Kharybdis

[Ironandforge]

What are peoples thoughts on the kharybdis? I'm thinking of adding one to my blood Angel's list.

[Vykes]

Everything I've heard about them is only on the 'good' side of things, both model wise and mechanically.  One dude in my 30K community owns and frequently uses two to some pretty impressive effect.  They're flying mountains!  Hard enough to crack open, carry a ton or troopers, decent area clearing abilities, and heat blast is pretty fun either way.   Likewise, they're priced pretty competitively points wise. 

 

That said, the models are huge and require a lot of table space from what I saw: massive footprint and Horus help you if you put it on a stand (I'm scared enough when my dreadclaws are mounted upright).

[Imren]

I would put very small dollops of silicone on the end of the claw "feet" to prevent damage on battle tables and the "feet", Also when assembling, I'd pin the parts together for additional structural strength.

[Brofist]

 

Despite not liking the model when it first came out, and despite the dreadclaw being a bear to assemble, this thing is really impressive in person and easy to work on. It was a super clean cast. I pinned everything and used putty to make sure it will survive any accidents.

[SkimaskMohawk]

@vykes well the rules for flyers kind of force you to have them on their stand since it comes with one. Even if you didn't, you still need to put it on its side since that's how it's orientated and it could be easily broken like that too.

 

@imren but you literally never put wither the dreadclaw or kharybdis standing up. It always approaches on its side vector; the rules don't allow for flipping of rhinos or land raiders onto their noses.

[Vykes]

-stares blankly at Skimask-...Suuuuuuuuure it does, sure it does.  And the natural firing arc for the kharibdys is oriented around a ~70 degree angle making one frag launcher always angled 'down'. 

 

The model is practically a lliving embodiment of the wobbly model syndrome.   If it's such a big issue on a hovering flyer, pick a leading direction, kinda like some people do with dynamically posed knights. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

Weapons firing arcs, line of sight to the hull, footprint of the model, orientation of the model.

 

These are rules and concepts that no other vehicle get to ignore. Where are the exceptions for the kharybdis? There's none. So, since it comes with a flight stand and mount, that means that's how it's placed and moved on the table. The only time you don't put it on its base is when it's immobilized in hover mode due to being treated as a skimmer. And you still don't change the models orientation as a result.

 

And as for weapon mounts, hate to break it to you, but a lot of vehicles have pretty stringent arcs of fire on their guns; flyers in particularly suffer for this. The natural 22.5 degree vertical arc means you can often miss models, with things like the storm eagle having garbage Los on the top rockets. But you don't see people flipping them upside down because of it.

[Vykes]

You do you, Skimask.  I'll leave it at that.

 

Anyway, the Kharibdys model's pretty cool, probably worth it for  a lot of lists and definitely some benefits as a flying spartan.  Blood Angels could definitely make good use of it, especially if you're using a lot more assault elements.  What's the army dynamic and list shaping up like, Ironandforge?

[Gorgoff]

Weapons firing arcs, line of sight to the hull, footprint of the model, orientation of the model.

 

These are rules and concepts that no other vehicle get to ignore. Where are the exceptions for the kharybdis? There's none. So, since it comes with a flight stand and mount, that means that's how it's placed and moved on the table. The only time you don't put it on its base is when it's immobilized in hover mode due to being treated as a skimmer. And you still don't change the models orientation as a result.

 

And as for weapon mounts, hate to break it to you, but a lot of vehicles have pretty stringent arcs of fire on their guns; flyers in particularly suffer for this. The natural 22.5 degree vertical arc means you can often miss models, with things like the storm eagle having garbage Los on the top rockets. But you don't see people flipping them upside down because of it.

Since you measure to disembark from the iris at the bottom of the hull which is explained in the Drop Pod FAQ it is impossible to get out of the Kharybdis with 20 men, yes?

Skim, you're right: when it flies it has a direction and it has to use it's flying base although I strongly recommand to NOT put the model on the base for obvious reasons, but when it hovers you don't.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Well it says base of the hull, no mention of the iris. But in practise, regardless of which part of the hull you use, yes its impossible raw. You used to use the actual base, but they had worded it badly and gave an extra 3", why they didn't fix the bonus disembark idk.

 

As for it going to hover, there's no game mechanic telling you to take it off its base for being a skimmer. A hovering flyer is treated exactly as a fast skimmer, a skimmer may never remove it's base unless it's immobilized as per "skimmers and damage results" . So it stays on.

[Marshal Rohr]

If you are worried about sturdiness of the flight stand with such a top heavy model I saw a conversion on IG where someone used a thick clear resin rod with parts that fit into the flying stand slot and came off to cradle the rest of the model with a heavy counter weight in the base.

[Fangbanger]

Great model, goes together great (and has magnet holes for the claws!) and awesome in game.

 

I prefer it over a spartan as it's cheaper in points, can jink, gets you where you want turn 1 and is sonething a bit different.

 

As for game wise, I always played it on flying stand if flying, on it's claws in hover. Seems way better thematically how it would operate and fits the game just fine. No one will argue with you RAW or not!

 

Flying stand does support it, but you will constantly be worried it will fall!!

[Brother Pheidias]

 

As for game wise, I always played it on flying stand if flying, on it's claws in hover. Seems way better thematically how it would operate and fits the game just fine. No one will argue with you RAW or not!

 

Flying stand does support it, but you will constantly be worried it will fall!!

All of this. Everywhere I've played, Dreadclaws and Kharybdis land on the claws.

[SkimaskMohawk]

And everywhere people just made it up.

 

Maybe it's because my group really cares about terrain, line of sight and blocking vision; the idea that some models magically get to break the rules and gain an advantage is absurd to us.

[Slips]

And everywhere people just made it up.

 

Maybe it's because my group really cares about terrain, line of sight and blocking vision; the idea that some models magically get to break the rules and gain an advantage is absurd to us.

The issue, it seems, stems from the fact that the Dreadclaw, Kharybdis and Drop Pod are all essentially variants of one another; and since people have been using drop pods for longer and more, they assume that when Dreadclaws and Kharybdis land, they do so much in the way a Drop Pod does.

 

Still, at the end of the day, you're pretty much never allowed to remove a model from its base per RAW if its meant to be on one.

 

At the same time, if both parties playing the game are ok with removing Dreadclaws and Kharybdis off their bases when they land to disembark troops, does it really matter? The only time I really see it being an actual issue is in tournament play.

[MegaVolt87]

You would have to weight the flying base, cut a slot in it for the stand to safely use it. No Idea why GW has such a poorly designed flyer bases. 

[Vykes]

Yeah, the Dreadclaw and Kharibdys are not flyers that I'm super happy with (admittedly having to drill out resin from one or two eagle/raptor key holes made them loose and ungainly,  too).  I still remember a gentle rolling green slope originally made for WFB all at the edge of the table, and having to hit an edge with my dreadclaw.  My opponent just said, "dude, I like dreadclaws too much, don't even try it." 

 

Part of the mindset problem (if we wanna classify it as a problem... I sure don't) is that the stand isn't integrated in the model, either.  It looks optional, feels optional, and with some kinda more or less 'non-informative rules' like how to actually base a T-hawk or Stormbird (yes yes, I get how to measure distance to them, but actual line of sight and that sort of things will change if you're being a literalist).  It just feels like a bad way to go if you're being strict RAW.  

 

I'm genuinely wondering about how the big claw works because I've got 2 dreadclaws and even numbers suck with drop pods, so I'm wondering if it's worth a 3rd or a special-K. 

[MegaVolt87]

Its sad because you can't even adjust the height of the flyer base because you know there will be some lovely person accusing you of "modeling for advantage". Its way too tall for many models also. 

[Vykes]

Aye, MegaVolt, dude.  I wish I could adjust the height and pitch to make it at least vaguely balanced with a lower center of gravity... that'd be pretty nice.  I'd be pretty happy if I could figure out a magnet that would hold it without just swinging around and falling over, likely on top of my deploying squad (As for the top racks of Eagles, they're VTOL, just pitch the nose down on an attack run unless every single aircraft has a strict operational flight ceiling of like 24 meters at 22.5 declination).  It's one of those things I just 'meh' out of for literalist gamer interpretation. 

[MegaVolt87]

Aye, MegaVolt, dude.  I wish I could adjust the height and pitch to make it at least vaguely balanced with a lower center of gravity... that'd be pretty nice.  I'd be pretty happy if I could figure out a magnet that would hold it without just swinging around and falling over, likely on top of my deploying squad (As for the top racks of Eagles, they're VTOL, just pitch the nose down on an attack run unless every single aircraft has a strict operational flight ceiling of like 24 meters at 22.5 declination).  It's one of those things I just 'meh' out of for literalist gamer interpretation. 

 

Yeah, fixing up/securing flyer bases is what has me gun shy on FW flyers. Especially the big ones that could obliterate half your army if they snap off.... 

[Fangbanger]

And everywhere people just made it up.

 

Maybe it's because my group really cares about terrain, line of sight and blocking vision; the idea that some models magically get to break the rules and gain an advantage is absurd to us.

And there's nothing wrong with that at all

 

As with a lot of these things, different groups will vary but I've never encounted a problem using them without in every event I have been too except where one guy wanted to fire his quad mortars via line of sight 'underneath' it which I just went with

[Gorgoff]

And everywhere people just made it up.

 

Maybe it's because my group really cares about terrain, line of sight and blocking vision; the idea that some models magically get to break the rules and gain an advantage is absurd to us.

Not everyone is so obsessive with RAW like your group.

Some of us just want to have fun (and are happy to place those precious models savely on the table without that dangerously shaking base*).

Besides it is debatable whether you really have to let it on the base when they become skimmer or not, and from where you measure how far you can disembark. For me it is very clear what they mean with "base of the hull". Especially because they point out which part of the model is the door.

The hatch under it's hull it is. In the next sentence they only say that you can measure frome any point of the base of the hull. Your interpretation now is that the part of the model which is closest to the table is meant by that.

I dare to disagree.

 

 

Pre-FAQ only a 2" disembarkment was possible by the way and that would have meant that no miniature could get out of those models (small or big claws) when they where on their flying bases.

I wonder how your gaming group played it back then.

That's why most players are playing it exactly the way I do it whenever it is on hover mode.

We DON'T want to make it easier to hide it from shooting. What kind of people would do that?

It just made no sense whatsoever pre-faq RAW and was clear as a day how it was RAI.

The fact that FW and GW plays it exactly like that in their batreps makes it even more obvious.

 

Having said that I have to add that RAW you can of course point out that it is not 100% clear and whatever works for a group is cool.

But you shouldn't judge and shouldn't call out people as cheaters for that.

 

*seriously. When I finished painting my Dreadclaw I placed it on my table and startet working on my Stormsword.

It slipped from my hands, bounced of the table, slammed into the claw, sending it flying to the ground where it shattered into a dozent pieces.

You could hear an old man crying that day.

[SkimaskMohawk]

My group played it from the base, because the mechanic didn't work no matter what due to the restrictions on skimmers and bases. It was and is that simple, it's the path of breaking the least amount of rules.

 

GW is also known to get multitudes of their rules wrong on stream, so that's hardly a slam dunk.

 

And regardless of your intent, if you take them off their flying stand when they hover, that does change line of sight to it. There's a flight stand's worth of difference.

 

And to me, there's a difference in understanding a rule and changing it compared to being unaware and derisiveness.

[Imren]

 

And everywhere people just made it up.

 

Maybe it's because my group really cares about terrain, line of sight and blocking vision; the idea that some models magically get to break the rules and gain an advantage is absurd to us.

*seriously. When I finished painting my Dreadclaw I placed it on my table and startet working on my Stormsword.

It slipped from my hands, bounced of the table, slammed into the claw, sending it flying to the ground where it shattered into a dozent pieces.

You could hear an old man crying that day.

 

 

I know it's in the dark grey zone between not-OCD and being OCD, but a good preventive measure to what happened to you is just to pin all parts that arent a plastic-to-plastic interface (in that case I use plastic glue). I use 1 mm brass wire for the pinning along with a 1 mm drill and works great. Also consider using 2-component epoxy glue for big and/or sensitive resin-to-resin and resin-to plastic interfaces.

 

The disadvantage is that assembling a model will take roughly twice the time with all the pin hole drilling and aligning and dryfitting before gluing the pinned interface.