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.

No. Again this is a structured argument backed up by clearly citing the relevant rules to support the fact that the Swooping Hawks cannot Deep Strike onto the board if they are not placed in Deep Strike Reserve at the start of the game. Your counter argument consists of saying my argument is silly. It's an easy option to make accusations of rules lawyering when you don't like the implications of the RAW and have nothing to support your own stance.

To reiterate, the Deep Strike rules explicitly state that in order to deep strike the unit must start the game in Deep Strike Reserve (emphasis mine). The Swooping Hawks have no special rules giving exceptions to this or permission to Deep Strike any differently than in accordance with the RAW. The Skyleap rule does not even mention Deep Striking and so the Codex > Rulebook argument is non-existent. You therefore cannot start your Swooping Hawks on the table, Skyleap off in Turn 1 and then Deep Strike in Turn 2 as by doing so you are breaking the Deep Strike rules.

Nope, you're still making a REALLY silly argument.

The point being is that you're just aggressively rules lawyering. Which in a game with perfect rules that are playtested and proofread by a large group of professionals would be valid. But, you're playing a table top wargame that has been shown repeatedly to skip such precautions. While your clearly structured argument with citations is likely technically accurate (this being the heart of RAI vs RAW) its still the kind of unnecessary and brutally annoying activity that causes people to dislike the game, and normally playing anyone who enforces it. It also has little to no place in a tactics discussion unless its misuse gravely alters the way a unit plays (the previous edition's discussion of independent characters and infiltrate would be an example of that). As it is hawks can, and for the last few iterations have been able to, deepstrike, skyleap, and deepstrike (not on the same turn). Its part of their fluff/tactics and, most besides the most myopic would agree, rules.

If you're going to sit in a tactics thread where people are discussing the actual tactical use of hawks and just shout that they're wrong because of one different word (or lack thereof) in one rule in one book thats countered by another rule in another book, you should probably just take it to YMDC where you can debate it with other lawyers.

And to the tactical debate, I still stand by 6 with exarch/rifle or 8 plain as my preferred load out. You either use them as a toolbox (exarch) or as anti-infantry/tank-hunters (8), YMMV.

Colgado wrote:
Nope, you're still making a REALLY silly argument.

The point being is that you're just aggressively rules lawyering. Which in a game with perfect rules that are playtested and proofread by a large group of professionals would be valid. But, you're playing a table top wargame that has been shown repeatedly to skip such precautions. While your clearly structured argument with citations is likely technically accurate (this being the heart of RAI vs RAW) its still the kind of unnecessary and brutally annoying activity that causes people to dislike the game, and normally playing anyone who enforces it.

It's true that you can play the game however you like but the rules have to form a common basis for playing. You're again accusing me of rules lawyering but it's not as if I'm making vast leaps of faith, using vaguely equivalent examples from other scenarios as a basis for argument or twisting rulebook quotes into obscure rule interpretations. I fully agree that some rules debates are just ridiculous but in this case all of the relevant rules can be summarised in a few clear, concise and unambiguous statements from the rulebook. I understand that you don't like the consequences of the rules in this instance but to just label the argument as really silly is not accurate at all.

Colgado wrote:
It also has little to no place in a tactics discussion unless its misuse gravely alters the way a unit plays (the previous edition's discussion of independent characters and infiltrate would be an example of that).

I'm aware that this is a tactics discussion. One of the early posters suggested this:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
They want to start on the board turn 1 then Sky Leap, which means they auto come on turn 2, rather then leaving that to the mercy of the reserve rolls.

I just pointed out that this is actually illegal and as such is not a very good tactic after all. I would also suggest that being able to guarantee a Turn 2 no scatter Deep Strike with an ignores cover large blast attack that has no LoS requirement (and to then repeat this later in the game) by misuse of the rules does, in fact, constitute a grave alteration to how the unit plays.

Colgado wrote:
As it is hawks can, and for the last few iterations have been able to, deepstrike, skyleap, and deepstrike (not on the same turn).

They can if you house rule that they can do so. If your opponent is fine with it then go for it. Otherwise you're just repeating a tactic that has been proven to be illegal. Just because you have always played it that way doesn't mean that it's actually right.

Colgado wrote:
If you're going to sit in a tactics thread where people are discussing the actual tactical use of hawks and just shout that they're wrong because of one different word (or lack thereof) in one rule in one book thats countered by another rule in another book, you should probably just take it to YMDC where you can debate it with other lawyers.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I don't believe I was shouting either. Again, the argument is pretty straightforward, and not hinging on the use of one particular word or anything. Nor are there any contradictions between any books as far as I'm aware. I realise this is tactics rather than YMDC but if someone reading this thread used this particular tactic and was challenged on it by their opponent then the thread wouldn't really have done them any favours.

If anyone ever tried to tell me I can't DS my Hawks, I'd pick up my models and go play someone else. Too much fuss over a board game.

Also, before you say that's fine for casual play, every tournament I've ever been to/heard of has this kind of thing under RAW that makes no bloody sense, so it's not used.

You came in here and stated that RAW, Hawks are basically utterly useless and should never, ever be fielded, when in fact no one else will ever complain about their use as CLEARLY INTENDED. Congratulations on interneting. And before we continue down this road, it's quite different when someone breaks the rules and when someone adjusts them so something that GW broke can actually still be played. Remember, in 5th, GW broke not just a single game, they managed to break all future games with the same opponent due to stating that no dice can be re-rolled more than once, but they also said that if a draw is rolled when choosing who goes first, then you re-roll it, failing to consider the fact that the next role can also be a draw, effectively making it impossible, by RAW, to ever play a game again. Thing is, some people actually tried adhering to this rule.

Hawks are amazing for all the abovementioned reasons. I'll happily continue to break the rules with them in my games and my opponents will continue to happily play the cheater that I am.

 Araenion wrote:
If anyone ever tried to tell me I can't DS my Hawks, I'd pick up my models and go play someone else. Too much fuss over a board game.

Also, before you say that's fine for casual play, every tournament I've ever been to/heard of has this kind of thing under RAW that makes no bloody sense, so it's not used.

You came in here and stated that RAW, Hawks are basically utterly useless and should never, ever be fielded, when in fact no one else will ever complain about their use as CLEARLY INTENDED. Congratulations on interneting. And before we continue down this road, it's quite different when someone breaks the rules and when someone adjusts them so something that GW broke can actually still be played. Remember, in 5th, GW broke not just a single game, they managed to break all future games with the same opponent due to stating that no dice can be re-rolled more than once, but they also said that if a draw is rolled when choosing who goes first, then you re-roll it, failing to consider the fact that the next role can also be a draw, effectively making it impossible, by RAW, to ever play a game again. Thing is, some people actually tried adhering to this rule.

Hawks are amazing for all the abovementioned reasons. I'll happily continue to break the rules with them in my games and my opponents will continue to happily play the cheater that I am.

No-one is saying you can't DS hawks, you just have to put them in DS reserve to do so. If you'd prefer not to play in a game where someone wants you to stick to the rules that's your choice. If you're happy to play games knowingly breaking the rules that's also your choice. I'd personally consider a win as a hollow victory in that case though.

I don't think that hawks are utterly useless either; they're still a good unit even if you don't break the DS rules.

And your example of re-rolls has neither merit or relevance as this is going on before the game starts.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
No-one is saying you can't DS hawks, you just have to put them in DS reserve to do so. If you'd prefer not to play in a game where someone wants you to stick to the rules that's your choice. If you're happy to play games knowingly breaking the rules that's also your choice. I'd personally consider a win as a hollow victory in that case though.

I don't think that hawks are utterly useless either; they're still a good unit even if you don't break the DS rules.

And your example of re-rolls has neither merit or relevance as this is going on before the game starts.

This is an interesting view. I don't have the new rulebook yet so I can't even come up with an argument. If true then hawks have really taken a down turn without an FAQ for Skyleap. They can go back to the shelf with my Howling Banshees I guess.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
In summary, if you want to use the grenade pack attack, your only option is to place the unit in Deep Strike Reserves and roll for the unit to come in from Reserves as usual. If you make a successful Reserves roll you can then Deep Strike them and use the grenade pack as they come in. This is also the only time the unit can use the grenade pack, as if you choose to Skyleap them later in the game they are placed in Ongoing Reserves, from which the unit must re-enter via the table edge (emphasis mine). There is no option to Deep Strike again instead as the Reserves rules explcitly state how they must re-enter play.

Wrong. While I agree that your interpretation of the rules regarding the previous argument is correct, i.e. if Swooping Hawks want to arrive onto the table after having Skyleaped, they have to have started the game in reserves because according to page 162 of the BRB, a unit can only be deployed via deep strike if it starts the game in reserve, you are wrong about them being forced to enter from the table edge after skyleaping during the middle of the game. There is no such rule forcing them to. Let me explain:


1) Page 35 of the Eldar codex, Skyleap allows the Swooping Hawks to be placed in Ongoing Reserves at the beginning of the unit's movement Phase

2) Page 136 of the 7th edition BRB states that when a unit enters reserves part way through the game, it is understood as having entered Ongoing Reserves, and ongoing reserves' rules say that the next turn, that unit enters play according to the rules for reserves (which means you still have to roll)

3) Page 100 of the Eldar codex says Swooping Hawks have Swooping Hawk wings

4) Page 67 of the Eldar codex says Swooping Hawk wings makes its bearer gain the Jump infantry unit type

5) Page 65 of the BRB says Jump Infantry have the Deep Strike special rule

6) Page 162 of the BRB says you can Deep Strike if your unit is in Reserve [once again, see 2) for clarification] and has a special rule allowing it to do so (otherwise it enters play from the board edge)



7) (final argument) You are ASSUMING that the Swooping Hawks cannot deep strike on the turn after having skyleaped because at the beginning of that turn, they are in no position to fulfill the condition of "start the game in reserve" because the game has already started since a couple of turns now, BUT the real criteria is that they ALREADY DID START THE GAME IN RESERVE if the player placed them in reserves before the game started. If he did this, that criteria has been met for all subsequent game turns and the hawks can always deepstrike on ever turn after the turn the skyleaped, e.g. turn 1: nothing (they are in reserve), turn 2: DS-arrive, turn 3: skyleap, turn 4: DS-arrive, turn 5: skyleap, turn 6: DS-arrive etc..

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
In summary, if you want to use the grenade pack attack, your only option is to place the unit in Deep Strike Reserves and roll for the unit to come in from Reserves as usual. If you make a successful Reserves roll you can then Deep Strike them and use the grenade pack as they come in. This is also the only time the unit can use the grenade pack, as if you choose to Skyleap them later in the game they are placed in Ongoing Reserves, from which the unit must re-enter via the table edge (emphasis mine). There is no option to Deep Strike again instead as the Reserves rules explcitly state how they must re-enter play.

Wrong. While I agree that your interpretation of the rules regarding the previous argument is correct, i.e. if Swooping Hawks want to arrive onto the table after having Skyleaped, they have to have started the game in reserves because according to page 162 of the BRB, a unit can only be deployed via deep strike if it starts the game in reserve, you are wrong about them being forced to enter from the table edge after skyleaping during the middle of the game. There is no such rule forcing them to. Let me explain:


1) Page 35 of the Eldar codex, Skyleap allows the Swooping Hawks to be placed in Ongoing Reserves at the beginning of the unit's movement Phase

2) Page 136 of the 7th edition BRB states that when a unit enters reserves part way through the game, it is understood as having entered Ongoing Reserves, and ongoing reserves' rules say that the next turn, that unit enters play according to the rules for reserves (which means you still have to roll)

3) Page 100 of the Eldar codex says Swooping Hawks have Swooping Hawk wings

4) Page 67 of the Eldar codex says Swooping Hawk wings makes its bearer gain the Jump infantry unit type

5) Page 65 of the BRB says Jump Infantry have the Deep Strike special rule

6) Page 162 of the BRB says you can Deep Strike if your unit is in Reserve [once again, see 2) for clarification] and has a special rule allowing it to do so (otherwise it enters play from the board edge)



7) (final argument) You are ASSUMING that the Swooping Hawks cannot deep strike on the turn after having skyleaped because at the beginning of that turn, they are in no position to fulfill the condition of "start the game in reserve" because the game has already started since a couple of turns now, BUT the real criteria is that they ALREADY DID START THE GAME IN RESERVE if the player placed them in reserves before the game started. If he did this, that criteria has been met for all subsequent game turns and the hawks can always deepstrike on ever turn after the turn the skyleaped, e.g. turn 1: nothing (they are in reserve), turn 2: DS-arrive, turn 3: skyleap, turn 4: DS-arrive, turn 5: skyleap, turn 6: DS-arrive etc..

Thanks for your constructive input; it's much better than responses saying "your argument is really silly". I've re-read the DS rules and am happy to concede that your general argument seems correct. I.e. if the hawks start the game in DS reserve and have the DS rule then there's nothing stopping them DS from ongoing reserves. My mistake.

My original argument still stands though in response to the suggested tactic I.e. you can't start on the table, Skyleap on Turn 1 and then DS on Turn 2 as then you don't meet the requirements for DS. If you start them on the table and subsequently skyleap you have to then come on from the table edge.

Thinking it through it makes sense that the rules are written that way to stop people exploiting skyleaping as a way to guarantee a Turn 2 DS and circumventing having to take your chances with reserves rolls like everyone else.

I'd also concede that that's reasonable. Just start them in reserve and be done with the discussion. They'll still do their job, especially if you have an Autarch too. I often started them in reserve anyway, because of long-range Barrage weapons, SMS and stuff like that.

What I didn't and still don't consider reasonable is the claim that they can only DS once per game, no matter their Skyleap rule.

Also, my before-the-game argument is very relevant. I was refering to GW's inability to write clear rules and take different codices into account when they write a new edition. And you must admit, breaking the game before it even starts shows that perfectly.

Yes, it makes sense.

I dont know why someone suggested that to begin with - even if they could, you ALWAYS roll for reserves, so it would have made no difference whether the hawks started the game in reserve, or whether they started on the table and then skyleapt on turn 1 anyway (IF there was no requirement for DSing units to have started the game in reserve)

Deep strike near the unit you want to drop the bomb on, then battle focus until you are out of its LOS, this will allow you to shoot at another unit

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Thinking it through it makes sense that the rules are written that way to stop people exploiting skyleaping as a way to guarantee a Turn 2 DS and circumventing having to take your chances with reserves rolls like everyone else.

I think it's more likely that, if this is true, then it is an oversight in rules writing. I think it's fairly clear that, whatever the RAW, the RAI are that Hawks can skyleap and then return the next turn. And really, it is not overpowered as you suggest. Hawks are one of the least competitive units in the codex.

This reminds me of the debate about Burning Chariots of Tzeench last edition - RAW, they were a totally broken, non-functional unit that would never see serious play (they couldn't move and shoot). I understand that it's important that everyone play a consistent rule set, but I don't support the idea that we need to be slaves to GW's oversights and bad writing.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Yes, it makes sense.

I dont know why someone suggested that to begin with - even if they could, you ALWAYS roll for reserves, so it would have made no difference whether the hawks started the game in reserve, or whether they started on the table and then skyleapt on turn 1 anyway (IF there was no requirement for DSing units to have started the game in reserve)

You don't need to roll if they are in ongoing reserves though, they automatically come on at the start of the controlling players next turn. That's the whole point of the tactic - to (illegally) avoid having to pass a reserve roll qnd guarantee a DS on Turn 2.

can you point me to the BRb page number where it says you do not need to roll for ongoing reserves entering play the next turn?

 Sir Arun wrote:
can you point me to the BRb page number where it says you do not need to roll for ongoing reserves entering play the next turn?

No, because I have a digital BRB. However, the Ongoing Reserves rules state that "Units in Ongoing Reserve always re-enter play at the start of their controlling player’s following turn, but otherwise follow the normal rules for Reserves. "

I suppose you could roll if you want to but the unit would re-enter anyway.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
can you point me to the BRb page number where it says you do not need to roll for ongoing reserves entering play the next turn?

No, because I have a digital BRB. However, the Ongoing Reserves rules state that "Units in Ongoing Reserve always re-enter play at the start of their controlling player’s following turn, but otherwise follow the normal rules for Reserves. "

I suppose you could roll if you want to but the unit would re-enter anyway.

yes, I have that same sentence in my BRB. In no way does that sentence say you don't need to roll.

The normal rules for reserves are pretty clear what dice result you need (or not) for something to enter play from reserve, depending on the game turn.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

huh. Missed the "always re-enter play" part.

I guess if you roll and miss, they wouldnt be able to enter play, thus breaking the rules, so indeed there is no rolling.

Good to know

Not like it matters though, because if hawks start the game in reserves and enter play via rolling on turn 2 and skyleap on turn 3, they would re-enter on turn 4 and at that point nobody rolls anyway

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I've re-read the DS rules and am happy to concede that your general argument seems correct.

This is what is wrong with the internet. You come into a perfectly interesting tactics thread, poop all over everything, and then by the time some poor soul takes the time to cite you chapter and verse for why your two page thesis is wrong the thread is dead. And you probably thought you were helping.

But, concerning Swooping Hawks: two things. I like to run them without an exarch - keep them cheap. I actually often fill out my fast attack section with two bare bones squads of 6 and a unit of warp spiders. That much mobile firepower is pretty nasty.

Secondly - los blocking terrain is your friend. You don't need line of sight to drop their grenade pack. In fact, if you do have los to the unit you drop your grenade pack on, you have to shoot at them in the subsequent shooting phase if you want to fire. However, if that's not possible, (because they're out of los or completely destroyed by the grenade) you get to shoot at another unit. It doesn't always matter, but sometimes you need to drop the pack on one unit and shoot another. This is also very helpful for setting up for haywire grenades. You jump in where no one can draw los to you, drop the pack on something nearby, and you've effectively established a circular ~18 inch 'no drive' zone. When I do take 2 units of hawks this is what I'm usually trying to do. Get each squad set up on different sides of the table, and it becomes very difficult for your opponent to maneuver his landraider/monolith/russ/what have you.

I agree - that guy who said swooping hawks arent that great needs to seriously re-examine his codex.

Hawks are probably the best per-point eldar unit in the entire codex right now.

It was amazing how they not only dropped in points by a large margin compared to the last eldar codex, but now in 7th they can also claim objectives, making their mobility that much more rewarding

IMO Swooping Hawks are worth their weight in gold in the hands of a professional Eldar player.

Belac Ynnead wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I've re-read the DS rules and am happy to concede that your general argument seems correct.

This is what is wrong with the internet. You come into a perfectly interesting tactics thread, poop all over everything, and then by the time some poor soul takes the time to cite you chapter and verse for why your two page thesis is wrong the thread is dead. And you probably thought you were helping.

I like the way you missed out the part where my original argument responding to an illegal tactic suggestion remains correct (and relevant), and the "poor soul" who cited me chapter and verse on my subsequent mistake actually agreed. So yes, if my input prevents someone being taken advantage of by rules misuse then I do think I was helping.

lol, thread went slightly off topic.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll probably try out 2 6 man squads, along with 2 10man Warp spider squads and report back how they do.

I hadn't thought of using them a a ground denial unit, seems like a nice insurance policy. having them hide behind some terrain while another unit holds the objective and they deter something scary.

Grenade pack/LOS wording in interesting, hopefully there aren't too many situations where a unit is killed down the the Sergent and have to waste the shots on one man. Easy enough to avoid when set up though.

Do most people run them with warp spiders, both in combination seem to counter pretty much everything in the game?

Also, I don;t have access to my BRB/codex atm, but how do we interact with flyers/skimmer, we don't have anything special for them anymore?

I have found swooping hawks to be one of the most effective anti-vehicle units in the game. I'm definitely going to start using them as deployed on the first turn and skyleaping into ongoing reserves! Thanks for the great idea! Swooping hawks have no issue with assaulting skimmers (save that a smart skimmer will simply run far far away from them), but are definitely not the answer for flying units.

Squad of 8 swooping hawks: 128 points. ZERO upgrades (they are all going to die anyways).

1- Deploy from reserves within 24" of some wimpy unit but out of line of sight of as many other enemy units as possible. Drop a grenade pack on it.
2- Utterly wipe out that unit with a massive wave of lasblasters. I usually run an 8-man swooping hawk squad, so that's 24 lasblaster shots (of which 16 are expected to hit). Against anything with Armor 5 such as Imperial Guard equivalent units, this is absolutely devastating.
3- Wait a turn.
4- Swoop out of the cover that I deployed into, move, throw a haywire grenade. *
5- Charge a vehicle, wreck it with haywire grenades.
6- Die to the massed fire of the entire enemy army.

I run these squads as suicide tank-busters, and for that purpose they are amazing! They are also usually able to clear off one of my opponent's small objective holding troop squads, forcing him to deploy something substantial to claim the objective on future turns. The only vehicle that ever survived this swooping hawk suicide squad's initial assault was a venerable dreadnaught (due to having a reasonable weapons skill), and he died on the opponent's turn of melee. Land Raider? Soul Grinder? Leman Russ? Wave Serpent? No problem!

* Edited for rules.

attackdrone wrote:
4- Swoop out of the cover that I deployed into, move, battle focus, throw a haywire grenade.
5- Charge a vehicle, wreck it with haywire grenades.

You can't battle focus and charge in the same turn, as it's a run move.

Belly wrote:

attackdrone wrote:
4- Swoop out of the cover that I deployed into, move, battle focus, throw a haywire grenade.
5- Charge a vehicle, wreck it with haywire grenades.

You can't battle focus and charge in the same turn, as it's a run move.

Right you are! I have yet to do this in a game (as I always find myself within easy charge distance already). I play Dark Eldar with Eldar allies, which might explain why I am so eager to send my swooping hawks off to die... it still helps to know the faction rules of course.

*snip*

You can definitely take more than 6 Hawks. Keep in mind that mass shots make up for low strength and can be the better choice in situations with good saves.

Just a quick mathhammer example to get my point across.

20 S3 shots against T4 with 3+ save result in average in 2.22 wounds.
10 S4 shots against T4 with 3+ save result in average in 1.67 wounds.

So as someone earlier in this thread said: they are a toolbox. If you get denied of threatening vehicles you can use their amassed S3 shots for threatening MEQ or TEQ. The Sunrifle just adds to that threat. And sometimes it is not about what a unit could do, it just about what the opponent thinks it will do, forcing him to change his plans in a way favourable to you. Mind games!

Also remember that a swooping hawk costs just 2 points more than a battle bruva. So a full squad of 10 will cost you around 160 points, which is roughly the price tag of a tactical squad - except that in comparison to the minimum sized squad of 6 hawks, the 10 hawk squad not only has more bodies to survive a turn of enemy shooting, but also has more haywires to guarantee that vehicle kill. The last thing I ever want to experience mid-game is to successfully finish my daring maneuver only to find the hawks do 2HPs of damage during the assault and leave the tank otherwise intact to unleash its full firepower for 1 more turn onto the rest of my army.

attackdrone wrote:
I'm definitely going to start using them as deployed on the first turn and skyleaping into ongoing reserves! Thanks for the great idea!

Not sure if sarcasm, but if not, have fun arriving from the board edge.

I find their threat-in-being to be even stronger than their actual firepower.

Oh, and RAW, wouldn't that make Gates virtually pointless?

Dear all,

usefullness of an exarch:
WS5 & BS5 which means a hit on 2+ instead of 3+ to ensure grenade pack and haywire attack (shoot & assault) for only 10 points.

Concerning Lasblaster 15 points, my opinion:
If you use a small squad of 6 (big pie guy!) it does not worth as the unit needs to be cheap for sacrifice or hidden for objectives. 15 points is a shuricanon on a WS + a singing spear!
But in a bigger squad, dedicated to "pin" low init troops it could be good. Also an AP3 is always interesting on a BS5 / F4 profile. The size of the squad will also allow to use it several time.
That is a choice, i prefer the first option.

Regarding the deep strike grenade pack after Skyleap:
In addition of Sir Arun remind of all rules (i made also th research )
I am french (so my dex is also) but the wording of grenade pack is translated as: any time Hawks deep strike they can use it. So, "any time" states that hawks can use it several times per games.
I think Tonberry2 already agrees with that.

Regarding the point: if Hawks are not in reserve during the beginning of the game they won't be able to deepstrike anymore:
my experience is all players i met use the RAI, i mean Hawks on the field turn1 to skyleap then DS turn 2.
I did not found any FAQs on this particular point.

Yes I know this is an older thread but more commonly I face Imperial Knights their presence on the board is a valid reason for taking Hawks over spiders. Swooping Hawks do have a role in this new meta/threat that Warp Spiders can't match.

Lately I have been facing Imperial Knights, Necron AV13, Land Raiders and Drop Pod AV 13 Dreads.

Imperial Knight Errants/Paladins are aggressive fast and more common. They want to make assault quickly. Especially the Errants. I have had to face early first turn assaults from these guys. Keeping the Hawks on the board first turn and protected as much as possible from the heavy stubber and large blast template is challenging but not impossible. Assuming you have multiple threats for the IK. Hawks are a credible threat to IK as the IK Ion shield does not work in combat. Spiders may be able to get a side or back armour shot but being AP- makes it tough to grab more than 2 HP's assuming 7 spiders shoot side armour with no shield. Spiders don't scare Imperial Knights or Land Raiders. The Hawks on the other hand terrify those units with their movement and haywire.

And if you can't use them on something super tough, AV14, or anything squishy then you still have a very good maelstrom unit.