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.

I understand that Banshees are light armor, but they are fast, and they make whatever they attack initiative 1. so couldn't you just soften up a target with shooting then finish with the banshees? I'm new to eldar, so Im just unsure why everyone seems to say they suck, like every other eldar unit, they have their purpose.

unless they fly around in a dark eldar transport there is no way for them to charge a unit without being shot at twice. That is rather bad for a unit of +4 t3.

And, worst of all, it doesn't have assault grenades. Anything behind cover willl attack before them.

Even if you managed to magically get them into assault without losing a single model, they're not that great.

AP3 isn't a very big deal when you're wounding on 5's and hitting on 4's. And GEQ generally have too many models to care about their low amounts of attacks.

It'll take banshees pretty much the entire game to kill any unit that was at full strength, and they'll likely demolish themselves in the process.

It puzzles me that anyone would make decide to make dedicated assault units and forget to give them grenades.

BlaxicanX wrote:AP3 isn't a very big deal when you're wounding on 5's and hitting on 4's. And GEQ generally have too many models to care about their low amounts of attacks.

There is space in there. Like most "bad" units, it's usually a problem of niches being narrow.

In this case, yeah, hitting on 4's and wounding on 5's means that MEq might not be their best target. Don't let the Ap3 fool. It's more of a versatility thing (okay, I guess you won't be hopeless against marines) than a sign of their primary target type.

But think about it for a moment. You're looking for infantry that are preferably T3, will try and rely on good initiative in close combat, and aren't stupid cheap per model. There are plenty of things that fall into these requirements.

For example, you have the entire dark eldar codex. Their poisoned weapons have to deal with the T3 relative nerf and the Sv4+, and they don't get to use their crazy fast initiative (especially on HQ units), while they're stuck with T3 themselves, and the power weapons still ignore Sv4+ and 5+. You also have pretty much all the infantry models in the eldar codex as well, sans wraithguard. And you have those sort of mid-ground units out there like stormtroopers (not cheap, T3, Ap3 beats Sv4), some necron units, regular nobz, etc. etc.

They're sort of supposed to be good against other elites choices. And when you look at it that way, they're not quite so bad. There will still be stuff they can't handle well, but look at the efficiency gains you get, even in those cases. They wound khorne berzerkers on 5's, yes, but they also cost roughly 2/3ds the price, and always get to attack first. Same with noise marines. Same with sternguard, who are a LOT more expensive than banshees.

In a way, they're rather similar to warp talons or rough riders. They don't exist to charge blindly forward invincibly crushing everything in their path. They exist to be a cheap, fast, high-efficiency stop-gap to counter your opponents throwing something tricksy at you. They're not bad, per se, but it can be kind of difficult to get proper use out of them if your opponent never ever brings anything towards your deployment zone.

And as we're on the third consecutive year of "Warhammer 40,000: An Exciting Gunline Adventure for Two Players", that problem is going to drag more than usual. Don't play against gunlines (in general - it's best), and you won't have quite these same kinds of problems with banshees.

And as we're on the third consecutive year of "Warhammer 40,000: An Exciting Gunline Adventure for Two Players", that problem is going to drag more than usual. Don't play against gunlines (in general - it's best), and you won't have quite these same kinds of problems with banshees.

I would disagree with the gunlines comment. Whilst 6th ed promoted stationary ranged combat, many of the game types and new formations in 7th are encouraging mobile play or close combat elements again. Taking a pure gunline army in a game with things like the adamantine lance or waveserpent spam is risky. I've never regretted deploying my Flesh hounds or Deathwing Knights, yet they are both dedicated assault units.

With that said, banshees are never going to be good in their current form and position in the eldar codex. They simply do not compare well to other units in the eldar codex let alone thegame.

They suffer from some serious problems:
No assault transport (DE allies aside)
Low damage output for a dedicated assault unit (WS4, S3)
Low durability
Not cheap
No grenades
Striking scorpions can do their job better in many cases
Fire dragons are a better choice of elites slot

So OP, yeah, Banshees really are that bad. Certainly a contender for worse unit in the eldar book.

My boy Ailarios is once again framing his argument within the context that a "bad" unit is a unit that "has no defined role and can never ever achieve anything of significance under any circumstance", as opposed to the more conventional description of "a unit that has an extremely narrow role and requires a very specific set of conditions in order to perform this role adequately, and whose role can be performed more efficiently by other units within the Codex and the game in general".

Assuming the prior definition to be the correct one, there are in fact no bad units in Warhammer 40K, as you can always theory-craft a specific situation in which a unit can excel. Assuming the latter definition, there are in fact many bad units in Warhammer 40K.

edit- Also, I'm not sure the "they're designed to kill elites" theory really holds up. Using your own examples of CSM: Noise Marines, Plague Marines, Mutilators, Helbrutes and Terminators will roll them in combat, even if the girl's get the charge.

That 'shees will beat Beserkes if they get the charge on them really says more about how terrible and reliant on charging Beserkers are then anything else.

 Vector Strike wrote:
And, worst of all, it doesn't have assault grenades. Anything behind cover willl attack before them.

I'm pretty sure their banshee masks are counts-as frag grenades due to similar rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zewrath wrote:
It puzzles me that anyone would make decide to make dedicated assault units and forget to give them grenades.

Thankfully banshees arent the only ones suffering from this. It's the same thing Assault terminators, Warp Talons, and many other elite assault units lack.

 Ailaros wrote:
In a way, they're rather similar to warp talons or rough riders. They don't exist to charge blindly forward invincibly crushing everything in their path. They exist to be a cheap, fast, high-efficiency stop-gap to counter your opponents throwing something tricksy at you. They're not bad, per se, but it can be kind of difficult to get proper use out of them if your opponent never ever brings anything towards your deployment zone.

Sorry no, they're nothing like Rough Riders because Rough Riders are even worse. They're ridiculously bad. They're fast guardsmen that are Banshees for one turn per game, and also without banshee masks, for 2/3 the cost of banshees.


To OP: a good way of running banshees is with Jain Zar. You can use her (EW, after all) to tank wounds and if the enemy directs plasmaguns at her, use the 2+ LoS! In any case, due to their mobility, they wont need a transport and can potentially reach cc by turn 2 without taking much losses.

BlaxicanX wrote:"no defined role and can never ever achieve anything of significance under any circumstance", as opposed to "a unit that has an extremely narrow role and requires a very specific set of conditions in order to perform this role adequately, and whose role can be performed more efficiently by other units within the Codex and the game in general".

When did "difficult to use" become a straight synonym for "bad"? Yes, if something requires specific conditions to be useful, then everything in 40k is bad, because lasguns will never be good against tanks, and lascannons will never be efficient against guardsmen. ALL things in 40k have conditions for them to be useful, some more than others, but why is that a definition of good vs. bad?

Meanwhile, just because something else in the codex can do something more efficiently doesn't make the thing not worth taking, nor does it make it bad. It just makes it less specialized. Last I checked, versatility was often a good thing, or, in any case, not just strictly bad.

There are situations where banshees can be good, therefore they are good in those situations, and not just completely bad. They're good in some and not in others, much like everything else. And even if that wasn't enough, only in a "must win most games easiest" world would either of the two parts of your supplied definition really matter.

And banshees easily beat back their points in berzerkers on the charge. You get 7 banshees per 5 berzkerers, and the former will likely kill 4 before the berzerker kills maybe 1 and then gets cut to pieces conveniently on the next player turn.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I'm pretty sure their banshee masks are counts-as frag grenades due to similar rules.

Thankfully banshees arent the only ones suffering from this. It's the same thing Assault terminators, Warp Talons, and many other elite assault units lack.

Banshee masks are not frag grenades and work very differently. Banshee masks effect the opponent by reducing their initiative. Assault grenades allow you to charge through cover.

This means that banshees are better at charging anything I5+, as they get to strike first, as opposed to simultaneously. On the other hand they are worse at charging into cover, as although the opponent will be I1, so will the banshees, so they will suffer casualties despite their high I5.

Between I5+ units and cover, I would say being able to charge into cover has more value.

The thing to note about other assault units is that they are not I5, T3 with a 4+ save. Assault terminators do not care about not having grenades as they are I1 anyway, and have the armour to survive.
Banshees are as tough as tau fire warriors, and would do well to kill as many opponents before they get to attack back.

Meanwhile, just because something else in the codex can do something more efficiently doesn't make the thing not worth taking

Errrm.......it usually means exactly that. How many falcon grav tanks do you see eldar players using today? Not many, as wave serpents do the same job, better, and are more easily accessible. Falcon tanks are not unusable, far from it, but there is simply a better option available.
Having a unit in the same slot as another unit, when both perform the same role, will always leave one as a less desirable option. In the case of banshees though this matters to a lesser extent, as the sum of all their other problems alone is enough to relegate them to collecting dust on the shelf.

When did "difficult to use" become a straight synonym for "bad"?

since sumerians discovered that it is better to have 50 bad trained dudes with spears, then one super trained dude on a chariot to win a war.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
I'm pretty sure their banshee masks are counts-as frag grenades due to similar rules.

Thankfully banshees arent the only ones suffering from this. It's the same thing Assault terminators, Warp Talons, and many other elite assault units lack.

Banshee masks are not frag grenades and work very differently. Banshee masks effect the opponent by reducing their initiative. Assault grenades allow you to charge through cover.

This means that banshees are better at charging anything I5+, as they get to strike first, as opposed to simultaneously. On the other hand they are worse at charging into cover, as although the opponent will be I1, so will the banshees, so they will suffer casualties despite their high I5.

Hmm must have been a mix up in my head with what frag grenades did in 5th edition them - cause back then they allowed a charging unit to strike blows at the same time as defenders, while eldar plasma grenades allowed a charging unit to strike blows at initiative order.

 Ailaros wrote:
When did "difficult to use" become a straight synonym for "bad"?

When did you start resulting to semantics arguments and poorly constructed strawmans to win debates?

There are situations where banshees can be good, therefore they are good in those situations

Right, and a five-man firewarrior squad can be good in assault in "situations", therefore they're not "bad" assault units. amirite?

And banshees easily beat back their points in berzerkers on the charge. You get 7 banshees per 5 berzkerers, and the former will likely kill 4 before the berzerker kills maybe 1 and then gets cut to pieces conveniently on the next player turn.

On average rolls10 Beserkers charging 10 banshees will lose three beserkers from the Banshees going first, and then the remaining 7 will kill eight banshees. First turn of combat.

Ailarios, don't do this.