Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Ironclad comes complete with extra armor for free, but not the ironclad assault launchers. Interestingly enough, the IAL cost 15 points - exactly what the extra armor costs. Additionally, it is the last option in the entry, the spot every other SM vehicle has the extra armor option.

Seems to me like an unerrated error, what do you guys think?

Ironclads get EA, but you can see it as rolled into the cost of it.

Think of it as 15 points for the Extra point in armor and the weapon fittings..then Extra armor on top of that to get a total of 135.

It's not an error IMO.
It makes sense for the vanilla Combat Dread to have the upgrade that ensures it gets to move when shaken...

/shrug.

Otherwise we'd just blame GW and their fanboism for UltraSmurfs and all things Blue and SMurfy.

I think it does seem odd, and look like it might be an error.

@ Sanctjud: Of course the cost is built in for extra armor, but the IAL cost the same in the codex as extra armor would. So the inclusion of either one in the basic loadout would leave the base price unchanged.