Another Look at the Dreadclaw?

[AekoldHelbrass]

What you describe doesn't even use the dreadclaw as an assault transport, you're dropping to the ground & getting out, but then not charging until the following turn anyway.

No, what I meant is dropping to the ground and not getting out, waiting in comfortable AV12 phone booth, and next turn assaulting from it.

[Sedekiel]

 

What you describe doesn't even use the dreadclaw as an assault transport, you're dropping to the ground & getting out, but then not charging until the following turn anyway.

No, what I meant is dropping to the ground and not getting out, waiting in comfortable AV12 phone booth, and next turn assaulting from it.

Which actually is the way the Dreadclaw works according to the fluff.

[Sception]

But not really according to the rules, since it never actually 'lands', it's always either zooming or hovering.  I'd gladly trade such mechanics for drop-pod-esque mishap mitigation, but that's neither here nor there.

[minionboy]

The more it's argued, the more I'm on the side that a flyer can deep strike and not crash.  The biggest argument for this is that there are quite a few flyers in the new IA:Apocalypse book that can deep strike and do not have hover!  I sincerely doubt that they'd continue to make flyers that can deep strike if they didn't intend for flyers to be able to survive deep striking.

[Sception]

minionboy makes a strong case.  Non-hover deep striking fliers wouldn't exist if fliers weren't supposed to be able to arrive from deep strike while zooming, and if a flier without hover can do it without crashing then there's no reason at all to think a flier with hover couldn't choose to do it as well.

[minionboy]

minionboy makes a strong case.  Non-hover deep striking fliers wouldn't exist if fliers weren't supposed to be able to arrive from deep strike while zooming, and if a flier without hover can do it without crashing then there's no reason at all to think a flier with hover couldn't choose to do it as well.

 

A lot of times when something is unclear, try arguing the opposing side, if it sounds totally absurd, you can get the answer.  Clearly saying "GW Intended deep striking flyers to crash" is a bit silly, and the rules are vague around combat speed vs 18", so it's pretty safe to assume the correct answer is generally the one that sounds the least absurd.

[AekoldHelbrass]

Well, we had lots of cases when FW rules were outdated. Here is how I see the world:

1. In 5th edition we had Fast Skimmer + Deep Strike.
2. 6th edition introduced Flyers, and some units got FAQed to become Flyers, but didn't lose Deep Strike. Yet.
3. GW released a couple of new Flyers, none of them had Deep Strike (CSM, DA, Stormtalon).
4. GW released an update for all existing Flyers, "Death from the Skies", and now none of the GW flyers had Flyer + Deep Strike.

So I think there is a possibility that FW are still using outdated rules for Flyers, that contradicts with a wording of rulebook. There were cases like this before, for example FW character update PDF has a notion "MoK (additional attack already included in profile)", which contradicts current MoK of CSM.

[Sception]

FW updated their fliers to 6e in Imperial Armor: Aeronautica.  This is the book that updated the Dreadclaw to 6e as well.  This books fliers are meant to use the 6e rules - it's a book released during 6e, it doesn't include separate rules for fliers, some of the fliers have hover and some don't, etc.  So it's current rules.  This book includes fliers without hover that have deep strike, so obviously the design intent here is that fliers in 6e can arrive without crashing, and that's an interpretation that can at least be reasonably argued in the rulebook.  Since that interpretation can at least be argued, and since the other interpretation results in current, 6e updated units that simply don't work, it certainly seems like the interpretation that should be in effect until overtly stated otherwise.

 

Simply put, 6e zooming fliers being able to deploy via deep strike is the overwhelmingly obvious design intent in IA:A, the book from which the current 6e rules for the Dreadclaw are taken.

[AekoldHelbrass]

Simply put, 6e zooming fliers being able to deploy via deep strike is the overwhelmingly obvious design intent in IA:A, the book from which the current 6e rules for the Dreadclaw are taken.

I totally agree with that, what I am trying to say - there is a reason why GW removed Deep Strike from all of official GW flyers, and it would be great to know that reason. And referring to FW rules as an argument doesn't work, because it is possible and happened before that they've just copy-pasted rules from previous ones without thinking, as they have completely separate rules design group than GW official, and they are not in sync.

[Sception]

Except that they didn't just copy paste the rules from before in IA: Aeronautica - several of these fliers, including the dreadclaw, had their rules significantly re-written for 6e.

[minionboy]

The latest book, the new Imperial Armour Apocalypse also has plenty of re-written flyers with deep strike, as well as plenty without.  I think it's pretty clear that they intended some to Deeps Strike without problem and others to not deep strike at all.