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.

Dark Eldar were dealt with an erreta, eldar were not.

Look, you can bawwww about RaI as much as you want, but you won't get me. If you want to play RaI (RaI=How it worked when it was written) I10 Banshee Masks, I want to play RaI (RaI=How it Worked when it was Written) Fire Bolters and then Assault Grey Hunters.

Gwar! wrote:Dark Eldar were dealt with an erreta, eldar were not.

Look, you can bawwww about RaI as much as you want, but you won't get me. If you want to play RaI (RaI=How it worked when it was written) I10 Banshee Masks, I want to play RaI (RaI=How it Worked when it was Written) Fire Bolters and then Assault Grey Hunters.

Yep, look at that, GW actually got one

I love following RAW as much as the next guy, But I would be RaI too if your sister is hot, j/k.

Seriously though, I believe sportsmanship is the greatest aspect of any game (any game). And we know the intent because it is spelled out for us.

However, this is Dakka's YMDC. And, that means that RAW banshee masks aren't worth the eldar bone crap they are probably supposed to be made from.

But, I personally don't always play RAW, especially when I do know the intent of the designer, and this one is one of those rare cases in which we do know intent.

I always play RaW, even if it is "detrimental".

The reason for it is, how can you subjectivly decide what is acceptable and what is not? Why are Banshee Masks more Deserving than Tau Target Locks, or Space Wolf Wolf Helm of Russ? It just starts a slippery slope, something which following RaW does not allow.

No it has not made me many friends (on DakkaDakka anyway, it seems the Kids I steamroll to teach them the Game seem to have no problem with that nor the Long time Vets I play with have an objection to my Strict RaW viewpoint), but ultimatly, I am in the Right.

And that is why RaW will always beat RaI.

Although i can see why people think that banshees can strike at 10 in cover, and as an eldar player myself i can see the reasoning behind it, i don't think that they should strike at I1 as it says that for the first round of close combat they have I10 and negates any bonus , as the rule in the rulebook says that you strike at I1, which is not a bonus but a penalty, then the main rule stands. End of the day why are you assaulting in cover with banshees, let them mop up out side of cover and have Scorpions assaulting in cover, which is what they were designed for, also Scorpions have grenades


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And GW won't Errata them as they see them as being useless wargear, and won't be sorted till a new codex comes out for eldar.

i copied this from the FAQ

Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

strange_eric wrote:
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 ^_^

Yes. Yes. I also miss Magic: The Gathering. When WOTC say comprehensive rulebook, they mean comprehensive rulebook. But, when I played MTG, I couldn't look down and say "Holy I have a toy army!"
Now, back to business. I don't even agree with setting a precedence from one codex to another, you're trying to set a precedence from one type of game to another.

Gwar! wrote:
No it has not made me many friends (on DakkaDakka anyway, it seems the Kids I steamroll to teach them the Game seem to have no problem with that nor the Long time Vets I play with have an objection to my Strict RaW viewpoint), but ultimatly, I am in the Right

You can be right without being obnoxious about it. I'm not trying to attack you or be mean or whatever, but chill out. Having a signature all about how right you are isn't the friendliest signal to send, and is going to earn you lots and lots of hate. You are asking for it. As far as the comparison of SA/WBB to the Init thing, SA goes to a lot of painstaking detail to clarify while the Initiative in cover one doesn't. The main thing about SA that neagtes WBB is the bit about "regardless of any other special rules." Modifiers/special rules seems like a seperation to me, as the term modifiers comes up other places where this wouldn't apply. Ultimately we are just defining what is written, and it's not always (or even usually) 100%.

how i read the I10 rule is that for the first round instead of being I5/6 they become I10, and negates bonuses your opponent would get, and as it says in the rule book the I1 is a penalty, not a bonus.

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.

Yes! At last!

A light in the darkness! A messiah of reasoning and truth! It's just so...(sniffle)...beautiful.

I agree that the intention on the Banshee mask seems completely obvious.

The problem is, the intention on other things that 5th edition rendered unusable (target locks, true grit, etc) can also be said to be obvious. Do you also let Space Wolves have some 5th ed version of True Grit? Just curious.

Various wargear being made ineffective in the new rules was an obvious enough problem that GW actually FAQ'ed it, a minor miracle in itself. In GW's own personal house rules, they don't allow unusable gear to work, why should we be obligated to?

Look, The rule in the codex take priority.

The banshee rule is, Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10...

That's all it needs to say to override the reduction to I1 when assaulting through cover. Since the Initiative of the banshees must be 10 on the 1st round of an assault.

Red_Lives wrote:Look, The rule in the codex take priority.

The banshee rule is, Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10...

That's all it needs to say to override the reduction to I1 when assaulting through cover. Since the Initiative of the banshees must be 10 on the 1st round of an assault.

Sorry Red_Lives, you are wrong here on the RAW.

The function of codex over rulebook is an explicit exception in the codex overrides a general rule from the rulebook. Note there is no overall rule that says that in case of conflict, use codex. Precedence is the opposite actually, where there is a conflict the rulebook takes priority. If your codex explicitly tells you that you can do something even though the rulebook says no, that isn't a conflict; that is the explicit exception that would allow it.

If your codex gives you permission to do something, you can do it as long as it does not conflict with anything in the rulebook. If it does, you can't do it unless there is an exception statement that allows it even though the rulebook says no.

Because of the change to how initiative and cover works in 5th, the Banshee Mask, by RAW, does not give an explicit exception to the initiative penalty for assaulting in to cover. You get exactly what the RAW says you get, which is to negate any initiative bonus conferred by cover or grenades. As there is no initiative bonus conferred by cover in 5th edition, this does not help you.

In practice the only use of the Banshee Mask is to be able to attack at I 10 in an assault that is outside cover. That's RAW. RAI on this one is clear in my opinion it is meant to allow the Banshees to go at I 10 when assaulting in to cover, but don't expect your opponent to allow that when so much other wargear is broken and generally accepted that it is disallowed since 5th broke it.

I10 when assauting in the first round. Sorry GWAR, Its pretty clear.

Sazzlefrats wrote:I10 when assauting in the first round. Sorry GWAR, Its pretty clear.

I like how you backed up your opinion with rules and reasoning.

Its a new tactic I picked up from watching someone else on this forumn. :p

willydstyle wrote:

Sazzlefrats wrote:I10 when assauting in the first round. Sorry GWAR, Its pretty clear.

I like how you backed up your opinion with rules and reasoning.

Red_Lives wrote:Look, The rule in the codex take priority.

The banshee rule is, Banshee Mask: In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has I 10...

That's all it needs to say to override the reduction to I1 when assaulting through cover. Since the Initiative of the banshees must be 10 on the 1st round of an assault.

My ork codex says that Ghazghkull Thrakka has I4 and furious charge. That means that when he charges, he would have I5. Right? Well, he has a PK, and the Ork codex says that a PK counts as a PF. Ok. The rulebook says that PFs double your str, are power and make you go at I1. But wait a minute, my codex doesn't say that Ghazghkull has I1. I guess the codex and BGB are in disagreement, so the codex wins.
If you want to try to make a RAW argument for the banshee mask thing, be ready for some I5 Krumpin.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

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.

Yes! At last!

A light in the darkness! A messiah of reasoning and truth! It's just so...(sniffle)...beautiful.

I think everyone here agrees that the intent is clear that they work in cover. But, you're in YMDC. This is a board about rules, not about intent. There are a lot of upgrades/rules that become useless when they update the BGB before upgrading a codex. If you don't like hearing how things actually work, don't ask. Or, better yet, don't play by the rules. It's on page 2 of the BGB. They tell you not to use all of the rules if you don't want to.

Deffgob wrote:
My ork codex says that Ghazghkull Thrakka has I4 and furious charge. That means that when he charges, he would have I5. Right? Well, he has a PK, and the Ork codex says that a PK counts as a PF. Ok. The rulebook says that PFs double your str, are power and make you go at I1. But wait a minute, my codex doesn't say that Ghazghkull has I1. I guess the codex and BGB are in disagreement, so the codex wins.
If you want to try to make a RAW argument for the banshee mask thing, be ready for some I5 Krumpin.

Nice try but no. Both Furious Charge and the rules for powerfists are RuleBook effects, while the banshee mask is not. The banshee rule clearly states that their initiative is 10 for the first round of an assault. For them to strike at any other initiative is not following the rules for banshee masks.

Ghazghkull says he has I4. That's not a BGB rule.

I don't really see why this is an argument. It specifically states in the Codex "...Banshee Mask has Initiative 10 and negates any Initiative bonus conferred by cover..."

The intended purpose is also rather obvious as several above has stated.

I was under the impression Codex > Rulebook > Whatever Else.

Codex takes priority normally because it offers more specific rules and exemptions from normal rules.

However, the banshee mask is unable to modify the user's initiative due to the lack of explicit statement saying that DOES override the "regardless of other modifiers" clause.

The codex needs a statement to get around it. Without it, the mask gives you I10, but then it is brought back down to I1 as it does not tell you it negates to penalty of assaulting through cover. You can't modify that I1 without an explicit statement in your special rule because of the "regardless of other modifiers" clause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EasyE wrote:I don't really see why this is an argument. It specifically states in the Codex "...Banshee Mask has Initiative 10 and negates any Initiative bonus conferred by cover.."

The problem is that Cover no longer gives an Initiative bonus, but confers a penalty to the attacker. That is why it does not work anymore, together with the "regardless of other modifiers" clause it prevents you from getting that I10 through cover.

It sucks, but thats RAW.

That being said, there are plenty of RAW situations that I would encourage to work out a house rule for, or contact a TO to try and work something out.

Banshees should just get assault grenades.

Canonness Rory wrote:Banshees should just get assault grenades.

But they don't have them, and therein lies the problem.

Doesn't it even say in the BBB that Codex supersede it in many situations?

I'm not sure that it actually spells that out (I can't find it anywhere). That is an oversimplification because codexes by nature are designed as more specific rules. The whole game structure breaks down if the more specific rules does not override a general one, thus the rules need to be read that specific >general. The only exception really is when the general rule has clause negating more specific rules that do not specifically remove the restriction in the general rule.

I think I explained that clearly..... not sure.

I think that when it says in the banshee rulebook that it ignores any 'type of inititave bonus' that was for Rules 4, and therefore should carry on to Rulebook 5, and be changed to modifiers instead of bonus.

You could be a jackass and insist that to play by RAW, you would be within your rights. But really the RAI is so obvious that it would make you a very bad sport. (I don't collect eldar by the way, so I'm not biased)

For friendly games sure, I'm always willing to work it out (my buddy plays Dark Angels so we've already worked out updating his stuff).

That being said, a tournament environment is not necessarily going to give you that same leeway, which is where RAW and asking your TO about FAQing it for the tourny comes in.

I know,
But as long as a Eldar playa makes it clear that it is his intention to use banshees that way you should simply take that into account when setting up.

If its not a player you are very familiar with, you should avoid taking the attitude "this is how this is gonna work". Because you have to get their permission, not tell them how it is.

I know,
I was talking from a 'eldar enemy' view.

I'm saying that if they point out their concerns to you at the BEGINNING it would be bad sportsmanship to refuse them.

For sure

It would probably be that 'IG can fire in your turn, so suck it' guy that would deny that this rule was intended to work.