follow the FAQs. We ran polls, we compiled out own gaming experience, and from that decided that the best route was to accept the FAQs as a part of the rules of the game, based on the fact that the vast majority of gamers do the same.

The fact that you 'feel the need' to put such a disclaimer in your post boils down to nothing more than your continued inability to adapt to the rules of this forum. If you can not accept, for the sake of discussion on this forum, that the FAQs are treated by most gamers as actual rules, then quite frankly you're wasting your own and everyone else's time posting here in the first place.

The constant rehashing of the FAQ debate is unnecessary and tedious. Get over it, or move on.

**Cryonicleech**

Wait wait wait, before this gets out of hand, Gwar do you mind explaining the wording? Not because I doubt you, you are the premier rules expert here, but because I'd like to see the logic.

**zeshin**

RAW plus FAQ* would seem to disagree, but just RAW in the Eldar and the 'Nid codex it seems to me that lash whips win. The banshee mask makes them initiative 10 on the first round of combat but the lash whips seem to clearly say they would make that 10 count as a 1 regardless of whether it's a 10, 9, or an irrational number for their initiative.

*Just for clarification RAW and the FAQ's are different even by the tenets of YMDC as they say "2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs." Emphasis mine.

**insaniak**

zeshin wrote:*Just for clarification RAW and the FAQ's are different even by the tenets of YMDC as they say "2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs." Emphasis mine.

That 'and' means that they both apply. That's kind of the point...

**zeshin**

insaniak wrote:
zeshin wrote:*Just for clarification RAW and the FAQ's are different even by the tenets of YMDC as they say "2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs." Emphasis mine.

That 'and' means that they both apply. That's kind of the point...

They both may apply but they are not both RAW. One is "RAW" and the other is "Rules as FAQ'ed after we decided to clarify something that was unclear or completely change something that might not have been unclear but we wanted to work differently to how it was written". Of course RAFAQAWDTCSTWUOCCSTMNHBUBWWTWDTHIWW is way to long of an abbreviation.

And you have to admit that in some ways the FAQ's have made clear departures from the actually written rules of the game, so whereas YMDC may include reference to FAQ's as a point of clarification where something is unclear, it would seem silly not to discuss RAW and how said FAQ's actually contradict them (or seem to at any rate) in some instances.

And again in this particular instance I would have to disagree with the FAQ.

**ChrisCP**

And they seem to have started to add 'Warhammer 40: Errata' as a footer to FAQ's post Febuary '10, bit hard to check atm thou as both Orks and Deamons seem to be broken

Wich I'll take as a step in the right direction by Gw, and probably a sign of just how annoying our asking for adequate, clear, rules is becoming!

**insaniak**

zeshin wrote:They both may apply but they are not both RAW. One is "RAW" and the other is "Rules as FAQ'ed after we decided to clarify something that was unclear or completely change something that might not have been unclear but we wanted to work differently to how it was written".

No, one is the rulebook, and the other is the FAQ, which provides errara and clarification as to how the rulebook is supposed to be used. Because we accept the FAQ's as an official source of rules they both, together, provide the Rules as Written.

And you have to admit that in some ways the FAQ's have made clear departures from the actually written rules of the game, so whereas YMDC may include reference to FAQ's as a point of clarification where something is unclear, it would seem silly not to discuss RAW and how said FAQ's actually contradict them (or seem to at any rate) in some instances.

It's perfectly acceptable to point out where the FAQs have changed the rules as printed in the rulebook. But if you're accepting the FAQs as an official source of rules, the rule as FAQ'd is the RAW.

Again, that's the entire point of the FAQs.

**zeshin**

I guess we don't see eye to eye on what "Frequently Asked Question" means. "Errata" I'm a bit more accepting of, but they are still changes to the actual written rules which I guess would make them RAI.

But back to the OP I guess the FAQ says the banshee mask wins so there you have it. I would personally still have a healthy debate with any eldar opponents pre game but that's just me.

**Gwar!**

insaniak wrote:No, Gwar, that's the RAW, as it is interpreted on these forums.

So it's not the RaW, it's the RaW as it is interpreted on these forums by certain people. RaW means Rules as Written, not Rules as Written with Games Workshop House Rules applied to it. Yes, I know the YMDC rules say that the only sources of information are the GW FAQs and the Rulebooks, but nowhere does it say that we have to use those FAQs when discussing rules issues.

Again, why is it that I am seemingly punished for posting my opinion of the rules (which do not include the majority of the GW FAQs but instead use the actual rules and logic) and why is it that you seem to be the only Moderator who has an issue with it?

I always make it clear that I am not including the GW FAQs in my answer and my reputation for doing so is known by now, so it's not like it comes as a shock. I don't seem to have a problem from anyone else so why is it that you always seem to take a personal interest in it?

**filbert**

Am I alone in seeing the irony in preaching strict RAW yet ignoring FAQs by the people who write the RAW in the first place? Or is it just me? Isn't this just akin to picking and choosing what rules you want to follow for your own purposes?

**Gwar!**

filbert wrote:Am I alone in seeing the irony in preaching strict RAW yet ignoring FAQs by the people who write the RAW in the first place? Or is it just me? Isn't this just akin to picking and choosing what rules you want to follow for your own purposes?

Except:

1) The FAQs are told by GW to be just House Rules. While they are a source of information, the rules of the forum do not say that they should be taken as RaW, which is what Insaniak seems to think. (the rule actually says "The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on." not "The FAQs are RaW."

2) The FAQs aren't even written by the people who "write the RaW" as you claim. Half of them were written by Yakface and the INAT council, and the SW FAQ... well... it wasn't written by Phil Kelly, I can assure you.

**filbert**

Gwar! wrote:
filbert wrote:Am I alone in seeing the irony in preaching strict RAW yet ignoring FAQs by the people who write the RAW in the first place? Or is it just me? Isn't this just akin to picking and choosing what rules you want to follow for your own purposes?
Except:

1) The FAQs are told by us to be just House Rules.
2) The FAQs aren't even written by the people who "write the RaW" as you claim. Half of them were written by Yakface and the INAT council, and the SW FAQ... well... it wasn't written by Phil Kelly, I can assure you.

Well I don't venture into YMDC enough to understand the etiquette and preference but to my eyes (the layman if you will) it all originates from GW, regardless of who wrote it, and that makes it about as official as it is ever going to be, save for the off-chance that the codex is reprinted with the offending text replaced or reworded, given that by being released as a FAQ it is given the 'stamp of approval' as it were. What else do you want GW to do? The FAQ is posed and the question is answered, whether you agree that it is right or wrong is neither here nor there, surely disputing it as such is the verbal equivalent of sticking fingers in ears and shouting 'ner ner, I can't hear you!'

Again, it is of little relevance to me since I have never been in a situation where I can't just discuss it rationally and calmly with an opponent and come to an agreement on what we think the meaning is (even if it is to my detriment). But then again, I suppose the tournament scene is a different matter altogether....

**Gwar!**

My issue is when the FAQ ignores clear RaW which should be corrected with an errata or by GW making FAQs into hard rules changes like errata.

Add to that the fact that I have absolutely no faith that the FAQs are RaI anymore, since they aren't written by the Authors, means I put zero trust in them, which I make explicitly clear in my posts (even though I don't need to according to the rules of the forum) that this is the case.

**Frazzled**

Gwar! wrote:
insaniak wrote:No, Gwar, that's the RAW, as it is interpreted on these forums.
So it's not the RaW, it's the RaW as it is interpreted on these forums by certain people. RaW means Rules as Written, not Rules as Written with Games Workshop House Rules applied to it. Yes, I know the YMDC rules say that the only sources of information are the GW FAQs and the Rulebooks, but nowhere does it say that we have to use those FAQs when discussing rules issues.

Again, why is it that I am seemingly punished for posting my opinion of the rules (which do not include the majority of the GW FAQs but instead use the actual rules and logic) and why is it that you seem to be the only Moderator who has an issue with it?

I always make it clear that I am not including the GW FAQs in my answer and my reputation for doing so is known by now, so it's not like it comes as a shock. I don't seem to have a problem from anyone else so why is it that you always seem to take a personal interest in it?

Then you need to put a disclaimer on your statements.
(Warning this is RAW as interepreted by GWAR, and does not use the most recent FAQs presented from the rules maker. )

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Gwar! wrote:The RaW is 110% clear. The Lash Whips win out.
The RAW, which on this forum includes the FAQs, is 110% clear in the opposite direction.
That is not the RaW though. That's the RaTheForumSaysWithExtraHouseRules.

-shrug- Whatever. The fact that I even feel I need to put in such a disclaimer in my post speaks a lot, in my opinion.

Yes it does. It means you're not providing input using all the source provided from the actual company. If you don't like to argue about that minor point then don't post a response in YMDC.

**Gwar!**

Ah, but I have shown that the rules maker don't provide the information. They get other people to do it for them or just outright nick it.

In any case, I throw up my hands and apologise. I've been a naughty boy and will be spanked.

I am off to go see if I can adopt a Weinerdawg now (I am gonna call him Frazzled ya know!

)

**Kilkrazy**

You cannot assume that every member of the forum is aware of your personal opinions. The original poster has only been a member for three days.

Whatever your opinion of the GW FAQs, the majority of players take note of them, so any rules discussion which fails to acknowledge them is flawed.

**Gwar!**

Kilkrazy wrote:You cannot assume that every member of the forum is aware of your personal opinions. The original poster has only been a member for three days.

Whatever your opinion of the GW FAQs, the majority of players take note of them, so any rules discussion which fails to acknowledge them is flawed.

I realise that, hence the new disclaimer.

And I disagree that it is flawed, but that's an argument for another day.

**Homer S**

How hard would it be to run the FAQs by the original author or whichever current developer has stewardship if the original author has "left to pursue other interests"? Maybe the GW developers should adopt the same review for these questions as they do at their tourneys: if a question comes in, get a quorum together and decide on an interpretation.

Homer

**Dracos**

The most ridiculous part of Gwar's argument is the assertion that because an FAQ written by someone other than the actual author of a book, that it somehow invalidates it.

GW owns the IP in the books, not the author. Therefore whoever GW has write the FAQs is irrelevant, because it is them publishing both the book and the FAQ.

By the way Gwar, you have a source to site about the FAQs not being endorsed by the actual authors? Or are you just making that up and presenting it as fact?

**Gwar!**

Dracos wrote:The most ridiculous part of Gwar's argument is the assertion that because an FAQ written by someone other than the actual author of a book, that it somehow invalidates it.

GW owns the IP in the books, not the author. Therefore whoever GW has write the FAQs is irrelevant, because it is them publishing both the book and the FAQ.

By the way Gwar, you have a source to site about the FAQs not being endorsed by the actual authors? Or are you just making that up and presenting it as fact?

Nice Strawman there. Have a hat for it.

I have not once said that the authors don't endorse the the FAQs.

I have said that GW say they are only house rules, which by definition are not RaW.

As for the Source:

What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

Care to back up your claims now? Or are you going to just argue with a strawman?