Silverson Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Hi guys I have always liked the idea of drop pods as they fitted my favourite legion (lunor wolves) and I have recently decided to get 1 but can't decide on which and was wondering if anyone has any opinion on them to help me decide. The options are the dreadclaw or the kharybdis (I think these are the only to available to chaos space marine?) Firstly does anyone know where I can get the most up to date rules for them both as I have heard that neither allow you to assault after arriving from deepstrike but I don't know much more about them other than they are both assault vehicles. the kharybdis can carry 20 models and is then a flyer, has the inertial guidance system, 5hp and can carry a dreadnought or helbrute. The dreadclaw can carry 10 men, get immobilised if it lands of difficult terrain, and there is a strange rule of how it arrives (which I thought it had been faq'd) Thanks for any advice :) Ps if there are any other drop pods available to chaos space marines please let me know Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leif Bearclaw Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 If you're looking at Luna Wolves, rather than Black Legion, Wouldn't going 30k make more sense? Then you get Dreadclaws and Kharybdis, as well as regular pods if you take the right RoW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverson Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 Na I play chaos space marine 40k the lunor wholes I like from a fluff perspective only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leif Bearclaw Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Fair enough, I'd still say either 30k Legion list or C:SM would represent Luna Wolves better than C:CSM, but whatever. Can't remember the rules myself. But Dreadclaws are probably in IA:Apocalypse 2013, while I don't know if the Kharybdis has 40k rules yet. However it's rumoured that an updated Chaos IA book is on the horizon, so it might be a good idea to wait for that, as it will certainly as much of what you're looking for as GW will allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The dreadclaw's current rules are in IA:Apocalypse(2013 edition). They are absolutely terrible, to the point of being non-functional. The Kharybdis only has trial rules to my knowledge, available here: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/K/Kharybdis.pdf It is bad, in the sense that it is horribly overpriced for its abilities, which mostly cannot be used together, and some of which (assault transport, frag launchers) you'll never use at all, because you can't assault the turn it arrives from deep strike, and it will almost always be better to deploy immediately rather than wait around for a turn. 5 hull points is somewhat respectable, and armor 12 isn't quite as explodey as it once was, but not deploying immediately is still begging to have the thing surrounded and destroyed, losing you the entire squad. That said, it isn't totally non-functional the way the current dreadclaw is, and with the new vehicle damage chart it actually stands a decent shot of surviving the turn it arrives, meaning it can then start flying around shooting its missile pods and flame blast and such, so it actually has something to do after dropping troops off. And it can deliver a fair pile of models - one brute is never worth it, but 20 power armored bodies or 10 terminators put exactly where you want them in the enemies lines turn one is nothing to sneeze at. Again, it isn't good. IMO it's maybe a 180 point tank, maybe 200, but definitely not 260. Taking Huron as your warlord gives you basically the same delivery ability, only for d3 units instead of just one, for only 160 points, and the KAC's guns do not make up the 100 point difference. Still, if you take it, you'll actually be able to use it, and it will have a noticeable impact on the game, so if you must take one of the two, take a Kharybdis. Note that we're supposedly going to be seeing an update of all of FW's 40k chaos options some time later this year in a new book release. I believe its supposed to be the next IA book after the upcoming nid release. The Dreadclaw and Kharybdis may see improvements at that time. I would love nothing more than for 2 to 3 dreadclaws and 1 to 2 kharybdis in an assault pod wing to be a functional and respectable chaos build option. What I expect to see is the KAC stay exactly the same, and the Dreadclaw rules to be changed to follow those of the Kharybdis (but with fewer hull points, smaller capacity, and no guns), but with a significant (and totally unwarranted) points increase. I expect that they'll both still eat force org slots (fast for DC, heavy for KAC, as current). KACs will still be bad, and Dreadclaws will still be worse, but at least the latter will be vaguely usable. Without scatter mitigation, there's really no reason to even try to work dreadclaws right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warsmith Aznable Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Why the Dreadclaw is terrible should be a pinned subject. It probably has the highest "this could possibly be great" to "gosh, this is actually pretty useless" ratio out of all the CSM units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Just a brief summary: it's expensive. Half a heldrake in points. A whole heldrake in force org slots. Our fast slots are valuable, even post drake nerf. We can't be burning them on a vehicle that is a delivery vector for a single unit and nothing else, especially when the units we can deliver with it aren't generally that impressive, and tend to be somewhat overpriced themselves. Again, this is a vehicle that, in practical terms, even in the best case scenario, delivers a single unit and does nothing else. It has no business being a fast attack choice instead of a dedicated transport. Its rules don't work together. Specifically, it is a deep striking transport with assault vehicle and frag launchers. But you can't assault the turn you deep strike, and you are basically always better off deploying instead of waiting around. Also, it can continue flying after dropping troops of - but to what end? The game isn't long enough to make moving another unit around a meaningful option, and it has no guns. At least in 7th it can still claim an uncontested objective, but since it's a fast attach choice instead of a dedicated transport, it won't have objective secured, significantly hampering it in that role. Mostly, it will just be a drop pod, minus the storm bolter, which means the points it pays for those other abilities - making it cost more than twice the price of a regular drop pod - is pure waste. It has no scatter mitigation. This is the killer that turns it from being just 'very bad' into something that's nigh unplayable. If the claw scatters onto another model, or within an inch of an enemy model, or onto impassible terrain, then congratulations, the overpriced pod and the unit inside is dropped straight into the mishap table's hungry maw, with options ranging from bad - delayed arrival - to outright terrible - loss of the whole pile, pod, unit, and all. It is expected to change in the following manner upon it's next update: it will theoretically gain the drop pod's scatter mitigation, as the Kharybdis has. It will theoretically gain the kharybdis's flame blast ability, which will at least give it something to do after dropping off one of your units. However, it will theoretically still eat a fast attack slot, and will cost even more points, possibly over 100, for what will still possess basically the same utility as a 30ish point drop pod. With the scatter mitigation it won't be completely non-functional, but with the extremely bloated cost in points and slots it will still be one of the worst options available to our faction. But note that these are only expected changes, not rumored, not confirmed. Both it and the Kharybdis could be changed for the better, or left as they are, or even made worse. We will simply have to see when it happens, which, again, should be some time late this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dam13n Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 ... it is spoiling for the top placed "in drastic need of better rules" spot. Though how difficult would it be for them to just copy/paste the SM Drop Pod rules onto it, have it be the same points cost as a SM Pod and leave it at that. The only change would be to swap the missile pod upgrade for a Havok Launcher upgrade. As it stands though, it's not really worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The main thing is the fluff which marks it out as an 'assault vehicle', so designers try to give it the 'assault vehicle' rules, except that a deep striking assault vehicle is totally inconsistent with the rules forbidding assaulting from deep strike - which, if we're being honest, are there for a reason. So to have the assault vehicle matter, the designer has to take away the drop pod's inherent imobilize to allow the claw arrive then deliver its unit in a subsequent turn, so now they're charging more for the assault vehicle rule, and they're charging more because it isn't self immobilizing... Only neither of those things actually help it in the actual game, because immediate disembarking is always better and safer, and you assault at the same time, anyway - the turn after arrival. So the defining features of the assault claw are functionally worthless in game, and yet have a considerable points cost attached. A deep striking assault vehicle is an inherently flawed concept in 40k, and the dread claw and all variants will remain inherently flawed themselves for as long as that's the case. Making the claws not terrible involves either completely rethinking them, or rewriting the core game rules such that assault after deep strike would no longer be so disruptive that it need be banned outright. Ie, by re-introducing 2e style overwatch, or just swapping shooting phases so the turn order becomes "I move, you shoot, I assault; you move, I shoot, you assault. Basically anything that would give players the option to react to the opponents' movement phase before they could launch assaults as a standard rule, rather than a rare special rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverson Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 Well that's is definitely the insight into the 2 I was hoping for (tho wasn't hoping to find out there that bad) thank you very much for taking the time to inform me of there poor quality. Sadly that idea is going away until later this year then if they receive updates :) thanks again and thanks for saving my wallet my hard earned cash :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strazhakov Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The dreadclaw's current rules are in IA:Apocalypse(2013 edition). They are absolutely terrible, to the point of being non-functional. The Kharybdis only has trial rules to my knowledge, available here: You mean this book? Because it not in there. At least not in the index and I also didn't see it in my friend's book. http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/contents-ia-apoc.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castigator Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 It's in Imperial Armour: Aeronautica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daboarder Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I thought it was in apoc 2nd ed. It is a testament to stupidity that the unit has multiple rule iterations and they all are considered terrible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 It's in Imperial Armour: Aeronautica. And here I thought... huh. Guess I was wrong. This is the current then. But not for all that much longer, and it's terrible as discussed above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.