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.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Many die hard Eldar fans wouldn't like it at all, but I think the aspects need a different stance/fire setting meaning their weapon profile changes, i'd actually suggest alternate builds and weapon additions but then the purest in me things banshees should only have power swords etc.

Banshees need a higher damage output mode, swap out some high ap low damage swords for higher damage, str and lower ap options. Fire dragons could have a fire setting switch where their fusion guns turn into fusion shotguns of sorts, slightly lower ap and damage but more shots at maybe an even shorter range etc etc...

Aspects are crippled by their specialisms, you need to be able to have more options to them.

I also think Eldar in general of all varieties should be the faction that can disembark a transport after moving.

Nah thats a good idea i would like more options for dire avengers or striking scorpions. It would make sense because the Exarchs have different options that accomplish different things but because the rest of the squad can't follow suit it makes them expensive and unneeding choice. Like No one takes a STriking scorpion biting blade, or the Dark Reaper's Shurkien cannon. If the entire Dark Reaper squad could take like a heavy duty shuriken cannon that was only for infantry mopping.. Then they would be taken for various reasons.

There is no reason they would only be stuck to 1 weapon type. Like fire dragons with flamers, or lances, or melta weapons. Like you can give them three options and it would make a lot more sense.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I never tought I would live to see people actually having genuine nostalgy for jump-shoot-jump or similar rules. Not that long ago those were some of the most frustrating rules most people complained about, units shooting and then running out of LOS to avoid being shoot back.

At the very real risk of unfairly casting people in a bad light, I do wonder how many of those complaints are from people relying on an OP list rather than an understanding of the game?

It will by no means be all of them, I’d like to that clear. But a lot of the time when I’ve read such complaints, it’s seemed more a case of “I can’t deal with that’ and more ‘I refuse to change my tactics and strategy to account for his tricksy playstyle, every army should just jolly well stay where it is until I can shoot them’.

Craftworld Eldar should be a frustrating, irritating opponent. The opponent shouldn’t expect a stand up fight - because that’s not how the Craftworld’s are described.

Sadly this has become more and more the case. If you can't deal with adversity, how can you truly win?

I want eldar to go back to the mobility and shenanigans army rather than the also-ran punching bag(a wet paper one at that).

Eldar should shoot n scoot, fire n fade, etc....there is plenty of design space for them, unfortunately it has been encroached by a certain faction that rhymes with ass-tart-ezzzz.

Those are fair points - I'd be inclined to wonder at the number of people who meant "I don't want to deal with that" vs the number of people who meant "my list/codex does not have an effective response to that" as well, though. No faction is entitled to have a good counter to everything and there certainly is room to suggest variations on a list to deal with persistent issues, but this is supposed to be a game (ie. an enjoyable experience). If JSJ makes someone not enjoy the game, that response is not necessarily invalidated by things they could do to counter it.

Yeah, I mean consider 6th and 7th, when Flyers could only be hit on a 6+, unless it was a specifically AA weapon.

Against Flyer spam lists, Chaos suffered as they had to rely on Havocs, with Missile Launchers, and Flak Missiles as their build.

That was a genuine case of “my Codex offers no real counter to a popular style of list, placing me at an unfair disadvantage”.

Likewise, Imperial Knight armies in the same edition weren’t a huge amount of fun to play unless it was a pre-arranged game, so you had the opportunity to arm up appropriately.

So there absolutely are unfair Codexes, or at least were.

Jump-shoot-jump....I dunno. It was something I just dealt with as best I could. Yes, it was frustrating, but typically once you got your head around it, and for Tau got them in HTH, they folded like a cheap suit.

It’s definitely difficult to draw the line though - and simply saying “lol git gud scrub” is neither constructive nor accurate all the time.

But when you’re trying to play Board Control against an army specifically designed for Board Control, don’t claim it’s OP just because they do it better than you.

Oh, for sure. And readding something like the old Overwatch would probably remove most of the counterarguments (since then everyone would have at least something they could do against JSJ that wasn't just "slog over there and give 'em a wedgie"). That said, I will point out that you can find something unenjoyable without also thinking it OP.

There are degrees to stuff though. With 5 turns to play and how scoring works in 9th, if the eldar players gets a mechanic where they can invalidate an entire turn of an opponent by virtue of playing an eldar army for free, then this would turn very fast in to a no win scenario. Specially if on top of the stoping mechanics eldar damge were to be upscalled. Then any non supper resilient or super chaff army would just not stand a chance to win.

waefre_1 wrote:Oh, for sure. And readding something like the old Overwatch would probably remove most of the counterarguments (since then everyone would have at least something they could do against JSJ that wasn't just "slog over there and give 'em a wedgie"). That said, I will point out that you can find something unenjoyable without also thinking it OP.

If I remember correctly, only the Warp Spiders could do the JSJ stuff. Was something else added on in between?

I remember Tau being able to do that with Crisis Suits, but it wasn't that powerful, partially because of unit size, both numbers and physically. As it is, in many cases, it was just turning things around by round the corner in many cases. Though, with it being a Jump, being able to avoid terrain while doing it (so long as you didn't land IN Cover) was quite helpful.

At best, the only thing most Eldar should have a chance to do would be an Advance Shoot Advance, and if only if we could see the Drukhari and Harlequins do it, too.

 Charistoph wrote:
I remember Tau being able to do that with Crisis Suits, but it wasn't that powerful, partially because of unit size, both numbers and physically. As it is, in many cases, it was just turning things around by round the corner in many cases. Though, with it being a Jump, being able to avoid terrain while doing it (so long as you didn't land IN Cover) was quite helpful.

Crisis Suit JSJ could be fine on some tables but a nightmare on others. A battlefield with some forests, craters, crates, and walls would make JSJ okay but not broken; a battlefield with LOS blocking buildings to be jumped to the top of and then behind was a nightmare for any force not specializing in mobility.

 Charistoph wrote:

waefre_1 wrote:Oh, for sure. And readding something like the old Overwatch would probably remove most of the counterarguments (since then everyone would have at least something they could do against JSJ that wasn't just "slog over there and give 'em a wedgie"). That said, I will point out that you can find something unenjoyable without also thinking it OP.

If I remember correctly, only the Warp Spiders could do the JSJ stuff. Was something else added on in between?

I remember Tau being able to do that with Crisis Suits, but it wasn't that powerful, partially because of unit size, both numbers and physically. As it is, in many cases, it was just turning things around by round the corner in many cases. Though, with it being a Jump, being able to avoid terrain while doing it (so long as you didn't land IN Cover) was quite helpful.

At best, the only thing most Eldar should have a chance to do would be an Advance Shoot Advance, and if only if we could see the Drukhari and Harlequins do it, too.

It’s more Elf and Eldar tactics from the Naval games (MoW and BFG), and in terms of pop-up attacks for skimmers in 2nd Ed Epic Space Marine. All three resulted in forces which could strike whilst greatly reducing the threat of reprisals and attrition.

In each of those examples, the forces were distinctly fragile, but had efficient weapons, often with a decent range.

The player had to learn those tactics well, because none of the forces could survive a stand up fight. I mean, it took more than harsh language to do damage, but they lacked much in the way of resilience and armour. If you could dictate the flow of the battle, and lead your opponent by the nose, you’d do well. If not, or if you made a duff move? You’d get punished for it.

And that’s what Craftworlds are in the background. But in the game, not so much. Which is a shame, because it’s a set of tactics and strategic approaches the game seems to be lacking at the moment.

I’m of the opinion that the greater variety in what different armies do, the healthier the game. Because sure, Army List A might be considered top tier and well ‘are - but might struggle against a nimble foe intent on inflicting death by a thousand cuts. And if the various options are all much of a muchness, extremes of list design and selection might go the way of the Dodo, in favour of “I’ll never really know what I might face, so I might as well just take stuff I like and get good with it”.

One need only look back to the era of Imperial Soup with Smash Captain on the side to see the pitfalls of overly standardised strategies.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m of the opinion that the greater variety in what different armies do, the healthier the game. Because sure, Army List A might be considered top tier and well ‘are - but might struggle against a nimble foe intent on inflicting death by a thousand cuts. And if the various options are all much of a muchness, extremes of list design and selection might go the way of the Dodo, in favour of “I’ll never really know what I might face, so I might as well just take stuff I like and get good with it”.

This level of balance is a pipe dream and ignores that you'll always get more out of synergistic units than you would from "stuff I like" and thus will still have meta lists.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s more Elf and Eldar tactics from the Naval games (MoW and BFG), and in terms of pop-up attacks for skimmers in 2nd Ed Epic Space Marine. All three resulted in forces which could strike whilst greatly reducing the threat of reprisals and attrition.

Eh, Naval and Armor capabilities shouldn't always translate to Infantry capabilities. However, if Eldar (all 3) were willing to have their Vehicle units M stat reduced, it could work with a post-shot movement (ex: Their current M reduced by 6", but still be able to move 6-8" after they shoot) and still be somewhat balanced. The Infantry should be left more to their current M and use that in considerations.

Other things to consider would be having Banshees manuever like that would make sense, while the Scorpions wouldn't due to their heavier armor (pretty much the old standard of who had Fleet) could make things flavorful as well. I wouldn't stop there with Scorpions' Defense, as they're supposed to be the sneakier melee if I remember, but I'm only addressing movement right now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And that’s what Craftworlds are in the background. But in the game, not so much. Which is a shame, because it’s a set of tactics and strategic approaches the game seems to be lacking at the moment.

I’m of the opinion that the greater variety in what different armies do, the healthier the game. Because sure, Army List A might be considered top tier and well ‘are - but might struggle against a nimble foe intent on inflicting death by a thousand cuts. And if the various options are all much of a muchness, extremes of list design and selection might go the way of the Dodo, in favour of “I’ll never really know what I might face, so I might as well just take stuff I like and get good with it”.

One need only look back to the era of Imperial Soup with Smash Captain on the side to see the pitfalls of overly standardised strategies.

Or 30K, too?

I'm a fan of variances, too. One of the reasons I stayed away from a few games that were gaining popularity was the lack of factions to provide that variance, like X-Wing.

Another thing to consider is why an army does something. In this case, including the Drukhari and Harlequins in something like this is due to them being the same species, so long as they follow similar standards, like leaving Wraiths and Wracks out of such movement.

All depends on the synergistic gap.

Let’s call the “optimal” build Army A. And one just sort of cobbled together from appealing units Army B.

If the gap between them is significant? Sure, Army A is going to win out.

But, if it takes serious math and theory hammering to show the difference? The motivation to go for Army A over B-Z is greatly reduced.

Yes, there are people who’s hobby is working out the most efficient list. And yes, that is an entirely legitimate way to do the hobby.

But given this is an inherently visual hobby, I’d say they’re a relatively small percentage.

It’s also getting a bit off topic. I’ll go and get her my thoughts, and probably do a new thread to discuss such things

I quite like the idea of aspects getting access to multiple "weapon modes". The aspects focus on a single form of combat, but that shouldn't necessarily mean only having a single.trick available. For banshees for instance it reminds me of the different combat forms described for al Lan Mandragoran in the wheel of time series. Lots of different moves and counters depending in situation. If you're against a single hard target they would use one kind of combat stance, movement and unit synergy, against a horde their engagement tactics would be totally different, but still based around pistol, sword and screaming bloody murder in peoples faces.

Eldar vehicles (fire prism) and inthink some of the wraith weapons already have multiple fire modes, time for the aspects to catch up.

Wouldn't that make eldar units extremly efficient though? If they had a anti meq, anti horde and anti big stuff stance they would be much better then marines, who do have such options, but they have to settle on them pre game and are locked in to them. Plus they cost points, a stance would be something just something models get for free.

As cool as having combat stances are for aspects, the ability to change from one special rules to the next can be tricky to balance, even the marine doctrines aren't that flexible.

I like to think of different weapons and special rules Combos for aspects as being different schools of training.

Just as arha and karandras focused on different philosophical forms that made their versions of the scorpions unique from one another, you can create a range of schools for each aspect.


Ie the fire dragon school 0f the dragons roar represents their aspect through flamers and specialising in fortifications assaults.

Or the dark reapers from the school of screaming death emulate their founder by using shuriken cannons.


There is so much capacity for creativity within the Eldar because everything is philosophical - dire Avengers are not the aspect of catapults but the aspect of khaine the avenger.

How they decide to represent khaine as an Avenger is a philosophical choice not a literal weapon choice.

 Flinty wrote:
I quite like the idea of aspects getting access to multiple "weapon modes". The aspects focus on a single form of combat, but that shouldn't necessarily mean only having a single.trick available. For banshees for instance it reminds me of the different combat forms described for al Lan Mandragoran in the wheel of time series.

This idea is very reminiscent of wood elf wardancers in WFB who had multiple "dances" they could choose between. If you wanted to restrict the flexibility of it you could have it so you pick your combat stance before the game starts and require the use of a stratagem to change stance during the command phase (so only 1 unit could change stance per turn). It could also be an autarch ability to command an aspect unit to change its stance. Alternatively it could also be worked to be an army wide doctrine style effect.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I never tought I would live to see people actually having genuine nostalgy for jump-shoot-jump or similar rules. Not that long ago those were some of the most frustrating rules most people complained about, units shooting and then running out of LOS to avoid being shoot back.

At the very real risk of unfairly casting people in a bad light, I do wonder how many of those complaints are from people relying on an OP list rather than an understanding of the game?

It will by no means be all of them, I’d like to that clear. But a lot of the time when I’ve read such complaints, it’s seemed more a case of “I can’t deal with that’ and more ‘I refuse to change my tactics and strategy to account for his tricksy playstyle, every army should just jolly well stay where it is until I can shoot them’.

Craftworld Eldar should be a frustrating, irritating opponent. The opponent shouldn’t expect a stand up fight - because that’s not how the Craftworld’s are described.

Sadly this has become more and more the case. If you can't deal with adversity, how can you truly win?

I want eldar to go back to the mobility and shenanigans army rather than the also-ran punching bag(a wet paper one at that).

Eldar should shoot n scoot, fire n fade, etc....there is plenty of design space for them, unfortunately it has been encroached by a certain faction that rhymes with ass-tart-ezzzz.

I think Craftworlds has a lot of movement shenanigans this edition. I generally start the game with 700-800 out of 2000 points in reserve (War Walkers, Spiders, Hawks, Dire Avengers in Strategic Reserve). Many units have a built in Deep Strike mechanic, or use strategic reserves. I have Dark Reapers utilizing Fire and Fade into a Wave Serpent. Warp Spiders are the best unit in the game for Deploy Scramblers. Hawks leaving the table and landing anywhere the following turn. Feigned Retreat definitely frustrates opponents. We have use of Quicken and Restain. A lot of players now are not geared to shoot down a flier at range and Crimson Hunter Exarchs survive most games when I use one; a big part is the second 90 degree pivot they can make. I can avoid deadly fire lanes with that alone. Nearly every vehicle has the fly keyword; I took this for granted until I played a Dark Angels army and learned how much movement it took to get around terrain features. The mobility exists which is a big part of me winning games.

Granted, the power level from an early 8th edition codex is not the same as 9th edition codexes , but it is not meant to be. 9th edition is quite a different game and the missions are much more challenging than older editions or even ITC. A 9th edition Codex will bring things in line, but I don't expect to see it until the fall or winter this year (just a guess).

Now, I can get on a soapbox and rant about the aged models. What a difference is model quality between the old Banshees and new plastic Banshees. I will happily re purchase models updated with new plastic kits.

I'm getting depressed looking over Artel W's range of Not-Eldar models.

They have made models for basically every unit that needs updating in the Eldar book.
And they looking amazing honestly.

But I still want to support the official product.
Come on GW what are you waiting for?

I want to buy, why won't you sell to me?

They're more than happy to sell things to you - you've just decided you don't want to buy the current range.

Of course, this also indicates a lack of demand to the suits, so...

I have already bought some of the new Banshees and Jain Zar.

I will not buy 20 year old models remade in crappy finecast.

 dan2026 wrote:
I have already bought some of the new Banshees and Jain Zar.

I will not buy 20 year old models remade in crappy finecast.

The finecast is absolutely a deal breaker for me, too. I broke once to reinforce my metal seer council (converting to the current generation shuriken pistols), and never again.

 Unknown_Lifeform wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
I quite like the idea of aspects getting access to multiple "weapon modes". The aspects focus on a single form of combat, but that shouldn't necessarily mean only having a single.trick available. For banshees for instance it reminds me of the different combat forms described for al Lan Mandragoran in the wheel of time series.

This idea is very reminiscent of wood elf wardancers in WFB who had multiple "dances" they could choose between. If you wanted to restrict the flexibility of it you could have it so you pick your combat stance before the game starts and require the use of a stratagem to change stance during the command phase (so only 1 unit could change stance per turn). It could also be an autarch ability to command an aspect unit to change its stance. Alternatively it could also be worked to be an army wide doctrine style effect.

That could work. Or even all units have a good attack type versus their traditional targets but can access a radically different good attack type against the opposite target type (I.e Banshees being great against heavy armour, but can access a horde shredder) for CPs. Taking an autarch could then give free stance changes as a combat leader, compared to a different class of buffs available through a farseer.

 Flinty wrote:
That could work. Or even all units have a good attack type versus their traditional targets but can access a radically different good attack type against the opposite target type (I.e Banshees being great against heavy armour, but can access a horde shredder) for CPs. Taking an autarch could then give free stance changes as a combat leader, compared to a different class of buffs available through a farseer.

It does seem diametrically opposed to 'classical' identity of the faction - highly specialised, using superior speed to redeploy their forces to match the right units in their list against the right targets in the opponents and punished when they don't.

But then everyone seems to have a different idea of what they should be. Hit and run to mitigate poor positioning, switchable stances to mitigate poor target matchups, enhanced defenses or broad debufs to just hammer it out, or attacks so devastating that it puts the onus on the opponent to redeploy against the strengths of the eldar.

What is their identity.

A.T. wrote:

What is their identity.

Elfy sorta-anime elfs IN SPAAAAACE (IIRC)

A.T. wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
That could work. Or even all units have a good attack type versus their traditional targets but can access a radically different good attack type against the opposite target type (I.e Banshees being great against heavy armour, but can access a horde shredder) for CPs. Taking an autarch could then give free stance changes as a combat leader, compared to a different class of buffs available through a farseer.

It does seem diametrically opposed to 'classical' identity of the faction - highly specialised, using superior speed to redeploy their forces to match the right units in their list against the right targets in the opponents and punished when they don't.

But then everyone seems to have a different idea of what they should be. Hit and run to mitigate poor positioning, switchable stances to mitigate poor target matchups, enhanced defenses or broad debufs to just hammer it out, or attacks so devastating that it puts the onus on the opponent to redeploy against the strengths of the eldar.

What is their identity.

That's a fair point. I suppose I was thinking of cases where the opponent doesnt have any targets that the highly specialised eldar troops are intended to counter. But then I suppose it would create the ultimate grnrdalists.

Aspect Warriors do feel weird at the moment, being largely defined by their weapons, rather than their skill with them. Specialists without a specific specialism.

Banshees for instance. They emit a psionic scream when charging, described as crippling the foe.

But what do they actually do in-game? Genuine question as I don’t have the book, and my Phoenix book is on loan to a friend.

A cursory Google suggests prior to +1 S power swords, they prevented Overwatch. I suspect that’s no later than 8th Ed.

Sure, preventing Overwatch was pretty useful, especially for a fragile, typically small unit. And it seems they could advance and charge.

But....that was it. Once you were actually in HTH, they gained no real perks.

That doesn’t feel right to me at all. I mean, if your opponent is frozen in place, however temporarily, you can go for the vulnerable areas. So I think thematically, let alone “pretty useful in game”, that could be represented with increased damage on the Charge.

For how I see the effect? Look at Iron Man, and that doohickey Stane uses on the baddies and on Tony. Complete paralysis if you don’t have protection.

Yes, I am aware there’s a difference between stuff in the background and stuff in the game. But Aspect Warriors need something to make them feared and deadly again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looking back, Aspect Warriors of all stripes have definitely not moved with the game. Since their inception, they’ve had the same roles, with only Dark Reapers changing specifically to become Killers of Marines And Not Much Else.

And how the game has moved on. Swooping Hawks in the first two editions were pretty useful. Mobile firepower and pooping grenades on your flight path had its definite place. But since then? Pretty much everything else has gotten tougher. Either better armoured, changed AP rules, or straight out larger units and larger armies, rendering the Swooping Hawk pretty neutered in terms of providing a meaningful impact.

We see Dire Avengers because they’re a Troops Choice, and simply a better option than Guardians.

Striking Scorpions can massacre a unit of light to medium infantry thanks to a bucket of attacks - but are then left with their bum out the window in your opponents turn.

So on and so forth.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Banshees for instance. They emit a psionic scream when charging, described as crippling the foe.
But what do they actually do in-game? Genuine question as I don’t have the book, and my Phoenix book is on loan to a friend.

Extra movement, no overwatch, harder to hit in combat and power weapons.

I suppose there is only so deadly you can be when you can charge a target two and a half feet away and cost less than a bolter armed tactical marine.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Aspect Warriors do feel weird at the moment, being largely defined by their weapons, rather than their skill with them. Specialists without a specific specialism.
...

Looking back, Aspect Warriors of all stripes have definitely not moved with the game. Since their inception, they’ve had the same roles, with only Dark Reapers changing specifically to become Killers of Marines And Not Much Else.

And how the game has moved on. Swooping Hawks in the first two editions were pretty useful. Mobile firepower and pooping grenades on your flight path had its definite place. But since then? Pretty much everything else has gotten tougher. Either better armoured, changed AP rules, or straight out larger units and larger armies, rendering the Swooping Hawk pretty neutered in terms of providing a meaningful impact.

We see Dire Avengers because they’re a Troops Choice, and simply a better option than Guardians.

Striking Scorpions can massacre a unit of light to medium infantry thanks to a bucket of attacks - but are then left with their bum out the window in your opponents turn.

So on and so forth.

Very true. But then, the equipment one utilizes or has access to often defines a unit in many other armies, like say Sternguard and Vanguard, especially if an equivalent veterancy and eliteness applies.

On the other hand there are some oddities which haven't made sense to me from my start with the game, such as why are Guardians basically given shotguns to support their heavy weapon batteries? Someone mentioned Fire Dragons having the same range as Imperium's Melta's is another.

If anyone was going to have short range on their weaponry, shouldn't it be the drive by Drukhari and Harlequins who need movement more than their Craftworld cousins? Shouldn't the Craftworlders then be looked at as having the range to accomplish their tasks?

But what do they actually do in-game? Genuine question as I don’t have the book, and my Phoenix book is on loan to a friend.

Way back when they were first introduced, Banshees were legitimately scary. The banshee mask stunned charge targets:

They couldn't run from the charge
They couldn't stand and shoot
and
Unless they rolled a 6 on d6, they couldn't even attack during the first round of combat.

They were legitimately scary (and power swords were just better).

Now they're just kind of sad.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Aspect Warriors do feel weird at the moment, being largely defined by their weapons, rather than their skill with them. Specialists without a specific specialism.

Banshees for instance. They emit a psionic scream when charging, described as crippling the foe.

But what do they actually do in-game? Genuine question as I don’t have the book, and my Phoenix book is on loan to a friend.

A cursory Google suggests prior to +1 S power swords, they prevented Overwatch. I suspect that’s no later than 8th Ed.

Sure, preventing Overwatch was pretty useful, especially for a fragile, typically small unit. And it seems they could advance and charge.

But....that was it. Once you were actually in HTH, they gained no real perks.

That doesn’t feel right to me at all. I mean, if your opponent is frozen in place, however temporarily, you can go for the vulnerable areas. So I think thematically, let alone “pretty useful in game”, that could be represented with increased damage on the Charge.

For how I see the effect? Look at Iron Man, and that doohickey Stane uses on the baddies and on Tony. Complete paralysis if you don’t have protection.

Yes, I am aware there’s a difference between stuff in the background and stuff in the game. But Aspect Warriors need something to make them feared and deadly again.

Banshees have three abilities, one is Advance and Charge and +3 to charge, really good for getting you into combat, one is -1 to hit in combat and the other is deny Overwatch. Denying Overwatch was a lot more useful in 8th than it is in 9th but an ability that lets tyou get into combat much easier is definitely nice.