Everyone agrees they need a boost of some kind.

EUk has been playing with them at CC 2+ for awhile, and that change seems to have the agreement of most of the community.

In combination with the Exarch changes I am proposing in my other post I think this is a good change, and will make Banshees more viable.

Thoughts?

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I can't see any solution beyond adopting the Epic UK rules, and I'm on the fence about whether they really represent a particularly good way of dealing with the issue of Howling Banshees. I'd have to play test it to see.

_________________

netEA has been playing them as 2+ for a long time...

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Yep you are right. That'll teach me to look at the compendium entries properly.

Though it cannot be for so long a time.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

I think we agree that Banshees are a very 'niche' formation which struggle to fit their W40k role in E:A.

Allowing the autarch and exarch First strike on CC2+ is ok, but still a little lackluster, because their weaker armour and proximity to the enemy make Banshees vulnerable to enemy fire, thus reducing the assault resolution potential (though to be fair, this can be mitigated to some extent by mounting Banshees in Wave Serpents).

The two alternative solutions I suggested seem unpalatable to some (improved armour to reflect their agility, or a form of 'sniper' to reduce enemy armour saves in assault).

Given their nature, perhaps we will just have to accept that Banshees will remain sub-par and tricky to use well?

Is there something obviously flawed about giving them "CC MW vs Infantry only"? Perhaps at 4+ First Strike? This would highlight their efficacy against heavily armoured troops (and their less impressive performance when drowning in enemy numbers).

Another excellent alternative that unfortunately also requires a special rule.

Could this rule be used elsewhere? Ie, are there any other races or lists with specialist 'heavy infantry killers'?

At least three years...

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

For some reason I thought that it was a Handbook change, rather than a NetEA change.

SpeakertoMachines: Maybe, but it was my understanding from previous debates that there was a general reluctance to add another tier of special rules to solve the problem.

_________________

That was also my understanding - else 'assassin' might actually be better (give -1 to enemy infantry armour save when in B-B). IIRC there was another unit that wanted something similar many years ago, though I cannot recall the name or other details.

As a community we tend to avoid 'special rules' where at all possible, unless they are 'characterfull', relevant, where the desired effect cannot be achieved by other means, and where it will be used by several units preferably of different races.

Certainly. I just thinks the Banshees fit the three first criteria. There aren't any EA special rules that reflect "unit-wide low-strength power weapon attacks". "MW vs Inf only" achieves that, I think.

Such a rule has merit in my view, but I agree adding it for only one unit is unecessary.

However I think another cirteria mentioned earlier also applies. The "several armies would use it" one. I think a "MW vs Inf only" rule would be fitting for genestealers as well, wiht their rending claws. I might be wrong here, but if I remember correctly from the tyranid unit discusions a year ago, some people thought they lack power.

Even if they're not underperforming, I still think a "MW vs Inf" rule would be very fitting for genestealers as well.

/Borka

"MW Vs infantry" is excessive IMO as it represents an auto-kill against all infantry and LV except terminators or equivalent with RA armour - especially if accompanied by 'First Strike'. The "Assassin" rule is a more gentle alternative which ought to be considered first, only using the other rule if it is deemed insufficient.

There are two versions of the "Assassin" rule which have slightly different scope. Which do you prefer?

Assassin:

Option 1 (specific)
In assault, hits caused by an Assassin unit in base to base contact with enemy Infantry also impose a -1 save modifier to that unit.

Option 2 (general)
In assault, Infantry in Base to base contact with an enemy Assassin unit suffer a -1 save modifier.

Note, the wording of option 2 reduces the armour save of the enemy infantry to all hits irrespective of their source. This is quicker to play because the Assassin hits do not have to be pooled, though is consequently more powerfull since it applies to all hits.

For those who are bored, or want to read the earlier discussion, they are here