I'm in the make-it-a-special-rule-camp. I think such a rule would be very fitting for genestealers as well.

I think the above rule would be nice, but it should only work if the banshees are in CC with inf. It would feel rather unfair (and silly) if I charge for instance a marine formation and only reach the rhinos, but then start chopping up the infantry behind.

Cheers

Oh I don't know - the issue is really that in an assault, the HBs are bouncing all over the place making it hard for the defenders to hit them. However, from a third party perspective (support fire) and especially when being shot at, HBs ought to be easier to target. Do you want to introduce a rule that gives HBs +1 to their armour save during an assault?

If not, and you also believe as I do that they need to be more survivable, then 4+ armour is appropriate.

Several thoughts:-

1) I presume First strike still applies, if so, you do not need to worry about other hits as this is a separate round.
2) I am concerned about the '15cm' range being abused as Kyrt suggests. Why not say that they have "MW against infantry targets when in B-B with Infantry"
3) With this definition, all you need to do is say that spare hits are allocated to nearby infantry (but not vehicles) following the allocation rules.
4) should we include LV targets as well?

Could you explain why we are going straight to MW rather than "Assassin" (a version of "sniper" applied in exactly the same way)?

Sniper would actually solve a lot of the first strike wonkiness too, if you can allocate the hits to specific stuff. Then you would be free to use them alongside scorpions.

With the mw-vs-infantry, it's starting to get very complicated - but do i have this right? The defender must first allocate power weapon hits on infantry units that are in BtB with a unit with the ability, which are treated as being hit by a MW. When there are no (more) such targets, allocate the remaining hits normally (I.e. non-infantry in BtB, then units within 15cm).

What order are hits allocated? To prevent the defender from being able to minimise, it'd have to be before normal hits.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I'll leave you guys thrash out the wording but I'm very in favor of a special rule for HB giving them MW vs inf only.

Not quite right Kyrt. There are two ways to view the process

1. The way that SG has presented, the HB First Strike hits are only allocated to Infantry targets, even if there are closer vehicle targets.
2. The alternative approach is to allocate the HB First Strike hits as normal, but to treat any hits placed on Infantry as 'special' (MW, or my preference, "Assassin")

Option #1 needs carefull wording, and can provide some 'wonky' effects, but is relatively easy to play.
Option #2 needs more complex wording and is potentially complex to play, though it is more 'accurate' and ultimately less restrictive - if the Eldar want / need to, they can assault vehicles, accepting the sub-par result.

[quote=Ginger]
IMO "Inf-MW" is too powerfull because it results in an auto-kill for all but RA infantry, and it also negates cover saves. Here I prefer the adoption of an assault version of "Sniper" (applicable against infantry in CC), because that means that all targets get a chance to save, and that cover can play a part. I call this special rule "Assassin".[/quote]

I like the Assassins sniper vs infantry in CC idea for Tyranids like Genestealers, along with Lictors and others. In 40k these units have rending claws which ignore enemy armour saves 1 time in 6.

HB just flat out ignore enemy armor saves though, its their niche and how they are meant to work. They also have the Banshee masks which shock and disorientate their enemies as they charge - not getting cover saves vs HB its fitting as the HB could be imagined to be taking advantage of this. MW will be powerful, but they have weaker armour and their CC to hit can be reduced and them balanced

OK so:

Option 1 can be a bit weird, like a more extreme version of flying power fist where hits actually choose to "fly" even when there are closer targets. The assault allocation rules are not exactly realistic so arguably it's not a big deal - they are an abstraction so we should not get ourselves worked up about it, but conversely it does also introduce yet more weirdness.

Option 2 incentivises the defender (and it's defenders who allocate hits) to allocate onto vehicles rather than infantry. This is a problem common to other special abilities (e.g. ignore cover), but has a potentially much greater application (i.e. in assaults, and negating all infantry armour not just cover saves or RA rerolls) so maybe should be headed off at the pass.

All options need the special hits to be tracked separately, so it needs to be stated which order they are applied in (even if it is "simultaneously with normal hits" the rule should say so). The method that is chosen affects the degree of wonkiness - e.g. for option 2, allocating alongside normal hits would mean the defender could allocate normal hits on all the infantry in BtB, and the special hits on the vehicles firefighting from behind.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

It's the same issue as with Lance hits, isn't it? The wily defender allocates normal hits to Land Raiders and Lance hits to Rhinos in the same formation, if able.

In the specific case of the HB, I don't think it is a problem to just use normal hit allocation; Their attack are all First Strike anyway, so they are allocated and resolved prior to regular attacks from the same formation. This encourages the defender to screen his infantry with vehicles, but there's nothing odd in that, I think.

Definitely no to a new special rule.

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

I'd be careful about adding another special rule. I'm not totally against it though. What I'd like to see is the rule written and tested for both Banshees and Genestealers - if one gets it the other should as well, and it would make the testing process more solid.

I'm not entirely happy about it either. I don't see a way to avoid it if we want Banshees to be used though. Infiltrate would be a start, but not enough. Just about any other option would require a new special rule. I'd certainly be happy to share testing with Dave on the Genestealers if he wishes - a new USR (a la Expendable) would be better than a rule that affects only one unit.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

As I've alluded to in the past, I'm not generally in favour of adding more rules either, but what else can we do? At this juncture, we've tried just about everything else, and it hasn't really made a great deal of difference to the view that Howling Banshees are an indifferent to poor choice as part of an Aspect formation.

I'd rather make them more effective in close combat than trying to give them rather dubious options (from a background perspective), such as infiltration, but it is a fact that references to 40K hamper us more than they help regarding Howling Banshees, so I'm trying to keep as open minded as possible on this issue.

_________________

genestealers don't need more special rules to be awesome, because they already are. Don't drag them into this discussion please.

_________________

I'm inclined to agree. It seems there are plenty of other special rules that can be applied (sniper seems workable if the kinks are ironed out + FAQ attached to the list).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.