The question is in the topic title. I have the Deathwatch version, so I have hurricane bolter and lascannon sponsons, as well as assault cannons and heavy bolters for the turret weapon. It's a phenomenal model, and I'd love to use it more. But it's never been worth its points. With the change to vehicles shooting in combat, will things change for it? Does anyone have experience using one yet?
Well, with Multimeltas going up to 2 shots you get to stack a lot of firepower on that thing, and the changes to cover will make it easier for it to protect itself from enemy fire. I'm hoping it'll have a place.
I don't really think so. I don't think the LRs points will change much from CA2020 (if at all), and it still looks ferociously overcosted at 285.
Plus the new tanks are coming. The AT version of the Gladius has 2 multimeltas and a twin-lastalon, and will likely make all the current tanks feel a bit on the under-gunned side.
Insectum7 wrote:The changes to cover will make it easier for it to protect itself from enemy fire
Only the to-hit penalty from dense cover can apply to vehicles, and as soon as the enemy move into that terrain, it no longer applies. And (with some exceptions) if the LR is being protected, so is the enemy.
No, 40k's game mechanics don't mesh well with big fire platforms. Throwing too many eggs in one basket is only valuable if you can buff the hell out of that basket, and you can't really do that with LRs. Short of viciously cutting their points, there's not a great way to make stuff like it valuable in the game.
And they definitely don't make much sense in an eradicator meta.
Long answer is they are expensive for a split transport/gun platform that actually isn't all that survivable in this age. If you are going to invest in an expensive platform it has to be worth it in lethality or purpose. The land raider does neither well.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Ahh, but obscuring + positioning can mean LOS to target while avoiding the counter fire of its friends.
Obscuring is _very_ hard with something the size of a land raider, especially if you're trying to simultaneously draw LOSwith the LR. Dense cover is very permissive about granting the -1 to hit, Obscuring doesn't work at all if even a single line can be drawn outside the terrain to any little projection on the tank.
Enemies with even a token amount of mobility should be able to get into a firing spot unless you're using some very sizable and specifically shaped terrain.
Racerguy180 wrote: The land raider never wasnt good. just cuz it's not in the top 3% of marine units, doesnt make it bad.
There's an argument no one made.
It briefly had a shining moment as a delivery vehicle for TH/SS terminators when they could charge right off the tank, but other than that it has been most definitely not good.
To feth with the 'top 3%,' it didn't make the top 60% of marine units most of the time, just an undergunned, overcosted transport. The most common stories about land raiders center around being blown up turn 1 and never contributed anything beyond disproportionately reducing the size of the space marine army.
Bringing one inherently unbalances the list. In smaller lists it just doesn't fit at all, at 2000 its still just eating an eighth of your points for little to no point or return.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Ahh, but obscuring + positioning can mean LOS to target while avoiding the counter fire of its friends.
Obscuring is _very_ hard with something the size of a land raider, especially if you're trying to simultaneously draw LOSwith the LR. Dense cover is very permissive about granting the -1 to hit, Obscuring doesn't work at all if even a single line can be drawn outside the terrain to any little projection on the tank.
Enemies with even a token amount of mobility should be able to get into a firing spot unless you're using some very sizable and specifically shaped terrain.
Just a ruin towards one corner of the table will suffice. Our local store has a ton of pieces that would do this.
But that shows the problem with it. You're paying a lot of points for transport capacity, and a transport sitting off in a corner somewhere is a terrible use of it.
The landraider is trying to be too many different things and as a result it ends up efficient and therefore competitive for none of them.
Not sure about other armies, but for GK it is better to take the same points and buy paladins or other infantry, and if you want to have a gunboat, then buy dreads or the raven.
Compare a land raider to a repulsor, or a repulsor executioner. The answer is no. GW doesnt want you to play with old models, they want you to buy new models.
For deathwatch, no (although you do get a first turn invuln from the shield relic). I think the Crusader has a place (my Deathwing will be rocking one), but Deathwatch don't have issues bringing massed anti-infantry firepower.
yukishiro1 wrote: But that shows the problem with it. You're paying a lot of points for transport capacity, and a transport sitting off in a corner somewhere is a terrible use of it.
The landraider is trying to be too many different things and as a result it ends up efficient and therefore competitive for none of them.
Last time I used one I packed it with Devastators to keep them out of harms way for the first turn, it used it's tramsport capacity to help form a firebase. Worked great.
Racerguy180 wrote: The land raider never wasnt good. just cuz it's not in the top 3% of marine units, doesnt make it bad.
There's an argument no one made.
It briefly had a shining moment as a delivery vehicle for TH/SS terminators when they could charge right off the tank, but other than that it has been most definitely not good.
To feth with the 'top 3%,' it didn't make the top 60% of marine units most of the time, just an undergunned, overcosted transport. The most common stories about land raiders center around being blown up turn 1 and never contributed anything beyond disproportionately reducing the size of the space marine army.
Bringing one inherently unbalances the list. In smaller lists it just doesn't fit at all, at 2000 its still just eating an eighth of your points for little to no point or return.
Yeah, even as a player in a relaxed environment I have to say, the Land Raider was the one unit in my DG Codex where I thought, well, you really have to love that thing to put it in your list and then need Crawlers to compensate / draw fire away from it. So, basically it's like many Forgeworld models
Pillar of a top tier list that is going to win multiple events? Maybe not.
But in any casual to semi-competitive meta they'll do fine, if not wonders, like they did in 8th.
The Crusader at least will stay viable since clearing troops is always useful, probably more than ever now, and the 16 seats are very handy for units like wulfen. Maybe even the Redeemer will do fine with smaller tables and longer ranges for flamers; its biggest weakeness was the lack of range, now it may not worry about it anymore.
p5freak wrote: Compare a land raider to a repulsor, or a repulsor executioner. The answer is no. GW doesnt want you to play with old models, they want you to buy new models.
Then why do they make the new models so ugly? Hellforged Land Raider Achilles: T8, 2+, 4++, 19W, 2 twin multi-meltas, and a Soulburner Bombard spitting 2d3 mortal wounds. Bring that ugly floating box.
p5freak wrote: Compare a land raider to a repulsor, or a repulsor executioner. The answer is no. GW doesnt want you to play with old models, they want you to buy new models.
The one big flaw in this argument is that repulsors and executioners are terrible garbage as well. Sure, they're better than a landraider but that's not saying a whole lot.
Pillar of a top tier list that is going to win multiple events? Maybe not.
But in any casual to semi-competitive meta they'll do fine, if not wonders, like they did in 8th.
The Crusader at least will stay viable since clearing troops is always useful, probably more than ever now, and the 16 seats are very handy for units like wulfen. Maybe even the Redeemer will do fine with smaller tables and longer ranges for flamers; its biggest weakeness was the lack of range, now it may not worry about it anymore.
Land raiders have historically sucked, even in non-competitive settings. Basically if you had 4 or more lascannon equivalent weapons in your army, land raiders get popped almost instantly.
Transport rules are still too slow for the game I'd say. Thay are the same as 8th and was not good then. No drive and disembark=why are you even in it?
Shooting into CC is an improvement but being charged is still an issue. Lets say you hava a LR crusader. Get charged by vehicle? Yeah you wont kill it or get out without giving up shooting. Have a standard LR? Charged by infantry and its gg.
Getting charged shuts down your movement if you shoot (wich sucks if you have passengers or have dropped them of and need to get away from anti tank danger) or give up shooting (wich sucks because its 40k).
Pillar of a top tier list that is going to win multiple events? Maybe not.
But in any casual to semi-competitive meta they'll do fine, if not wonders, like they did in 8th.
The Crusader at least will stay viable since clearing troops is always useful, probably more than ever now, and the 16 seats are very handy for units like wulfen. Maybe even the Redeemer will do fine with smaller tables and longer ranges for flamers; its biggest weakeness was the lack of range, now it may not worry about it anymore.
Smaller tables will hurt it. I doubt we'll see less terrain in casual/store games because with human nature you use what you've got. Now we're more likely to have more on less space. So you might be able to hide better, but your "roads" are going to be far less usable.
Someone else mentioned another issue it faces - it pays for transport and again for tank capability. Between it pulling double duty, being a huge points cost, any disruption to your transportation plan, and whatever bonus damage to unit inside.
The Raven does have basically the same stats trading 1T and 2W for all the hard to hit aircraft bonuses and unfortunately an Aircraft slot. If you can finagle an aircraft slot, it's the better choice I'd say.
When you start hopping up to 2500-3000 then you might start getting enough stuff on the board - likewise if we're looking at something akin to a One-Of-Everything comp. Outside of Knights - which skew by their very nature - if everyone makes a one-of-everything list you won't likely see 600 anti-tank shots in a 6 turn game and the Land Raiders start living for a few turns or more and having some fun. Even if you make it one of any data sheet (Potentially doubles/triples/etc for Troops) Even taking a Land Raider and a Land Raider Crusader together doesn't (or didn't when it was armor pen exploding tanks) skew lists because they had very different weapon loads.
Coincidentally those are the games I find most fun. 2500-3000 points not a lot of duplicate units, trying to cobble some kind of synergy between whatever unit ends up next to whatever other unit 4 unpredictable turns in.... Its amazing how many games are different that way.
If you want to have a "fun" game where units that are good on paper but mauled by the Meta can shine, find yourself a friend and figure out how to break the meta using army comp.
I think there's a certain amount of knee-jerk reaction here that doesn't take the whole picture into account.
- Heavy Bolters going to D2 is significant against a lot of targets.
- The optional Multimelta is a much bigger increase in damage output now.
- The Firstborn Marines the basic LR can transport are all getting a significant boost,
- Smaller table sizes have made DS landing zones a fair bit harder to find.
- Higher terrain density and terrain rules that actually work, significant amounts of LoS blocking etc. etc.
All of that raises the LR's value. Even without any other big changes in the wings it's still probably better than it's getting credit for at the moment.
If your entire local meta is WAAC tourney minmax the. They may not fare well.
If you play amongst friends they can dominate some matchups or get splatted in short order, depends on the matchup. They can be fun, but are still a tad too expensive and suffer from mixing their roles. At least Crusader wants to close the range so tends to do a tad better, though a Phobos LR with full rerolls and reroll 1s to wound buffs can be scary.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, or you coulda just put them in a drop pod like everyone else for double the efficiency.
I mean don't get me wrong, if you're enjoying it go for it, by all means.
If you subtract the cost of a Drop Pod from a Land Raider, you pay something like 230 for 16 T8 2+ Wounds, 7 S8+ shots and 6 S5 shots. That's a pretty solid deal, imo.
The Newman wrote: I think there's a certain amount of knee-jerk reaction here that doesn't take the whole picture into account.
- Heavy Bolters going to D2 is significant against a lot of targets.
- The optional Multimelta is a much bigger increase in damage output now.
- The Firstborn Marines the basic LR can transport are all getting a significant boost,
- Smaller table sizes have made DS landing zones a fair bit harder to find.
- Higher terrain density and terrain rules that actually work, significant amounts of LoS blocking etc. etc.
All of that raises the LR's value. Even without any other big changes in the wings it's still probably better than it's getting credit for at the moment.
Yeah this. I'm definitely looking forward to trying it out in the new paradigm. I think Reserves can help it out too.
Playing with and against land raiders a lot, I feel like the idea works in general, but is just way to expensive pointswise.
At 180-200 including guns it might worth bringing a landraider to carry some terminators into the fray, but at almost 300 points bringing one is just shooting yourself in the foot - and that's already considering that DG can give it a 5++ and DR.
Competitively I think it depends entirely on costs vs things like repulsors+primaris. Fly no longer really matters so the one of the main things repulsors had over the LR is nerfed.
Also terminators might be a thing as well as various first born units.
I would certainly like to see more land raiders. Even got one I picked up real cheap on ebay to do as a fun project one day coz I really like the model and also naturally the nostalgia of a "wow man maybe I will be able to afford one of these with enough pocket money 16/16/16 OMG dat scary" vehicle
Fly actually makes a big difference for transports, especially on the smaller board with greater terrain density. So that does count against the LR significantly.
Argive wrote: ...Also terminators might be a thing as well as various first born units...
Eh. You could put your Terminators in an overpriced box, or you could get a no-risk free Deep Strike and use whatever charge buffs your Chapter has to get them into melee without risking anyone shooting them at all.
yukishiro1 wrote: Fly actually makes a big difference for transports, especially on the smaller board with greater terrain density. So that does count against the LR significantly.
If you want to use and talk about what's good on the old board size that's fine, but in some cases it'll be quite different from what's good on the new board size.
That said, it isn't important in this case. LRs are not good on either size table.
My repulsor dies first turn, but luckily I have my trusty Lands Raider to take up the slack. As a matter of fact it hadn't been destroyed once in 8th, while my repulsor hasnt lived past T2....ever!
Argive wrote: ...Also terminators might be a thing as well as various first born units...
Eh. You could put your Terminators in an overpriced box, or you could get a no-risk free Deep Strike and use whatever charge buffs your Chapter has to get them into melee without risking anyone shooting them at all.
You Can't DS onto objectives...
You can however hold an objective with the HUGE LR and then spill out your terminators to keep holding that objective. And botht he LR and termies hey can all shoot while they holding that objective and counter charging/shooting anything trying to steal it.
The primary points scoring is probably the most significant part of the game in my opinion.
Obviously we dont know pts, doctrines or stratagems. But in theory they may well be usable.
Argive wrote: ...Also terminators might be a thing as well as various first born units...
Eh. You could put your Terminators in an overpriced box, or you could get a no-risk free Deep Strike and use whatever charge buffs your Chapter has to get them into melee without risking anyone shooting them at all.
You Can't DS onto objectives...
You can however hold an objective with the HUGE LR and then spill out your terminators to keep holding that objective.
And botht he LR and termies hey can all shoot while they holding that objective and counter charging/shooting anything trying to steal it.
The primary points scoring is probably the most significant part of the game in my opinion.
Obviously we dont know pts, doctrines or stratagems. But in theory they may well be usable.
I think he just meant if the enemy is on it, you can't get close enough (though you can try to charge from DS obviously). One of the not-very-good base matched play missions has a gimmick that says you can't reinforce onto objectives, but it's just that one mission.
Someone else mentioned another issue it faces - it pays for transport and again for tank capability. Between it pulling double duty, being a huge points cost, any disruption to your transportation plan, and whatever bonus damage to unit inside.
Well, if you bring a 285 points unit you need to make use of all the abilties it has, not only its firepower. You need to make good use of its transport capacity, if you don't or you're not interested in it, the LR isn't a good choice. IMHO, considering the lists I usually field, 285 points for 40 anti infantry shots, 16 seats and more target saturation for my 3 razorbacks and gunship is a good deal.
If you play primaris a LR just makes no sense. There are no primaris in my collection, and never will be.
The Raven does have basically the same stats trading 1T and 2W for all the hard to hit aircraft bonuses and unfortunately an Aircraft slot. If you can finagle an aircraft slot, it's the better choice I'd say.
The Raven, assuming you're referring the Stormraven, is an excellent option. My faction doesn't have it, but if you have access to it I agree it's a more efficient choice than a LR. With SW I usually bring both the LR and the SW raven equivalent, which is more anti tank oriented than the SM one.
Eh. You could put your Terminators in an overpriced box, or you could get a no-risk free Deep Strike and use whatever charge buffs your Chapter has to get them into melee without risking anyone shooting them at all.
Termies aren't the best cargo for LR since they can deep strike for free. Wulfen are amazing candidates for taking a ride in LR though, as outflanking a full CC unit doesn't always work. 15-16 power armor dudes also good.
Argive wrote: ...Also terminators might be a thing as well as various first born units...
Eh. You could put your Terminators in an overpriced box, or you could get a no-risk free Deep Strike and use whatever charge buffs your Chapter has to get them into melee without risking anyone shooting them at all.
You would think so, but then you face some jerk with 3x5 Infiltrators zoning out the middle.
Argive wrote: ...Also terminators might be a thing as well as various first born units...
Eh. You could put your Terminators in an overpriced box, or you could get a no-risk free Deep Strike and use whatever charge buffs your Chapter has to get them into melee without risking anyone shooting them at all.
You would think so, but then you face some jerk with 3x5 Infiltrators zoning out the middle.
...So you Deep Strike 9" away and use a charge-distance buff.
Argive wrote: ...Also terminators might be a thing as well as various first born units...
Eh. You could put your Terminators in an overpriced box, or you could get a no-risk free Deep Strike and use whatever charge buffs your Chapter has to get them into melee without risking anyone shooting them at all.
You would think so, but then you face some jerk with 3x5 Infiltrators zoning out the middle.
...So you Deep Strike 9" away and use a charge-distance buff.
Infiltrators. You know, the guys with the 12" 'you no deploy here' bubble?
[edit]
Sorry, that came out unnecessarily snarky.
[/edit]
Yes i meant 4 pillar mission as well as screening units on objectives plus things like infilyyatots and other screning stuff. A unit of termies takes up a suprisingly large amount of space. This is more so on the smaller board.
Not saying LR will be the new meta or anything but I certainly see the potential considering fly isint really god level key word and primaris are no l9nger 2 w exlusive troops. Obviously this all depends on the new codex rules and pts. Maybe it will get the impulsor assult vehicle rule.. who knows.
Can't speak for you Corpse Worshippers but my Hellforged Achilles will definitely be getting dusted off once those new rules for multi-meltas drop. Eight S8, -4AP, D6 shots, and a mortal wound spitting LOS ignoring Soulburner Bombard on a T8, 2+, 4++, 19W chassis sounds pretty good. Especially with six of those soon to be 2W Chosen loaded up with plasma along for the ride.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can't speak for you Corpse Worshippers but my Hellforged Achilles will definitely be getting dusted off once those new rules for multi-meltas drop. Eight S8, -4AP, D6 shots, and a mortal wound spitting LOS ignoring Soulburner Bombard on a T8, 2+, 4++, 19W chassis sounds pretty good. Especially with six of those soon to be 2W Chosen loaded up with plasma along for the ride.
yeah, this seems like it'll be the most efficient land raider for chaos. But god, thats gonna be one expensive target
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can't speak for you Corpse Worshippers but my Hellforged Achilles will definitely be getting dusted off once those new rules for multi-meltas drop. Eight S8, -4AP, D6 shots, and a mortal wound spitting LOS ignoring Soulburner Bombard on a T8, 2+, 4++, 19W chassis sounds pretty good. Especially with six of those soon to be 2W Chosen loaded up with plasma along for the ride.
Mine isn't coming out of the box unless something happens to the 18W bar for Obscuring Terrain. I know it's got one LOS-ignoring gun but the fact that things you can't see can see you is kind of a problem for the Achilles.
OH. Those guys. You have an entire turn 1 to wipe them off the table with the rest of your army, unless they've brought back turn-1 Deep Strike.
If you're not on planet bowling ball, that's a far taller order than you think.
I cannot tell you what's going to work in every mission, every table setup, and every matchup, no. You can construct a situation where Deep Striking would be useless and you really need the Land Raider, yes. I think those situations are very specific and not really worth doubling the cost of your unit by putting it in an overpriced box. You may disagree.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can't speak for you Corpse Worshippers but my Hellforged Achilles will definitely be getting dusted off once those new rules for multi-meltas drop. Eight S8, -4AP, D6 shots, and a mortal wound spitting LOS ignoring Soulburner Bombard on a T8, 2+, 4++, 19W chassis sounds pretty good. Especially with six of those soon to be 2W Chosen loaded up with plasma along for the ride.
yeah, this seems like it'll be the most efficient land raider for chaos. But god, thats gonna be one expensive target
True, but tougher than a knight and only 15 PPM more than a Repulsive Executioner. And sooo much prettier. Especially after you've added the appropriate spikes and chains and gotten the blood stains on the treads just right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake wrote: Mine isn't coming out of the box unless something happens to the 18W bar for Obscuring Terrain. I know it's got one LOS-ignoring gun but the fact that things you can't see can see you is kind of a problem for the Achilles.
The little I hear from Youtube seems to think transports are going to be in for 9th edition. That said, I am not confident that Land Raiders are making a comeback. I think for my little meta (assuming it hasn't changed in the last 6 months) the Land Raider (or my Chaos Land Raider) could be frightening. Of course, my meta has las Predators being pretty good. So hardly a good litmus test for what is optimal and what isn't.
I can agree that toward the end of 8th, Deep Striking was getting trickier and trickier to pull off. My area was very good at screening out the parts of the table they didn't want their opponent to drop on to. Not to mention the race to the bottom unit point costs. Now for 9th edition, I suppose it all depends on your area desire to play on minimum table sizes or stay at 6'x4' as to whether Deep Strike is going more or less of an option for Deep Striking Terminators vs. Land Raider.
Me, I would very much like if all Transports allowed units to disembark after movement with some even allowing charging after disembarking. I think the Land Raider would be a prime candidate for that. I envision 9th edition tables having far more terrain than 8th making transport move distances not as appealing already. Not to mention, those giant metal bawkes have less space to maneuver. If I remember correctly, 9th ed mission often shave of a turn for each player meaning having units wait inside mobile bunkers a round is even less appealing.
So, I don't know. I would like them to be good, but I kinda doubt it.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: The little I hear from Youtube seems to think transports are going to be in for 9th edition. That said, I am not confident that Land Raiders are making a comeback. I think for my little meta (assuming it hasn't changed in the last 6 months) the Land Raider (or my Chaos Land Raider) could be frightening. Of course, my meta has las Predators being pretty good. So hardly a good litmus test for what is optimal and what isn't.
I can agree that toward the end of 8th, Deep Striking was getting trickier and trickier to pull off. My area was very good at screening out the parts of the table they didn't want their opponent to drop on to. Not to mention the race to the bottom unit point costs. Now for 9th edition, I suppose it all depends on your area desire to play on minimum table sizes or stay at 6'x4' as to whether Deep Strike is going more or less of an option for Deep Striking Terminators vs. Land Raider.
Me, I would very much like if all Transports allowed units to disembark after movement with some even allowing charging after disembarking. I think the Land Raider would be a prime candidate for that. I envision 9th edition tables having far more terrain than 8th making transport move distances not as appealing already. Not to mention, those giant metal bawkes have less space to maneuver. If I remember correctly, 9th ed mission often shave of a turn for each player meaning having units wait inside mobile bunkers a round is even less appealing.
So, I don't know. I would like them to be good, but I kinda doubt it.
Having played plenty of games of 9th at this point, I can honestly tell you that allowing everyone to disembark after moving would more effectively break the game than reverting the Ironhands nerfs.
The problem is that while Land Raiders are still pretty crap, transports in general are VERY good in 9th and allowing all infantry to pull impulsor shenanigans would likely result in the average game ending bottom of 2 with both armies as steaming craters in the center of the board.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Ahh, but obscuring + positioning can mean LOS to target while avoiding the counter fire of its friends.
Unless the Land Raider in question is an Achilles.
Indeed. The only thing that can make a vehical over 250 point viable is a strong invune save. It basically does not exist without one. Min 5++ pref 4++. Executioner running at 385 without an invune save and 5 more wounds than a 130 point vindicator...come on GW...use brain.
I remember coming into 40k after playing DoW back on my lenovo PC, and thinking that LR's were these super-OP behemoths that could literally take down anything and never die. Now jump almost 20 years later and think, why does this even exist? It's kinda hilariously bad. For the cost you could do so much more.
ERJAK wrote: in 9th and allowing all infantry to pull impulsor shenanigans would likely result in the average game ending bottom of 2 with both armies as steaming craters in the center of the board.
You didn't do the BEST job of making that sound like a bad thing
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I remember coming into 40k after playing DoW back on my lenovo PC, and thinking that LR's were these super-OP behemoths that could literally take down anything and never die. Now jump almost 20 years later and think, why does this even exist? It's kinda hilariously bad. For the cost you could do so much more.
It really the transport capacity that is the problem. They charge to much for it. Plus like I pointed out. Expensive targets without invune saves (or a special survivability mechanic) are insanely bad no mater what they are.
GW is going to have to introduce a rule that ignores up to certain point of AP to better emulate the kind of 'immunity' vehicles had to small arms fire.
Reducing the efficacy of dedicated anti-AV weapons (via introduction of Sv++ to vehicles in question) is only going to tilt the meta towards focusing on weight of dice over quality of shots.
Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
I would think giving LR invul is like giving a mouse a cookie.
If LR gets invul, then you're going to need to give invuls to all equivalent units. Once these units get tougher, then all units that are above LR's tier will ask for invul too. Once you give these units invul, then all the units that already had invul is going to ask for better invul saves. If you give these units better invul saves, then LR's are going to want better invul too. So then you give LR's better invul saves. Then the units that are aboe LR's tier is going to ask for better invul saves too! Then, if you give these units better invul saves, then the units that already had invul saves that already received better invul saves is going to want something even better! Then these units are going to get a FNP. Then LR's are going to ask for FNP too! After all, hunky warmachine MUST have better save mechanics than a measly infantry unit relying on invul saves! Then guess what the units above LR's tier is going to want?
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
An invuln save of what? You could give it a 5++ but since the LR has a 2+ save it saves a Lascannon on a 5+ anyways. You'd be better off making it ignore the first point of AP or something. I don't want an invuln on the LR.
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
An invuln save of what? You could give it a 5++ but since the LR has a 2+ save it saves a Lascannon on a 5+ anyways. You'd be better off making it ignore the first point of AP or something. I don't want an invuln on the LR.
Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc.
@Xeno: We don't want to give those ugly Repulsive Executioners an invul, it would make it harder for me to beautify the game by reducing two of them a turn into burning slag with my Hellforged Fellblade. Nothing makes a table look better than removing two of those things from it and leaving the prettiest tank in all of 40k sitting in the middle of it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc...
I kind of like the results I got from using damage reduction (like the Wave Serpent, but minimum 0 and applied to most vehicles/monsters) as the "armour" stat in one of my homebrew projects.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc...
I kind of like the results I got from using damage reduction (like the Wave Serpent, but minimum 0 and applied to most vehicles/monsters) as the "armour" stat in one of my homebrew projects.
Wouldn't that negate the whole "anything can wound anything on a 6" thing gw did with the new wounding table? Not saying I don't like it, just that it isn't the direction gw seems to be going.
Right now, the question is this: Is it a transport or a main battle tank?
The answer is "Yes".
What you need to do is approach the fundamental aspects of a Land Raider and turn it into either a transport *or* a tank.
For example.
Let's say you make Land Raider Shield, which is a transport, and Land Raider Sword, a tank.
Shield can hold 12 Marines, or 6 Terminators, giving it a full squad of vets and an HQ to lead them. It has the high Toughness, great armor save, and wounds to get you there, but isn't armed all that well. Probably a multimelta (for opening a hole in bulkheads, to pour your cargo into) and a pair of anti-infantry weapons (Heavy flamrs, hurricane bolters, etc) to clear out chafe so that the big boys have a clear path. Give it the Assault key so that troops can come out after it moves, give it a cost of 10 per wound + guns, good to go.
Sword has no transport capability, but is bristling with firepower. Twin lascannons or multimelts on the side, twin heavy bolters or heavy flamer on the front, a pintel-mounted storm bolter, maybe a couple of other weapons, like frag airburst launchers, for point defense, and top it off with a turret that has some nastybad in there, like another twin las, a heavy plasma, or SOMEthing. Again, costs around 10 per wound, plus guns.
If you really want, you can make a third, Land Raider Spear, with the standard 10/5 transport and weapons between Sword and Shield, but it'll not be taken as much due to not being as dedicated as the other two.
But it'd require a new kit with the options and a radial reformation of points to get there.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc...
I kind of like the results I got from using damage reduction (like the Wave Serpent, but minimum 0 and applied to most vehicles/monsters) as the "armour" stat in one of my homebrew projects.
Wouldn't that negate the whole "anything can wound anything on a 6" thing gw did with the new wounding table? Not saying I don't like it, just that it isn't the direction gw seems to be going.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc...
I kind of like the results I got from using damage reduction (like the Wave Serpent, but minimum 0 and applied to most vehicles/monsters) as the "armour" stat in one of my homebrew projects.
Wouldn't that negate the whole "anything can wound anything on a 6" thing gw did with the new wounding table? Not saying I don't like it, just that it isn't the direction gw seems to be going.
That was part of the point, yes.
Like I said, I wasn't saying I don't like it (I do), just gw seems to want massed lasguns to be able to plink off a wound or two from big stuff for some reason.
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
An invuln save of what? You could give it a 5++ but since the LR has a 2+ save it saves a Lascannon on a 5+ anyways. You'd be better off making it ignore the first point of AP or something. I don't want an invuln on the LR.
Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc.
Oh yeah, T9 would be a pretty nice move to make it tough without an invuln. Cron Monolith could use T9. Either that or a special rule to make them immune to small arms in the way that AV 14 all around used to be.
Gadzilla666 wrote: @Xeno: We don't want to give those ugly Repulsive Executioners an invul, it would make it harder for me to beautify the game by reducing two of them a turn into burning slag with my Hellforged Fellblade. Nothing makes a table look better than removing two of those things from it and leaving the prettiest tank in all of 40k sitting in the middle of it.
I approve this message. At least the Repulsive part. I'm kinda meh on the Fellblade.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc...
I kind of like the results I got from using damage reduction (like the Wave Serpent, but minimum 0 and applied to most vehicles/monsters) as the "armour" stat in one of my homebrew projects.
Wouldn't that negate the whole "anything can wound anything on a 6" thing gw did with the new wounding table? Not saying I don't like it, just that it isn't the direction gw seems to be going.
That was part of the point, yes.
Like I said, I wasn't saying I don't like it (I do), just gw seems to want massed lasguns to be able to plink off a wound or two from big stuff for some reason.
That is probably because knights can be played as a stand alone faction.
ERJAK wrote: Having played plenty of games of 9th at this point, I can honestly tell you that allowing everyone to disembark after moving would more effectively break the game than reverting the Ironhands nerfs.
The problem is that while Land Raiders are still pretty crap, transports in general are VERY good in 9th and allowing all infantry to pull impulsor shenanigans would likely result in the average game ending bottom of 2 with both armies as steaming craters in the center of the board.
I am sure you are correct. Like I said, Youtube has been saying Transports are good in 9th. I also have a very bad track record making good use of transports no matter the game system.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: The little I hear from Youtube seems to think transports are going to be in for 9th edition. That said, I am not confident that Land Raiders are making a comeback. I think for my little meta (assuming it hasn't changed in the last 6 months) the Land Raider (or my Chaos Land Raider) could be frightening. Of course, my meta has las Predators being pretty good. So hardly a good litmus test for what is optimal and what isn't.
I can agree that toward the end of 8th, Deep Striking was getting trickier and trickier to pull off. My area was very good at screening out the parts of the table they didn't want their opponent to drop on to. Not to mention the race to the bottom unit point costs. Now for 9th edition, I suppose it all depends on your area desire to play on minimum table sizes or stay at 6'x4' as to whether Deep Strike is going more or less of an option for Deep Striking Terminators vs. Land Raider.
Me, I would very much like if all Transports allowed units to disembark after movement with some even allowing charging after disembarking. I think the Land Raider would be a prime candidate for that. I envision 9th edition tables having far more terrain than 8th making transport move distances not as appealing already. Not to mention, those giant metal bawkes have less space to maneuver. If I remember correctly, 9th ed mission often shave of a turn for each player meaning having units wait inside mobile bunkers a round is even less appealing.
So, I don't know. I would like them to be good, but I kinda doubt it.
Having played plenty of games of 9th at this point, I can honestly tell you that allowing everyone to disembark after moving would more effectively break the game than reverting the Ironhands nerfs.
The problem is that while Land Raiders are still pretty crap, transports in general are VERY good in 9th and allowing all infantry to pull impulsor shenanigans would likely result in the average game ending bottom of 2 with both armies as steaming craters in the center of the board.
If this is true then wouldn't it make sense to remove that rule from the Impulsor? If it's bad for other factions then it's bad for loyalists as well.
Insectum7 wrote:
Spoiler:
Gadzilla666 wrote: @Xeno: We don't want to give those ugly Repulsive Executioners an invul, it would make it harder for me to beautify the game by reducing two of them a turn into burning slag with my Hellforged Fellblade. Nothing makes a table look better than removing two of those things from it and leaving the prettiest tank in all of 40k sitting in the middle of it.
I approve this message. At least the Repulsive part. I'm kinda meh on the Fellblade.
The LR is still too expensive, and can't decide on what's its role. Deathguard is probably the only faction that can make it survivable enough for its points because DG can spend 2 CP to give it disgustingly resilient. But even then, it still has its other problems.
A Land Raider isn't worth more than 180 points with the absolute dogshit profile it's had for the last like 20 years.
The transport capacity should be at least 20 for the points it currently costs. Imagine claiming to care about balance yet thinking its okay for a troop transport to have the same transportation capacity for decades despite the relative army sizes in the game going up by at least 60%.
edit- The cope in this thread is adorable. "w-well if you d-don't play waactfg list it's pretty good!" No it isn't lmao. In every fluffy play-what-you-want game I've seen since the start of 8th Land Raiders have never lasted past the first turn without being destroyed or crippled. You have to actively go out of your way to take a terrible list to not be able to pop land raiders with how much lethality is in this game.
BlaxicanX wrote: A Land Raider isn't worth more than 180 points with the absolute dogshit profile it's had for the last like 20 years.
The transport capacity should be at least 20 for the points it currently costs. Imagine claiming to care about balance yet thinking its okay for a troop transport to have the same transportation capacity for decades despite the relative army sizes in the game going up by at least 60%.
edit- The cope in this thread is adorable. "w-well if you d-don't play waactfg list it's pretty good!" No it isn't lmao. In every fluffy play-what-you-want game I've seen since the start of 8th Land Raiders have never lasted past the first turn without being destroyed or crippled. You have to actively go out of your way to take a terrible list to not be able to pop land raiders with how much lethality is in this game.
BlaxicanX wrote: A Land Raider isn't worth more than 180 points with the absolute dogshit profile it's had for the last like 20 years.
The transport capacity should be at least 20 for the points it currently costs. Imagine claiming to care about balance yet thinking its okay for a troop transport to have the same transportation capacity for decades despite the relative army sizes in the game going up by at least 60%.
edit- The cope in this thread is adorable. "w-well if you d-don't play waactfg list it's pretty good!" No it isn't lmao. In every fluffy play-what-you-want game I've seen since the start of 8th Land Raiders have never lasted past the first turn without being destroyed or crippled. You have to actively go out of your way to take a terrible list to not be able to pop land raiders with how much lethality is in this game.
Are you a Kellermorph? Because you came out guns blazing from A Perfect Ambush with that post with more shots than two hands can accomplish.
BlaxicanX wrote: A Land Raider isn't worth more than 180 points with the absolute dogshit profile it's had for the last like 20 years.
The transport capacity should be at least 20 for the points it currently costs. Imagine claiming to care about balance yet thinking its okay for a troop transport to have the same transportation capacity for decades despite the relative army sizes in the game going up by at least 60%.
edit- The cope in this thread is adorable. "w-well if you d-don't play waactfg list it's pretty good!" No it isn't lmao. In every fluffy play-what-you-want game I've seen since the start of 8th Land Raiders have never lasted past the first turn without being destroyed or crippled. You have to actively go out of your way to take a terrible list to not be able to pop land raiders with how much lethality is in this game.
Are you a Kellermorph? Because you came out guns blazing from A Perfect Ambush with that post with more shots than two hands can accomplish.
to put it into perspective a wave serpent is 150pts with twin shuriken cannon and nothing else..
The only way it would justify, is if you are playing a list that wants to be super aggressive, rush out on to the midboard and camp there, and you are so resilient you are not afraid of the shooting that will come your way.
So, like if you have a whole bunch of grey knight terminators sitting in a LR that turn 1 rushes onto the midboard objective. So now, the opponent has a hard time stopping you from scoring VP at the top of turn 2, because he has to first pop that LR, and then even if he does, now he has to kill off all the ob sec terminators that are sitting on the objective.
This assumes 2 things.
1) that you do get first turn, or at least your opponent is slow or unable to block you from rushing that LR up.
2) That your opponent does not have the shooting firepower to kill a LR plus the troops in it.
Both are somewhat questionable assumptions...
Grey knights can possibly pull it off, only because they can also use psychic to teleport other units onto the objective. So its a case of them literally moving most of their army onto the midboard and challenging their opponent to shoot them off.
Yes, I could see how 30 T4 3+ wounds sitting in cover could be....problematic.
Worse than that - he'll give them T5 or -1 to be hit while also in cover.
I'm seriously considering a Contemptor w/ Butcher Cannons, because even if I kill four models it's so rare for him to fail morale. But knowing him he's more than happy to drop 2 CP to make them stick. Never under estimate the importance of a single model - especially late game.
BlaxicanX wrote: A Land Raider isn't worth more than 180 points with the absolute dogshit profile it's had for the last like 20 years.
The transport capacity should be at least 20 for the points it currently costs. Imagine claiming to care about balance yet thinking its okay for a troop transport to have the same transportation capacity for decades despite the relative army sizes in the game going up by at least 60%.
edit- The cope in this thread is adorable. "w-well if you d-don't play waactfg list it's pretty good!" No it isn't lmao. In every fluffy play-what-you-want game I've seen since the start of 8th Land Raiders have never lasted past the first turn without being destroyed or crippled. You have to actively go out of your way to take a terrible list to not be able to pop land raiders with how much lethality is in this game.
Are you a Kellermorph? Because you came out guns blazing from A Perfect Ambush with that post with more shots than two hands can accomplish.
to put it into perspective a wave serpent is 150pts with twin shuriken cannon and nothing else..
My comment is less about the meat of the post and more about the hot fire from fannin' the hammer of it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can't speak for you Corpse Worshippers but my Hellforged Achilles will definitely be getting dusted off once those new rules for multi-meltas drop. Eight S8, -4AP, D6 shots, and a mortal wound spitting LOS ignoring Soulburner Bombard on a T8, 2+, 4++, 19W chassis sounds pretty good. Especially with six of those soon to be 2W Chosen loaded up with plasma along for the ride.
The difference maker I see there is 4++ Give Landraiders a 4++ and you'll see a ton more of them even without the Multimeltas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: The little I hear from Youtube seems to think transports are going to be in for 9th edition. That said, I am not confident that Land Raiders are making a comeback. I think for my little meta (assuming it hasn't changed in the last 6 months) the Land Raider (or my Chaos Land Raider) could be frightening. Of course, my meta has las Predators being pretty good. So hardly a good litmus test for what is optimal and what isn't.
I can agree that toward the end of 8th, Deep Striking was getting trickier and trickier to pull off. My area was very good at screening out the parts of the table they didn't want their opponent to drop on to. Not to mention the race to the bottom unit point costs. Now for 9th edition, I suppose it all depends on your area desire to play on minimum table sizes or stay at 6'x4' as to whether Deep Strike is going more or less of an option for Deep Striking Terminators vs. Land Raider.
Me, I would very much like if all Transports allowed units to disembark after movement with some even allowing charging after disembarking. I think the Land Raider would be a prime candidate for that. I envision 9th edition tables having far more terrain than 8th making transport move distances not as appealing already. Not to mention, those giant metal bawkes have less space to maneuver. If I remember correctly, 9th ed mission often shave of a turn for each player meaning having units wait inside mobile bunkers a round is even less appealing.
So, I don't know. I would like them to be good, but I kinda doubt it.
People think transports are coming back because they think bikes are coming back(and theyre probably right), and Rhino Rush was paired with the last bike meta. I suspect in a the next few editions we're going to see the boards have pre-placed terrain that comes in the starter box - they're including scenery in more boxes Kill Team, these new starter sets, game board + terrain sets, etc. I'd guess by 11th or 12th we'll see the missions already have terrain placed on a grid lined map showing you were to put the terrain.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can't speak for you Corpse Worshippers but my Hellforged Achilles will definitely be getting dusted off once those new rules for multi-meltas drop. Eight S8, -4AP, D6 shots, and a mortal wound spitting LOS ignoring Soulburner Bombard on a T8, 2+, 4++, 19W chassis sounds pretty good. Especially with six of those soon to be 2W Chosen loaded up with plasma along for the ride.
The difference maker I see there is 4++ Give Landraiders a 4++ and you'll see a ton more of them even without the Multimeltas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: The little I hear from Youtube seems to think transports are going to be in for 9th edition. That said, I am not confident that Land Raiders are making a comeback. I think for my little meta (assuming it hasn't changed in the last 6 months) the Land Raider (or my Chaos Land Raider) could be frightening. Of course, my meta has las Predators being pretty good. So hardly a good litmus test for what is optimal and what isn't.
I can agree that toward the end of 8th, Deep Striking was getting trickier and trickier to pull off. My area was very good at screening out the parts of the table they didn't want their opponent to drop on to. Not to mention the race to the bottom unit point costs. Now for 9th edition, I suppose it all depends on your area desire to play on minimum table sizes or stay at 6'x4' as to whether Deep Strike is going more or less of an option for Deep Striking Terminators vs. Land Raider.
Me, I would very much like if all Transports allowed units to disembark after movement with some even allowing charging after disembarking. I think the Land Raider would be a prime candidate for that. I envision 9th edition tables having far more terrain than 8th making transport move distances not as appealing already. Not to mention, those giant metal bawkes have less space to maneuver. If I remember correctly, 9th ed mission often shave of a turn for each player meaning having units wait inside mobile bunkers a round is even less appealing.
So, I don't know. I would like them to be good, but I kinda doubt it.
People think transports are coming back because they think bikes are coming back(and theyre probably right), and Rhino Rush was paired with the last bike meta. I suspect in a the next few editions we're going to see the boards have pre-placed terrain that comes in the starter box - they're including scenery in more boxes Kill Team, these new starter sets, game board + terrain sets, etc. I'd guess by 11th or 12th we'll see the missions already have terrain placed on a grid lined map showing you were to put the terrain.
I hope that doesnt happen or is at least limited to matched play.
Pre positioned terrain on a small board sound boring as feth.
The easiest way to improve them is to make them an assault vehicle again. I'll still use mine for the foreseeable future.
Well, the lists I play are capable of blowing up 1 forgefiend, 2 hellbrutes with a 5++, 1 lascannon squad and a bike squad all in one turn. So ... I honestly don't know ...
Also, the question is, if you just want to deliver a veteran squad or chosen squad into multi melta range, then why not just put them in strategic reserve? Seems like a much safer surefire way to deliver them as opposed to sticking them into a LR.
I do love the LR because it was an icon for space marines.
The Achilles with Iron Hands is rather nice in my testing, but I'm not a tournament player.
19 Wounds with a T8 2+ 4++ 6+++ with repairs each turn. Add in main gun and Multi meltas it runs great next to my Stormraven as two things moving around that draw fire while Intercessors, Outriders and double Invictor Warsuits challenge for points.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Well, the lists I play are capable of blowing up 1 forgefiend, 2 hellbrutes with a 5++, 1 lascannon squad and a bike squad all in one turn. So ... I honestly don't know ...
Also, the question is, if you just want to deliver a veteran squad or chosen squad into multi melta range, then why not just put them in strategic reserve? Seems like a much safer surefire way to deliver them as opposed to sticking them into a LR.
Not a guarantee to deliver them. If your opponent can shoot off that much stuff they're not doing much to hold objectives in my current experience. Hide more and bring more W1.
Yes, I could see how 30 T4 3+ wounds sitting in cover could be....problematic.
Worse than that - he'll give them T5 or -1 to be hit while also in cover.
I'm seriously considering a Contemptor w/ Butcher Cannons, because even if I kill four models it's so rare for him to fail morale. But knowing him he's more than happy to drop 2 CP to make them stick. Never under estimate the importance of a single model - especially late game.
Where's the +1 toughness and -1 to be hit coming from? Doesn't sound like any strategem/psychic power/litany I can think of. Loyalists have so many I can't keep them straight, especially once you get into the chapter specific stuff if it isn't a chapter I play against often. A butcher cannon Contemptor is never a bad idea, though the unwarranted increase on the price of the guns hurts them. A Typhon could reliably wipe a unit even at T5 as long as he doesn't pop Transhuman Physiology, and of course the Typhon has other problems, as it's one of those models. Infiltrators are some annoying little buggers it seems.
Where's the +1 toughness and -1 to be hit coming from? Doesn't sound like any strategem/psychic power/litany I can think of. Loyalists have so many I can't keep them straight, especially once you get into the chapter specific stuff if it isn't a chapter I play against often. A butcher cannon Contemptor is never a bad idea, though the unwarranted increase on the price of the guns hurts them. A Typhon could reliably wipe a unit even at T5 as long as he doesn't pop Transhuman Physiology, and of course the Typhon has other problems, as it's one of those models. Infiltrators are some annoying little buggers it seems.
Frikken' Salamanders spells. I literally can't wait for him to lose rerolls to hit on the tactic.
He runs very infantry heavy - 10 assault, 15 infiltrators, 5 incursors, 3 aggressors, 3 suppressors, 3 eradicators, 6 eliminators (3 las/3 sniper), judiciar, captain, phobos lib, lt, and 1 redemptor (for the most part).
People think transports are coming back because they think bikes are coming back(and theyre probably right), and Rhino Rush was paired with the last bike meta. I suspect in a the next few editions we're going to see the boards have pre-placed terrain that comes in the starter box - they're including scenery in more boxes Kill Team, these new starter sets, game board + terrain sets, etc. I'd guess by 11th or 12th we'll see the missions already have terrain placed on a grid lined map showing you were to put the terrain.
I hope that doesnt happen or is at least limited to matched play.
Pre positioned terrain on a small board sound boring as feth.
The easiest way to improve them is to make them an assault vehicle again. I'll still use mine for the foreseeable future.
I'm just guessing. But it does several things - reduces the reliance on store play areas they're working on phasing out (Fewer Smaller tables eventually leading to zero in store tables), gives people more incentive to buy scenery when it's the freebie in a starter set, further reduces issues over one sided terrain deployment in matches - so it makes sense to me. As for your Match Play only thing... what rule they make isn't up to changing if you're not at some sort of Match Play event?
Predetermined terrain placement is a terrible idea IMO. We dont need another layer of "mission meta haxx" for the game where a bunch of neckbeards can plan complete turns worth of movement and spread em online, that'd flock the game up even more.
As for including terrain miniatures in the starter, I think it's a good change and will give more emphasis on players actually using/collecting terrain. This will lead to the inevitable extinction of Planet Bowling Baal games. I'm sure none of yall will be missing them when they're gone.
Where's the +1 toughness and -1 to be hit coming from? Doesn't sound like any strategem/psychic power/litany I can think of. Loyalists have so many I can't keep them straight, especially once you get into the chapter specific stuff if it isn't a chapter I play against often. A butcher cannon Contemptor is never a bad idea, though the unwarranted increase on the price of the guns hurts them. A Typhon could reliably wipe a unit even at T5 as long as he doesn't pop Transhuman Physiology, and of course the Typhon has other problems, as it's one of those models. Infiltrators are some annoying little buggers it seems.
Frikken' Salamanders spells. I literally can't wait for him to lose rerolls to hit on the tactic.
He runs very infantry heavy - 10 assault, 15 infiltrators, 5 incursors, 3 aggressors, 3 suppressors, 3 eradicators, 6 eliminators (3 las/3 sniper), judiciar, captain, phobos lib, lt, and 1 redemptor (for the most part).
Now that's a target rich environment. Can't remember the last time I played against Salamanders. Even without the rerolls his meltas will be nasty. Loyalists get too many tools. Maybe a new codex will help. Here's hoping we'll get the same treatment as loyalists and 1ksons won't have to wait for their own codex. Hopefully you're right about them giving us a timeline for them on Saturday, and hopefully the new fw books will be included in that timeline. *880 PPM my mumble grumble *
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote: Predetermined terrain placement is a terrible idea IMO. We dont need another layer of "mission meta haxx" for the game where a bunch of neckbeards can plan complete turns worth of movement and spread em online, that'd flock the game up even more.
As for including terrain miniatures in the starter, I think it's a good change and will give more emphasis on players actually using/collecting terrain. This will lead to the inevitable extinction of Planet Bowling Baal games. I'm sure none of yall will be missing them when they're gone.
Agreed. Predetermined terrain is BORING. One of the reasons I don't like playing tournaments.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Well, the lists I play are capable of blowing up 1 forgefiend, 2 hellbrutes with a 5++, 1 lascannon squad and a bike squad all in one turn. So ... I honestly don't know ...
Also, the question is, if you just want to deliver a veteran squad or chosen squad into multi melta range, then why not just put them in strategic reserve? Seems like a much safer surefire way to deliver them as opposed to sticking them into a LR.
Not a guarantee to deliver them. If your opponent can shoot off that much stuff they're not doing much to hold objectives in my current experience. Hide more and bring more W1.
But a LR is also not a guarantee to deliver them if it can be blown up. Why is putting them in strategic reserves not a guaranteed way to deliver them? You can't stop them from coming in from reserves, the only thing you can do is restrict the targets they can shoot at by screening.
Also, that time I lost so much in one turn, I was facing an Imperium/admech army. Besides the regular shooting it had, tt also had 3 Admech vehicles and a Manticore that could all ignore line of sight. And it had cheap guardsmen that could move move move onto the midboard, and a 9 man Bullgryn squad with 3++ and 1+ armor saves to follow up. He held objectives just fine.
They should give the big tanks T9 and add a global rule that if your toughness is more than double of the strength of the attacker, you cannot be wounded.
Heck, they should expand the toughness to more than 8 (yes i know theres a few t9 in the game already ,mostly FW superheavies).
That way you'd get a tank that can't be wounded by regular bolters or lasguns, meaning that anti-tank is actually needed to take them down instead of just high rate of fire.
Heck, tyranids monsters should also go that way. If they can't get good saves, at least give them higher toughness.
tauist wrote: Predetermined terrain placement is a terrible idea IMO. We dont need another layer of "mission meta haxx" for the game where a bunch of neckbeards can plan complete turns worth of movement and spread em online, that'd flock the game up even more.
As for including terrain miniatures in the starter, I think it's a good change and will give more emphasis on players actually using/collecting terrain. This will lead to the inevitable extinction of Planet Bowling Baal games. I'm sure none of yall will be missing them when they're gone.
Agreed. Predetermined terrain is BORING. One of the reasons I don't like playing tournaments.
wait, where is predetermined terrain a thing? That sounds horrible. Honestly, i'd much rather terrain become more assymetrical than most tables are right now. As it stands, choosing to be defender is only good so you get to react to your opponent's deployment. I'd love if you actually had to think about which side you want more than just "well i took my army out of my carry case on this side so i guess i'll deploy here for convenience"
Gadzilla666 wrote: Can't speak for you Corpse Worshippers but my Hellforged Achilles will definitely be getting dusted off once those new rules for multi-meltas drop. Eight S8, -4AP, D6 shots, and a mortal wound spitting LOS ignoring Soulburner Bombard on a T8, 2+, 4++, 19W chassis sounds pretty good. Especially with six of those soon to be 2W Chosen loaded up with plasma along for the ride.
Just don't forget that the Achilles can't benefit from Obscuring - I love putting a Tac Squad and Vulkan inside one for extra meltyness, but hiding it from lascannons is a pain.
wait, where is predetermined terrain a thing? That sounds horrible. Honestly, i'd much rather terrain become more assymetrical than most tables are right now. As it stands, choosing to be defender is only good so you get to react to your opponent's deployment. I'd love if you actually had to think about which side you want more than just "well i took my army out of my carry case on this side so i guess i'll deploy here for convenience"
In predictions for the future. With the way they’re packing scenery in start sets, shrinking table sizes, and shrinking store sizes, I don’t think store tables are long for this world. At least until sales go down and we cycle back to store games. And predetermined scenery doesn’t necessarily mean mirror tables. It could me 80/20 splits for an attacker/defender mission.
wait, where is predetermined terrain a thing? That sounds horrible. Honestly, i'd much rather terrain become more assymetrical than most tables are right now. As it stands, choosing to be defender is only good so you get to react to your opponent's deployment. I'd love if you actually had to think about which side you want more than just "well i took my army out of my carry case on this side so i guess i'll deploy here for convenience"
In predictions for the future. With the way they’re packing scenery in start sets, shrinking table sizes, and shrinking store sizes, I don’t think store tables are long for this world. At least until sales go down and we cycle back to store games. And predetermined scenery doesn’t necessarily mean mirror tables. It could me 80/20 splits for an attacker/defender mission.
seems like quite the conclusion honestly. Just because they add terrain in the most expensive starter set and reduce table size doesn't make me think theres gonna be fixed layouts anytime soon.
And the assymetrical tables part was a second point.
The only way asymmetric tables work in competitive play is if the person who chooses the table side gives up the choice of first turn. GW very clearly rejected ITC's approach to choosing who goes first in favor of the random roll after deployment, so I don't see how asymmetric tables could possibly work in competitive play.
yukishiro1 wrote: The only way asymmetric tables work in competitive play is if the person who chooses the table side gives up the choice of first turn. GW very clearly rejected ITC's approach to choosing who goes first in favor of the random roll after deployment, so I don't see how asymmetric tables could possibly work in competitive play.
I'm mostly talking about non-competitive play being influenced by the competitive play.
Most of the popular batreps on youtube have a very "competitive" essence to them, with tables being mostly symmetrical (the outliers being SS88 and WintersSEO).
This makes it so that when playing casual games, people automatically make a symmetrical table (im guilty of that too) to reflect what they are used to seeing.
I agree that its more balanced to remove the map itself from the equation but i think its an interesting concept to explore.
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
I would think giving LR invul is like giving a mouse a cookie.
If LR gets invul, then you're going to need to give invuls to all equivalent units. Once these units get tougher, then all units that are above LR's tier will ask for invul too. Once you give these units invul, then all the units that already had invul is going to ask for better invul saves. If you give these units better invul saves, then LR's are going to want better invul too. So then you give LR's better invul saves. Then the units that are aboe LR's tier is going to ask for better invul saves too! Then, if you give these units better invul saves, then the units that already had invul saves that already received better invul saves is going to want something even better! Then these units are going to get a FNP. Then LR's are going to ask for FNP too! After all, hunky warmachine MUST have better save mechanics than a measly infantry unit relying on invul saves! Then guess what the units above LR's tier is going to want?
What units are in LR teir that don't have an invune save? Baneblades maybe (Yeah they should have one too) they are 500+ points - space marine falchions too. FFS a dang wrack can have a 4++ save. It's to the point that I consider it asinine to debate. The LR has always sucked and it's always sucked for the same reason. It is too easy to kill for how much it costs. The only edition it was good was in 5th edition when tanks were all pretty much indestructible.
Malcador tanks are in the 250-350 point range and lack an invuln, as well as having only a 3+ to start with. Valdors and Machariuses too. Crassus. Praetor. Dominus.
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
I would think giving LR invul is like giving a mouse a cookie.
If LR gets invul, then you're going to need to give invuls to all equivalent units. Once these units get tougher, then all units that are above LR's tier will ask for invul too. Once you give these units invul, then all the units that already had invul is going to ask for better invul saves. If you give these units better invul saves, then LR's are going to want better invul too. So then you give LR's better invul saves. Then the units that are aboe LR's tier is going to ask for better invul saves too! Then, if you give these units better invul saves, then the units that already had invul saves that already received better invul saves is going to want something even better! Then these units are going to get a FNP. Then LR's are going to ask for FNP too! After all, hunky warmachine MUST have better save mechanics than a measly infantry unit relying on invul saves! Then guess what the units above LR's tier is going to want?
What units are in LR teir that don't have an invune save? Baneblades maybe (Yeah they should have one too) they are 500+ points - space marine falchions too. FFS a dang wrack can have a 4++ save. It's to the point that I consider it asinine to debate. The LR has always sucked and it's always sucked for the same reason. It is too easy to kill for how much it costs. The only edition it was good was in 5th edition when tanks were all pretty much indestructible.
AP -4 and -5 even are quite prevalent.
Theres already too many invulns on big things in the game, which is problematic.
A wrack having an invuln isn't game breaking, contemptors having them, yes.
We need to make tanks unwoundable by certain things again. Bolters shouldnt be on par with lascannons when it comes to popping tanks open.
My suggestion from earlier:
Expand the toughness range and make some strengths unable to wound certain toughness.
for example : you cannot wound something that has a toughness MORE than twice the strength of your weapon.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Malcador tanks are in the 250-350 point range and lack an invuln, as well as having only a 3+ to start with. Valdors and Machariuses too. Crassus. Praetor. Dominus.
And that's just one faction.
And they're all pretty much overpriced garbage as well, just like the Land Raider.
Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
I would think giving LR invul is like giving a mouse a cookie.
If LR gets invul, then you're going to need to give invuls to all equivalent units. Once these units get tougher, then all units that are above LR's tier will ask for invul too. Once you give these units invul, then all the units that already had invul is going to ask for better invul saves. If you give these units better invul saves, then LR's are going to want better invul too. So then you give LR's better invul saves. Then the units that are aboe LR's tier is going to ask for better invul saves too! Then, if you give these units better invul saves, then the units that already had invul saves that already received better invul saves is going to want something even better! Then these units are going to get a FNP. Then LR's are going to ask for FNP too! After all, hunky warmachine MUST have better save mechanics than a measly infantry unit relying on invul saves! Then guess what the units above LR's tier is going to want?
What units are in LR teir that don't have an invune save? Baneblades maybe (Yeah they should have one too) they are 500+ points - space marine falchions too. FFS a dang wrack can have a 4++ save. It's to the point that I consider it asinine to debate. The LR has always sucked and it's always sucked for the same reason. It is too easy to kill for how much it costs. The only edition it was good was in 5th edition when tanks were all pretty much indestructible.
AP -4 and -5 even are quite prevalent.
Theres already too many invulns on big things in the game, which is problematic.
A wrack having an invuln isn't game breaking, contemptors having them, yes.
We need to make tanks unwoundable by certain things again. Bolters shouldnt be on par with lascannons when it comes to popping tanks open.
My suggestion from earlier:
Expand the toughness range and make some strengths unable to wound certain toughness.
for example : you cannot wound something that has a toughness MORE than twice the strength of your weapon.
Then make land raider T9.
That would work if not for the fact wounding is fairly easy to accomplish. Bust a strat and you are rerolling wounds.This relic gives RR wounds. Now your toughness stat is worthless. Invune saves are important for this reason on expensive models. At the very least you have a chance to nulify the cheese.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
While I agree. LR are not super heavies but are still a model who has a chance to be the biggest model in a game. Should it not have a chance to be hardest to kill?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Malcador tanks are in the 250-350 point range and lack an invuln, as well as having only a 3+ to start with. Valdors and Machariuses too. Crassus. Praetor. Dominus.
And that's just one faction.
And they're all pretty much overpriced garbage as well, just like the Land Raider.
/Proud Malcador, Macharius & Valdor-owner.
Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.
I don't thing just adding an invuln would be enough to save them without other changes. A bigger issue for those three are the more lackluster firepower for their size, namely how they're outgunned by their points in L.Russes.
Theoretically the LR shouldn't need an invuln. It's obviously tougher than a Leman Russ and has more firepower plus transport capacity, therefore, it should cost more. The problem is more that it costs so much that you only want one of them as your other troops are also expensive, and there's strong opportunity-cost for spending 300ish points on a Land Raider. This is in contrast to a Leman Russ Command tank, where the player will just take three of them and not bat an eye because the opportunity cost is low and their troops are cheap.
300 points for 16 wounds is rough when it's pretty easy to shoot at that 16 wounds, and multi-damage weapons will bring their full strength against it.
This is why I'm hopeful about Obscuration and Reserves though, as both of those rules can allow you to make that 300 points less targetable. The question then is if the LR brings something useful enough if you're being cagey about deploying it and spending the effort to keep it out of harms way.
With 18 point SMs, the Opportunity cost for my builds is going to shift quite a bit. The bodies in my Devastator Squads have shot the squad cost up by 50 points recently. (18-13 =5, 10x for 10 man squad). That's not insignificant. So 20 T4W vs 16 T8 wounds. . . that's at least a harder choice when the Devs start at 180 rather than 130.
yukishiro1 wrote: Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
or if it's such a problem for tourneys, the tourneys then should just not allow them.
Why mess with 2/3rds of the playerbase for problems that really only crop up in a small fraction of games?
Xenomancers wrote: Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?
I would think giving LR invul is like giving a mouse a cookie.
If LR gets invul, then you're going to need to give invuls to all equivalent units. Once these units get tougher, then all units that are above LR's tier will ask for invul too. Once you give these units invul, then all the units that already had invul is going to ask for better invul saves. If you give these units better invul saves, then LR's are going to want better invul too. So then you give LR's better invul saves. Then the units that are aboe LR's tier is going to ask for better invul saves too! Then, if you give these units better invul saves, then the units that already had invul saves that already received better invul saves is going to want something even better! Then these units are going to get a FNP. Then LR's are going to ask for FNP too! After all, hunky warmachine MUST have better save mechanics than a measly infantry unit relying on invul saves! Then guess what the units above LR's tier is going to want?
What units are in LR teir that don't have an invune save? Baneblades maybe (Yeah they should have one too) they are 500+ points - space marine falchions too. FFS a dang wrack can have a 4++ save. It's to the point that I consider it asinine to debate. The LR has always sucked and it's always sucked for the same reason. It is too easy to kill for how much it costs. The only edition it was good was in 5th edition when tanks were all pretty much indestructible.
AP -4 and -5 even are quite prevalent.
Proliferation of invulnerable saves distorts the difference between high strength/AP and low strength/AP weapons and makes it harder to balance them. The T9 2+ defensive stat line is considerably more durable than the T8 3+ 5++ knight defensive stat line against weapons such as meltas and lascannons but weaker against high strength/AP weapons like railguns, fire Prisms, volcano lances, laser destructors, etc. The knight defensive stat line distorts what is good against heavy armour by encouraging the use of medium strength/AP high ROF weapons instead of actual anti-tank weapons with low ROF. If big units like knights had higher toughness and better armour saves instead of relying on invuls then anti-tank weapons would be more desirable and used more. If heavy armour is doing too well or poorly then balance could be improved simply by adjusting the costs on high strength/AP weapons up or down to change their prevalence and availability. This would also reduce the need for weapons and other abilities/powers that deal mortal wounds.
You want your floating boxes to be better? Give them and other heavy vehicles higher toughness and possibly better saves while doing the same for things like knights while removing their invuls. Suddenly that S10 -4AP gun is a lot more useful.
yukishiro1 wrote:Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
Knights haven't been "nerfed into the ground" compared to other super heavys. A Castellan/Tyrant is now cheaper than a far less durable four sponson Baneblade, and far less expensive than the T9 2+ Hellforged/relic super heavys.
If you don't like playing against super heavys either refuse games against them or play Kill Team.
I'd rather they not be competitive than too competitive.
I mean sure, in an ideal world where GW is good at balancing, it'd be great if they were just ok. But I'd much rather a big, expensive model be not very good than too good.
As a general rule of thumb, anything over about 200ish points for a single model is getting into dangerous territory where you need to start erring on the side of underpowering rather than overpowering them. When GW actually gets good at game balance (I made a funny!) they can go back to expensive models and try to make them balanced just right. Until then, I'd rather they keep them on the suboptimal side and focus on getting the main part of the game under control before worrying about big models that can easily break the game without very careful attention.
I mean this is literally a thread about how big models are bad and I'm saying "good, I like that." Isn't that the precise opposite of complaining?
Really?
yukishiro1 wrote:Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
Sounds like you're complaining about the introduction of knights into the game, and super heavys in general existing in the "competitive" environment.
So why do you think big models, which you consider Land Raiders to be an example of, should be more on the side of bad, than good? And what's the cutoff for "big" models? A Leman Russ? Leviathans?
I said right in the post above you that my cutoff was somewhere in the region of 200 points. Once you go above 10% of the value of a standard army in a single model, you're getting into dangerous territory balance-wise. With the rule of 3 in mind, as long as something under 200 points isn't egregiously overpowered, 600 points worth of overpowered stuff isn't going to win you a game on its own, so the damage caused to the game is not that high.
However, as points values go up, the damage caused by a single overpowered unit goes up dramatically. To take an extreme example, if you have a 666 point unit that's undervalued by 50%, you take 3 of those and you have an army that's worth 1000 more points than it costs. Meanwhile even if your 200 point model is 50% undercosted, that's only still only a 300 point gain.
That's not even getting into how lame very expensive models are to play against, how much they exacerbate first-strike advantage (both for and against), and how much they dumb the game down towards just being a dice-rolling exercise.
It shouldn't be a great shock to anyone that a game designed to be played with 30-150 models can easily run into big problems when one player takes half their points or more in a handful of models. The game system just isn't built for stuff that big, so it's very hard to get the balance right. It's the same reason that you can run into problems on the other end too, with lists taking 250+ models.
a 2k army shooting and failing to kill a 300pt model holding a a key strategic position in a single turn means that model has done its job as they aint shooting at other stuff even if it itself does not kill 300pts off stuff.
I mean this is literally a thread about how big models are bad and I'm saying "good, I like that." Isn't that the precise opposite of complaining?
Really?
yukishiro1 wrote:Big models don't make sense in 40k and never have. There's always too fine a line on them between making them unkillable vs making them evaporate.
You can see this with knights. They were a huge mistake to introduce into 40k, and created all sorts of problems until they were nerfed into the ground.
Super-heavies have no place in competitive 40k. I don't mind the models existing and having nominal rules, but they should always err well on the side of making them bad than good.
Sounds like you're complaining about the introduction of knights into the game, and super heavys in general existing in the "competitive" environment.
So why do you think big models, which you consider Land Raiders to be an example of, should be more on the side of bad, than good? And what's the cutoff for "big" models? A Leman Russ? Leviathans?
yukishiro1 wrote: I said right in the post above you that my cutoff was somewhere in the region of 200 points. Once you go above 10% of the value of a standard army in a single model, you're getting into dangerous territory balance-wise. With the rule of 3 in mind, as long as something under 200 points isn't egregiously overpowered, 600 points worth of overpowered stuff isn't going to win you a game on its own, so the damage caused to the game is not that high.
However, as points values go up, the damage caused by a single overpowered unit goes up dramatically. To take an extreme example, if you have a 666 point unit that's undervalued by 50%, you take 3 of those and you have an army that's worth 1000 more points than it costs. Meanwhile even if your 200 point model is 50% undercosted, that's only still only a 300 point gain.
That's not even getting into how lame very expensive models are to play against, how much they exacerbate first-strike advantage (both for and against), and how much they dumb the game down towards just being a dice-rolling exercise.
It shouldn't be a great shock to anyone that a game designed to be played with 30-150 models can easily run into big problems when one player takes half their points or more in a handful of models. The game system just isn't built for stuff that big, so it's very hard to get the balance right. It's the same reason that you can run into problems on the other end too, with lists taking 250+ models.
Yes, you edited your comment while I was responding to your previous one, thus responding to my question preemptively.
I think the takeaway is that nothing should be under or overvalued by 50%, or even 10%. Your problem is with balance, not big models. If intercessors were 15 PPM they would be just as bad as a 400 PPM Baneblade.
If you prefer infantry heavy games, fine, play infantry heavy lists. Some of us like to bring something bigger from time to time, and they shouldn't deliberately be made bad just for your preferences.
Of course nothing should be that badly balanced. Hence why I said if GW was actually good at balance sure, it'd be ok if big models were just right (I'd personally still rather they weren't in the game at all, but I'll accept not everyone feels that way).
But we all know that GW is either very bad at balance, doesn't care about balance very much, or, most likely, a little from category one and a little from category two. That being the case, I am very happy for big models to stay on the "bad" side of the spectrum rather than the "good" side.
You can disagree all you want. It's fine for you to have your own opinion and for it not to match mine.
yukishiro1 wrote: Of course nothing should be that badly balanced. Hence why I said if GW was actually good at balance sure, it'd be ok if big models were just right (I'd personally still rather they weren't in the game at all, but I'll accept not everyone feels that way).
But we all know that GW is either very bad at balance, doesn't care about balance very much, or, most likely, a little from category one and a little from category two. That being the case, I am very happy for big models to stay on the "bad" side of the spectrum rather than the "good" side.
You can disagree all you want. It's fine for you to have your own opinion and for it not to match mine.
what's the differance between a super powerful large model and a super powerful model that just so happens to only be the size of a grot?
We all know the issue is that the so called balance doesnt really exist. It just doesnt. Nothign in this game is equal pt for pt.
Some people seem to ascribe raw firepower and resilience far above utility, mobility. For example; when the impulsor got released many maaaany decried it as utterlly terrible because it couldint just delete units left right and center. Clearly trash tier...
"A flying, tough transport with a good invuln capable of delivering the best troops in the best faction in game after moving? Sounds terrible" Unless you account for rules, traits and force multipliers also as a separate pts value it just doesnt work. So GW is not interested in makign it work. They could through a looong and grinding process like we saw leading up towards end of 8th/ post ynnari and castellan nerf.
So here we are starting from zero again. Im of the opinion the LR might become viable in some builds rules and pts pending. If it gets an assult vehicle rules might well be very interesting.
Anyway, I for one hope to see land raiders spewing out terminators will be a thing.
That used to be the scary prospect
Agreed, I welcome more terminators and Land Raiders. Both are such cool models and concept, plus being around forever it would be nice to have them back more often
Problem (that people have) with the new SM vehicles? 1. new 'primaris' aesthetics doesn't fly with everyone 2. way too many guns for a single vehicle unit/model, many of them which are inconsequential to the game overall (extra dice rolling that has no real impact in the game)
EDIT: ooooooooooooo the IMpulsor, not the REpulsor...
I think that's because impulsors are actually really good in terms of abilities that you can add-on. They're the real primaris vehicle that everyone needed, not another 'Land-Raider-Predator cross over'.
Argive wrote: a 2k army shooting and failing to kill a 300pt model holding a a key strategic position in a single turn means that model has done its job as they aint shooting at other stuff even if it itself does not kill 300pts off stuff.
Distraction carnifexes be distracting.
You do realize that a land raider costs more than double than a wave serpent and they have roughly the same durability. It aint cool man. It's never been cool.
Argive wrote: a 2k army shooting and failing to kill a 300pt model holding a a key strategic position in a single turn means that model has done its job as they aint shooting at other stuff even if it itself does not kill 300pts off stuff.
Distraction carnifexes be distracting.
You do realize that a land raider costs more than double than a wave serpent and they have roughly the same durability. It aint cool man. It's never been cool.
Some times, best defense is a distraction carnifex.
Argive wrote: a 2k army shooting and failing to kill a 300pt model holding a a key strategic position in a single turn means that model has done its job as they aint shooting at other stuff even if it itself does not kill 300pts off stuff.
Distraction carnifexes be distracting.
You do realize that a land raider costs more than double than a wave serpent and they have roughly the same durability. It aint cool man. It's never been cool.
Some times, best defense is a distraction carnifex.
I cant heal a wave serpet by 6 wounds a turn though...
I'm not saying as it stands its comparable or good... I was responding to the notion it should be 180pts as was suggested earlier and making general point about people not valuing utility and mobility enough. We don't yet know the rules, or the points of it or temrinators yet.
Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.
Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
The issue is a combination of both lackluster defense as well offense, especially considering their cost.
My Macharius Battle Tank costs more or less the same as 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks, and it has nowhere near neither the survivability nor the firepower as 3 LRBT's - heck, it's outclassed by 2 LRBT's even!
If you gave the Macharius an invuln it would essentially become a Knight Paladin, except slower and without the melee-punch...
And the Valdor is an even worse offender in the "lacks-everything"-department.
Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.
Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
The issue is a combination of both lackluster defense as well offense, especially considering their cost.
My Macharius Battle Tank costs more or less the same as 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks, and it has nowhere near neither the survivability nor the firepower as 3 LRBT's - heck, it's outclassed by 2 LRBT's even!
If you gave the Macharius an invuln it would essentially become a Knight Paladin, except slower and without the melee-punch...
And the Valdor is an even worse offender in the "lacks-everything"-department.
For sure there are other reasons that certain imperial tanks are not good. Inefficient weapon options or another unit is cheaper and better- you could fix any unit just by dropping it to the appropriate pricing (that a fact). LR specifically though would be a lot better with a 4++ for the price you pay. It could reasonably stick around the whole game just by virtue of not getting shot at. A 4++ might not be the solution for every underperforming tank as you said a lot of units are bad for a lot of reasons.
Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.
Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
The issue is a combination of both lackluster defense as well offense, especially considering their cost.
My Macharius Battle Tank costs more or less the same as 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks, and it has nowhere near neither the survivability nor the firepower as 3 LRBT's - heck, it's outclassed by 2 LRBT's even!
If you gave the Macharius an invuln it would essentially become a Knight Paladin, except slower and without the melee-punch...
And the Valdor is an even worse offender in the "lacks-everything"-department.
For sure there are other reasons that certain imperial tanks are not good. Inefficient weapon options or another unit is cheaper and better- you could fix any unit just by dropping it to the appropriate pricing (that a fact). LR specifically though would be a lot better with a 4++ for the price you pay. It could reasonably stick around the whole game just by virtue of not getting shot at. A 4++ might not be the solution for every underperforming tank as you said a lot of units are bad for a lot of reasons.
Or you can just give a LR specific damage reducing or FNP stratagem. Say:
Unyielding Machine Spirit Play this stratagem when a LAND RAIDER unit in your army fails a save roll. Before allocating damage, roll a d6 then consult the results blah blah. This effect persists until the end of the phase this stratagem is played on.
Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.
Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
The issue is a combination of both lackluster defense as well offense, especially considering their cost.
My Macharius Battle Tank costs more or less the same as 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks, and it has nowhere near neither the survivability nor the firepower as 3 LRBT's - heck, it's outclassed by 2 LRBT's even!
If you gave the Macharius an invuln it would essentially become a Knight Paladin, except slower and without the melee-punch...
And the Valdor is an even worse offender in the "lacks-everything"-department.
For sure there are other reasons that certain imperial tanks are not good. Inefficient weapon options or another unit is cheaper and better- you could fix any unit just by dropping it to the appropriate pricing (that a fact). LR specifically though would be a lot better with a 4++ for the price you pay. It could reasonably stick around the whole game just by virtue of not getting shot at. A 4++ might not be the solution for every underperforming tank as you said a lot of units are bad for a lot of reasons.
Notice how they are all bad...the reason? Expensive without invune save.
Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
The issue is a combination of both lackluster defense as well offense, especially considering their cost.
My Macharius Battle Tank costs more or less the same as 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks, and it has nowhere near neither the survivability nor the firepower as 3 LRBT's - heck, it's outclassed by 2 LRBT's even!
If you gave the Macharius an invuln it would essentially become a Knight Paladin, except slower and without the melee-punch...
And the Valdor is an even worse offender in the "lacks-everything"-department.
For sure there are other reasons that certain imperial tanks are not good. Inefficient weapon options or another unit is cheaper and better- you could fix any unit just by dropping it to the appropriate pricing (that a fact). LR specifically though would be a lot better with a 4++ for the price you pay. It could reasonably stick around the whole game just by virtue of not getting shot at. A 4++ might not be the solution for every underperforming tank as you said a lot of units are bad for a lot of reasons.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.
Obscured isn't that much of a benefit when you're running a LR that wants to deliver it's passengers anywhere useful - it's too big to hide effectively in most cases.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.
Obscured isn't that much of a benefit when you're running a LR that wants to deliver it's passengers anywhere useful - it's too big to hide effectively in most cases.
Different tables I guess. I don't think I'd have too much of an issue.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.
What about a 4++, 3 more wounds, 8 S8 AP-4 Dd6/d6+2 within 12 multi-melta shots, a 2D3 LOS ignoring mortal wound spitting Soulburner Bombard, and the ability to eat things souls to regain wounds on a 5+ in cc?
Insectum7 wrote: I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.
What about a 4++, 3 more wounds, 8 S8 AP-4 Dd6/d6+2 within 12 multi-melta shots, a 2D3 LOS ignoring mortal wound spitting Soulburner Bombard, and the ability to eat things souls to regain wounds on a 5+ in cc?
Insectum7 wrote: I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.
What about a 4++, 3 more wounds, 8 S8 AP-4 Dd6/d6+2 within 12 multi-melta shots, a 2D3 LOS ignoring mortal wound spitting Soulburner Bombard, and the ability to eat things souls to regain wounds on a 5+ in cc?
Insectum7 wrote: I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.
What about a 4++, 3 more wounds, 8 S8 AP-4 Dd6/d6+2 within 12 multi-melta shots, a 2D3 LOS ignoring mortal wound spitting Soulburner Bombard, and the ability to eat things souls to regain wounds on a 5+ in cc?
What's the price tag on that?
Pricey, 380 PPM. Always remember the Spike Tax.
Oh that's not so bad at all, I was figuring it'd break 400. Interesting vehicle. Actually the 6 transport capacity combined with the short range on the Multimeltas is kind of a turnoff for me, but that seems like a pretty decent deal for a hefty linebreaker.
seems like quite the conclusion honestly. Just because they add terrain in the most expensive starter set and reduce table size doesn't make me think theres gonna be fixed layouts anytime soon.
And the assymetrical tables part was a second point.
Don't the tournaments already tell players where to place terrain? They're absorbing the tournament rules, and now standardizing terrain via startersets and board sales. I'll look later but I think 2nd Ed told you where to place the cardstock terrain that came with the box.,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The only way asymmetric tables work in competitive play is if the person who chooses the table side gives up the choice of first turn. GW very clearly rejected ITC's approach to choosing who goes first in favor of the random roll after deployment, so I don't see how asymmetric tables could possibly work in competitive play.
Or Bundling table edge with turn selection both. If you chose Side A you are the "attacker" and go first, if you chose Side B you are the "defender" and go second.
yukishiro1 wrote: The only way asymmetric tables work in competitive play is if the person who chooses the table side gives up the choice of first turn. GW very clearly rejected ITC's approach to choosing who goes first in favor of the random roll after deployment, so I don't see how asymmetric tables could possibly work in competitive play.
I'm mostly talking about non-competitive play being influenced by the competitive play.
Most of the popular batreps on youtube have a very "competitive" essence to them, with tables being mostly symmetrical (the outliers being SS88 and WintersSEO).
This makes it so that when playing casual games, people automatically make a symmetrical table (im guilty of that too) to reflect what they are used to seeing.
I agree that its more balanced to remove the map itself from the equation but i think its an interesting concept to explore.
The other reason people make symetrical tables is so they won't get hosed too hard if they don't get first choice on table edge.
As a general rule of thumb, anything over about 200ish points for a single model is getting into dangerous territory...
Why? What difference does it make if it's a single model, or 10 models with the same number of wounds/toughness/etc? Lets say - for the sake of argument - 5 wraithguard have 16 T8 Wounds, put out roughly similar firepower, and run about 280 points. What difference does it make if the "unit" is 1 model or 5? The number of models has a fairly to barely minimal impact. Are you suggesting no unit over 200 points should be good, or just the single model ones?
Insectum7 wrote: I'd be wary of giving up Obscured benefits for a 4++.
What about a 4++, 3 more wounds, 8 S8 AP-4 Dd6/d6+2 within 12 multi-melta shots, a 2D3 LOS ignoring mortal wound spitting Soulburner Bombard, and the ability to eat things souls to regain wounds on a 5+ in cc?
What's the price tag on that?
Pricey, 380 PPM. Always remember the Spike Tax.
Oh that's not so bad at all, I was figuring it'd break 400. Interesting vehicle. Actually the 6 transport capacity combined with the short range on the Multimeltas is kind of a turnoff for me, but that seems like a pretty decent deal for a hefty linebreaker.
I'm definitely going to bring mine out of retirement and try it out once the new multi-melta rules are in effect. Load it up with some combi-plasma Chosen and go burn some Loyalist Dogs.
I'm definitely going to bring mine out of retirement and try it out once the new multi-melta rules are in effect. Load it up with some combi-plasma Chosen and go burn some Loyalist Dogs.
Ah, but while a Achilles mounts 4 Multimeltas, a Crusader can carry 12, and three of them can fire twice at +1 to hit. Lol @ 30 Multimelta shots.
Probably not the smartest thing to do, but fun to point out.
Edit: Then stick a Multimelta on the Crusader for a total of 32.
Insectum7 wrote: Ah, but while a Achilles mounts 4 Multimeltas, a Crusader can carry 12, and three of them can fire twice at +1 to hit. Lol @ 30 Multimelta shots.
Probably not the smartest thing to do, but fun to point out.
Edit: Then stick a Multimelta on the Crusader for a total of 32.
Insectum7 wrote: Ah, but while a Achilles mounts 4 Multimeltas, a Crusader can carry 12, and three of them can fire twice at +1 to hit. Lol @ 30 Multimelta shots.
Probably not the smartest thing to do, but fun to point out.
Edit: Then stick a Multimelta on the Crusader for a total of 32.
Insectum7 wrote: Ah, but while a Achilles mounts 4 Multimeltas, a Crusader can carry 12, and three of them can fire twice at +1 to hit. Lol @ 30 Multimelta shots.
Probably not the smartest thing to do, but fun to point out.
Edit: Then stick a Multimelta on the Crusader for a total of 32.
Which crusader can carry 12 multi meltas ??
I think Insectum crammed three Devastator Squads inside.
450+ pts of passengers plus 300+ in Transport being better than a single 335pts model is kinda expected.
And while 3 of those MM guys can be buffed by their Sarge to hit better, all of them are still moving once they disembark, so most of the shots will be at 4+.
I'm definitely going to bring mine out of retirement and try it out once the new multi-melta rules are in effect. Load it up with some combi-plasma Chosen and go burn some Loyalist Dogs.
Ah, but while a Achilles mounts 4 Multimeltas, a Crusader can carry 12, and three of them can fire twice at +1 to hit. Lol @ 30 Multimelta shots.
Probably not the smartest thing to do, but fun to point out.
Edit: Then stick a Multimelta on the Crusader for a total of 32.
Yes, nice! You love your Devastators don't you? Though you'd better not fluff the rolls and make sure to kill the Achilles, as if it's only grievously wounded it will be charging in after unloading its now less effective guns. Did I mention that hellforged vehicles WS gets better as they're bracketed? How does 5 S8 AP-3 D1 WS3 attacks on the charge eating the souls of anything it kills to regain wounds on a 5+ sound? Not to mention all those Chosen overcharging their plasma into those Devastator squads before charging in chainswords swinging. I like the way you think. That would be a fun fight.
Hmm, no, that's not the reason as they'd still be bad with a 5++ or even a 4++.
Very few weapons have AP-4 or AP-5. Tipycally the LR will still rolling 5+ or even 4+ against most of the anti tank weapons. Like it had an invuln, so lacking that invuln is actually pretty irrelevant. Invuln matters on vehicles like the Battlewagon which is a 4+ model, not on the 2+ LR.
I'm quite convinced that LR are good, and always have been throughout the entire 8th edition. Mine never really disappointed me, although I'd only consider a Crusader as a solid option among the LRs, codex ones at least.
I think Insectum crammed three Devastator Squads inside.
450+ pts of passengers plus 300+ in Transport being better than a single 335pts model is kinda expected.
And while 3 of those MM guys can be buffed by their Sarge to hit better, all of them are still moving once they disembark, so most of the shots will be at 4+.
Unless they're UM in Tac Doctrine, which is what I run but it feels dirty AF, haha.
I'm definitely going to bring mine out of retirement and try it out once the new multi-melta rules are in effect. Load it up with some combi-plasma Chosen and go burn some Loyalist Dogs.
Ah, but while a Achilles mounts 4 Multimeltas, a Crusader can carry 12, and three of them can fire twice at +1 to hit. Lol @ 30 Multimelta shots.
Probably not the smartest thing to do, but fun to point out.
Edit: Then stick a Multimelta on the Crusader for a total of 32.
Yes, nice! You love your Devastators don't you? Though you'd better not fluff the rolls and make sure to kill the Achilles, as if it's only grievously wounded it will be charging in after unloading its now less effective guns. Did I mention that hellforged vehicles WS gets better as they're bracketed? How does 5 S8 AP-3 D1 WS3 attacks on the charge eating the souls of anything it kills to regain wounds on a 5+ sound? Not to mention all those Chosen overcharging their plasma into those Devastator squads before charging in chainswords swinging. I like the way you think. That would be a fun fight.
Hehe, yeah it's a little ridiculous. Especially since I don't think I've used a Crusader since 3rd edition. I like the standard Lascannon one the best.
I'm definitely someone who uses that carrying capacity though. Protecting troops, lowering drop counts, moving them around etc.
Very few weapons have AP-4 or AP-5. Tipycally the LR will still rolling 5+ or even 4+ against most of the anti tank weapons. Like it had an invuln, so lacking that invuln is actually pretty irrelevant. Invuln matters on vehicles like the Battlewagon which is a 4+ model, not on the 2+ LR.
I'm quite convinced that LR are good, and always have been throughout the entire 8th edition. Mine never really disappointed me, although I'd only consider a Crusader as a solid option among the LRs, codex ones at least.
You mean like Melta Weapons that appear to be the soup du jour of this edition's meta the way people are gushing over MM's going to 2 shots and planning Landspeeders, Attack Bikes, and ATVs?
You mean like Melta Weapons that appear to be the soup du jour of this edition's meta the way people are gushing over MM's going to 2 shots and planning Landspeeders, Attack Bikes, and ATVs?
The same melta that is still a rumour, and no codex has it, yes. I understand it's overpowered and it will break vehicles but it's also extremely recent, while people complained about LRs durability since ages. And not everyone has those meltas. In fact the majority of super buffed melta platforms belongs to the same faction that can field LRs.
I may be biased because I can't accept playing imperium vs imperium though.
If you have a MM at two shot in rules produced by GW, and then a guy from GW says something that only makes sense, if a devastator squads shots 8 times with its MM, then I think it stops being a rumor or a leak.
And saying the MM isn't 2 shot now, is like saying that snow isn't down yet, so there is no need to worry about winter.
nekooni wrote: It's not a rumor, it's a leak. It will happen, we just don't know how much a MM will be points wise.
Yeah, rumour wasn't the correct word but that melta still doesn't exist at the moment.
True, and since we don't have points available we can't tell if it's broken or not. With GW a new MM could end up anywhere from 20 to 80 points, that's how bad they are at this.
And Noone will be able to convince me that MM are broken if they're more than 40 pts. 35-40 would be the most we should pay, and that would be pricing it for Salamanders specifically.
Blackie wrote: Lascannons are currently 5 points cheaper, 15/20 vs 20/25.
Multimeltas gain better damage and become cheaper? Lol.
Better damage at 1/4 of the range, and max out at half the range. Someone earlier talked about throwing three squads in a crusader, but I don't think that's the play. 3 squads in 3 drop pods landing on Turn 1 9" from 1-3 armored targets could be the way to go. Dev Doctrine even makes them -5 AP
24 (or 30 with cherubs) shots, 12+ (15+) hits, 6+ (7.5) successful wound rolls - no armor saves at -5 means 6+ * 3.5 (rerollable)+ wounds = 21+ (25+) wounds vs T8 2+ on the alpha strike, and you've potentially got four corners, and three units in their deployment zone with a nasty 24" bite.
Better damage at 1/4 of the range, and max out at half the range. Someone earlier talked about throwing three squads in a crusader, but I don't think that's the play. 3 squads in 3 drop pods landing on Turn 1 9" from 1-3 armored targets could be the way to go. Dev Doctrine even makes them -5 AP
How many points are those 3 devs in drop pods though? After their first turn of action they'll likely get crushed or tied up at the very least while pods are 200ish points of useless stuff once deployed. If they manage to kill a 285 points land raider and then they just die they don't sound like a solid option. Against armies with massed T5-6 vehicles or T7-8 with 5++ or 4++ like orks or drukhari they wouldn't even get their points back.
24W on a T8 vehicle means that they could barely destroy a 155 points Battlewagon with a 5++ given by a KFF or the Kustom Job. This assuming that all the meltas would fire within juciy range, which is unlikely.
I would never take more than a single pod of those devs, but at this point I'd just stick with Long Fangs and lascannons since no way I will buy any primaris.
Blackie wrote: Lascannons are currently 5 points cheaper, 15/20 vs 20/25.
Multimeltas gain better damage and become cheaper? Lol.
Better damage at 1/4 of the range, and max out at half the range. Someone earlier talked about throwing three squads in a crusader, but I don't think that's the play. 3 squads in 3 drop pods landing on Turn 1 9" from 1-3 armored targets could be the way to go. Dev Doctrine even makes them -5 AP
24 (or 30 with cherubs) shots, 12+ (15+) hits, 6+ (7.5) successful wound rolls - no armor saves at -5 means 6+ * 3.5 (rerollable)+ wounds = 21+ (25+) wounds vs T8 2+ on the alpha strike, and you've potentially got four corners, and three units in their deployment zone with a nasty 24" bite.
So... welcome back suicide meltas? It's not exactly a new thing to do, it's expensive as sin and you can still just screen against it.
I would think the flaming (Redeemer) would be very good. Ride forward with a potent payload to take the middel of the map. The flamers are insnaly punishing vs infantery. Multimelta and assualt cannon can do some work as well.
How many points are those 3 devs in drop pods though? After their first turn of action they'll likely get crushed or tied up at the very least while pods are 200ish points of useless stuff once deployed. If they manage to kill a 285 points land raider and then they just die they don't sound like a solid option. Against armies with massed T5-6 vehicles or T7-8 with 5++ or 4++ like orks or drukhari they wouldn't even get their points back.
24W on a T8 vehicle means that they could barely destroy a 155 points Battlewagon with a 5++ given by a KFF or the Kustom Job. This assuming that all the meltas would fire within juciy range, which is unlikely.
One Dev/Pod combo is about halfway between your battle wagon and the land raider at current points costs.
Why yes, I was making the point that land raiders, repulsors and main battle tank type units should have some sort of invuln. Pointing out a battle wagon costing half the points has a better chance at surviving just drives it home even more.
Also don’t forget you still have 15 open seats on those pods that are now “free” because we baked the cost into the MM alpha strike. Even if we assume GW isn’t ready to end the separate but equal transport segregation between Primaris and old marines, 15 seats of captain/lieutenant bubbles, assault/vanguard/sternguard/tacticals/command (depending on what they do to them) plus command etc squads.. I’m doing the math on my pants leg here, but I figure that could be about half army - including some re roll bubble - 30 infantry, 3 vehicles, 9+ units - landing on the smoking crater of what used to be the strong point of my opponent’s army and I could still have 30 infantry sitting in my deployment zone including potentially another command bubble.
So... welcome back suicide meltas? It's not exactly a new thing to do, it's expensive as sin and you can still just screen against it.
Cheaper than the land raider.
And not necessarily suicide. I think the last time we were doing suicide Melta it was sternguard in a pod and transports were limited to one unit + attached characters - which you wouldn’t do because they were suiciding. Now they can ride along without attaching, as can other entire squads especially if you want to avoid Blast if it becomes a thing.
Not to say we won’t some some cycles repeat. Drop pod door arguments. Nerfing turn 1 alpha strikes, and the never ending cycle of it being too advantageous in this game to go first.
Things to watch for in the codex:
Changes to Drop Pod Assault vis-a-vis Turn 1
Changes to the drop pod not-within 9” footprint on now smaller tables.
Mixed generation capabilities for Primaris/Old Marines in the new codex 5 Devs + 5 Intercessors/Reivers?
An invuln for the Land Raiders and/or Repulsors.
Edit to add: oooh! Bladeguard! If they allow mixed generations in drop pods use some of the empty seats for bladeguard. Protect the MMdevs with power swording storm shielding 18 inch pistoling characters and units.
As an ork player I'd be glad to face half the opponent army coming by 3 pods, I wouldn't be scared at all. It would be easier for me to kill everything coming from those pods than for him to even net half of the points those units cost in their alpha strike.
Keep also in mind that pods have 10 seats so if you bring characters along with melta devs you can't add another unit in the same transport, just more characters or more bolter devs.
As a SW player I don't know as I don't play imperium vs imperium by principle. Maybe against other imperium armies an invuln could be handy for a LR, in practise I tipycally roll a 5+ save for it anyway. AP-4 exists, also for xeons, but it isn't common at all. That's why I don't think an invuln for a LR/repulsor would make any significant difference, people that currently avoid it will still avoid it. Unless it's a big invuln, like 4++ or better, but in that case those tanks would be overpowered and it won't gonna happen anyway.
Blackie wrote: As an ork player I'd be glad to face half the opponent army coming by 3 pods, I wouldn't be scared at all. It would be easier for me to kill everything coming from those pods than for him to even net half of the points those units cost in their alpha strike.
Keep also in mind that pods have 10 seats so if you bring characters along with melta devs you can't add another unit in the same transport, just more characters or more bolter devs.
As a SW player I don't know as I don't play imperium vs imperium by principle. Maybe against other imperium armies an invuln could be handy for a LR, in practise I tipycally roll a 5+ save for it anyway. AP-4 exists, also for xeons, but it isn't common at all. That's why I don't think an invuln for a LR/repulsor would make any significant difference, people that currently avoid it will still avoid it. Unless it's a big invuln, like 4++ or better, but in that case those tanks would be overpowered and it won't gonna happen anyway.
As an orc player you don’t have the T8 2+ no invuln LR equivalent we’re talking about, And if you’re not worried about half the army using what basically amounts to a huge move shortcut on the first half of turn 1...that sounds like more of a balance issue than an alpha strike land raiders issue.
Yeah, I mean, the list and tactics you proposed isn't TAC at all, it will definitely struggle against a lot of armies, that's why I wouldn't take it seriously when it comes to LRs' durability.
Breton wrote: As an orc player you don’t have the T8 2+ no invuln LR equivalent we’re talking about, And if you’re not worried about half the army using what basically amounts to a huge move shortcut on the first half of turn 1...that sounds like more of a balance issue than an alpha strike land raiders issue.
Funny, people kept telling me that battlewagons are ork landraiders for the last ten years. I guess it doesn't fit the narrative now.
Breton wrote: As an orc player you don’t have the T8 2+ no invuln LR equivalent we’re talking about, And if you’re not worried about half the army using what basically amounts to a huge move shortcut on the first half of turn 1...that sounds like more of a balance issue than an alpha strike land raiders issue.
Funny, people kept telling me that battlewagons are ork landraiders for the last ten years. I guess it doesn't fit the narrative now.
When you Played orks and a faction with LR access, no. It ain't.
It is at most a leman Russ crossbreed with a Truck.
My themed black templars list runs 3 crusader land raiders. It has done incredibly well in my local area because 2 are filled with 2x5 obspec troops and one has 5 terms with ss/th and t1 they get a 4++ thanks to black templar relic. Start with a single five man team in 2 of the raiders and the terms in the 3rd. The other 2 5 man teams hide behind the raiders where they can't be targeted. If my opponent does kill 1 raider there is still enough transport capacity in the other 2 to get all the troops up the field, and if i go first I can load the 2 teams up and really spread out some.
In 9th they are durable, fast enough to get to mid board objectives, put out a ton of shots, and even if i lose 1 t1 there are still 2 of them there doing their thing. Should every one run 3? No. But they can be quite interesting to play with and will freak your opponent out lol.
Alternatively you can easily get one at -1 to hit if chaos (mark of nurgle and spell or dark apostle) making them harder to deal with as they stand out in the open and do their thing. You can even give them a 5+++ as death guard now. Mathhammer yes they are not the best. But don't underestimate these guys.
Breton wrote: As an orc player you don’t have the T8 2+ no invuln LR equivalent we’re talking about, And if you’re not worried about half the army using what basically amounts to a huge move shortcut on the first half of turn 1...that sounds like more of a balance issue than an alpha strike land raiders issue.
Funny, people kept telling me that battlewagons are ork landraiders for the last ten years. I guess it doesn't fit the narrative now.
In some ways they are, in some ways they’re not thus the T8 2+ no invuln tank qualities chosen for “equivalent”. The big model ground transport qualities would make them an equivalent.
In some ways they are, in some ways they’re not thus the T8 2+ no invuln tank qualities chosen for “equivalent”. The big model ground transport qualities would make them an equivalent.
Well the full kitted gun wagon is basically the LR equivalent. Lots of firepower, similar amount of points, stats and transport capacity. It's 50ish points cheaper because it's BS5+ and 4+ save. The cheapest weapon isn't as it's basically a transport with CC abilities, no firepower, and it's almost 50% cheaper than a LR.
In some ways they are, in some ways they’re not thus the T8 2+ no invuln tank qualities chosen for “equivalent”. The big model ground transport qualities would make them an equivalent.
Well the full kitted gun wagon is basically the LR equivalent. Lots of firepower, similar amount of points, stats and transport capacity. It's 50ish points cheaper because it's BS5+ and 4+ save. The cheapest weapon isn't as it's basically a transport with CC abilities, no firepower, and it's almost 50% cheaper than a LR.
Maybe Army Builder is off, but I can't make a Gun Wagon for even 200 points(70%), let alone 300. The Battle Wagon (T7 not T8)comes in at about 230, or 80% or so of a Land Raider/Repulsor. A LR/Repulsor is going to cost you about 35 obsec wounds. SM can't do that very often. They also have no cheap T8 to go with it say making Terminators/Aggressors and/or Gravis T8. S/T 8 is - I believe - a cut off both due to the rules and psychology. I'd guess most of us divide weapons/Targets into four categories -
Infantry - targets for basic guns like Lasrifles/bolters/etc
Elite Infantry - Grav/Plasma/etc
Light vehicles - Plasma/Grav/etc
Heavy Tanks/Vehicles - Las/Melta/etc
Obviously most people will more readily "downgrade" a weapon category before they "upgrade" i.e. they'll use S8 on T7 before they'll use S7 on T8. This means all the S8+ weapons are reserved for T8 targets barring some really wonky tactics requiring immediacy. When you only have one T8 target in your army, it might as well come with a big flashing light that spells out Shoot Me First in morse code.
SM/Necrons/Custodes/GK/SM Type Armies only really have the expensive LR/Repulsor
IG have multiple moderate priced Leman Russ plus the LOW Swords/Blades/Hammers.
Orks have moderate priced T8, plus the -anauts.
Tau and Eldar don't really have any T8 to be on the island by itself to begin with and "real" anti-tank is already checking down to secondary targets.
Sisters T8 is cheap.
Nids are in similar shape as IG - their T8 is moderately priced.
Knights are almost entirely T8 and have the issue in reverse - their T7 is going to be sucking up all the bolter shells because what else will you shoot at so they get plinked to death.
These T8 Heavy Vehicles need to either be moderate enough in cost (Leman Russ style) you can field a few and still field a balanced army, insanely durable(invulns, FNP, etc), or have a cheap enough T8 "screeen" there will be a couple units of them out there making you think twice about a focus fire (i.e. the T8 heavy infantry Termies/Aggressors).
A stock gun wagon with Kill kannon is 175 points. Take 4 big shootas and a lobba and it's 215 points. Grabbin klaw and grot riggers puts it at 225. 60-65 (cause the klaw is useless) points cheaper than the tipycal LR Crusader I field. But also eats up a CP to work, it's gargabe without Da Boomer kustom job. The better BS, armor and weapons plus the spared CP are absolutely worthy of that +60ish points.
Upgrading T7 to T8 doesn't cost points on BW, just the open topped special rule.
Blackie wrote: A stock gun wagon with Kill kannon is 175 points. Take 4 big shootas and a lobba and it's 215 points. Grabbin klaw and grot riggers puts it at 225. 60-65 (cause the klaw is useless) points cheaper than the tipycal LR Crusader I field. But also eats up a CP to work, it's gargabe without Da Boomer kustom job. The better BS, armor and weapons plus the spared CP are absolutely worthy of that +60ish points.
Upgrading T7 to T8 doesn't cost points on BW, just the open topped special rule.
Eh, anything but the upgraded killkannon, grot riggers and maybe spending the last 5-15 points on big shootas are trash upgrades that no one would ever use though. So in reality a boomer wagon is 180.
Jidmah wrote: A battlewagon can be made T8 at the cost of open topped.
And it's still at worst medium priced not expensive. A Leman Russ is 170ish after rounding/fudging. That's a much smaller percentage of army than a 300 point Land Raider and you can easily have multiples of T8 on the board, and on opposite sides of the board all but forcing split fire from s8+
The gunwagon is a trash unit that can be ok by paying 1 CP. It's not something that players want to spam, or even a choice among the top performing lists. Sure it's cheaper than a LR but it's not a much better unit overall. Between the Gunwagon and the LR I'd always prefer the LR, which is basically what I usually do and have done in 8th: I always bring the LR Crusader with my SW and only sometimes my Da Boomer. The latter exists only since march 2020, before SotB litterally no one even considered bringing a gunwagon.
SM can spam cheap T7 quite easily though. Razorbacks for example are 120 points, two of them are extremely more resilient than a single battlewagon and also have a significant amount of firepower. They even don't eat up precious slots as they're just dedicated transports.
Predators, flyers, dreads... plenty of not too expensive armored units that add redundancy for a LR.
Jidmah wrote: A battlewagon can be made T8 at the cost of open topped.
And it's still at worst medium priced not expensive. A Leman Russ is 170ish after rounding/fudging. That's a much smaller percentage of army than a 300 point Land Raider and you can easily have multiples of T8 on the board, and on opposite sides of the board all but forcing split fire from s8+
Oh, I agree with the rest of your post, I just wanted to correct this.
As for the T8 thing, it really works a bit differently for orks than it does for guard. You can just flood the board with any mix of bikes, artillery and koptas(T5), buggies(T6), MANz(T4), dreads, trukks(T7), wagons(T7/8) and nauts(T8) and still archive target saturation because almost all of the high powered weapons have a similar efficiency against all of these. Most of my better opponents actually have stopped killing nauts or wagons first, because there is a chance that these will survive the turn thanks to the KFF, while the same amount of firepower will definitely kill two or more buggies or clear a unit of MANz from an objective. Unlike guard, orks are build around glass cannons instead of durability so easy and secure kills are better than an optimal use of your guns.
Jidmah wrote: A battlewagon can be made T8 at the cost of open topped.
And it's still at worst medium priced not expensive. A Leman Russ is 170ish after rounding/fudging. That's a much smaller percentage of army than a 300 point Land Raider and you can easily have multiples of T8 on the board, and on opposite sides of the board all but forcing split fire from s8+
Oh, I agree with the rest of your post, I just wanted to correct this.
As for the T8 thing, it really works a bit differently for orks than it does for guard. You can just flood the board with any mix of bikes, artillery and koptas(T5), buggies(T6), MANz(T4), dreads, trukks(T7), wagons(T7/8) and nauts(T8) and still archive target saturation because almost all of the high powered weapons have a similar efficiency against all of these. Most of my better opponents actually have stopped killing nauts or wagons first, because there is a chance that these will survive the turn thanks to the KFF, while the same amount of firepower will definitely kill two or more buggies or clear a unit of MANz from an objective.
Unlike guard, orks are build around glass cannons instead of durability so easy and secure kills are better than an optimal use of your guns.
That's the wonky tactical thing. And T8 with invuln is part of my point and three options that make T8 work.16 T8 2+ wounds is 5 lascannon damage rolls, is 6.5ish hits is about 10 shots. 4/6/9 with Dev Doctrine. So, no unless/until they add more targets or more survivability to the Land Raider it's not going to be good this edition.
The Land Raider was designed to get a powerful squad from your force where it needs to be, and provide support fire. If your squad inside does not pack a big punch, then don't take the Land Raider. I had great success with a Land Raider Redeemer, 3 Rhinos in a Space Wolves list back in the day in 5th edition. If they bring the assault transport rules back that would be amazing and another option to really get into assault instead of teleporting your Terminators. You can still get charges in nowadays, its just slightly more difficult to do and requires patience, unless your against an aggressive opponent.
So, no unless/until they add more targets or more survivability to the Land Raider it's not going to be good this edition.
This is true for every tank/big model in the game though. One or two are easy to kill, you always need target saturation. And SM have tons of effective and not so expensive units that can do so.
Crusaderobr wrote: The Land Raider was designed to get a powerful squad from your force where it needs to be, and provide support fire. If your squad inside does not pack a big punch, then don't take the Land Raider. I had great success with a Land Raider Redeemer, 3 Rhinos in a Space Wolves list back in the day in 5th edition. If they bring the assault transport rules back that would be amazing and another option to really get into assault instead of teleporting your Terminators. You can still get charges in nowadays, its just slightly more difficult to do and requires patience, unless your against an aggressive opponent.
In 5th edition you had Armor Value, Glance/Pen, engine/weapon destroyed etc - vehicles had on-average higher survivability across the board. 10 lascanon shots might not only not destroy the vehicle, it might not even meaningfully damage it.
Blackie wrote: This is true for every tank/big model in the game though. One or two are easy to kill, you always need target saturation. And SM have tons of effective and not so expensive units that can do so.
Oh? What cheap but dangerous T8 units do Space Marines have that could pull rate of S8+ fire off of a Land Raider/Repulsor? Anything less than T8 is getting plasma/etc not lascanons or melta.
Oh? What cheap but dangerous T8 units do Space Marines have that could pull rate of S8+ fire off of a Land Raider/Repulsor? Anything less than T8 is getting plasma/etc not lascanons or melta.
As Jidsmah explained before, you don't need multiple T8 bodies to have armor redundancy. Spamming T5, T6, T7 and T8 models all together works for ork players, it could work for SM as well. It's in fact what I'm already doing with my SW and I've done it in the entire 8th edition. Lascannons don't care if a model is T6, T7 or T8. Meltas definitely like to wound on 3s so T7 and lower armor models could still be juicy targets for them.
It's before that, like in 7th, that my vehicles were nothing but drop pods.
Oh? What cheap but dangerous T8 units do Space Marines have that could pull rate of S8+ fire off of a Land Raider/Repulsor? Anything less than T8 is getting plasma/etc not lascanons or melta.
As Jidsmah explained before, you don't need multiple T8 bodies to have armor redundancy. Spamming T5, T6, T7 and T8 models all together works for ork players, it could work for SM as well. It's in fact what I'm already doing with my SW and I've done it in the entire 8th edition. Lascannons don't care if a model is T6, T7 or T8. Meltas definitely like to wound on 3s so T7 and lower armor models could still be juicy targets for them.
It's before that, like in 7th, that my vehicles were nothing but drop pods.
And as I pointed out if T8 is on the board S8+ is gunning for them first. T7 is secondary target saturation for S8+. Jidsmah even admitted that as part of his point because his T8 has an invuln -
1) Only the "good" players are skipping the T8 invuln and the thus less than good players are still plinking at his T8.
2) They're only doing this because the invuln makes targeting the T8 less attractive - which is again my point: LR will not be "good" until they're less attractive to shoot at or something else is as attractive.
3) SM players cannot spam T8 models. It will be hard enough to spam T7 models because of FOC and points restrictions - Rhino hull variants do not squadron anymore, you can't get 3 Predators for one HS choice, Brigades cap at 3HS meaning if you fill the other two with Preds that's no Hellblasters or Devs, and Elites were already overstocked.
3) None of those T8 helpers will apply to a Space Marine army throwing down a single T8 model without an invuln.
Oh? What cheap but dangerous T8 units do Space Marines have that could pull rate of S8+ fire off of a Land Raider/Repulsor? Anything less than T8 is getting plasma/etc not lascanons or melta.
As Jidsmah explained before, you don't need multiple T8 bodies to have armor redundancy. Spamming T5, T6, T7 and T8 models all together works for ork players, it could work for SM as well. It's in fact what I'm already doing with my SW and I've done it in the entire 8th edition. Lascannons don't care if a model is T6, T7 or T8. Meltas definitely like to wound on 3s so T7 and lower armor models could still be juicy targets for them.
It's before that, like in 7th, that my vehicles were nothing but drop pods.
And as I pointed out if T8 is on the board S8+ is gunning for them first. T7 is secondary target saturation for S8+. Jidsmah even admitted that as part of his point because his T8 has an invuln - 1) Only the "good" players are skipping the T8 invuln and the thus less than good players are still plinking at his T8. 2) They're only doing this because the invuln makes targeting the T8 less attractive - which is again my point: LR will not be "good" until they're less attractive to shoot at or something else is as attractive. 3) SM players cannot spam T8 models. It will be hard enough to spam T7 models because of FOC and points restrictions - Rhino hull variants do not squadron anymore, you can't get 3 Predators for one HS choice, Brigades cap at 3HS meaning if you fill the other two with Preds that's no Hellblasters or Devs, and Elites were already overstocked. 3) None of those T8 helpers will apply to a Space Marine army throwing down a single T8 model without an invuln.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. All my vehicles have a 6++ save and most of them tend to be underneath the KFF umbrella for a 5++. 1) People are not shooting my T8 models because they have tons of wounds and S8 weaponry has a 50/50 chance to bounce of that toughness. If you deal 14 damage to a boomer wagon or morkanaut, you have archived nothing for a huge investment. And even if you down a transport wagon with MANz inside, you have already spent much of the shooting that is good at killing MANz. If you shoot the same weapons at buggies, you are almost guaranteed to take out two or three of them, which will knock out tons of shooting and possibly a melee threat. 2) Land Raiders still have 2+ armor, while ork armor is usually 4+ unless it's a walker. Against plasma, battle cannons, lascannons, autocannons, destroyers and many other multi-damage weapons this tends to be the same or better. You also don't lose a whole a bunch of wounds by random stubbers shooting a land raider. 3) You didn't understand him, or me, correctly. You are not supposed to spam T7 and T8 models. You are supposed to spam multi-wound models. Gravis units, terminators, land speeders, primaris bikes work just as well as other vehicles. The landraider will either draw significant amount of fire from those units who are weak to the very same weaponry, or it will not and be able to operate unhindered. However, I can imagine that this might not work well because marines pay more points per wound and therefore can't put enough wounds on the table. 4) You can't expect a drop a model with no synergy to the rest of your army into it and hope for it to do well. Invulnerable saves have nothing to do with this.
In the end, it boils down to the landraider simply paying too much for what it does. It's ability to transport terminators is nearly worthless due to no-risk deep strikes and the loss of the assault ramp, and four lascannons plus two heavy bolters simply aren't worth 285 points. That's almost the same price as a morkanaut which has vastly better shooting, deadly melee and a KFF to protect nearby units, comparing it to a repulsor executioner seems like a bad joke. And it's not the durability that's causing the problems. My Death Guard can have a landraider with 2+/5++/5+++ and it's still a waste of points, because all you get for all these points is four lascannons. A quad las pred is 170, a landraider should be no more than 220, probably less because the predator sucks as well and should not be used as a benchmark.
You cannot spam predators but you can spam razorbacks. With dreads and flyers you'll have tons of vehicles to provide target saturation for a LR. I'm not even counting all the possible T5+ multiwounds models SM have in their roster.
It is very possible to 1-shot a LR, although it's not always automatic outside tournament level gaming. If it happens it means I have my Stormfang Gunship and 3 Razorbacks alive. A good tradeoff.
If the LR is alive because the opponent gunned down other vehicles I have its 40 anti infantry shots, plus wulfen and the other 5-6 embarked dudes get closer to the action.
The LR simply doesn't have many synergy with lots of SM builds, especially those ones who rely on the most recent stuff and pointwise it's definitely not among the best units available in uber-competitive codexes like SM ones. It doesn't mean it needs and invuln or it's a trash unit.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. All my vehicles have a 6++ save and most of them tend to be underneath the KFF umbrella for a 5++.
1) People are not shooting my T8 models because they have tons of wounds and S8 weaponry has a 50/50 chance to bounce of that toughness. If you deal 14 damage to a boomer wagon or morkanaut, you have archived nothing for a huge investment. And even if you down a transport wagon with MANz inside, you have already spent much of the shooting that is good at killing MANz. If you shoot the same weapons at buggies, you are almost guaranteed to take out two or three of them, which will knock out tons of shooting and possibly a melee threat.
2) Land Raiders still have 2+ armor, while ork armor is usually 4+ unless it's a walker. Against plasma, battle cannons, lascannons, autocannons, destroyers and many other multi-damage weapons this tends to be the same or better. You also don't lose a whole a bunch of wounds by random stubbers shooting a land raider.
3) You didn't understand him, or me, correctly. You are not supposed to spam T7 and T8 models. You are supposed to spam multi-wound models. Gravis units, terminators, land speeders, primaris bikes work just as well as other vehicles. The landraider will either draw significant amount of fire from those units who are weak to the very same weaponry, or it will not and be able to operate unhindered. However, I can imagine that this might not work well because marines pay more points per wound and therefore can't put enough wounds on the table.
4) You can't expect a drop a model with no synergy to the rest of your army into it and hope for it to do well. Invulnerable saves have nothing to do with this.
In the end, it boils down to the landraider simply paying too much for what it does. It's ability to transport terminators is nearly worthless due to no-risk deep strikes and the loss of the assault ramp, and four lascannons plus two heavy bolters simply aren't worth 285 points. That's almost the same price as a morkanaut which has vastly better shooting, deadly melee and a KFF to protect nearby units, comparing it to a repulsor executioner seems like a bad joke.
And it's not the durability that's causing the problems. My Death Guard can have a landraider with 2+/5++/5+++ and it's still a waste of points, because all you get for all these points is four lascannons. A quad las pred is 170, a landraider should be no more than 220, probably less because the predator sucks as well and should not be used as a benchmark.
1) So they're going to shoot at it with something that has a 67% to bounce off instead?
2) Melta is -4. Lascannon is -3 (-4 with Dev Discipline) A 2+ -4 is.. a wound the same as your 4+ Just without an invuln A 2+ vs a lascannon without Dev Discipline is a 6+
3) People are not shooting a T5 Aggressor or Terminator squad with a Multi-melta or Lascannon if a LR/Repulsor is also a viable target when S5 D3D Grav and S7 Rapid Fire Plasma will do them just fine.
4) The fact that a Landraider or Repulsor doesn't have any target priority synergy with the rest of the army and that's why it won't be good is pretty much my point. If you throw down a LR or Repulsor very little ends up in the same primary target bucket it does. In a Primaris-only world nothing does. The only other T8 that I can think of in a SM world is the Ironclad Dread and the Vindicator. The Ironclad Dread is slow, and short/medium ranged at best. It's still a primary target, but it's easily in line behind a LR/Repulsor, AND it's in the Elites slot, Vindicators did get better, but they have the same problem as the Predators being in the Heavy Support Slot.
Making Terminators/Aggressors/Gravis(maybe?) T8 2+ no invuln(unless Storm Shield) would actually be nice and solve more than a few problems - you've got target priority synergy, and you restore Termies to something other than lasgun pincushions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: You cannot spam predators but you can spam razorbacks. With dreads and flyers you'll have tons of vehicles to provide target saturation for a LR. I'm not even counting all the possible T5+ multiwounds models SM have in their roster.
The game has definite thresholds/brackets built into at S/T 4, 7, and 8. Spamming 7 expecting it to save 8 isn't going to work very well.
It is very possible to 1-shot a LR, although it's not always automatic outside tournament level gaming. If it happens it means I have my Stormfang Gunship and 3 Razorbacks alive. A good tradeoff.
The guns prioritizing LR on turn 1 are unlikely to be the same ones prioritizing T7 razorbacks
If the LR is alive because the opponent gunned down other vehicles I have its 40 anti infantry shots, plus wulfen and the other 5-6 embarked dudes get closer to the action.
If they roll all 1's you can have it all. If you're loading the LR with troops its even more of a fire magnet, you'll get to blow up the landraider, one or two dudes inside, and leave them stuck on their own side of the board.
The LR simply doesn't have many synergy with lots of SM builds, especially those ones who rely on the most recent stuff and pointwise it's definitely not among the best units available in uber-competitive codexes like SM ones. It doesn't mean it needs and invuln or it's a trash unit.
Again, not having synergy in the target priority matrix is exactly my point. I didn't say it was trash, I said it won't be "good" until that's fixed. And it's not good. 3 Razorbacks (2 TLLC, and 1 TLHB) replicates the firepower (of the normal LR) is only slightly more expensive, and is 3 units with nearly double the wounds spamming the T7 target bucket instead of 1 on an island in the T8 bucket. The only benefit the LR has over that is carrying Terminators especially now that POTMS is redunant/gone (assuming it stays gone which I doubt).
Breton wrote: 2) Melta is -4. Lascannon is -3 (-4 with Dev Discipline) A 2+ -4 is.. a wound the same as your 4+ Just without an invuln A 2+ vs a lascannon without Dev Discipline is a 6+
That's not how the AP works out.
A 2+ Save vs AP -4 ends up at 6+. A 2+ Save vs AP -3 is a 5+.
Breton wrote: 2) Melta is -4. Lascannon is -3 (-4 with Dev Discipline) A 2+ -4 is.. a wound the same as your 4+ Just without an invuln A 2+ vs a lascannon without Dev Discipline is a 6+
That's not how the AP works out.
A 2+ Save vs AP -4 ends up at 6+. A 2+ Save vs AP -3 is a 5+.
Breton wrote: 1) So they're going to shoot at it with something that has a 67% to bounce off instead?
2) Melta is -4. Lascannon is -3 (-4 with Dev Discipline) A 2+ -4 is.. a wound the same as your 4+ Just without an invuln A 2+ vs a lascannon without Dev Discipline is a 6+
3) People are not shooting a T5 Aggressor or Terminator squad with a Multi-melta or Lascannon if a LR/Repulsor is also a viable target when S5 D3D Grav and S7 Rapid Fire Plasma will do them just fine.
4) The fact that a Landraider or Repulsor doesn't have any target priority synergy with the rest of the army and that's why it won't be good is pretty much my point. If you throw down a LR or Repulsor very little ends up in the same primary target bucket it does. In a Primaris-only world nothing does. The only other T8 that I can think of in a SM world is the Ironclad Dread and the Vindicator. The Ironclad Dread is slow, and short/medium ranged at best. It's still a primary target, but it's easily in line behind a LR/Repulsor, AND it's in the Elites slot, Vindicators did get better, but they have the same problem as the Predators being in the Heavy Support Slot.
1) No, they simply don't shoot it. You can't kill everything in turn one, there are ways to handle units without killing them, and there always is the option to ignore units. Four out of five games, my boomer wagon ends the game without being shot at by a single anti-tank weapon. Just because lascannons are S9 doesn't mean that T8 targets are automatically the best targets for them. The best target is what will cause you the most trouble when left alive - I don't see a landraider being the thing causing the most trouble unless you either have a really weird army composition or you put 300 points worth of deathstar inside it.
2) When you shoot 2+ armor with a AP-3 lascannon that's a 5+ save, just like the KFF. If you shoot it with AP-2, it's better off than any ork vehicle. Space Marines invalidating armor with their doctrines is a problem not unique to landraiders, you can either give every single model in the game invulnerable saves to counteract that or simply remove that gak.
3) So you are saying that 2k points of marines pack enough firepower to wipe out a unit of agressors, a unit of terminators, a landraider and a repulsor in a single turn? Sounds like a problem of it's own, neither orks nor DG remotely come close to that amount of firepower.
4) Yes, I agree. But for orks, that's simply called "list building". If you are aiming for target saturation by flooding the board with T4 infantry, you can't bring vehicles, if you want to run vehicles, keep shootable infantry to a bare minimum. That's how the game has worked for me since 5th edition. No single model will ever survive turn one if it's the only viable target for a certain type of guns.
Making Terminators/Aggressors/Gravis(maybe?) T8 2+ no invuln(unless Storm Shield) would actually be nice and solve more than a few problems - you've got target priority synergy, and you restore Termies to something other than lasgun pincushions.
Why do you keep insisting on T8? Gravis units are T5/3W and all of them are more dangerous than a landraider, so why wouldn't a decent opponent shoot them over your big block that takes lots of guns to take out two pairs of lascannons?
Let's take the infamous eradicators as an example. Would you rather have them melt a landraider or have them shoot those six shots of melta into a unit of agressors/plasma inceptors/other eradicators?
The game has definite thresholds/brackets built into at S/T 4, 7, and 8. Spamming 7 expecting it to save 8 isn't going to work very well.
Well, it does for orks. Not everyone has multiple weapons with strength of 9 or more, and even if they do, there is a possibility for them to not kill your T8 units. For units like battlewagons or nauts, T8 only serves to reduce the efficiency of most common anti-tank weapons, which in turn either acts as a deterrent against those attacks because they are more efficient at taking out lower toughness models. If they shoot them anyways they kill a lot less points with their expensive guns than they would have by just targeting other models.
For a landraider T8 simply isn't a primary layer of defense for a unit that is guaranteed to get shot like tank commanders or knights.
1) No, they simply don't shoot it. You can't kill everything in turn one, there are ways to handle units without killing them, and there always is the option to ignore units. Four out of five games, my boomer wagon ends the game without being shot at by a single anti-tank weapon. Just because lascannons are S9 doesn't mean that T8 targets are automatically the best targets for them. The best target is what will cause you the most trouble when left alive - I don't see a landraider being the thing causing the most trouble unless you either have a really weird army composition or you put 300 points worth of deathstar inside it.
2) When you shoot 2+ armor with a AP-3 lascannon that's a 5+ save, just like the KFF. If you shoot it with AP-2, it's better off than any ork vehicle. Space Marines invalidating armor with their doctrines is a problem not unique to landraiders, you can either give every single model in the game invulnerable saves to counteract that or simply remove that gak.
3) So you are saying that 2k points of marines pack enough firepower to wipe out a unit of agressors, a unit of terminators, a landraider and a repulsor in a single turn? Sounds like a problem of it's own, neither orks nor DG remotely come close to that amount of firepower.
4) Yes, I agree. But for orks, that's simply called "list building". If you are aiming for target saturation by flooding the board with T4 infantry, you can't bring vehicles, if you want to run vehicles, keep shootable infantry to a bare minimum. That's how the game has worked for me since 5th edition. No single model will ever survive turn one if it's the only viable target for a certain type of guns.
Making Terminators/Aggressors/Gravis(maybe?) T8 2+ no invuln(unless Storm Shield) would actually be nice and solve more than a few problems - you've got target priority synergy, and you restore Termies to something other than lasgun pincushions.
Why do you keep insisting on T8? Gravis units are T5/3W and all of them are more dangerous than a landraider, so why wouldn't a decent opponent shoot them over your big block that takes lots of guns to take out two pairs of lascannons?
Let's take the infamous eradicators as an example. Would you rather have them melt a landraider or have them shoot those six shots of melta into a unit of agressors/plasma inceptors/other eradicators?
The game has definite thresholds/brackets built into at S/T 4, 7, and 8. Spamming 7 expecting it to save 8 isn't going to work very well.
Well, it does for orks.
1) They're going to shoot legit Anti Tank at the foot slogging 5" medium range Aggressors far more vulnerable to plasma and grav instead of the 300 point 10" moving land raider?
2) This point wasn't so much about the extra Save Mod, so much as the coerced timing. Dev is only turn one then it's gone. Aggressors are slow and can keep, and the Terminators would save pretty much the same on Turn 2 because of their invuln.
3) No, I'm saying you've got time to wait for the Aggressors, the Terminators are A) Not on the Board because they're deep striking B) The Death Star inside the Land Raider that makes it an even juicier target, or C) As slow as the Aggressors, AND D) better served by massed lower S firepower forcing 1's freeing up the higher AP for the Aggressors.
4) The land raider/Repulsor IS the only viable (primary) target for a certain type of gun at this point, and no amount of "list building" is going to change that.
Not everyone has multiple weapons with strength of 9 or more, and even if they do, there is a possibility for them to not kill your T8 units. For units like battlewagons or nauts, T8 only serves to reduce the efficiency of most common anti-tank weapons, which in turn either acts as a deterrent against those attacks because they are more efficient at taking out lower toughness models. If they shoot them anyways they kill a lot less points with their expensive guns than they would have by just targeting other models.
For a landraider T8 simply isn't a primary layer of defense for a unit that is guaranteed to get shot like tank commanders or knights.
Strength 8 or higher has been my term not S9. S8+. As I've also said multiple times there's a few different S/T plateaus built into the stats and rules, 4, 7, and 8.
S/T 4 is infantry. If they walk on two-ish feet, and go higher than 4 they're usually not a basic infantry but an Elite of some kind.
S/T 5-7 elite infantry and light (to Medium if you prefer) vehicles.
S/T 8 is Tank/AntiTank.
If you've got S3 and S4 weapons, vs T3 targets and T4 weapons, you're going to shoot the S3 against the T3 and S4 against the T4 for the most part. There's a Psychological affect on the 50/50 roll that helps drive this. People are unlikely to waste "real" anti-tank on T5 foot sloggers moving half the speed of the "real" tank on turn 1. Especially when they have Disintegrator Cannons, Star Cannons, (High Yield )Missile Pods, Stranglethorn Cannons, Gauss Cannons, Plasma and/or Grav. They're going to hit the LR with the Bright/Dark -lance, the Melta, the Lascannon, the Heavy Gauss Cannon, Krak and Starshot, Heavy Venom Cannons, Heavy Rail Rifles, Battle Cannons, Am I missing a faction? Demons I suppose but they're freaking weird and I've never seen anyone play them in 40K just fantasy - I suppose I could point to Phlegm bombardments vs a Harvester Cannon. If you look through all the different factions you'll see the same thing repeated with minor tweaks Flat 3D instead of a D6 for example. S5 -3 D3D vs S6 -2 2D vs S7 -4 1D + Overcharge. Even on the S8+ Anti Tank:
36-48+ inch range,
Mutliple Shots,
Higher than S8,
-3 or better AP,
Special rule like Roll 2D6 pick the highest.
and pick 3 Even the "worst" of these the Krak-type missle has what could be considered a special in a Frag-type profile for a special rule. Even the S8 -2 Krak in the right hands gives you 50/50 or better on all three rolls. Most of the rules and human nature just flow this direction. Players will pound S8+ into T8 first because your "50/50" odds of using S8+ on T7 or less are better than trying to use S5-S7 on T8 later.
You just keep repeating your opinion and refuse to consider mine.
Your entire logic is based around your opponent having your landraider as target priority #1 AND you wanting it to survive despite that. As long as a buffed Mortarion doesn't survive being target priority #1, no model will.
There is no point in discussing this any further.
And yes, I shoot rokkits and KMB at aggressors over landraiders. I win games that way.
Jidmah wrote: You just keep repeating your opinion and refuse to consider mine.
You mean like ignoring the pattern flow and difference between S/T 5-7 and T8 by continuing to insist spamming units from Target Bracket B will pull shots from Target Bracket C?
Your entire logic is based around your opponent having your landraider as target priority #1 AND you wanting it to survive despite that. As long as a buffed Mortarion doesn't survive being target priority #1, no model will.
Are you refusing to consider what I'm saying, or just misunderstanding it? I don't want it to survive being Target Priority #1 (for that bracket of guns), I want the opponent to have to THINK about what that Target Priority #1 is. I want the reason it's target #1 to be something other than "It's the only primary option"
There is no point in discussing this any further.
I wouldn't argue with that. Its not like you're not ignoring (or rephrasing) what I say (into something I didn't) "either".
And yes, I shoot rokkits and KMB at aggressors over landraiders. I win games that way.
Congratulations on making another point about why Land Riders won't be "good" in the next edition?
OP Question of the Thread wrote:]Will the Land Raider finally be good this edition?
A1: In Fun/Thematic/Story/whatever games No, it will receive disproportional attention from most players, and not last long enough to have any fun with.
A2: In Competitive/whatever games No, If people who know the attention is disproportional leave it alone, it won't perform enough to be "good".
So whatever your definition of "good" is, the answer is no.
Because units like aggressors are overpowered and need to be prioritized, so are tons of other SM units.
Nerf them, remove the ability of free deep strike from terminators, remove doctrines and LR will be good enough even from your perspective.
LRs aren't bad because of their stats/point costs, they simply aren't among the infamous SM units that make players hate that faction. Put SM on the same level of the majority of the other factions and LRs would benefit.
Strength 8 or higher has been my term not S9. S8+. As I've also said multiple times there's a few different S/T plateaus built into the stats and rules, 4, 7, and 8.
S/T 4 is infantry. If they walk on two-ish feet, and go higher than 4 they're usually not a basic infantry but an Elite of some kind.
S/T 5-7 elite infantry and light (to Medium if you prefer) vehicles.
S/T 8 is Tank/AntiTank.
If you've got S3 and S4 weapons, vs T3 targets and T4 weapons, you're going to shoot the S3 against the T3 and S4 against the T4 for the most part. There's a Psychological affect on the 50/50 roll that helps drive this. People are unlikely to waste "real" anti-tank on T5 foot sloggers moving half the speed of the "real" tank on turn 1. Especially when they have Disintegrator Cannons, Star Cannons, (High Yield )Missile Pods, Stranglethorn Cannons, Gauss Cannons, Plasma and/or Grav. They're going to hit the LR with the Bright/Dark -lance, the Melta, the Lascannon, the Heavy Gauss Cannon, Krak and Starshot, Heavy Venom Cannons, Heavy Rail Rifles, Battle Cannons, Am I missing a faction? Demons I suppose but they're freaking weird and I've never seen anyone play them in 40K just fantasy - I suppose I could point to Phlegm bombardments vs a Harvester Cannon. If you look through all the different factions you'll see the same thing repeated with minor tweaks Flat 3D instead of a D6 for example. S5 -3 D3D vs S6 -2 2D vs S7 -4 1D + Overcharge. Even on the S8+ Anti Tank:
36-48+ inch range,
Mutliple Shots,
Higher than S8,
-3 or better AP,
Special rule like Roll 2D6 pick the highest.
and pick 3 Even the "worst" of these the Krak-type missle has what could be considered a special in a Frag-type profile for a special rule. Even the S8 -2 Krak in the right hands gives you 50/50 or better on all three rolls. Most of the rules and human nature just flow this direction. Players will pound S8+ into T8 first because your "50/50" odds of using S8+ on T7 or less are better than trying to use S5-S7 on T8 later.
You shoot what you have at the priority targets. I'll happily plug Eradicators and Obliterators with Lascannons, and I'll happily shoot S5 weapons like Grav Cannons at T8 tanks, Knights etc.
In fact S5 Grav Cannons are actually better than Lascannons against T8.
And Lascannons fired at things like Eradicators, Obliterators, etc. will reduce the opponents return fire faster than firing Lascannons at Land Raiders, which need to take 8 wounds before degrading it's ability. Eradicators can take only 3 wounds before losing 2 Melta shots from their unit.
If the choice is, deal 6 wounds to a Land Raider or 6 wounds to an Eradicator Squad, shooting the Eradicators can make a ton of sense since that's removing 4 melta shots against you next turn, while shooting the Land Raider will change nothing about the opponents capability. Being snooty about firing Lascannons at "infantry" isn't really going to come into it.
You shoot what you have at the priority targets. I'll happily plug Eradicators and Obliterators with Lascannons, and I'll happily shoot S5 weapons like Grav Cannons at T8 tanks, Knights etc.
In fact S5 Grav Cannons are actually better than Lascannons against T8.
And Lascannons fired at things like Eradicators, Obliterators, etc. will reduce the opponents return fire faster than firing Lascannons at Land Raiders, which need to take 8 wounds before degrading it's ability. Eradicators can take only 3 wounds before losing 2 Melta shots from their unit.
If the choice is, deal 6 wounds to a Land Raider or 6 wounds to an Eradicator Squad, shooting the Eradicators can make a ton of sense since that's removing 4 melta shots against you next turn, while shooting the Land Raider will change nothing about the opponents capability. Being snooty about firing Lascannons at "infantry" isn't really going to come into it.
Its maybe removing 4 melta. Melta, like Grav is still 24" so not necessarily in the danger zone on T1 - and rolling a 6 on that Lascannon Damage doesn't remove 6 wounds, it removes 3 and 3 are lost?
S5 Grav is even better at removing T5 right? I absolutely agree these hardened infantry are almost always a more dangerous target than a big heavy tank. My point is also that there are much better options for taking those units down than the big heavy anti-tank weapons.
Honest question, Am I not being clear? I'm not being cheeky, I just keep seeing people argue something I didn't say was wrong.
I didn't say the LR/etc was a more dangerous target.
I didn't say they're going to ignore the Elites to shoot those guns at the tanks.
I didn't say they won't ALSO shoot the Elite Infantry/Light vehicles.
I did say from either direction "friendly" or "competitive" for lack of better categories the LR is not "good" and is unlikely to BE "good" without some sort of change to the target priority bucket it lives in.
I did say they're likely to shoot the Anti-tank (S8+ 3D or D6D etc) at the tank while using the heavy weapons (S5-7 2D or D3D etc) on the elites and light vehicles because they're more efficient at their own primary targets before moving to their secondary.
I did say players are unlikely to shoot antitank at a secondary target like even slower foot slogging elites - especially ones who won't be in gun range on their next turn - if they can shoot at a primary target. (Aggressors at 5" + 18" on a Not-within 24" can be hard pressed to shoot anything on the second half of turn 1.)
I did say they were more likely to fire the Plasma, Grav, etc at those foot slogging elites if in range on Turn 1 than the LR/etc.
I did say there's generally only the one T8 LR/etc on the board for the Anti-tank meaning they're going to generally shoot it at the tank first the elites second.
I did say there were a couple armies "afflicted" like this not just SM, for example Necrons and the Monolith and a couple that just didn't have T8 at all like the Eldar
I did say several armies had some way of taking multiple T8 Tanks/Units to force more decision making than "It's there"
I did say for the LR to be good it would require more thought than "It's there" - like the Aggressors do they're a "good" unit. They cause a distance vs range cost-to-benefit evalution on their target priority. If they're in Grav range, you absolutely pound them because 5" move plus 18" Assault 6 range + 1" advance is 24" Grav Range. If they're not and by enough they can keep for a turn.
There are better transports (impulsor).
There are better AT sources (eradicators).
Honestly, it just isn't priced appropriately. For whatever reason GWS is not trying to push landraiders (I'd guess because they want to sell primaris kids instead).
Since we are at it, can someone please explain to me why primaris cannot fit in a landraider, marines in a chimera, and guardsmen in an impulsor?
Grey40k wrote: There are better transports (impulsor).
There are better AT sources (eradicators).
Honestly, it just isn't priced appropriately. For whatever reason GWS is not trying to push landraiders (I'd guess because they want to sell primaris kids instead).
Since we are at it, can someone please explain to me why primaris cannot fit in a landraider, marines in a chimera, and guardsmen in an impulsor?
The Razorback is better as well. Three Razorbacks 2xTLLC and 1x TLHB matches the armament, and carries more dudes (but not Terminators) And I think its cheaper but don't quote me on it.
The only reason to go Land Raider is
A) you can't unlock three razorback Dedicated Transports for 15 dudes - which feels pretty hard to do in a normal list.
B) You want to ferry Terminators instead of Deep Striking them
As for priced appropriately there's yeah's and nay's on that. They're probably only overcharging for the transport part on it and the Repulsor both especially given the limited value of that transport ability as only "necessary" for Gravis/Terminators because you'd go with cheaper Impulsors/Razorbacks for anything that would fit - and that just makes it a bigger target. You compare it to a Banehammer/Superheavy Transports for example, two Lascanon sponsons and two HB sponsons, Transport for 25 instead of 6/10/12/16 or whatever - about a hundred points for: the Big Gun, 10 -15 more chairs, a point of BS, and 10 more wounds (a 10 Wound T7 not T8 Rhino is well more than half that hundred points, while the Big Gun is likely another half) Drop the hull cost by 50ish points of Transport Premium and it starts getting pretty interesting.
You shoot what you have at the priority targets. I'll happily plug Eradicators and Obliterators with Lascannons, and I'll happily shoot S5 weapons like Grav Cannons at T8 tanks, Knights etc.
In fact S5 Grav Cannons are actually better than Lascannons against T8.
And Lascannons fired at things like Eradicators, Obliterators, etc. will reduce the opponents return fire faster than firing Lascannons at Land Raiders, which need to take 8 wounds before degrading it's ability. Eradicators can take only 3 wounds before losing 2 Melta shots from their unit.
If the choice is, deal 6 wounds to a Land Raider or 6 wounds to an Eradicator Squad, shooting the Eradicators can make a ton of sense since that's removing 4 melta shots against you next turn, while shooting the Land Raider will change nothing about the opponents capability. Being snooty about firing Lascannons at "infantry" isn't really going to come into it.
Its maybe removing 4 melta. Melta, like Grav is still 24" so not necessarily in the danger zone on T1 - and rolling a 6 on that Lascannon Damage doesn't remove 6 wounds, it removes 3 and 3 are lost?
S5 Grav is even better at removing T5 right? I absolutely agree these hardened infantry are almost always a more dangerous target than a big heavy tank. My point is also that there are much better options for taking those units down than the big heavy anti-tank weapons.
Honest question, Am I not being clear? I'm not being cheeky, I just keep seeing people argue something I didn't say was wrong.
You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.
You're also saying:
I did say there's generally only the one T8 LR/etc on the board for the Anti-tank meaning they're going to generally shoot it at the tank first the elites second.
. . .
I did say several armies had some way of taking multiple T8 Tanks/Units to force more decision making than "It's there"
Statements which are contradictory, but also imo arbitrarily focused on the "band" of T8. Hard target is hard target, be it T8 Land Raider T7 Predator, T6, Carnifex. All of which are fine targets for high power weapons, Grav, Plasma, Melta or Las. There are minor fluctuations in weapon efficiency, but the decisions to use weapons has more to do with target priority and the available firepower one can bring to bear.
You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.
To be fair, at least part of this is due to the eradicators being more dangerous that the firepower of the landraider. A single unit of 3 eradicators, for 120 points, outputs better AT than a 300 land raider. 4 lascannon shots vs 6 melta shots, even without the half range rule for meltas (5.19 vs 7 wounds, without rerolls). I don't think we should even bother to do point per point comparisons.
Breton thinks Land Raiders are " not good ". I think we all understand that going forward here, lets move on.
I think Land Raiders are good. I think they were good during 8th, and I will think they are good going into 9th, if you bring a single LR in your list with other targets that are worth shooting at, and your oponent has to make a choice during his turn what to shoot at, then you have built a decent list. Also take advantage of relics/psychic powers to buff your LR and it performs well, especially if your squad inside gets to where it needs to be and opens up an objective for you so you can claim and score. Multiple LR's are nice and can move and hopefully claim more objectives for you with the squads inside and provide even more target saturation and descisions your opponent has to think about. Also Redeemer's anti heavy infantry capability is quite nasty once it gets closer after dropping off its squad on an objective. In a Marine heavy meta I will always give a slight nod to the firepower of the Redeemer atm.
You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.
To be fair, at least part of this is due to the eradicators being more dangerous that the firepower of the landraider. A single unit of 3 eradicators, for 120 points, outputs better AT than a 300 land raider. 4 lascannon shots vs 6 melta shots, even without the half range rule for meltas (5.19 vs 7 wounds, without rerolls). I don't think we should even bother to do point per point comparisons.
It honestly has little to do with Eradicators specifically and more to do with the amount of "capability removal" even a single AT shot can provide against infantry. I have no qualms about firing Lascannons at Devastators or Dark Reapers if each kill is removing a heavy weapon from my opponents next firing phase. (Or, potentially helping achieve secondaries through unit kills in 9th).
I didn't expect for Terminators of all things to be called OP.
Terminators are very similar to LRs in this matter: they've always been good since 8th but they suffered from being part of a codex with thousand of overpowered stuff and lack of synergy with many common builds. And yes, free deepstrike for heavy elites is overpowered, we orks always pay 155 points for a transport or 2 CPs to carry our terminator equivalents. Now that they're going to get 3W and 4 damage Thunder Hammers they could easily be really overpowered. SW ones get +1 to hit in combat most of the times, up to +2A thanks to other unit's auras, and easy access to re-rolls. Terminators aren't a unit that does the job alone, find some synergy and they'll get their points back. Of course they never worked for SM gunlines, and they shouldn't do.
Free deepstrike ability is the reason why a unit doesn't need a transport. If all units could deepstrike transport will have no purpose at all, unless they are cheap gun boats, like razorbacks.
I use my LR crusader to carry 5 wulfen, 5 blood claws and eventually one character (Wolf Priest or Battle Leader). It's obviously a bullet magnet, but by making it a priority target I could save the flyer and the razorbacks from incoming firepower and wulfen can't deepstrike, they can only ouflank for 1 CP so a transport and protection from some firepower are actually quite handy for them. I also have lots of ranged anti tank options available and basically only razorbacks as ranged anti infantry units; while the SW codex has certainly other options for that purpose, models availability kicks in and those 40 shots in rapid fire range are very useful to me. Other types of LR I don't know, they don't serve the purpose I need for my big tank.
To make LRs shine a player must find a purpose for them, I did for my army and never regret using it.
Insectum7 wrote: It honestly has little to do with Eradicators specifically and more to do with the amount of "capability removal" even a single AT shot can provide against infantry. I have no qualms about firing Lascannons at Devastators or Dark Reapers if each kill is removing a heavy weapon from my opponents next firing phase. (Or, potentially helping achieve secondaries through unit kills in 9th).
Careful with that
You can look up my mathhammer on shooting land raiders vs eradicators in the eradicator thread.
I am convinced that, if a vehicle is appropriately priced (unlike the land rider) wrt eradicators, then shooting AT at the vehicle is likely to accrue more value. Although, to be fair, the new t5 3W profiles are very weird to shot at, considering they are infantry.
4 Lascannons deal an average of 5 damage to either a gravis unit or a vehicle, with a high chance of killing two gravis models instead of just one. That's 40-80 points of shooting gone from your opponent's list. You'll struggle to kill that many points worth of vehicles with them, so why not shoot lascannons at gravis models?
You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.
Except your example was -the way I followed it -1 Lascanon shot doing 6 damage and removing 6 wounds worth of models which isn't exactly the case for shooting 3W models.
You're also saying:
I did say there's generally only the one T8 LR/etc on the board for the Anti-tank meaning they're going to generally shoot it at the tank first the elites second.
. . .
I did say several armies had some way of taking multiple T8 Tanks/Units to force more decision making than "It's there"
Statements which are contradictory, but also imo arbitrarily focused on the "band" of T8. Hard target is hard target, be it T8 Land Raider T7 Predator, T6, Carnifex. All of which are fine targets for high power weapons, Grav, Plasma, Melta or Las. There are minor fluctuations in weapon efficiency, but the decisions to use weapons has more to do with target priority and the available firepower one can bring to bear.
Yep, if you look back a few posts I checked several different army lists and their T8 options. If you'll scroll back the "LR/etc" refers to the High Priced LR Variants, Repulsor, and Monolith - maybe one more I can't remember but it's nagging me like feeling like you left the stove on at home, while "multiple T8's" refers to Pure Knights were almost everything is T8, or the Ork wagons, Leman Russ, etc. low to moderate priced options especially if they can squadron
I didn't expect for Terminators of all things to be called OP.
Terminators are very similar to LRs in this matter: they've always been good since 8th but they suffered from being part of a codex with thousand of overpowered stuff and lack of synergy with many common builds.
Terminators did get a huge boost going to 2W. I wouldn't say they're OP, especially not the shooty ones, but needing two flashlights to get lucky per Termie gave them a huge boost. Moving to 3 will be as huge if not moreso as they'd survive plasma - their more traditional achilles heel - now too.. The issue with a Termie was never getting hammered by a lascannon, the issue was 10 lasguns rapid firing into it. 20 shots 10 hit, 6-7 wound, 1 armor save rolls a 1, dead Termie. Light your Black Library bookshelf on fire in protest.
Terminators did get a huge boost going to 2W. I wouldn't say they're OP, especially not the shooty ones, but needing two flashlights to get lucky per Termie gave them a huge boost. Moving to 3 will be as huge if not moreso as they'd survive plasma - their more traditional achilles heel - now too.. The issue with a Termie was never getting hammered by a lascannon, the issue was 10 lasguns rapid firing into it. 20 shots 10 hit, 6-7 wound, 1 armor save rolls a 1, dead Termie. Light your Black Library bookshelf on fire in protest.
I agree. And yet even in 8th, when termis got their 2nd wound, on this site threads about "how to make terminators good" in the proposed rules section were common. My personal take is that many SM players, especially those ones that started in 7th or 8th, are so used to field OP units that can't find value in stuff that is actually good but requires some strategy/synergy around it or isn't simply OP and "forgiving" as other units.
Jidmah wrote: There is little reason for orks to bring more than two wagons, and it's not like SM don't have vindicators.
How many lists do you see with 2 300 point land raider variants? That's 30% of a 2,000 point list. 1 of each Repulsor is closer to 35%
I have mentioned the vindicator before up above, and I've been playing with it in my head, the end of both Move Or Fire Ordnance and Moving Heavy Penalties for Vindicators is something I'm kicking around. D6 to replace the Pie Plate of Doom is a little uninspiring, but que será, será.
The land raider used to be not only cheaper than some Terminators but MUCH cheaper. 70% of 5 Terminators. Terminators took a nose dive in price. Off a giant cliff. They're now 55% of what they used to be - Most SM infantry did this by about the same ratio.
The Land Raider itself used to be 77% of it's current price
The AC/HB Predator used to be 75% of the AC/HB Pred's current cost, 58% of the old LR and it's now 56% of the new one.
The Leman Russ used to cost 93% of a Land Raider its now 57% of today's LR and 80% of what it was.
Now none of this really means a whole lot with how vastly different the game is today from then. I've got a datacard for the Russ, and I'm hoping in the back of a closet I can find the datacard for the Land Raider and it's front side/rear Armor Values. I'm curious how survivability has changed. I'd guess not that much. The Transport Tax is painful.
I didn't expect for Terminators of all things to be called OP.
Terminators are very similar to LRs in this matter: they've always been good since 8th but they suffered from being part of a codex with thousand of overpowered stuff and lack of synergy with many common builds.
No,terminators weren't good throughout 8th.they were shut for most of it.i would know,I own every kid there is for vanilla and I played all of them, and they were gak. They are way more useful now that 9th edition changed a lot of things and they're pretty much the only thing that didn't increase in points in the SM codex.
I've played salamanders frequently all throughout 8th, I strongly prefer firstborn and while I managed to make my Redeemer and Achilles work, managed to make tacsquads work, there's two things I never managed to work :any kind of terminator that isn't hammer and shield (and even then they weren't reliable at all),and the veteran squads (stern and vanguard). They were garbage, and that's from someone also playing tyranids,sisters and guard,so it's not like I only know marines.
Jidmah wrote: There is little reason for orks to bring more than two wagons, and it's not like SM don't have vindicators.
How many lists do you see with 2 300 point land raider variants? That's 30% of a 2,000 point list. 1 of each Repulsor is closer to 35%
So you agree that you are comparing apples to oranges then, right?
Land raider = naut
Vindicator = battlewagon
Nauts are decent choices while land raiders are not. Being able to "spam" T8 has nothing to do with it, no matter how much you insist on it.
Comparing a LR and a LRC is apples and oranges. Unless its the same two models its all apples and oranges. Vindicators aren't transporting Termies or Aggressors/Gravis. Nauts arent the only way to transport MANz. Naughts (normal Repulsor) aren't the only option to transport 10(more than 6, a full unit) Nobs(non-gravis Primaris). With that said a Gorkanaut and a Repulsor Executioner are very very similar almost down to the point. in an other transport options vacuum.
Terminators did get a huge boost going to 2W. I wouldn't say they're OP, especially not the shooty ones, but needing two flashlights to get lucky per Termie gave them a huge boost. Moving to 3 will be as huge if not moreso as they'd survive plasma - their more traditional achilles heel - now too.. The issue with a Termie was never getting hammered by a lascannon, the issue was 10 lasguns rapid firing into it. 20 shots 10 hit, 6-7 wound, 1 armor save rolls a 1, dead Termie. Light your Black Library bookshelf on fire in protest.
I agree. And yet even in 8th, when termis got their 2nd wound, on this site threads about "how to make terminators good" in the proposed rules section were common. My personal take is that many SM players, especially those ones that started in 7th or 8th, are so used to field OP units that can't find value in stuff that is actually good but requires some strategy/synergy around it or isn't simply OP and "forgiving" as other units.
I'd say less of that, and more "out of sight, out of mind". I just did the same thing. For so long you could be CP starved if you didn't run the Loyal 32 as a farm. Now they fixed that by having everyone start with X and go down from there, (generally) not up. They weren't using them, like I wasn't using list building strats, so you forget about them and what's changed on them.
Terminators did get a huge boost going to 2W. I wouldn't say they're OP, especially not the shooty ones, but needing two flashlights to get lucky per Termie gave them a huge boost. Moving to 3 will be as huge if not moreso as they'd survive plasma - their more traditional achilles heel - now too.. The issue with a Termie was never getting hammered by a lascannon, the issue was 10 lasguns rapid firing into it. 20 shots 10 hit, 6-7 wound, 1 armor save rolls a 1, dead Termie. Light your Black Library bookshelf on fire in protest.
I agree. And yet even in 8th, when termis got their 2nd wound, on this site threads about "how to make terminators good" in the proposed rules section were common. My personal take is that many SM players, especially those ones that started in 7th or 8th, are so used to field OP units that can't find value in stuff that is actually good but requires some strategy/synergy around it or isn't simply OP and "forgiving" as other units.
I think you are confusing marines with eldar or tau or something...Literally anytime a marine unit is used with any kind of frequency it gets insta nerfed. Yet Shinning spears and riptides are pretty much untouchable.
Insectum7 wrote: It honestly has little to do with Eradicators specifically and more to do with the amount of "capability removal" even a single AT shot can provide against infantry. I have no qualms about firing Lascannons at Devastators or Dark Reapers if each kill is removing a heavy weapon from my opponents next firing phase. (Or, potentially helping achieve secondaries through unit kills in 9th).
Careful with that
You can look up my mathhammer on shooting land raiders vs eradicators in the eradicator thread.
I am convinced that, if a vehicle is appropriately priced (unlike the land rider) wrt eradicators, then shooting AT at the vehicle is likely to accrue more value. Although, to be fair, the new t5 3W profiles are very weird to shot at, considering they are infantry.
Ok, but on the table the point value of something doesn't matter to me. Only capability (and often just capability for the following turn) matters. So despite shooting at a Land Raider might return a better "point value", that's not my priority. My priority is to remove options from my opponent. If that means firing Lascannons at Infantry, so be it.
I could shoot at a Land Raider, do 6 wounds, and make back 130 points or whatever, but not effect it's capability at all.
Or, I could shoot at Eradicators, kill two of them for only an 80 point return. But my opponent has four fewer Melta shots against me next turn. Imo, a better decision.
Breton wrote: Comparing a LR and a LRC is apples and oranges. Unless its the same two models its all apples and oranges. Vindicators aren't transporting Termies or Aggressors/Gravis. Nauts arent the only way to transport MANz. Naughts (normal Repulsor) aren't the only option to transport 10(more than 6, a full unit) Nobs(non-gravis Primaris). With that said a Gorkanaut and a Repulsor Executioner are very very similar almost down to the point. in an other transport options vacuum.
Are you aware that you are randomly fracturing the game into a huge amount of arbitrary categories and drawing weird conclusions based on those? You are literally not seeing the forest for the trees. Try taking a step back and try to see the problem with a more open-minded approach.
On a high level, a land raider is a gunboat transport for ~300 points that is supposed to be reasonably hard to kill. Currently, it doesn't do a particularly great job at delivering terminators (or anything else), nor does it do a particularly good job at killing things, nor is it durable enough to warrant the high points costs. When you improve enough on those four problems it will be a good unit again.
Literally nothing else matters, especially not the number of units that have exactly T8 in your army.
You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.
Except your example was -the way I followed it -1 Lascanon shot doing 6 damage and removing 6 wounds worth of models which isn't exactly the case for shooting 3W models.
I'm not assuming I'm firing a single Lascannon, since Lascannons only average a single wound against a Land Raider to begin with, anyways. I'm just using a potential average net effect of weapons fire.
I did say there's generally only the one T8 LR/etc on the board for the Anti-tank meaning they're going to generally shoot it at the tank first the elites second.
. . .
I did say several armies had some way of taking multiple T8 Tanks/Units to force more decision making than "It's there"
Statements which are contradictory, but also imo arbitrarily focused on the "band" of T8. Hard target is hard target, be it T8 Land Raider T7 Predator, T6, Carnifex. All of which are fine targets for high power weapons, Grav, Plasma, Melta or Las. There are minor fluctuations in weapon efficiency, but the decisions to use weapons has more to do with target priority and the available firepower one can bring to bear.
Yep, if you look back a few posts I checked several different army lists and their T8 options. If you'll scroll back the "LR/etc" refers to the High Priced LR Variants, Repulsor, and Monolith - maybe one more I can't remember but it's nagging me like feeling like you left the stove on at home, while "multiple T8's" refers to Pure Knights were almost everything is T8, or the Ork wagons, Leman Russ, etc. low to moderate priced options especially if they can squadron
Irrelevant. My point it Lascannons or other AT weapons aren't only valuable against T8 and above, so focusing on T8 is erroneous.
I think that by now the consensus is that land raiders (as much as some of us love them) just aren't amazing in this edition.
BUT: who knows what crazy nonsense is going to come out with the codex! New rules? An invulnerable save? The ability to let units disembark/move/shoot/charge after the box moves?
At this point pretty much anything is on the table :-)
Breton wrote: Comparing a LR and a LRC is apples and oranges. Unless its the same two models its all apples and oranges. Vindicators aren't transporting Termies or Aggressors/Gravis. Nauts arent the only way to transport MANz. Naughts (normal Repulsor) aren't the only option to transport 10(more than 6, a full unit) Nobs(non-gravis Primaris). With that said a Gorkanaut and a Repulsor Executioner are very very similar almost down to the point. in an other transport options vacuum.
Are you aware that you are randomly fracturing the game into a huge amount of arbitrary categories and drawing weird conclusions based on those? You are literally not seeing the forest for the trees. Try taking a step back and try to see the problem with a more open-minded approach.
I'm sorry who was it tried to say Nauts not wagons were Land Raiders for their own arbitrary purposes? Right after an apples and oranges complaint?
On a high level, a land raider is a gunboat transport for ~300 points that is supposed to be reasonably hard to kill. Currently, it doesn't do a particularly great job at delivering terminators (or anything else), nor does it do a particularly good job at killing things, nor is it durable enough to warrant the high points costs. When you improve enough on those four problems it will be a good unit again.
Literally nothing else matters, especially not the number of units that have exactly T8 in your army.
Those are the same things I've been saying, I've just been saying it with more detail. "hard to kill" is pretty generic. And by far the biggest of those four issues is durability. There are a number of reasons most/many players will aim at the LR/Rep/Mono first. The 50/50 roll effect I've been talking about and think makes up the plurality of the reason, the value of the contents which would make up the majority of the reason if people were using them as transports, memories of previous editions, Dawn of War, physical/point size of model, and so on.
If the model was durable and/or cheaper people could/would use it for transport. Well, maybe not the Land Raider The Land Raider would have to be both.. The Land Raider is fairly redundant. 3 Razorbacks can replace the LR firepower, carry 15 guys instead of 10, have far more (double) slightly less durable wounds, be three targets instead of 1 and cost 350 instead of 300. The only "reason" for the Land Raider is Terminators which will be deepstriking for free then waiting a long time for the smoking crater to rapidly redeploy them on the other side of the board. Now I'm definitely not saying the solution is to remove free Deep Strike from Terminators. Does anyone think Razorbacks are broken in either direction? Over/under powered?
A Repulsor Executioner is even more expensive. And it's pretty much an up armored Impulsor with two Redemptor Gun arms. The bare bones Impulsor plus the cost of both Redemptor gun arms is 167 points. There's 10 points of other weapons I won't name but you can look up if you want to avoid breaking any rules. You're at 177. That means you're getting charged roughly 180 points for +1T, 5 wounds, Aquilon Optics, and for some incredibly weird reason +1LD(is Psychology coming back? Its been so long were vehicles even affected by it?). Oh and the ability transport 3 Gravis instead of 6 primaris as one of only two choices able to transport Gravis.
The normal Repulsor is a little tougher as it isn't as similar to the Impulsor as the Executioner. All the weapons on both the Repulsor and the Executioner have points values. None are the 0, built into the hull cost options. A stripped down hull only Repulsor is 20 points cheaper than a hull only Executioner. -4 Transport + 1Gun Shoot Twice = 20 points.
The Monolith is in a similar but less dire position as Nightscythes are a cheaper "transport" - in the unique way necrons do transport - option for the same units, and the Monolith itself can deep strike avoiding some of the the early round going second alpha strike shooting that kills the LR/Repulsor value.
You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.
Except your example was -the way I followed it -1 Lascanon shot doing 6 damage and removing 6 wounds worth of models which isn't exactly the case for shooting 3W models.
I'm not assuming I'm firing a single Lascannon, since Lascannons only average a single wound against a Land Raider to begin with, anyways. I'm just using a potential average net effect of weapons fire.
And Lascannons fired at things like Eradicators, Obliterators, etc. will reduce the opponents return fire faster than firing Lascannons at Land Raiders, which need to take 8 wounds before degrading it's ability. Eradicators can take only 3 wounds before losing 2 Melta shots from their unit.
If the choice is, deal 6 wounds to a Land Raider or 6 wounds to an Eradicator Squad, shooting the Eradicators can make a ton of sense since that's removing 4 melta shots against you next turn, while shooting the Land Raider will change nothing about the opponents capability. Being snooty about firing Lascannons at "infantry" isn't really going to come into it.
And I pointed out that rolling the same 6 damage on the land raider does not remove 6 wounds if you targeted two eradicators.
I did say there's generally only the one T8 LR/etc on the board for the Anti-tank meaning they're going to generally shoot it at the tank first the elites second.
. . .
I did say several armies had some way of taking multiple T8 Tanks/Units to force more decision making than "It's there"
Statements which are contradictory, but also imo arbitrarily focused on the "band" of T8. Hard target is hard target, be it T8 Land Raider T7 Predator, T6, Carnifex. All of which are fine targets for high power weapons, Grav, Plasma, Melta or Las. There are minor fluctuations in weapon efficiency, but the decisions to use weapons has more to do with target priority and the available firepower one can bring to bear.
Yep, if you look back a few posts I checked several different army lists and their T8 options. If you'll scroll back the "LR/etc" refers to the High Priced LR Variants, Repulsor, and Monolith - maybe one more I can't remember but it's nagging me like feeling like you left the stove on at home, while "multiple T8's" refers to Pure Knights were almost everything is T8, or the Ork wagons, Leman Russ, etc. low to moderate priced options especially if they can squadron
Irrelevant. My point it Lascannons or other AT weapons aren't only valuable against T8 and above, so focusing on T8 is erroneous.
Explaining the context important to the points you called contradictory because you took them out of that context is irrelevant?
^You can just reserve the Land Raider these days to avoid being caught out in the first turn. It doesn't need to Deep Strike like a Monolith.
You misunderstood my example. I just explained it to you, but I'll explain it again. When I say six wounds dealt, I'm not assuming it's one Lascannon doing six wounds, but the aggregate fire of several weapons of any type. The fact that one Lascannon can't kill two Eradicators doesn't concern me when I'm aiming to remove capability from the opponent. Even so, just one dead Eradicator is still two fewer Melta shots my opponent can take.
Explaining the context important to the points you called contradictory because you took them out of that context is irrelevant?
No. The entire focus on T8 is irrelevant regardless of your points which may or may not have been contradictory. T8 is not nearly as important to the deployment of anti armor weapons as you seem to be making it out to be.
Ugh. There isn't even a point in going into your argumentation in detail, because you base almost all of it on assumptions that simply aren't a given. You deflect all arguments that don't match your views instead of considering or answering to them, and keep repeating that land raiders need be able to survive any amount of shooting and still be cheap enough to be considered as transports.
Face it, that is not going to happen. With all the weird assumptions you consider to be facts, the land raider is doomed to be terrible forever. /thread
Jidmah wrote: t land raiders need be able to survive any amount of shooting
I did? Where? Why do I keep wondering why people arguing something I didn't say is wrong?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: the land raider is doomed to be terrible forever.
This is also one of the assumptions I believe to be fact. Except for the terrible part. Its not terrible, it's just not "good".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: ^You can just reserve the Land Raider these days to avoid being caught out in the first turn. It doesn't need to Deep Strike like a Monolith.
You misunderstood my example. I just explained it to you, but I'll explain it again. When I say six wounds dealt, I'm not assuming it's one Lascannon doing six wounds, but the aggregate fire of several weapons of any type. The fact that one Lascannon can't kill two Eradicators doesn't concern me when I'm aiming to remove capability from the opponent. Even so, just one dead Eradicator is still two fewer Melta shots my opponent can take.
You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.
Except your example was -the way I followed it -1 Lascanon shot doing 6 damage and removing 6 wounds worth of models which isn't exactly the case for shooting 3W models.
I'm not assuming I'm firing a single Lascannon, since Lascannons only average a single wound against a Land Raider to begin with, anyways. I'm just using a potential average net effect of weapons fire.
And Lascannons fired at things like Eradicators, Obliterators, etc. will reduce the opponents return fire faster than firing Lascannons at Land Raiders, which need to take 8 wounds before degrading it's ability. Eradicators can take only 3 wounds before losing 2 Melta shots from their unit.
If the choice is, deal 6 wounds to a Land Raider or 6 wounds to an Eradicator Squad, shooting the Eradicators can make a ton of sense since that's removing 4 melta shots against you next turn, while shooting the Land Raider will change nothing about the opponents capability. Being snooty about firing Lascannons at "infantry" isn't really going to come into it.
It starts with "Lascannons fired at" a list of infantry, continues on to "Lascannons at Land Raiders" mentions Melta but from the Eradicators you're shooting at not with, repeats a mention of Melta from Eradicators being shot at not by, and finishes with "firing Lascannons at "infantry". But sure, I misunderstood your example.
Grey40k wrote: There are better transports (impulsor).
There are better AT sources (eradicators).
Honestly, it just isn't priced appropriately. For whatever reason GWS is not trying to push landraiders (I'd guess because they want to sell primaris kids instead).
Since we are at it, can someone please explain to me why primaris cannot fit in a landraider, marines in a chimera, and guardsmen in an impulsor?
There's less room to sell land raider. It's old kit. It has sold like 99.99% of it's lifetime sales by now. It's not of interest to GW anymore.
Terminators did get a huge boost going to 2W. I wouldn't say they're OP, especially not the shooty ones, but needing two flashlights to get lucky per Termie gave them a huge boost. Moving to 3 will be as huge if not moreso as they'd survive plasma - their more traditional achilles heel - now too.. The issue with a Termie was never getting hammered by a lascannon, the issue was 10 lasguns rapid firing into it. 20 shots 10 hit, 6-7 wound, 1 armor save rolls a 1, dead Termie. Light your Black Library bookshelf on fire in protest.
I agree. And yet even in 8th, when termis got their 2nd wound, on this site threads about "how to make terminators good" in the proposed rules section were common. My personal take is that many SM players, especially those ones that started in 7th or 8th, are so used to field OP units that can't find value in stuff that is actually good but requires some strategy/synergy around it or isn't simply OP and "forgiving" as other units.
Thing about that 2nd wound was though pretty much all good terminator killing weapons were dam2 anyway...
It's the 3rd wound that pretty much doubles their durability that's really sick.
Terminators did get a huge boost going to 2W. I wouldn't say they're OP, especially not the shooty ones, but needing two flashlights to get lucky per Termie gave them a huge boost. Moving to 3 will be as huge if not moreso as they'd survive plasma - their more traditional achilles heel - now too.. The issue with a Termie was never getting hammered by a lascannon, the issue was 10 lasguns rapid firing into it. 20 shots 10 hit, 6-7 wound, 1 armor save rolls a 1, dead Termie. Light your Black Library bookshelf on fire in protest.
I agree. And yet even in 8th, when termis got their 2nd wound, on this site threads about "how to make terminators good" in the proposed rules section were common. My personal take is that many SM players, especially those ones that started in 7th or 8th, are so used to field OP units that can't find value in stuff that is actually good but requires some strategy/synergy around it or isn't simply OP and "forgiving" as other units.
Thing about that 2nd wound was though pretty much all good terminator killing weapons were dam2 anyway...
It's the 3rd wound that pretty much doubles their durability that's really sick.
Weapons designed for killing Terminators wasn't the problem, They're supposed to kill Terminators. it was the lasguns. Succeeding a 5++ didn't create difference from failing the 2+, and you had a lot more ways to make them fail the 2+. Adding the second wound did more for that problem. 3W probably goes too far unless there's more changes in store like all the D1 weapons becoming D2D which would actually be pretty cool. Put all or almost all the 1W models onto 2W, and all the basic bolters/lasguns/etc on D2D damage - al the infantry/anti-infantry slows down a little and you get a little more story out of "Private Johnson took a round to the gut, but still kept hammering away with his Autocannon.".
I don't think they'll be good this edtion... Though would really like them to be seen more, they are such an iconic fixture of 40k.
Whilst they have many things to offer, so are 'good' they just always seem to not be good enough to warrant the 300+ points for them...
Want some vehicles for antitanks, dreads, predators, repulsors etc... offer more dakka for the points. As others has said can pretty much get 3 razorbacks for the price of a LR. Which is far more durable, and offers transport of PA units.
One of the few niches they have had is the ability to transport terminators. Not that many people are looking at transporting termies (or big things)
For loyalists who do want to transport termies (or other biggish things) the availability of Stormraven/ Stormwolf/ Corvus Blackstars has eroded that niche.
With the changing of editions you can no longer surge the LR forward, disembark the contents and then charge. This was something that nothing else could offer, and made investing 1/3 -1/4 of your points in it seem more worthwhile..
3 Wound termies could make Assault Termies, and thus related transport options more appealing, however the fliers are just quicker at moving them into position.
Chaos termies without access to the TH & SS niche of loyalists tend to run with a mix of power weapons and combis whose positioning and general mobility requirements can be served fine through teleporting...
What about non termies/wulfen etc.. With marines of all kinds moving to 2W base many of the various flavours of marines assault orientated units (Bezerkers, Vanguard or Wolfguard (w/o packs) etc..) will (price depending) look a lot tastier.
However the humble rhino will be able to transport such units to the front line almost as well, and for the savings compared to a LR you can get both a second rhino, and likely at least half a 2nd squad to boot.
Insectum7 wrote: ^You can just reserve the Land Raider these days to avoid being caught out in the first turn. It doesn't need to Deep Strike like a Monolith.
You misunderstood my example. I just explained it to you, but I'll explain it again. When I say six wounds dealt, I'm not assuming it's one Lascannon doing six wounds, but the aggregate fire of several weapons of any type. The fact that one Lascannon can't kill two Eradicators doesn't concern me when I'm aiming to remove capability from the opponent. Even so, just one dead Eradicator is still two fewer Melta shots my opponent can take.
You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.
Except your example was -the way I followed it -1 Lascanon shot doing 6 damage and removing 6 wounds worth of models which isn't exactly the case for shooting 3W models.
I'm not assuming I'm firing a single Lascannon, since Lascannons only average a single wound against a Land Raider to begin with, anyways. I'm just using a potential average net effect of weapons fire.
And Lascannons fired at things like Eradicators, Obliterators, etc. will reduce the opponents return fire faster than firing Lascannons at Land Raiders, which need to take 8 wounds before degrading it's ability. Eradicators can take only 3 wounds before losing 2 Melta shots from their unit.
If the choice is, deal 6 wounds to a Land Raider or 6 wounds to an Eradicator Squad, shooting the Eradicators can make a ton of sense since that's removing 4 melta shots against you next turn, while shooting the Land Raider will change nothing about the opponents capability. Being snooty about firing Lascannons at "infantry" isn't really going to come into it.
It starts with "Lascannons fired at" a list of infantry, continues on to "Lascannons at Land Raiders" mentions Melta but from the Eradicators you're shooting at not with, repeats a mention of Melta from Eradicators being shot at not by, and finishes with "firing Lascannons at "infantry". But sure, I misunderstood your example.
You did, and you still are. Point to the place in that paragraph where I say I do 6 wounds with a single lascannon.
I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.
The first time I pointed out this flaw, you didn't care about losing the wounds, the next time suddenly you were talking collectively about the sum total of wounds, not rolling a 6. Jidsmah was right, continuing this thread will serve little purpose. Even less so if it's not going to be continued honestly.
I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.
The first time I pointed out this flaw, you didn't care about losing the wounds, the next time suddenly you were talking collectively about the sum total of wounds, not rolling a 6. Jidsmah was right, continuing this thread will serve little purpose. Even less so if it's not going to be continued honestly.
Goalposts are unmoved, the information was right there in the original post that you quoted. You are just a special type of thick to continue doubling down on a misunderstanding even though it's been clarified for you multiple times now.
The first time I pointed out this flaw, you didn't care about losing the wounds, the next time suddenly you were talking collectively about the sum total of wounds, not rolling a 6. Jidsmah was right, continuing this thread will serve little purpose. Even less so if it's not going to be continued honestly.
Goalposts are unmoved, the information was right there in the original post that you quoted. You are just a special type of thick to continue doubling down on a misunderstanding even though it's been clarified for you multiple times now.
"I dont care if I lose wounds" and "I'm not losing wounds because it's multiple lascannons totalling 6 wounds" are not the same goalpost in the same place. Like I said, little point without honesty. But you have fun.
The first time I pointed out this flaw, you didn't care about losing the wounds, the next time suddenly you were talking collectively about the sum total of wounds, not rolling a 6. Jidsmah was right, continuing this thread will serve little purpose. Even less so if it's not going to be continued honestly.
Goalposts are unmoved, the information was right there in the original post that you quoted. You are just a special type of thick to continue doubling down on a misunderstanding even though it's been clarified for you multiple times now.
"I dont care if I lose wounds" and "I'm not losing wounds because it's multiple lascannons totalling 6 wounds" are not the same goalpost in the same place. Like I said, little point without honesty. But you have fun.
^The statements are not connected in the disingenuous manner you suggest. The original scenario is using 6 as an aggregate amount of damage form multiple lascannons. You can glean that information because english.
You're response was essentially "What if you roll a 6 on one Lascannon and lose potential damage?" To which my response is "I don't care." When I plan out my shooting phase, I don't count on rolling a 6 with a single lascannon, I look at "likely outcome of damage" from the weapons at my disposal, or in other words, aggregate damage averages.
You're response was essentially "What if you roll a 6 on one Lascannon and lose potential damage?" To which my response is "I don't care." When I plan out my shooting phase, I don't count on rolling a 6 with a single lascannon, I look at "likely outcome of damage" from the weapons at my disposal, or in other words, aggregate damage averages.
Yes, your different responses to the same issue about the same quote are... not connected. But you didn't move the goalposts. And we're still getting nowhere.
You're response was essentially "What if you roll a 6 on one Lascannon and lose potential damage?" To which my response is "I don't care." When I plan out my shooting phase, I don't count on rolling a 6 with a single lascannon, I look at "likely outcome of damage" from the weapons at my disposal, or in other words, aggregate damage averages.
Yes, your different responses to the same issue about the same quote are... not connected.
It's been explained to you like four times now. At this point I am not shocked that you can't follow it. I won't bother anymore.
Giving the Crusader back its Assault Launchers/Ramp rule, so units could disembark and assault (if they hadn't embarked that turn) would give that variant a bit of a niche, at least.
You're response was essentially "What if you roll a 6 on one Lascannon and lose potential damage?" To which my response is "I don't care." When I plan out my shooting phase, I don't count on rolling a 6 with a single lascannon, I look at "likely outcome of damage" from the weapons at my disposal, or in other words, aggregate damage averages.
Yes, your different responses to the same issue about the same quote are... not connected.
It's been explained to you like four times now. At this point I am not shocked that you can't follow it. I won't bother anymore.
And I've explained as many times why those "explanations" don't fit your original TWO different responses to the same point that are somehow unconnected and not moving the goalposts. But I'm glad to hear you're not going to bother trying it anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: Giving the Crusader back its Assault Launchers/Ramp rule, so units could disembark and assault (if they hadn't embarked that turn) would give that variant a bit of a niche, at least.
It would be a nice boost, but I'm not sure it's the answer - Nor should it be limited to just Land Raiders, or necessarily Space Marines. If you bring it back for LRs and/or give it to Repulsors you should also bring it back for open topped.. Loading the kind of troops that require taking a LR/Repulsor to assault from (i.e. Terminators, gravis/Aggressors, potentially but unlikely jumpy marines) just raises the target priority - both for points and disruption values - so they die before you want to unload.
Its quite a catch-22 the main reason to take them (other tanks are more efficient, other transports are more efficient UNLESS you need to transport Gravis/Terminators) is to transport units that just make it even more likely they'll die before they can fully transport the unit.
I think that by now the consensus is that land raiders (as much as some of us love them) just aren't amazing in this edition.
BUT: who knows what crazy nonsense is going to come out with the codex! New rules? An invulnerable save? The ability to let units disembark/move/shoot/charge after the box moves?
At this point pretty much anything is on the table :-)
In the Dawn of War RTS, POTM gave the Land Raider a 30 second or so invulnerable shield. I'd love to see POTM brought back as a once-per-battle activated ability that functioned like TransHuman Physiology and let the LR always make an armor save on 4+. Feels like that would give you at least one good round where it either soaks all the enemy shooting or survives to put a unit where you want it.
Or gw could just make Land Raiders T9. Make them as tough as they were when they were AV 14 all around. It's a possibility, we still haven't seen a Land Raider build sheet. Gw has been increasing the S of some weapons already. I'm still wondering what they expect those S10 HK missiles to be shot at.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or gw could just make Land Raiders T9. Make them as tough as they were when they were AV 14 all around. It's a possibility, we still haven't seen a Land Raider build sheet. Gw has been increasing the S of some weapons already. I'm still wondering what they expect those S10 HK missiles to be shot at.
Is T9 equivalent to AV14? I've never seen anyone try and do the math on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save
S9 No Special Rules vs T9 wounds on 4+ S9 vs AV14 glances on 5's, Pen's on 6's.
S8 No Special Rules wounds T9 on 5's, glances AV14 on 6's, doesn't Pen.
S7 No Special Rules or less couldn't even Glance.
Assuming I remember AV/Glance/Pen right.
Dysartes wrote: Giving the Crusader back its Assault Launchers/Ramp rule, so units could disembark and assault (if they hadn't embarked that turn) would give that variant a bit of a niche, at least.
It would be a nice boost, but I'm not sure it's the answer - Nor should it be limited to just Land Raiders, or necessarily Space Marines. If you bring it back for LRs and/or give it to Repulsors you should also bring it back for open topped.. Loading the kind of troops that require taking a LR/Repulsor to assault from (i.e. Terminators, gravis/Aggressors, potentially but unlikely jumpy marines) just raises the target priority - both for points and disruption values - so they die before you want to unload.
Its quite a catch-22 the main reason to take them (other tanks are more efficient, other transports are more efficient UNLESS you need to transport Gravis/Terminators) is to transport units that just make it even more likely they'll die before they can fully transport the unit.
At no point was I suggesting that the Repulsive (or variants) should get such a rule - the only thing those monstrosities should get is some form of built-in -1 to hit, to reflect the sheer ugliness of the design putting off enemy gunners.
I agree that such a thing should be part of a wider review, as I don't think being able to disembark & charge out of some vehicles is a bad option - I bring it up for the Crusader as that sort of line-breaker role is explicitly what it was created for.
To get the LR to be suitably durable, I think you need a wholesale review of the T & Sv of Monsters and Vehicles, combined with a review of the S/Dam/AP of AT weaponry. If the top of the scale for S and T is no longer 10, we really should be making use of that more. Hell, adjust the wounding chart to allow for a 7+ to wound, if you don't want to block off a lasgun killing a LR, but it need looking at across the game, not just in one 'dex.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or gw could just make Land Raiders T9. Make them as tough as they were when they were AV 14 all around. It's a possibility, we still haven't seen a Land Raider build sheet. Gw has been increasing the S of some weapons already. I'm still wondering what they expect those S10 HK missiles to be shot at.
Is T9 equivalent to AV14? I've never seen anyone try and do the math on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save
S9 No Special Rules vs T9 wounds on 4+ S9 vs AV14 glances on 5's, Pen's on 6's.
S8 No Special Rules wounds T9 on 5's, glances AV14 on 6's, doesn't Pen.
S7 No Special Rules or less couldn't even Glance.
Assuming I remember AV/Glance/Pen right.
Gw isn't going to let anything do the equivalent of "not being able to glance". They expect every weapon to have some chance of wounding every target. But T9 2+ is damned tough. I know, I run Hellforged Super Heavys, lascannons wounding on 4s instead of 3s and melta wounding on 5s instead of 4s makes a big difference.
Dysartes wrote: Giving the Crusader back its Assault Launchers/Ramp rule, so units could disembark and assault (if they hadn't embarked that turn) would give that variant a bit of a niche, at least.
It would be a nice boost, but I'm not sure it's the answer - Nor should it be limited to just Land Raiders, or necessarily Space Marines. If you bring it back for LRs and/or give it to Repulsors you should also bring it back for open topped.. Loading the kind of troops that require taking a LR/Repulsor to assault from (i.e. Terminators, gravis/Aggressors, potentially but unlikely jumpy marines) just raises the target priority - both for points and disruption values - so they die before you want to unload.
Its quite a catch-22 the main reason to take them (other tanks are more efficient, other transports are more efficient UNLESS you need to transport Gravis/Terminators) is to transport units that just make it even more likely they'll die before they can fully transport the unit.
At no point was I suggesting that the Repulsive (or variants) should get such a rule - the only thing those monstrosities should get is some form of built-in -1 to hit, to reflect the sheer ugliness of the design putting off enemy gunners.
I agree that such a thing should be part of a wider review, as I don't think being able to disembark & charge out of some vehicles is a bad option - I bring it up for the Crusader as that sort of line-breaker role is explicitly what it was created for.
To get the LR to be suitably durable, I think you need a wholesale review of the T & Sv of Monsters and Vehicles, combined with a review of the S/Dam/AP of AT weaponry. If the top of the scale for S and T is no longer 10, we really should be making use of that more. Hell, adjust the wounding chart to allow for a 7+ to wound, if you don't want to block off a lasgun killing a LR, but it need looking at across the game, not just in one 'dex.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or gw could just make Land Raiders T9. Make them as tough as they were when they were AV 14 all around. It's a possibility, we still haven't seen a Land Raider build sheet. Gw has been increasing the S of some weapons already. I'm still wondering what they expect those S10 HK missiles to be shot at.
Is T9 equivalent to AV14? I've never seen anyone try and do the math on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save
S9 No Special Rules vs T9 wounds on 4+ S9 vs AV14 glances on 5's, Pen's on 6's.
S8 No Special Rules wounds T9 on 5's, glances AV14 on 6's, doesn't Pen.
S7 No Special Rules or less couldn't even Glance.
Assuming I remember AV/Glance/Pen right.
Gw isn't going to let anything do the equivalent of "not being able to glance". They expect every weapon to have some chance of wounding every target. But T9 2+ is damned tough. I know, I run Hellforged Super Heavys, lascannons wounding on 4s instead of 3s and melta wounding on 5s instead of 4s makes a big difference.
Oh I wasn't expecting them to revert. I mentioned S7 because far fewer guns touch AV14 than T9.
I was honestly wondering if anyone had done the math. I think the chart was 1 in 6 to Pen, 1 in 6 to immediately explode. There was also 1 in 6 and a 1 in 6 for a couple of catastrophic functionality losses. The other 3 in 6 resulted in less severe functionality losses more pertinent to other vehicles and offset by POTMS
Dysartes wrote: Giving the Crusader back its Assault Launchers/Ramp rule, so units could disembark and assault (if they hadn't embarked that turn) would give that variant a bit of a niche, at least.
It would be a nice boost, but I'm not sure it's the answer - Nor should it be limited to just Land Raiders, or necessarily Space Marines. If you bring it back for LRs and/or give it to Repulsors you should also bring it back for open topped.. Loading the kind of troops that require taking a LR/Repulsor to assault from (i.e. Terminators, gravis/Aggressors, potentially but unlikely jumpy marines) just raises the target priority - both for points and disruption values - so they die before you want to unload.
Its quite a catch-22 the main reason to take them (other tanks are more efficient, other transports are more efficient UNLESS you need to transport Gravis/Terminators) is to transport units that just make it even more likely they'll die before they can fully transport the unit.
At no point was I suggesting that the Repulsive (or variants) should get such a rule - the only thing those monstrosities should get is some form of built-in -1 to hit, to reflect the sheer ugliness of the design putting off enemy gunners.
I agree that such a thing should be part of a wider review, as I don't think being able to disembark & charge out of some vehicles is a bad option - I bring it up for the Crusader as that sort of line-breaker role is explicitly what it was created for.
To get the LR to be suitably durable, I think you need a wholesale review of the T & Sv of Monsters and Vehicles, combined with a review of the S/Dam/AP of AT weaponry. If the top of the scale for S and T is no longer 10, we really should be making use of that more. Hell, adjust the wounding chart to allow for a 7+ to wound, if you don't want to block off a lasgun killing a LR, but it need looking at across the game, not just in one 'dex.
Well said. Especially the comment on "Repulives".
All the Land Raiders had the rule. I don't see giving it to them and not to the Primaris corollary Repulsors. Again if I remember right - at a certain point all the older editions start to meld together - the rule was BRB for Open Topped, and Special for Land Raiders and maybe a few others. You'd be giving it to some wagons, to LR's/Repulsors (assuming in this fantasy GW keeps Seperate But Equal), I think those DE Return of the Jedi Jaba's skiff things, (potentially) Land Speeder Storms which were but arent anymore. Potentially Impulsors. I'm not sure Super Heavy Transports were a thing that far back for the Guard. I feel like Eldar had something but I don't remember what it was. Maybe they just wanted something at the time. When an ability like this is given to almost everyone, you've got to be careful about which factions don't get it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Or gw could just make Land Raiders T9. Make them as tough as they were when they were AV 14 all around. It's a possibility, we still haven't seen a Land Raider build sheet. Gw has been increasing the S of some weapons already. I'm still wondering what they expect those S10 HK missiles to be shot at.
Is T9 equivalent to AV14? I've never seen anyone try and do the math on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save
S9 No Special Rules vs T9 wounds on 4+ S9 vs AV14 glances on 5's, Pen's on 6's.
S8 No Special Rules wounds T9 on 5's, glances AV14 on 6's, doesn't Pen.
S7 No Special Rules or less couldn't even Glance.
Assuming I remember AV/Glance/Pen right.
Gw isn't going to let anything do the equivalent of "not being able to glance". They expect every weapon to have some chance of wounding every target. But T9 2+ is damned tough. I know, I run Hellforged Super Heavys, lascannons wounding on 4s instead of 3s and melta wounding on 5s instead of 4s makes a big difference.
Oh I wasn't expecting them to revert. I mentioned S7 because far fewer guns touch AV14 than T9.
I was honestly wondering if anyone had done the math. I think the chart was 1 in 6 to Pen, 1 in 6 to immediately explode. There was also 1 in 6 and a 1 in 6 for a couple of catastrophic functionality losses. The other 3 in 6 resulted in less severe functionality losses more pertinent to other vehicles and offset by POTMS
You also didn't get a save against those pens, unless you were obscured by cover or had an invul, and we don't have vehicle damage tables anymore. Most vehicles also have about 4× as many wounds as they had hull points. T9 on a 16W 2+ Land Raider would be pretty tough.
Oh, and:
All the Land Raiders had the rule.
Sorry, wrong answer. All Land Raiders didn't have assault vehicle rules.
You also didn't get a save against those pens, unless you were obscured by cover or had an invul, and we don't have vehicle damage tables anymore. Most vehicles also have about 4× as many wounds as they had hull points. T9 on a 16W 2+ Land Raider would be pretty tough.
Thus why I included Armor Save
on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save
on one side of the equation:
Oh, and:
All the Land Raiders had the rule.
Sorry, wrong answer. All Land Raiders didn't have assault vehicle rules.
I checked the codex first The Land Raider, Crusader, and Redeemer all had the Assault Vehicle rule being referenced - able to charge on the same turn they disembark - are you thinking of the Frag Assault Launchers giving units (Terminators) Frag Grenades to fight at Initiative thing?
You also didn't get a save against those pens, unless you were obscured by cover or had an invul, and we don't have vehicle damage tables anymore. Most vehicles also have about 4× as many wounds as they had hull points. T9 on a 16W 2+ Land Raider would be pretty tough.
Thus why I included Armor Save
on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save
on one side of the equation:
Cool, then you can see how buffing Land Raider to T9 (or more) could bring their resiliency closer to where they were at in previous editions.
I checked the codex first The Land Raider, Crusader, and Redeemer all had the Assault Vehicle rule being referenced - able to charge on the same turn they disembark - are you thinking of the Frag Assault Launchers giving units (Terminators) Frag Grenades to fight at Initiative thing?
No. I'm thinking about the Land Raider Achilles and Proteus, neither of which were assault vehicles, because they lacked assault ramps and weren't open topped, just like Repulsives. Every transport doesn't need that rule, just like Dysartes said.
Cool, then you can see how buffing Land Raider to T9 (or more) could bring their resiliency closer to where they were at in previous editions.
In the AV14 comparison: It'll bring it closer, but I don't know it will bring it close. S5, S6, and S 7 can still hurt it now and still on 5's when they couldn't at AV14. S8 Krak/Melta/lance/etc move to 5's and S9 Lascannon to 4's That's still more damage rolls than vs Av14 when you needed 6's and 5's. After that you have to start comparing 1/36 explodes and 4 HP vs X number of D6(3.5) wounds making/failing Y(somewhere around 4-5) number of 2+ modified saves. I mean quick comparison suggests Y number of 2+ wounds being whacked off at D6(3.5) wounds a pop is more than 4HP but it was harder to slice off each of the 4HP even before Hull Down/Obscured.
You'd need to figure out what to do with Thunderhammers, chainfists, and equivalents too so they don't fall too far behind on tank busting.
I checked the codex first The Land Raider, Crusader, and Redeemer all had the Assault Vehicle rule being referenced - able to charge on the same turn they disembark - are you thinking of the Frag Assault Launchers giving units (Terminators) Frag Grenades to fight at Initiative thing?
No. I'm thinking about the Land Raider Achilles and Proteus, neither of which were assault vehicles, because they lacked assault ramps and weren't open topped, just like Repulsives. Every transport doesn't need that rule, just like Dysartes said.
The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.
Breton wrote: I checked the codex first The Land Raider, Crusader, and Redeemer all had the Assault Vehicle rule being referenced - able to charge on the same turn they disembark - are you thinking of the Frag Assault Launchers giving units (Terminators) Frag Grenades to fight at Initiative thing?
No. I'm thinking about the Land Raider Achilles and Proteus, neither of which were assault vehicles, because they lacked assault ramps and weren't open topped, just like Repulsives. Every transport doesn't need that rule, just like Dysartes said.
The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.
Now we've fixed the quotes, with suitable attribution.
Breton, look at the models - the three core Land Raider variants could get an Assault Ramp rule (though I'd limit it to Crusader and maybe Redeemer, to factor in the Assault Launchers as well) because they've actually got Assault Ramps. You can make a similar argument for the Stormraven (as it seems to have one under the chin), and the LS Storm makes a bit of sense for having some form of rule allowing Scouts to assault from it due to being open-topped.
The Repulsive shouldn't get it for the same reason the Rhino doesn't - you're not piling out the front of the vehicle into the midst of the enemy while diversionary charges go off around you, you're carefully disembarking from the sides and rear of the tank; and in the case of the Repulsive, probably approaching with caution while you figure out how the silly grav array is affecting your footing because Cawl didn't design your transport with proper tracks.
Breton wrote: The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.
If you had specified the base game, you'd be wrong anyways. The Forge World ones exist in the base game.
Breton wrote: In the AV14 comparison: It'll bring it closer, but I don't know it will bring it close. S5, S6, and S 7 can still hurt it now and still on 5's when they couldn't at AV14. S8 Krak/Melta/lance/etc move to 5's and S9 Lascannon to 4's That's still more damage rolls than vs Av14 when you needed 6's and 5's. After that you have to start comparing 1/36 explodes and 4 HP vs X number of D6(3.5) wounds making/failing Y(somewhere around 4-5) number of 2+ modified saves. I mean quick comparison suggests Y number of 2+ wounds being whacked off at D6(3.5) wounds a pop is more than 4HP but it was harder to slice off each of the 4HP even before Hull Down/Obscured.
You'd need to figure out what to do with Thunderhammers, chainfists, and equivalents too so they don't fall too far behind on tank busting.
Which is an issue with the current wounding table which has already been argued to death in this thread and probably doesn't need any more arguing at this point. Thunderhammers and chainfists would already be covered by their high AP.
The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
Breton, look at the models - the three core Land Raider variants could get an Assault Ramp rule (though I'd limit it to Crusader and maybe Redeemer, to factor in the Assault Launchers as well) because they've actually got Assault Ramps. You can make a similar argument for the Stormraven (as it seems to have one under the chin), and the LS Storm makes a bit of sense for having some form of rule allowing Scouts to assault from it due to being open-topped.
The Repulsive shouldn't get it for the same reason the Rhino doesn't - you're not piling out the front of the vehicle into the midst of the enemy while diversionary charges go off around you, you're carefully disembarking from the sides and rear of the tank; and in the case of the Repulsive, probably approaching with caution while you figure out how the silly grav array is affecting your footing because Cawl didn't design your transport with proper tracks.
The Models don't represent it you're absolutely right. I didn't base the idea that IF GW did this, they would probably give it to Repulsors too on the looks but on rules/customer satisfaction. I think IF GW did this, then between Open Topped or this Assault Vehicle rule, they'd give it in some way to each faction or nearly so. Maybe not Tau, Necrons or Nids. Tau don't fight a lot, and Necrons/Nids have different "transport" mechanics. Primaris Only and Old Marine only might as well be considered a faction at this point in the GW fence sitting.
Breton wrote: The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.
If you had specified the base game, you'd be wrong anyways. The Forge World ones exist in the base game.
What you meant was your own houseruled 40k.
Why aren't they in the codex then? Oh yeah...they should be but aren't because their rules are written by other groups that want to sell models at 3x the price as plastic ones. Got it. It's okay to like forge world but don't claim they are base game. If all you did was shop at FLGS you'd never know forge world existed.
Breton wrote: The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.
If you had specified the base game, you'd be wrong anyways. The Forge World ones exist in the base game.
What you meant was your own houseruled 40k.
Why aren't they in the codex then? Oh yeah...they should be but aren't because their rules are written by other groups that want to sell models at 3x the price as plastic ones. Got it. It's okay to like forge world but don't claim they are base game. If all you did was shop at FLGS you'd never know forge world existed.
If I bring my FW to a FLGS, I think it is reasonable to expect them to be able to be used in a game. That's the definition of base game. And TBF, I care even less now about what's in a codex than I used to, since really basic things like "same guy, but on motorcycle" are in Legends now.
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
I didn't say anything with a similar stat line. I said the Repulsor hulls, the Primaris equivalent to the Land Raider you might find in an Indomitus Founding Chapter they just fluffed. I saw somewhere 28% of tournament armies are Space Marines of one flavor or another. For argument's sake lets say that ratio carries over to non-tournaments too - that means if they only gave this to Land Raiders Most of 72% of all players(The Chaos Land Raiders would probably get it too), and some other portion of 28% who just play Primaris would lose their minds. Look at the people flipping out because Marines got an ability some other army already had. Now give them an ability no other army gets...
Why aren't they in the codex then? Oh yeah...they should be but aren't because their rules are written by other groups that want to sell models at 3x the price as plastic ones. Got it. It's okay to like forge world but don't claim they are base game. If all you did was shop at FLGS you'd never know forge world existed.
If I bring my FW to a FLGS, I think it is reasonable to expect them to be able to be used in a game. That's the definition of base game. And TBF, I care even less now about what's in a codex than I used to, since really basic things like "same guy, but on motorcycle" are in Legends now.
Webster's Dictionary wrote:
Definition of base (Entry 1 of 4)
3a: the fundamental part of something : GROUNDWORK, BASIS
An optional book from GW - like the campaign books - is not a part of the base game. Rulebook, codex. MAYBE FAQ's is the base game. An optional book from a partner company is definitely not part of the base game.
Breton wrote: An optional book from GW - like the campaign books - is not a part of the base game. Rulebook, codex. MAYBE FAQ's is the base game. An optional book from a partner company is definitely not part of the base game.
Partner company? FW is as much GW as citadel is. Saying FW is a partner company is like saying Citadel is a partner company, which is obviously false. GW owns both 100%.
Would you consider Legends base game? Any of the Psychic Awakening books? Vigilus books? If not, then that's where our difference lies; I would be pretty upset if I used the Psychic Awakening rules to build my army, and you refused to play against it because it's not the base game.
Breton wrote: The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.
If you had specified the base game, you'd be wrong anyways. The Forge World ones exist in the base game.
What you meant was your own houseruled 40k.
Why aren't they in the codex then? Oh yeah...they should be but aren't because their rules are written by other groups that want to sell models at 3x the price as plastic ones. Got it. It's okay to like forge world but don't claim they are base game. If all you did was shop at FLGS you'd never know forge world existed.
If I bring my FW to a FLGS, I think it is reasonable to expect them to be able to be used in a game. That's the definition of base game. And TBF, I care even less now about what's in a codex than I used to, since really basic things like "same guy, but on motorcycle" are in Legends now.
If it's in the codex it is not legends. Pretty much legends is models they don't produce anymore. Ofc you can play with it - it's just not the basic game. The existence of a forge world model that does the job right or better does not mitigate the fact that bad codex units need to be fixed. Like seriously...All the land raiders need to be at Achilles level to even be considered being put on the table in casual games.
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
I didn't say anything with a similar stat line. I said the Repulsor hulls, the Primaris equivalent to the Land Raider you might find in an Indomitus Founding Chapter they just fluffed. I saw somewhere 28% of tournament armies are Space Marines of one flavor or another. For argument's sake lets say that ratio carries over to non-tournaments too - that means if they only gave this to Land Raiders Most of 72% of all players(The Chaos Land Raiders would probably get it too), and some other portion of 28% who just play Primaris would lose their minds. Look at the people flipping out because Marines got an ability some other army already had. Now give them an ability no other army gets...
Obviously the rule would apply to other vehicles in other factions. Anything with the Open Topped rule would be a contender, as would anything that was previously an assault vehicle. Primaris would obviously have the Impulsor. The rule just wouldn't make sense for Repulsives.
@Xenos: If we make all Land Raiders the equivalent of the Achilles then what do you do with it? T11 with a 3++? And do you intend to increase their points accordingly and reduce their transport capacity to 6 like the Achilles as well?
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
I didn't say anything with a similar stat line. I said the Repulsor hulls, the Primaris equivalent to the Land Raider you might find in an Indomitus Founding Chapter they just fluffed. I saw somewhere 28% of tournament armies are Space Marines of one flavor or another. For argument's sake lets say that ratio carries over to non-tournaments too - that means if they only gave this to Land Raiders Most of 72% of all players(The Chaos Land Raiders would probably get it too), and some other portion of 28% who just play Primaris would lose their minds. Look at the people flipping out because Marines got an ability some other army already had. Now give them an ability no other army gets...
Obviously the rule would apply to other vehicles in other factions. Anything with the Open Topped rule would be a contender, as would anything that was previously an assault vehicle. Primaris would obviously have the Impulsor. The rule just wouldn't make sense for Repulsives.
@Xenos: If we make all Land Raiders the equivalent of the Achilles then what do you do with it? T11 with a 3++? And do you intend to increase their points accordingly and reduce their transport capacity to 6 like the Achilles as well?
The Achilles loses transport capacity due to having a thunderfire cannon in place of its twin front mount and gets it's 4++ and additional wounds because it's forge world. Land raiders having varied capacity is nothing new. I'm speaking to durability. The Achilles is actually durable. This is where all land raiders should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm just happy that I can tell marine players not to use their supplements or any of the units in Indomitus if I just play the base game.
Thanks for correcting me guys, gonna go play against supplement-less marines now armed with this knowledge.
So I can't buy a supplement from a games workshop store? Look I am not anti forge world - it will always be viewed with a different lens though because it is balanced differently.
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
I didn't say anything with a similar stat line. I said the Repulsor hulls, the Primaris equivalent to the Land Raider you might find in an Indomitus Founding Chapter they just fluffed. I saw somewhere 28% of tournament armies are Space Marines of one flavor or another. For argument's sake lets say that ratio carries over to non-tournaments too - that means if they only gave this to Land Raiders Most of 72% of all players(The Chaos Land Raiders would probably get it too), and some other portion of 28% who just play Primaris would lose their minds. Look at the people flipping out because Marines got an ability some other army already had. Now give them an ability no other army gets...
Obviously the rule would apply to other vehicles in other factions. Anything with the Open Topped rule would be a contender, as would anything that was previously an assault vehicle. Primaris would obviously have the Impulsor. The rule just wouldn't make sense for Repulsives.
@Xenos: If we make all Land Raiders the equivalent of the Achilles then what do you do with it? T11 with a 3++? And do you intend to increase their points accordingly and reduce their transport capacity to 6 like the Achilles as well?
The Achilles loses transport capacity due to having a thunderfire cannon in place of its twin front mount and gets it's 4++ and additional wounds because it's forge world. Land raiders having varied capacity is nothing new. I'm speaking to durability. The Achilles is actually durable. This is where all land raiders should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm just happy that I can tell marine players not to use their supplements or any of the units in Indomitus if I just play the base game.
Thanks for correcting me guys, gonna go play against supplement-less marines now armed with this knowledge.
So I can't buy a supplement from a games workshop store?
So anything that's web-order only isn't allowed in the game? Hell, anything not on the shelf isn't allowed?
Edit: Because I can order Forgeworld from a GW store. I can talk to the manager at my local GW and learn about FW models.
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
I didn't say anything with a similar stat line. I said the Repulsor hulls, the Primaris equivalent to the Land Raider you might find in an Indomitus Founding Chapter they just fluffed. I saw somewhere 28% of tournament armies are Space Marines of one flavor or another. For argument's sake lets say that ratio carries over to non-tournaments too - that means if they only gave this to Land Raiders Most of 72% of all players(The Chaos Land Raiders would probably get it too), and some other portion of 28% who just play Primaris would lose their minds. Look at the people flipping out because Marines got an ability some other army already had. Now give them an ability no other army gets...
Obviously the rule would apply to other vehicles in other factions. Anything with the Open Topped rule would be a contender, as would anything that was previously an assault vehicle. Primaris would obviously have the Impulsor. The rule just wouldn't make sense for Repulsives.
@Xenos: If we make all Land Raiders the equivalent of the Achilles then what do you do with it? T11 with a 3++? And do you intend to increase their points accordingly and reduce their transport capacity to 6 like the Achilles as well?
The Achilles loses transport capacity due to having a thunderfire cannon in place of its twin front mount and gets it's 4++ and additional wounds because it's forge world. Land raiders having varied capacity is nothing new. I'm speaking to durability. The Achilles is actually durable. This is where all land raiders should be.
Ah, yes, it has nothing to do with all that extra armour which cuts down on interior space. It's entirely because the model is made of resin instead of plastic. Good to know.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm just happy that I can tell marine players not to use their supplements or any of the units in Indomitus if I just play the base game.
Thanks for correcting me guys, gonna go play against supplement-less marines now armed with this knowledge.
So I can't buy a supplement from a games workshop store? Look I am not anti forge world - it will always be viewed with a different lens though because it is balanced differently.
How exactly is it balanced differently? Gw has been doing all the points for fw units since CA2018, are you implying that they underprice fw units? Because my 880 PPM Hellforged Fellblade would like to know when it gets its free points buff.
You can order webstore only stuff in a GW store. I do it all the time. You cant order forge world there. Not through the cashier anyways. They don't offer in store pick up for forge world in GW stores. Why is that? Are they actually competing products? Yeah...they are.
Xenomancers wrote: You can order webstore only stuff in a GW store. I do it all the time. You cant order forge world there. Not through the cashier anyways. They don't offer in store pick up for forge world in GW stores. Why is that? Are they actually competing products? Yeah...they are.
Yes you can, actually. My local GW is happy when I come in and order forge world, and they are happy to put their own store address and hold it for me. Next time, go in and ask if you can order a FW model there.
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
I didn't say anything with a similar stat line. I said the Repulsor hulls, the Primaris equivalent to the Land Raider you might find in an Indomitus Founding Chapter they just fluffed. I saw somewhere 28% of tournament armies are Space Marines of one flavor or another. For argument's sake lets say that ratio carries over to non-tournaments too - that means if they only gave this to Land Raiders Most of 72% of all players(The Chaos Land Raiders would probably get it too), and some other portion of 28% who just play Primaris would lose their minds. Look at the people flipping out because Marines got an ability some other army already had. Now give them an ability no other army gets...
Obviously the rule would apply to other vehicles in other factions. Anything with the Open Topped rule would be a contender, as would anything that was previously an assault vehicle. Primaris would obviously have the Impulsor. The rule just wouldn't make sense for Repulsives.
@Xenos: If we make all Land Raiders the equivalent of the Achilles then what do you do with it? T11 with a 3++? And do you intend to increase their points accordingly and reduce their transport capacity to 6 like the Achilles as well?
The Achilles loses transport capacity due to having a thunderfire cannon in place of its twin front mount and gets it's 4++ and additional wounds because it's forge world. Land raiders having varied capacity is nothing new. I'm speaking to durability. The Achilles is actually durable. This is where all land raiders should be.
Ah, yes, it has nothing to do with all that extra armour which cuts down on interior space. It's entirely because the model is made of resin instead of plastic. Good to know.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm just happy that I can tell marine players not to use their supplements or any of the units in Indomitus if I just play the base game.
Thanks for correcting me guys, gonna go play against supplement-less marines now armed with this knowledge.
So I can't buy a supplement from a games workshop store? Look I am not anti forge world - it will always be viewed with a different lens though because it is balanced differently.
How exactly is it balanced differently? Gw has been doing all the points for fw units since CA2018, are you implying that they underprice fw units? Because my 880 PPM Hellforged Fellblade would like to know when it gets its free points buff.
Its balanced differently because it has a different author and their products actually compete with each other. GW stores (actaully called warhammer stores now) will not sell forge world.
Xenomancers wrote: You can order webstore only stuff in a GW store. I do it all the time. You cant order forge world there. Not through the cashier anyways. They don't offer in store pick up for forge world in GW stores. Why is that? Are they actually competing products? Yeah...they are.
Yes you can, actually. My local GW is happy when I come in and order forge world, and they are happy to put their own store address and hold it for me. Next time, go in and ask if you can order a FW model there.
They are breaking their own policy then. I would keep that on the DL.
Xenomancers wrote: Its balanced differently because it has a different author and their products actually compete with each other. GW stores (actaully called warhammer stores now) will not sell forge world.
The different codexes have different authors. Are they also balanced differently? Maybe we should ban Space Marines, it was written by someone other than who wrote Orks.
GW Stores are happy to let me order Forge World - as happy as they are to let me order web-only GW products - at least in my local area. All 3 do.
I'd be surprised it's policy related considering they have a button on the store computer they can press that's a FW link - I certainly can't get that button on the "civilian" GW website.
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
I didn't say anything with a similar stat line. I said the Repulsor hulls, the Primaris equivalent to the Land Raider you might find in an Indomitus Founding Chapter they just fluffed. I saw somewhere 28% of tournament armies are Space Marines of one flavor or another. For argument's sake lets say that ratio carries over to non-tournaments too - that means if they only gave this to Land Raiders Most of 72% of all players(The Chaos Land Raiders would probably get it too), and some other portion of 28% who just play Primaris would lose their minds. Look at the people flipping out because Marines got an ability some other army already had. Now give them an ability no other army gets...
Obviously the rule would apply to other vehicles in other factions. Anything with the Open Topped rule would be a contender, as would anything that was previously an assault vehicle. Primaris would obviously have the Impulsor. The rule just wouldn't make sense for Repulsives.
@Xenos: If we make all Land Raiders the equivalent of the Achilles then what do you do with it? T11 with a 3++? And do you intend to increase their points accordingly and reduce their transport capacity to 6 like the Achilles as well?
The Achilles loses transport capacity due to having a thunderfire cannon in place of its twin front mount and gets it's 4++ and additional wounds because it's forge world. Land raiders having varied capacity is nothing new. I'm speaking to durability. The Achilles is actually durable. This is where all land raiders should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm just happy that I can tell marine players not to use their supplements or any of the units in Indomitus if I just play the base game.
Thanks for correcting me guys, gonna go play against supplement-less marines now armed with this knowledge.
So I can't buy a supplement from a games workshop store?
So anything that's web-order only isn't allowed in the game?
Hell, anything not on the shelf isn't allowed?
Edit: Because I can order Forgeworld from a GW store. I can talk to the manager at my local GW and learn about FW models.
I'm sick of people claiming FW isnt part of the game, since 8th the rules have been written by the main studio so that argument holds zero water.
the only issue here in the states is that you can't just go buy/order it in a store(flgs or GW) and we get raked over hot coals with the moronic regional pricing.
I for one am fine with a once per game POTMS ability so save on 4+ irrespective of AP value.
Billagio wrote: How do you know his store is breaking policy and your store owner doesnt just want you to buy stuff from him?
Well because I would be buying forge world from him so it makes no sense why he'd lie to me. Okay I'll buy it myself...which I have done in the past and it's gone just like that.
It makes total sense why a manager at a struggling store would break the policy though. You probably wouldn't shop at his store if he didn't let you buy it there.
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
I didn't say anything with a similar stat line. I said the Repulsor hulls, the Primaris equivalent to the Land Raider you might find in an Indomitus Founding Chapter they just fluffed. I saw somewhere 28% of tournament armies are Space Marines of one flavor or another. For argument's sake lets say that ratio carries over to non-tournaments too - that means if they only gave this to Land Raiders Most of 72% of all players(The Chaos Land Raiders would probably get it too), and some other portion of 28% who just play Primaris would lose their minds. Look at the people flipping out because Marines got an ability some other army already had. Now give them an ability no other army gets...
Obviously the rule would apply to other vehicles in other factions. Anything with the Open Topped rule would be a contender, as would anything that was previously an assault vehicle. Primaris would obviously have the Impulsor. The rule just wouldn't make sense for Repulsives.
@Xenos: If we make all Land Raiders the equivalent of the Achilles then what do you do with it? T11 with a 3++? And do you intend to increase their points accordingly and reduce their transport capacity to 6 like the Achilles as well?
The Achilles loses transport capacity due to having a thunderfire cannon in place of its twin front mount and gets it's 4++ and additional wounds because it's forge world. Land raiders having varied capacity is nothing new. I'm speaking to durability. The Achilles is actually durable. This is where all land raiders should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm just happy that I can tell marine players not to use their supplements or any of the units in Indomitus if I just play the base game.
Thanks for correcting me guys, gonna go play against supplement-less marines now armed with this knowledge.
So I can't buy a supplement from a games workshop store?
So anything that's web-order only isn't allowed in the game?
Hell, anything not on the shelf isn't allowed?
Edit: Because I can order Forgeworld from a GW store. I can talk to the manager at my local GW and learn about FW models.
I'm sick of people claiming FW isnt part of the game, since 8th the rules have been written by the main studio so that argument holds zero water.
the only issue here in the states is that you can't just go buy/order it in a store(flgs or GW) and we get raked over hot coals with the moronic regional pricing.
I for one am fine with a once per game POTMS ability so save on 4+ irrespective of AP value.
No one is claiming that. It is part of the game. It is not a basic part of the game though and it is not included in the general balancing of the game ether. It is always an afterthought and hence it will always be problematic.
Billagio wrote: How do you know his store is breaking policy and your store owner doesnt just want you to buy stuff from him?
Well because I would be buying forge world from him so it makes no sense why he'd lie to me. Okay I'll buy it myself...which I have done in the past and it's gone just like that.
It makes total sense why a manager at a struggling store would break the policy though. You probably wouldn't shop at his store if he didn't let you buy it there.
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
I didn't say anything with a similar stat line. I said the Repulsor hulls, the Primaris equivalent to the Land Raider you might find in an Indomitus Founding Chapter they just fluffed. I saw somewhere 28% of tournament armies are Space Marines of one flavor or another. For argument's sake lets say that ratio carries over to non-tournaments too - that means if they only gave this to Land Raiders Most of 72% of all players(The Chaos Land Raiders would probably get it too), and some other portion of 28% who just play Primaris would lose their minds. Look at the people flipping out because Marines got an ability some other army already had. Now give them an ability no other army gets...
Obviously the rule would apply to other vehicles in other factions. Anything with the Open Topped rule would be a contender, as would anything that was previously an assault vehicle. Primaris would obviously have the Impulsor. The rule just wouldn't make sense for Repulsives.
@Xenos: If we make all Land Raiders the equivalent of the Achilles then what do you do with it? T11 with a 3++? And do you intend to increase their points accordingly and reduce their transport capacity to 6 like the Achilles as well?
The Achilles loses transport capacity due to having a thunderfire cannon in place of its twin front mount and gets it's 4++ and additional wounds because it's forge world. Land raiders having varied capacity is nothing new. I'm speaking to durability. The Achilles is actually durable. This is where all land raiders should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm just happy that I can tell marine players not to use their supplements or any of the units in Indomitus if I just play the base game.
Thanks for correcting me guys, gonna go play against supplement-less marines now armed with this knowledge.
So I can't buy a supplement from a games workshop store?
So anything that's web-order only isn't allowed in the game?
Hell, anything not on the shelf isn't allowed?
Edit: Because I can order Forgeworld from a GW store. I can talk to the manager at my local GW and learn about FW models.
I'm sick of people claiming FW isnt part of the game, since 8th the rules have been written by the main studio so that argument holds zero water.
the only issue here in the states is that you can't just go buy/order it in a store(flgs or GW) and we get raked over hot coals with the moronic regional pricing.
I for one am fine with a once per game POTMS ability so save on 4+ irrespective of AP value.
No one is claiming that. It is part of the game. It is not a basic part of the game though and it is not included in the general balancing of the game ether. It is always an afterthought and hence it will always be problematic.
Xeno, you know what's the biggest problem in the game right now?
Space Marines. They're just all-around too good, in many different ways large and small. On the tournament scene, where everything is cutthroat and everyone optimizes as best they can, it might not be overwhelming, but casually, where you get two friends slapping down models and hoping to have a good time? That's where HUGE issues are.
Marines have tons of overlapping buffs for offense and defense, many of their units are very aggressively priced, and they're all-around too powerful relative to pretty much any other Dex.
Forgeworld is a minor issue (and one that's on GW to fix, not the playerbase) relative to the massive discrepancies present in the Marine book relative to others.
Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.
I didn't say anything with a similar stat line. I said the Repulsor hulls, the Primaris equivalent to the Land Raider you might find in an Indomitus Founding Chapter they just fluffed. I saw somewhere 28% of tournament armies are Space Marines of one flavor or another. For argument's sake lets say that ratio carries over to non-tournaments too - that means if they only gave this to Land Raiders Most of 72% of all players(The Chaos Land Raiders would probably get it too), and some other portion of 28% who just play Primaris would lose their minds. Look at the people flipping out because Marines got an ability some other army already had. Now give them an ability no other army gets...
Obviously the rule would apply to other vehicles in other factions. Anything with the Open Topped rule would be a contender, as would anything that was previously an assault vehicle. Primaris would obviously have the Impulsor. The rule just wouldn't make sense for Repulsives.
@Xenos: If we make all Land Raiders the equivalent of the Achilles then what do you do with it? T11 with a 3++? And do you intend to increase their points accordingly and reduce their transport capacity to 6 like the Achilles as well?
The Achilles loses transport capacity due to having a thunderfire cannon in place of its twin front mount and gets it's 4++ and additional wounds because it's forge world. Land raiders having varied capacity is nothing new. I'm speaking to durability. The Achilles is actually durable. This is where all land raiders should be.
Ah, yes, it has nothing to do with all that extra armour which cuts down on interior space. It's entirely because the model is made of resin instead of plastic. Good to know.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm just happy that I can tell marine players not to use their supplements or any of the units in Indomitus if I just play the base game.
Thanks for correcting me guys, gonna go play against supplement-less marines now armed with this knowledge.
So I can't buy a supplement from a games workshop store? Look I am not anti forge world - it will always be viewed with a different lens though because it is balanced differently.
How exactly is it balanced differently? Gw has been doing all the points for fw units since CA2018, are you implying that they underprice fw units? Because my 880 PPM Hellforged Fellblade would like to know when it gets its free points buff.
Its balanced differently because it has a different author and their products actually compete with each other. GW stores (actaully called warhammer stores now) will not sell forge world.
The differing policies of various gw stores and flgs is irrelevant. Are you arguing that the fw section of every CA, which is gw's primary balancing document for the game, is written by different authors than the sections for the various codexes? And if fw has its own authors for its own section why do they give so many of their units such wildly exorbitant prices compared to the original Forge World Indexes which were written by the fw team? Gw has handled the balancing for all fw units since CA2018. Accept that fact.
The differing policies of various gw stores and flgs is irrelevant. Are you arguing that the fw section of every CA, which is gw's primary balancing document for the game, is written by different authors than the sections for the various codexes? And if fw has its own authors for its own section why do they give so many of their units such wildly exorbitant prices compared to the original Forge World Indexes which were written by the fw team? Gw has handled the balancing for all fw units since CA2018. Accept that fact.
but but but muh resin OP.
99% of FW's models is non competitive crap, with dreadnoughts being the one big exception. I just wish people stopped having the oldschool mentality that FW and GW are different. Let me play with cool toys without needing to warn you beforehand so you can power up your list because you think im cheesing by bringing a Dreadclaw or a Hellblade.
Yeah when was the last time you saw someone bring a FW unit in a competitive game that wasnt a Telemon/Levi/Relic Contemptor/Mortis (notice how theyre all Imperial?)
Billagio wrote: Yeah when was the last time you saw someone bring a FW unit in a competitive game that wasnt a Telemon/Levi/Relic Contemptor/Mortis (notice how theyre all Imperial?)
The drill in admech or the Reaper for drukharis are the other FW models that are commonly taken in my area.
Billagio wrote: Yeah when was the last time you saw someone bring a FW unit in a competitive game that wasnt a Telemon/Levi/Relic Contemptor/Mortis (notice how theyre all Imperial?)
The drill in admech or the Reaper for drukharis are the other FW models that are commonly taken in my area.
Interesting. Ive never actually heard of the Reaper before lol
Billagio wrote: Yeah when was the last time you saw someone bring a FW unit in a competitive game that wasnt a Telemon/Levi/Relic Contemptor/Mortis (notice how theyre all Imperial?)
Tyranid Malanthrope and possibly those Mucolid Spores. I haven't seen the spores in person but they seem to come up every now and again in posted lists/tactica.
Billagio wrote: How do you know his store is breaking policy and your store owner doesnt just want you to buy stuff from him?
Well because I would be buying forge world from him so it makes no sense why he'd lie to me. Okay I'll buy it myself...which I have done in the past and it's gone just like that.
It makes total sense why a manager at a struggling store would break the policy though. You probably wouldn't shop at his store if he didn't let you buy it there.
Ah, Policies at retail. How far you can deviate from policy is dictated by how much $ you're making. As they say, "Money talks".
But have you considered that all GW stores might not have the same ordering options?
I worked for a major retailer for 30 years. We had several classes of stores (broken down by sales volumes, rated AAA/AA/A/B/C/D, later simplified to just A-C). In that time the AAAs/AAs/As, often legitimately had more options than those beneath them.
So is it possible that your store isn't making the $ needed to unlock the FW option (either legit or by deviating from policy)?
Land Raider can be played with toughness 9 in your games, its called Might of Heroes /shrug
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, Blood Angels can cast shield of sanguiniess on it for a 5 up invuln not too shabby.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A Land Raider Redeemer played aggressively was valid for 8th imo, deploy it hopefully behind cover, if your opponent gets first turn yeah you might get shot at, but on turn 1 you advance with it and pop smoke, hopefully you got might of heroes on it for toughness 9. Turn 2 TH/SS Termies come out and wreck a big target, redeemer is now in range to use those juicy flamestorm cannons at some elite infantry.
ugly? Hellforged Land Raider Achilles: T8, 2+, 4++, 19W, 2 twin multi-meltas, and a Soulburner Bombard spitting 2d3 mortal wounds. Bring that ugly floating box.
wrote:
