Launch asset question

just a quick question, was having a discussion with my opponent about this. if a strike carrier moves max thrust and drops to atmosphere (obviously starting in low orbit) is there any reason that stops them then launching ground forces in the launch phase?
i cannot think of any reason why not,(they cannot start in high and drop 2 levels) my friend thought they cannot.

Yep, you cannot fire weapons while using Max Thrust, therefore you can't launch, therefore you can't drop troops.

So your friend is right.

i am trying to find the rules that say you cannot launch. max thrust says that you cannot use weapon systems, but (and i may be being pedantic here ) the rules dont specifically call launch a weapon system and the layout of ship stats seem to imply that they are not weapon systems as well (being in a seperate section to the other ship systems) the argument can be supported by saying that PD is not negated by max thrust and it is not in the same stat box section with all the other weapons. maybe there needs to be a concise list of terms that defines what is what. because at the moment i feel it is easy to read the rules as launch are not a weapon system (especially as they operate in a different phase to other weapon systems) they are not tied into the other weapon systems in the ship card boxes, and at no time in the Launch section of the rules are they called weapon systems.

Page 60 under the Important Rule box. "...if a carrier can't fire for any reason it cannot use Launch Assets either".

You are correct that they are not weapons systems however they have their own rules preventing them from being used when you cannot shoot weapons.

thanks

While the others are correct in their interpretation of the rules, that being that Launch Assets can only be used when a Weapon System could be used, I have to agree with Takxis on that one point.
While the rules and mechanics themselves are excellent, Hawk has a very evident problem with writing consistent, complete, and unambiguous rule sets. It sort of wavers halfway between normal English and technical, precise ruling, but there's a general problem with being consistent with terminology and relations. Anyone know any good lawyers with an affinity for wargames and willing to do some pro-bono work?

Lordprinceps I'm sure you've noticed my rules posts in the past (my compilation of FAQs was both necessary and notorious). It's taken the FAQs and a full Errata to make DFC decent for rules IMHO. Sure most of it was obvious RAI but that isn't good enough for tournaments. I'm glad that they have at least listened to us in the past about these things and hopefully TT will continue to do so! The game is already in a much better place than it was on release and I see the slow activity in this section of the forum to be a good sign.