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.

As stated, this is one of those rules that has lost its effect through changing editions.

"Regardless of other modifiers" means "Regardless of other modifiers" not "Regardless of other modifiers unless you really really want your models to not go at I1"

It would be nice if GW released new codex's with each new BGB, so this kind of thing doesn't get all cocked up. But a lot of things would be nice. Somehow I think we'll all survive.

Deffgob wrote:As stated, this is one of those rules that has lost its effect through changing editions.

"Regardless of other modifiers" means "Regardless of other modifiers" not "Regardless of other modifiers unless you really really want your models to not go at I1"

It would be nice if GW released new codex's with each new BGB, so this kind of thing doesn't get all cocked up. But a lot of things would be nice. Somehow I think we'll all survive.

Well we have ONE ray of hope. Apparently GW are committed to upgrading every single legacy codex BEFORE making a new 40k Edition, which will be nice, as it will mark the first time since 2nd edition each race will have a balanced ruleset written for the edition it was meant for (as several 3rd ed codex'es were written with 4th in mind, and several 4th were written with 5th in mind)

Gwar! wrote:And, Willydstyle, if I may ask your ever so learn'd opinion, do, pray tell, explain what doth happen should RaW and RaI Conflict good sir?

Well, in my opinion, if there is a disagreement, then for a player not to concede to RAW is bad sportsmanship. On the other hand, if both players agree to play by the not-rules-rules, they're free to do so as well

Red_Lives wrote:The Codex rule always has priority over any rulebook rule.
Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10

According to their codex the banshees always have I10 during the 1st round of combat. The rulebook may attempt to lower it to 1 by assaulting through cover, but the banshee special rule says it must be 10. So its 10.

Hang on.
I thought that being in cover BOOSTs the defendants In to 10 (cept for In 1 stuff) , I never heard that it negates the charging sides In to 1.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:The Codex rule always has priority over any rulebook rule.
Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10

According to their codex the banshees always have I10 during the 1st round of combat. The rulebook may attempt to lower it to 1 by assaulting through cover, but the banshee special rule says it must be 10. So its 10.

Hang on.
I thought that being in cover BOOSTs the defendants In to 10 (cept for In 1 stuff) , I never heard that it negates the charging sides In to 1.

It Changed in 5th. Was like that in 4th

Edit: Throws a 26 Second Long Ninja Star downwards

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:The Codex rule always has priority over any rulebook rule.
Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10

According to their codex the banshees always have I10 during the 1st round of combat. The rulebook may attempt to lower it to 1 by assaulting through cover, but the banshee special rule says it must be 10. So its 10.

Hang on.
I thought that being in cover BOOSTs the defendants In to 10 (cept for In 1 stuff) , I never heard that it negates the charging sides In to 1.

In fifth edition, they changed the rule so that the attacker is reduced to I1, rather than the defender being boosted to I10 (as it was in 4th).

Ohhhhhhhh.
But frag grenade disable that don't they?

So mabye the banshee mask is thier equivelant of a frag. (but better)

Emperors Faithful wrote:Ohhhhhhhh.
But frag grenade disable that don't they?

So mabye the banshee mask is thier equivelant of a frag. (but better)

It's not. Assault grenades have very specific rules. "Models equipped with assault grenades don't suffer the penalty to their Initiative for assaulting enemies through cover, but fight as normal."

Bold for Emphasis. The game clearly makes a distinction between bonus and Penalty (hence the errata I mentioned above. Pre errata RaW PF struck at Initiative as you only used the bonuses of the special weapon). Banshee masks say the Strike at I10, but the Assault rules say they Strike at I1 regardless.

In short, give your banshees Grenades (if you can, I dont play Space Elves) or don't assault through cover.

Well, I think it is clear that the line "Regardless of other modifiers" *is* specifically talking about initiative bonuses found in codices. Otherwise what other modifiers are there in the main RB besides furious charge?

It is obvious (like in Sweeping Advance) that this line is a specific line spelling out that special rules are not taken into consideration from codices or not unless it specifically says it works in cover situations.

For example the Wyche rule says they go first regardless of initiative or special rules, so at I: 1 or not, they go first.

I think I would allow the mask to be played as frag grenades if my opponent discussed it beforehand. RAW definitely says the mask doesn't work, but RAI for the mask is clearly for it to negate the detrimental effects of assaulting through cover.

I disagree. I believe by RAW a legitimate case can be made that the banshee masks still strike 1st when assaulting through cover.

Since:
The Codex rule always has priority over any rulebook rule.
Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10
According to their codex the banshees always have I10 during the 1st round of combat. The rulebook may attempt to lower it to 1 by assaulting through cover, but the banshee special rule says it must be 10. So its 10.

Red_Lives wrote:The Codex rule always has priority over any rulebook rule.

Incorrect, as shown by the SA and Assaulting Through Cover Rules. You Did read my previous posts?

Red_Lives wrote:Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10
According to their codex the banshees always have I10 during the 1st round of combat. The rulebook may attempt to lower it to 1 by assaulting through cover, but the banshee special rule says it must be 10. So its 10.

Yes, but because of the Rules, they Strike at I1 "regardless of other Initiative modifiers". You want to claim the banshee masks can somehow ignore this restriction, but they do not.

No matter how you attempt to portray it, "regardless of other Initiative modifiers" is pretty damn clear. Banshees are I1 without Grenades. If they have Grenades, they get their I10.

Red_Lives wrote:I disagree. I believe by RAW a legitimate case can be made that the banshee masks still strike 1st when assaulting through cover.

Since:
The Codex rule always has priority over any rulebook rule.
Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10
According to their codex the banshees always have I10 during the 1st round of combat. The rulebook may attempt to lower it to 1 by assaulting through cover, but the banshee special rule says it must be 10. So its 10.

I honestly can't imagine what is driving you to defend this position. You could argue RAI all you'd like since the banshee mask ignored what assaulting through cover did in the last edition. You could argue fluff, that the banshee mask would do whatever it does whether there are trees around it or not. You could even argue that they work that way because Xenu declares that they do. But RAW says "regardless of other modifiers."

Regardless of other modifiers

regardless.

So you guys believe that even though the banshee special rule says that their initiative must be 10, that it gets lowered to 1 when the assault through cover? Even though their special rule says it must be 10?

I realize that the BGB says "regardless of other modifiers"

But the Banshee Mask Rule says: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10...

I always thought that when a codex rule and a rulebook rule collide you defer to the codex rule, as that's the point of a codex. Is this wrong? Can Marines in-fact NOT rally if below 1/2 strength? Must necrons never be allowed WBB rolls since a failed save is removed as a causality?

To me, this is a case of a specific codex rule overriding a main rulebook rule as the cases sited above.

The problem seems to lie in the fact that the Banshee Mask does not specifically mention that they "count as initiative 10 in the first round of assault, even when assaulting through cover." That clause at the end, "even when assaulting through cover" has become necessary with the way the rule is currently worded in the rulebook.

This is why, as has been mentioned, a Sweeping Advance denies We'll Be Back rolls. The WBB special rule would need a specific clause that says "this applies even to Necron models that are destroyed in a sweeping advance" in order for it to be in effect, but that just isn't the case.

Red_Lives wrote:So you guys believe that even though the banshee special rule says that their initiative must be 10, that it gets lowered to 1 when the assault through cover? Even though their special rule says it must be 10?

I realize that the BGB says "regardless of other modifiers"

But the Banshee Mask Rule says: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10...

I always thought that when a codex rule and a rulebook rule collide you defer to the codex rule, as that's the point of a codex. Is this wrong? Can Marines in-fact NOT rally if below 1/2 strength? Must necrons never be allowed WBB rolls since a failed save is removed as a causality?

To me, this is a case of a specific codex rule overriding a main rulebook rule as the cases sited above.

I believe it's more "specific overrides general" than "codex always trumps rulebook".

Banshee Masks say that Banshees strike at I10. Then the codex specifically states that they go at I1 and that you ignore other modifiers.

As far as marines go, ATSKNF specifically states to ignore the "below half strength" part of the rally rules.

I have zero experience on Necrons, I'll allow Willy or Gwar! or someone else to refute that one.

RobPro wrote:The problem seems to lie in the fact that the Banshee Mask does not specifically mention that they "count as initiative 10 in the first round of assault, even when assaulting through cover." That clause at the end, "even when assaulting through cover" has become necessary with the way the rule is currently worded in the rulebook.

QFT.

The Actual problem is the banshee Masks are worded for 4th. We now play 5th. It's a piece of wargear that no longer works because of edition changes. Yes it sucks, but that's what you have to live with.

Clearly follow the main rulebook, except where the codex has something that overrides. Banshees will strike at I10 on the first round of an assault, nothing in the mainrulebook, no matter what will change that.

Sazzlefrats wrote:Clearly follow the main rulebook, except where the codex has something that overrides. Banshees will strike at I10 on the first round of an assault, nothing in the mainrulebook, no matter what will change that.

Wrong, Wrong and more wrong.

Where in the banshee Mask rules does it say that? Where?

It doesn't. The banshee Mask says they get to strike at I10 and negates Bonuses provided by cover (Cover however no longer provides a bonus, but a penalty, which the Banshee Mask does NOT negate). Not I10 Regardless of anything else ever.

The rules for assaulting through cover say you Strike at I10 regardless of anything else that feths with your Initiative.

Therefore you strike at I1.

Sazzlefrats wrote:Clearly follow the main rulebook, except where the codex has something that overrides. Banshees will strike at I10 on the first round of an assault, nothing in the mainrulebook, no matter what will change that.

except for "regardless of other modifiers"

honestly, what does this line mean if not to include any and all modifiers...if you think that this line only refers to modifiers found in the RB, then they would of written "regardless of Furious Charge"...because that is the only "I" modifier in the RB. It obviously means modifiers found in army special rules.

I am sorry to report but RAW is quite clear, the specific overrides the banshees general rule, back in 4th ed, the time frame the codex was written, this rule worked just fine. But, they changed the attackers "I" instead of the defenders "I" in 5th, and now this banshee rule has been affected because the line that banshees will strike at I10 *is* a modifier and the RB says "regardless of other modifiers" . Again this sucks for them, but that is the case. And they are not the only one affected, almost (if not all) 4th ed codices or older have at least 1 piece of gear that is now useless in this new system...join the club eldar players.

However, I am personally not a blind follower of RAW and would happily play with anyone that would like this rule to include cover as well, even when the rules as written say otherwise.

Again, sorry eldar players, I have several pieces of gear in my armies listed below that don't work either.

Hey!
The codex says the banshee masks 'negates any inititave bonus confered by cover or grenades'!

There it is...clear for all to see.

Edit; as in, it is clear that banshees attack at In 10 in first round of assault.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Hey!
The codex says the banshee masks 'negates any inititave bonus confered by cover or grenades'!

There it is...clear for all to see.

Edit; as in, it is clear that banshees attack at In 10 in first round of assault.

lol except there are no initiative bonuses provided by cover anymore (that was 4th ed)...lol, there is however an initiative penalty applied to the attacker. And because it grenades then if they were in cover and assaulted they get to go at I10 and thats it.

EDIT: The wording is just not compatible with 5th ed. This is the case in a lot of instances, the banshee mask is not alone in this.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Hey!
The codex says the banshee masks 'negates any inititave bonus confered by cover or grenades'!

There it is...clear for all to see.

Edit; as in, it is clear that banshees attack at In 10 in first round of assault.

Ok then, show me a single bonus that assaulting through cover gives.

Oh Wait, it doesn't.

There is a penalty, which is totally different and is not the same as a bonus, as evidenced by the errata making Special CCW attacks use the "Bonuses and Penalties" of the weapon.

I think this an extremely funny argument because the intention of the Banshee Mask is 100% crystal clear. There is no debate over what the writer's intention for it was. RAI is slapping you in the face.

Trasvi wrote:I think this an extremely funny argument because the intention of the Banshee Mask is 100% crystal clear. There is no debate over what the writer's intention for it was. RAI is slapping you in the face.

RaI can go Sleep with my sister for all I care. RaI is not how you play the game. RaW is. if you want to play RaI, I want to Deep Strike, Shoot my Bolters with my Grey Hunters and then assault. That's the RaI for True Grit, but I can't, because the rules have changed over the editions.

Likewise, you Want to have I10 because that is the Intent, but the rules have changed, so you can't anymore.

Gwar! wrote:So modifying the Stat to make it 10 isn't modifying it?

Really?

REEEEEEALY?

Actually in game Terminology it is collectively thought that "setting" something to another thing isn't a "modification"
There's many parallels in card gaming that actually set this situation up (and indeed we would be better off w/ those kinds of rules)

The idea is that a "+" or "-" is a modifier. However saying that you strike at X is a replacement. Again, more technical talk that is easily applied in other , more well written games than this. In fact, if you go through the rulebook and search for the word "modifier" it references constantly that a modifier is usually a + or a - to something. The Banshee mask never "adds" as an initiative modifier. It simply sets it to a certain number.

However, this still doesn't "solve" the problem as much as address the comment you made. As a case could be made easily that the Banshee Mask makes you I10 and then when you strike you are at I1. As easily as the case of , I charge into cover, I am reduced to I1 however my rules state that I attack at I10.

Really though, its very clearly intended to work in Cover. In a casual game, let it work, there's no reason for it to not work that way other than.. I suppose, being an ass. In a tournament setting, ask a Judge, point out the relevant rules without editorializing and ask for a ruling, it beats arguing about it later.

Just my .2 ^_^

It needs an Errata to fix this so banshee so it work once more ... but on the plus side Harlequins now don't need to take a shadow seer when they being taxied around. Since they ignore difficult terrain they never get reduced to I1. Path Finders also get this (but I think its going to be rare to want to assault with these guys)

RaI can go Sleep with my sister for all I care. RaI is not how you play the game. RaW is. if you want to play RaI, I want to Deep Strike, Shoot my Bolters with my Grey Hunters and then assault. That's the RaI for True Grit, but I can't, because the rules have changed over the editions.

Likewise, you Want to have I10 because that is the Intent, but the rules have changed, so you can't anymore.

Have to agree with Gwar! here. RaI is worth nothing.
If something really needs to be fixed then wait for errata. Saying that something is RaI is pointless anyway since probably not single one on Dakka can tell what the game developers thought when making the current rules.
Therefore, RaW is the only way to go

I'm going to change my name to RaI. Is your sister hot, Gwar?



There isn't a single gamer around here that I would want to play that would insist on Banshees not striking at I10.

Thunder555 wrote:

RaI can go Sleep with my sister for all I care. RaI is not how you play the game. RaW is. if you want to play RaI, I want to Deep Strike, Shoot my Bolters with my Grey Hunters and then assault. That's the RaI for True Grit, but I can't, because the rules have changed over the editions.

Likewise, you Want to have I10 because that is the Intent, but the rules have changed, so you can't anymore.

Have to agree with Gwar! here. RaI is worth nothing.
If something really needs to be fixed then wait for errata. Saying that something is RaI is pointless anyway since probably not single one on Dakka can tell what the game developers thought when making the current rules.
Therefore, RaW is the only way to go

I agree RAW banshee masks don't do nothing when assaulting in cover, but we actually do know the developers thoughts on this because as with the original rule, the masked was supposed to negate cover bonuses, so RAI for sure is *known* With that said, the wording is incompatible with 5th edition cover mechanics.

I honestly think you would have to be a #$%# to say no to your opponent on this one, because we *know* the writers intent because it is spelled out in the banshee mask rule, again its just the effects of cover were changed so the way it was written makes it incompatible.

But this is along the same lines as fleet of foot, you can easily because of the same wording incompatibility keep every Dark Eldar unit that can fleet from fleeting, because their fleet rules are spelled out in their codex (along with orks), and it is different from the one found in the RB. check it out, it is all on page 3/4 (can't remember which) in the new DE codex. And even if you were nice enough to allow said units to fleet, then the other units that can't, can't even run, because there rule (because it was written for an older edition) says they may not "Run". But we *know* the intent because it was spelled out for us.

So, don't be a #$%#