For a SM army with an assault Terminator force if you only had room point wise to throw in a single and raider as their dedicated transport which variant would you choose? The standard las cannon variant? The Redeemer? or Crusader? I've seen some people really in love with the redeemer for its flame cannons which accentuate the assault for the Termies but I am inclined towards the shooty goodness of the las cannons but that's coming from someone with little to no real experience what do you find in the game makes the best variant to choose pound for pound?

1. Redeemer
2. Crusader
3. Standard

The redeemer is the most aggressive and the only land raider that is capable of wiping badguys independent of its terminator quad. the Crusader has extra transport capacity and can shoot all of its guns pretty consistently. However its guns arent all that aggressive so its ok but not great. Dont take the standard 250 points for av 14 2 twin linked lascannons and a twin linked heavy bolter is a joke strait up. No one takes these things for serious competition.
AF

I prefer the Crusader

Normal raider kinda wastes its weapon when moving and the redeemer can fully take advantage of all weapons

Crusader can use all its default equipment when mobile and carries the most termies too (that is until I get myself a FW Ram! Unless they're gonna change that silly rule!)

Go with a Crusader

The normal Land raider wouldn't be a good choice because its really meant to kill tanks and not much else

As for the Reedemer, its good but more then likly you'll wipe off the target with the Flamestorm Cannons so you won't have anything left to assault

Go Crusader, they are specifically meant for Transporting close combat vets and provide close quarter support, the Hurracaine bolters are defensive weapons so you can fire them even if you moved at combat speed you can still fire them plus with PMS you can fire the assault cannon too

What kind of army do you play? If you're charging toward the enemy, go with a Crusader or a Redeemer. If you're playing shooty go with a Godhammer to add some weight to your long-range fire while you position for a counter assault.

Riddick40k wrote:The normal Land raider wouldn't be a good choice because its really meant to kill tanks and not much else

It's not bad against Nobz and Plague Marines and other tough infantry. Actually, it's great.

Riddick40k wrote:Go with a Crusader
As for the Reedemer, its good but more then likly you'll wipe off the target with the Flamestorm Cannons so you won't have anything left to assault

ummm... you can fix this by flaming target A and charging target B....
AF

I'm torn between the standard LR and the LRC.

The Godhammer hurts the enemy from turn one with it's highly accurate lascannons. The HB feels like an afterthought IMO but is still nice to have.

The LRC is the ultimate in getting your troops to the frontlines quick. It puts out a lot of dakka and has an outrageous carrying capacity.

The LRR is the least useful IMO, it's cheaper but has problems that plague the other designs. It has the LRC's short range, except EVEN shorter now, and the Godhammer's problem of only not being able to fully use it's firepower if it moved. Granted when it fires one of those flamestorms it will make them extra crispy, but I'd rather not wait for 2 turns until it gets in range.

Its more important to deliver the terminators than to shoot the lascannons. if you only shoot 1 on your way in I guess thats ok but it doesnt really compare to zapping a whole enemy squad with the flame storm cannon. It sucks waiting like you say but in my experience if I get to shoot that flame storm cannon twice I'll usually go on to win the game, because its so devestating.
AF

The Land Raider carrying the Godhammer Lascannons is called the "Phobos" pattern Land Raider...

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its more important to deliver the terminators than to shoot the lascannons. if you only shoot 1 on your way in I guess thats ok but it doesnt really compare to zapping a whole enemy squad with the flame storm cannon. It sucks waiting like you say but in my experience if I get to shoot that flame storm cannon twice I'll usually go on to win the game, because its so devestating.
AF

That depends entirely on the army build that you have, as I illustrated above. There are more ways to play the game than "Push models forwards and assault rawr."

Nurglitch wrote:The Land Raider carrying the Godhammer Lascannons is called the "Phobos" pattern Land Raider...

"Phobos" it is. Now and forever.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its more important to deliver the terminators than to shoot the lascannons.

^^^^^

This right here. Remember that the most important thing behind any Dedicated Transport is getting the unit that it's carrying to its intended target. IMHO, it depends on what kind of Terminators you're using, and how many points you're allotting for the game.

TH/SS and regular Terminators won't benefit from a Frag Assault Launcher, since they always strike at Init 1 (except for the Terminator Sgt). If you have the points to field more than 6 Terminators, and have nothing else to field, take the LRC. If you don't have the points for them, take a Redeemer or Godhammer. The best thing you can do is use the LR that best compliments your list.

Redeemers are great at Anti-Infantry. Against MEQ's, especially. If you find the list short on Anti-MEQ-Infantry, this is a good choice.

Crusaders are great when playing against Horde-like armies with bad Armor Saves. They're ideal against armies that bring the fight to you, so you can sit back and shoot them as they advance, and whittle down their forces to manageable numbers by the time they reach your front line. I like Crusaders when I'm using LC Terminators, and fill out the entire LR with them to get as many LC attacks as possible.

Godhammers are good at Anti-Tank, albeit there are better units at it. This would be a last resort LR to take, IMO, and only if you have no other Anti-Tank units. A Redeemer would serve the same purposes as far as transporting Terminators (Both Assault and Regular), since their capacity is the same. Only difference is that LC Terminators might not get to attack at their Init when coming out of a Godhammer.

Anyways, pay close attention to how the rest of your list adds up, and pick the LR that best suits and compliments the list and the Terminators you're putting in it.

Being a Templar player I field the LRC, its excellent on delivering my LC Termies and as stated can almost always fire its weapons :-) but when I'm not playing that I run the standard

Nurglitch wrote:The Land Raider carrying the Godhammer Lascannons is called the "Phobos" pattern Land Raider...

I know. but Phobos just does not sound as awesome.

I still like it more then the Redeemer.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:1. Redeemer
2. Crusader
3. Standard

The redeemer is the most aggressive and the only land raider that is capable of wiping badguys independent of its terminator quad. the Crusader has extra transport capacity and can shoot all of its guns pretty consistently. However its guns arent all that aggressive so its ok but not great. Dont take the standard 250 points for av 14 2 twin linked lascannons and a twin linked heavy bolter is a joke strait up. No one takes these things for serious competition.
AF

IMO, This is an example of a bad suggestion. Redeemer is the worst of the 3, not the best. While I agree that the Phobos is underpowered compared to the Crusader, that is more because the Crusader has everything you could ask for: huge transport capacity, ability to fire all its weapons on the move and weapons that are strong against a diverse target selection.

Monster Rain wrote:What kind of army do you play? If you're charging toward the enemy, go with a Crusader or a Redeemer. If you're playing shooty go with a Godhammer to add some weight to your long-range fire while you position for a counter assault.

This is great advice. The key point here is that the optimal LR variant entire depends on the rest of the army.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its more important to deliver the terminators than to shoot the lascannons. if you only shoot 1 on your way in I guess thats ok but it doesnt really compare to zapping a whole enemy squad with the flame storm cannon. It sucks waiting like you say but in my experience if I get to shoot that flame storm cannon twice I'll usually go on to win the game, because its so devestating.
AF

Its interesting that you are stating that getting the 200 point terminator unit into its optimal damage position is more important than using the 250 point tank to put out its optimal damage. Saying that a single flamestorm cannon shot is better than a single TL lascannon shot is misleading to say the least.

Rurouni Benshin wrote:This right here. Remember that the most important thing behind any Dedicated Transport is getting the unit that it's carrying to its intended target. IMHO, it depends on what kind of Terminators you're using, and how many points you're allotting for the game.

Again this is misleading. This kind of black and white statement is not helpful IMO. Certainly using the transport to increase your mobility is a key part of using a LR, but this game is not played in a vacuum. The LR is 250 points - usually more costly than the terminators squad inside (not including ICs). It is that expensive because it has high AV and PoTMS in addition to its transport capacity. That makes it a target that is hard to stop at a distance from both transporting AND firing.

In order to get your investment out of the LR, you really need to use both its strengths. Both its shooting power and transport capacity are important, and which is more important varies from army to army, scenario to scenario and opponent to opponent.

Rurouni Benshin wrote:The best thing you can do is use the LR that best compliments your list.

Even if I disagree with your analysis, at least we can agree on this point.

Rurouni Benshin wrote:Redeemers are great at Anti-Infantry. Against MEQ's, especially. If you find the list short on Anti-MEQ-Infantry, this is a good choice.

True, but getting them into position to exploit their strength is the problem. If you move as fast as possible at the enemy to get into position, you are probably outpacing the rest of your army, and handing your LRR into melta range. The redeemer is a bit strange as such, since in order to get the most use out of its weapons you have to put it in a situation where it is most vulnerable, within melta range. Trading your 240 point vehicle for a 170 point tactical squad is a poor trade. Sure you got your terminators into assault, but winning is not just a matter of getting your terminators into assault.

The only real time you would be better suited to use the redeemer is in an all out assault based army. If you intend to charge at your enemy and overwhelm them, then the redeemer is probably best for that job. One thing to note about this plan, however, is that the C:SM is not particularly suited to executing this plan.

Rurouni Benshin wrote:Crusaders are great when playing against Horde-like armies with bad Armor Saves. They're ideal against armies that bring the fight to you, so you can sit back and shoot them as they advance, and whittle down their forces to manageable numbers by the time they reach your front line. I like Crusaders when I'm using LC Terminators, and fill out the entire LR with them to get as many LC attacks as possible.

Crusaders are great for playing a mobile gunline. The power of this build is that you can move at combat speed and still fire all its weapons, including the multimelta. This is a unique ability available only to the crusader, the other LR variants require you to remain stationary to fire all its weapons. This makes it more mobile, and with its weapon selection it is more flexible in target selection.

Rurouni Benshin wrote:Godhammers are good at Anti-Tank, albeit there are better units at it. This would be a last resort LR to take, IMO, and only if you have no other Anti-Tank units. A Redeemer would serve the same purposes as far as transporting Terminators (Both Assault and Regular), since their capacity is the same. Only difference is that LC Terminators might not get to attack at their Init when coming out of a Godhammer.

Phobos is much better equipped for dealing with enemy vehicles, so it is your choice if you are looking for more long range punch and the ability to move your counterassault unit around. I would submit that this is for more of a static gunline build.

Rurouni Benshin wrote:Anyways, pay close attention to how the rest of your list adds up, and pick the LR that best suits and compliments the list and the Terminators you're putting in it.

Agreed!

From a person who has seen all 3 in action on multiple occasions, Godhammer one and only. In my friendly gaming club a crusader would almost be laughable, and a redeemer, while "aggressive" and good at what it does, its what it cant do that gets it.

A Las-raider isnt the biggest threat to infantry, but what is the trend of 5th? Mech, thats what. And anyway, what sane infantry is going to come near a 5+ terminator squad toting land raider.

Godhammers have the ability to reach out and touch somebody. Crusaders just dont cut it for me, and redeemers, well.. their ok?

But this is quite a biased opinion here. We have no common ork players, and the tyranid players are nidzilla.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its more important to deliver the terminators than to shoot the lascannons.


Crusaders are great when playing against Horde-like armies with bad Armor Saves. They're ideal against armies that bring the fight to you, so you can sit back and shoot them as they advance, and whittle down their forces to manageable numbers by the time they reach your front line. I like Crusaders when I'm using LC Terminators, and fill out the entire LR with them to get as many LC attacks as possible.

This is right on the money. Crusaders own orks, horde tyrannid, and even can pressure infantry with a not-that-great armour save, such as fire warriors.

Plus delivering 8 terminators....... mouth watering possibilities.

I reckon that the standard LR should definately have its points reduced. It's a less viable option as a transport compared to the other two. If you want lascannons, tool up a predator for almost half the points.

Hmm on the topic of raiders, how good are the 2 FW ones?

Land Raider Prometheus and Helios

Although they dont seem too good in my eyes. Prometheus is good at anti infantry but thats it(reduce cover saves by -1). More expensive than the normal raider and less mobile (it has 4 HB)

Helios is odd I guess. only holds 6 models I think and it basically all range power

Everytime you call the Phobos Land Raider "Godhammer", a non-space marine codex get delayed. Also, 10 kittens get run over by a Phobos at the same time, so use it's correct name!

Anyways, everyone knows that the scariest thing inside an LR in objective-based games isn't termies, it's Tacticals.

liam0404 wrote:
I reckon that the standard LR should definately have its points reduced. It's a less viable option as a transport compared to the other two. If you want lascannons, tool up a predator for almost half the points.

It has the same capacity as the Redeemer, right?

If you don't think the Phobos pattern is viable, I don't think you seem them used correctly.

Dracos just hit it in the head.

C:SM is definitely better off with Phobos, its job mainly being reactive by shooting armored threats and receiving death star units with TH/SS terminators that are about to hit your lines.

Nothing beats the look on your opponent's face as his TWC is counter charged by 5 TH/SS termies only to be dogpiled with tacs while your Phobos is shooting stuff safe from melta range.

Personally tho, I dont run Crusaders and Redeemers unless its a 1750+ point game.

Yes, but if you want to run the standard LC as a transport, You're almost never going to get to fire your lascannons. That's why its the weakest of the 3.

As I said, if armoured lascannons are your thing, take a predator - much cheaper.

If your delivering terminators your going to be getting close so the Redeemer with a pintle mounted Multimelta is the best unless you need the extra capacity of the Crusader.

Monster Rain wrote:
It has the same capacity as the Redeemer, right?

If you don't think the Phobos pattern is viable, I don't think you seem them used correctly.

In the regular marine codex the Redeemer and the Phobos can both carry 12 models. In C:BA (and also C:SW IIRC) The Phobos can only carry 10 models.

Its a shame too as I really like the Phobos but the lower transport capacity in this case really hinders its potential as you cannot take a full assault squad or a minimum terminator squad and attach an IC to them.

Personally I've never seen a need for the super sized cargo bay in the Crusader. I just don't field squads that big. 12 models seemed like a sweet spot transport wise.

Cheers,
~Volkan

@ kirka - Remember crusaders can get the multimelta as well.

liam0404 wrote:Yes, but if you want to run the standard LC as a transport, You're almost never going to get to fire your lascannons. That's why its the weakest of the 3.

You can fire one per turn, no matter what. And you're missing the point that you can use it to defend your shooty units from assault, or at least counter assault. I spend a turn or two(or three on a good day) moving 6 inches per turn and lighting up things with the Lascannons. The terminators assault out of it, a Tactical Squad hops in and ride off toward an objective.

Yes Crusaders can get a pintle multimelta and should for their anti tank capability but the Redeemer has the flamestorm cannons which are more effective then hurricane bolters, since they bypass cover and are ap3 so unless you need the crusaders extra capacity take a Redeemer.

imho you should only use the standard (godhammer) lr if you are using the terminators inside for counter-charge duty. If that's the case, the land raider is going to be the centerpiece of your defence, so you want it shooting both lascannons per turn.

The Crusader and Redeemer have very little difference really, the Redeemer is cheeper, the Crusader can hold a ton of guys and shoots more bullets. If you think your land raider might be farther away from the fight, use the crusader, if you intend on ramming it down your opponent's throat, use the redeemer.

liam0404 wrote:Yes, but if you want to run the standard LC as a transport, You're almost never going to get to fire your lascannons. That's why its the weakest of the 3.

As I said, if armoured lascannons are your thing, take a predator - much cheaper.

You're not getting me. In terms of transporting, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Phobos is inferior. The question is how you are using your land raiders. The phobos is particularly adept at moving 6 and firing both lascannons: A conservative tactic for when you're not hell bent in getting your termies in assault (for mopping up of whats left of the enemy or contesting that objective). This particularly plays well with C:SM. However, if it were about BAs and SWs, Id take the 2 other patterns absolutely.

So much off-subject chatter after the truth was already spoken:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its more important to deliver the terminators than to shoot

If you're taking the LR as a transport, then take it as a TRANSPORT, not a gun boat.

If you are using it to transport stuff, that means you're moving, if you're moving, that means you only get 1 real shot off if you're moving slow (once again, this is a transport, why are you moving it slowly?), and none if the transport is doing it's job. All of this talk about lascannons is pure nonsense for the task at hand.

Once you've delivered your cargo, assuming you've survived, then you can talk about guns, which, honestly aren't really worth bragging about here. The crusader gets to shoot it's guns AND move, but then you're blowing away targets that you're trying to assault. The redeemer gets a flamer, but, once again, either you're shooting stuff you want to be locked in combat with so your terminators don't get shot at, or your terminators are killing things, leaving your flamers with fewer targets. That and they're sponson weapons, which means you're only ever shooting 1 due to LOS problems.

So, if the point is to take a LR that is going to transport terminators and then not immediately get into conflict with the terminators, then there's really only one option: a vanilla LR. Throw a multi-melta on (because you're going to be close, remember?) and then leave it be. Once it's delivered it's cargo, you've already gotten most of the use out of the vehicle. After that, it's probably going to be tank shocking or ramming or something anyways.

Keep it cheap (relative to the price of a LR) and keep it simple.

The standard land raider will be your vehicle killer, and delivery system for some very angry guys with hammers rushing out at your discrecion to whoop the snot out of some tough infantry or HQ type units. It doesn't do hordes well, but it definitely wins on tank popping.

Crusader, great for a commander and entourage of termies and get busy with choppy madness. it's weapons are obviously inferior and its lack of significant range makes it less of a multi-tasker and more of a bus for the termies with some dakka as an afterthought.

Redeemer, sick flame cannons, but kind of unwieldy. Since they are on opposite sides sponsons it will be difficult to line them both up on the same target squad. More than likely you will just be firing one or the other.

So... all that said... the standard LR complements the termies it carries by taking care of tanks while they bonk people on heads and take care of assault.

monster rain wrote:
There are more ways to play the game than "Push models forwards and assault rawr."

yes... theres also "we stand and shoot you rawr."
that too.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dracos
you said: IMO, This is an example of a bad suggestion. Redeemer is the worst of the 3, not the best. While I agree that the Phobos is underpowered compared to the Crusader, that is more because the Crusader has everything you could ask for: huge transport capacity, ability to fire all its weapons on the move and weapons that are strong against a diverse target selection.


the question isnt "how many guns do I get to shoot" but "how do I kill the most badguys." the flamestorm cannon is stronger against power armor targets than all the crusaders guns, and about equivalent to the crusader against light infantry. the crusader carries 2 more terminators. big whoop.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dracos
you said: Its interesting that you are stating that getting the 200 point terminator unit into its optimal damage position is more important than using the 250 point tank to put out its optimal damage. Saying that a single flamestorm cannon shot is better than a single TL lascannon shot is misleading to say the least.

Whats interesting about it? Why is it misleading? Its hard for me to respond to your criticisms when they dont have any content.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JSK-Fox wrote: everyone knows that the scariest thing inside an LR in objective-based games isn't termies, it's Tacticals.

If by "everyone" you mean "no one" then I guess thats true

Guitardian wrote:

So... all that said... the standard LR complements the termies it carries by taking care of tanks while they bonk people on heads and take care of assault.

This.

And that's how I usually run it, I can deal with moving only 6" if my enemy is losing most of his transports.

For me the Phobos and the Crusader seem to win hands down, firstly I think that the redeemer with the flames while sweet and all, only get use of one.

Phobos will likely be my first LR due to lack of ranged anti tank in my list.(1 MR, 3 Meltas) However since my list does run C:BA and C:SM, I am also considering the crusader so I can carry 15 DC + chappy as uber omnomnomnom unit.

Lol, you really do not need that many DC. I personally run 7 with a reclusiarch in my Godhammer (I hate cats, so die kitties!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

JSK-Fox wrote: everyone knows that the scariest thing inside an LR in objective-based games isn't termies, it's Tacticals.

If by "everyone" you mean "no one" then I guess thats true

My land raiders after having dropped off their payload, typically finds a marine, a remnant of a tac squad or something, picks him up and then goes... somewhere.

It denies my enemy KP, and in objective missions, just one basic marine is not really gonna do much, so at least make my Land Raider score!

against MEQ shooting the flamestorm cannon just once is devestating. doing it twice is game-winning. Its difficult for me to understand why the crusader is getting so much love. this talk about the phobos being so awesome is just crazy.

I will say 4. None.
1 land raider is just too easy to open up.

They really depend on your play style. I run an 'ard boyz Vulkan list that uses 4 raiders, a redeemer, a phobos, and 2 crusaders. All are outstanding at what they do, but each has a very different role for me. YMMV, and I encourage you to really analyze exactly what holes you need filled. Again, I strongly advise against a single land raider!

IMO, no one disagrees with you that the redeemer has the most damage potential. It's just for it to be of nearly any use, you have to get stupid close (the other 2 have to as well to drop off termies, but the Redeemer HAS to be for it's flamestorms to be of any use). It is not nearly as flexible as the LRC and the Phobos. It also has that really irritating blind spot directly in front of it. Then again, the termies can just pop out of it.

Inigo Montoya wrote:I will say 4. None.
1 land raider is just too easy to open up.

They really depend on your play style. I run an 'ard boyz Vulkan list that uses 4 raiders, a redeemer, a phobos, and 2 crusaders. All are outstanding at what they do, but each has a very different role for me. YMMV, and I encourage you to really analyze exactly what holes you need filled. Again, I strongly advise against a single land raider!

I completly agree with you. Target saturation is key.

kenshin620 wrote:Hmm on the topic of raiders, how good are the 2 FW ones?

Land Raider Prometheus and Helios

Although they dont seem too good in my eyes. Prometheus is good at anti infantry but thats it(reduce cover saves by -1). More expensive than the normal raider and less mobile (it has 4 HB)

Helios is odd I guess. only holds 6 models I think and it basically all range power

I am a big fan of the helios. I just started proxying one (in the process of building the turret mount) and it is a blast. You get lascannons for popping vehicles, plus PotMS lets you fire an additional whirlwind pie plate at an unrelated infantry squad every turn.

That said, it is NOT a good answer for the OP because it only holds 6 models (3 termies) so it is not a transport. In my most recent game though, I mounted a tactical combat squad in it and used it as a scoring platform while it blasted away at range.

I play with a "Linebreaker" (not the craptastic Apoc formation) formation consisting of 2 LRC and 1 Orbital Strike. I place 10 PaGK, 3 Inquisitors, and an Inquisitor lord into the LRC. 7 GK termies and a Grandmaster into another one (That's like 860 points )

The 2 LRR's scream forward while the S6 Orbital bombardment hammers at all infantry, and the the mass extinction of my enemies comes at the hand of more strength 6.

My vote goes to the GKLRC. It ignores most armor and invul saves.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Dracos
you said: IMO, This is an example of a bad suggestion. Redeemer is the worst of the 3, not the best. While I agree that the Phobos is underpowered compared to the Crusader, that is more because the Crusader has everything you could ask for: huge transport capacity, ability to fire all its weapons on the move and weapons that are strong against a diverse target selection.


the question isnt "how many guns do I get to shoot" but "how do I kill the most badguys." the flamestorm cannon is stronger against power armor targets than all the crusaders guns, and about equivalent to the crusader against light infantry. the crusader carries 2 more terminators. big whoop.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dracos
you said: Its interesting that you are stating that getting the 200 point terminator unit into its optimal damage position is more important than using the 250 point tank to put out its optimal damage. Saying that a single flamestorm cannon shot is better than a single TL lascannon shot is misleading to say the least.

Whats interesting about it? Why is it misleading? Its hard for me to respond to your criticisms when they dont have any content.
AF

You thinking is starting to head in the right direction, but it is still flawed. Depending on the role you need the land raider to perform, an flamestorm may be far more valuable than a tl las cannon. What we need to focus on is not what is *better*, but what better servers the role. What do I need to happen that is not happening right now. I am not talking about the simplistic " I needs to kill tanks, so I takes a gawdhammah" approach, but a more analytical investigation into what your list is lacking. Often you will find that a land raider of any variant is actually the wrong choice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JSK-Fox wrote: everyone knows that the scariest thing inside an LR in objective-based games isn't termies, it's Tacticals.

If by "everyone" you mean "no one" then I guess thats true

I'd love to see 14 blood claws a wolf priest and a wolf guard in an LRC :3

Alternatively, 16 Crusaders jumping out of a land raider is a nightmare all it's own.

Scoring units inside a landraider is generally fail though. it can be annoying (and viable if you've got no other option) The raider can be a very tough tank, but it's too expensive to cart around 5 tactical marines who can't make good use of the assault ramp. I'd rather have a rhino, and use the points saved from the LR to get some more guns elsewhere.

starbomber109 wrote:I'd love to see 14 blood claws a wolf priest and a wolf guard in an LRC :3

Alternatively, 16 Crusaders jumping out of a land raider is a nightmare all it's own.

Scoring units inside a landraider is generally fail though. it can be annoying (and viable if you've got no other option) The raider can be a very tough tank, but it's too expensive to cart around 5 tactical marines who can't make good use of the assault ramp. I'd rather have a rhino, and use the points saved from the LR to get some more guns elsewhere.

It's not the reason to bring a Land Raider, but it's a nice option. It's won me a couple of games.

starbomber109 wrote:
Scoring units inside a landraider is generally fail though. it can be annoying (and viable if you've got no other option) The raider can be a very tough tank, but it's too expensive to cart around 5 tactical marines who can't make good use of the assault ramp. I'd rather have a rhino, and use the points saved from the LR to get some more guns elsewhere.

That is why you don't deploy them in there, you drop off the payload and then go pick a few marines up.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

starbomber109 wrote:
Scoring units inside a landraider is generally fail though. it can be annoying (and viable if you've got no other option) The raider can be a very tough tank, but it's too expensive to cart around 5 tactical marines who can't make good use of the assault ramp. I'd rather have a rhino, and use the points saved from the LR to get some more guns elsewhere.

That is why you don't deploy them in there, you drop off the payload and then go pick a few marines up.

Ha! Exactly. I remember a game where I had Vulkan with a single wound left and the one remaining scout from my Form squad jump into my empty LR and drive away, preserving 2 kill points that may have otherwise lost me the game.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

starbomber109 wrote:
Scoring units inside a landraider is generally fail though. it can be annoying (and viable if you've got no other option) The raider can be a very tough tank, but it's too expensive to cart around 5 tactical marines who can't make good use of the assault ramp. I'd rather have a rhino, and use the points saved from the LR to get some more guns elsewhere.

That is why you don't deploy them in there, you drop off the payload and then go pick a few marines up.

QFT
I didn't think I actually needed to explain the entire process...

Neither did I.

It seems logical. You dropped off the termies, now what? You go make the land raider into a supa-awesum rhino with big guns.

GODHAMMER PATTERN

I never use the others. I like the standard one too much to bother. Then again, I play CSM

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

monster rain wrote:
There are more ways to play the game than "Push models forwards and assault rawr."

yes... theres also "we stand and shoot you rawr."
that too.
AF

If you think the game is that simplistic, I feel sorry for you. There is also all manner of play between those extremes. There is also "maneuver army to gain local superiority of forces and take your army apart peice by peice, with either shooting or CC."

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dracos
you said: IMO, This is an example of a bad suggestion. Redeemer is the worst of the 3, not the best. While I agree that the Phobos is underpowered compared to the Crusader, that is more because the Crusader has everything you could ask for: huge transport capacity, ability to fire all its weapons on the move and weapons that are strong against a diverse target selection.


the question isnt "how many guns do I get to shoot" but "how do I kill the most badguys." the flamestorm cannon is stronger against power armor targets than all the crusaders guns, and about equivalent to the crusader against light infantry. the crusader carries 2 more terminators. big whoop.
AF

You seem to be under the impression that somehow getting to shoot 1 flamestorm cannon once for every two times the crusader can shoot both hurricane bolters is going to net more kills. This is not the case. The thing about template attacks is that your opponent can see you lining up the shot. On their turn, they have the opportunity to spread out and avoid losing the whole unit. The crusader will be able to shoot more often and is less avoidable.

Also, once your AV 14 vehicle gets within the template range, you are facing all manner of melta/S10CC/MC retribution. The crusader is not as vulnerable as it does not have to get that close to start shooting. Overall, the crusader is going to net more kills than your redeemer.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dracos
you said: Its interesting that you are stating that getting the 200 point terminator unit into its optimal damage position is more important than using the 250 point tank to put out its optimal damage. Saying that a single flamestorm cannon shot is better than a single TL lascannon shot is misleading to say the least.

Whats interesting about it? Why is it misleading? Its hard for me to respond to your criticisms when they dont have any content.
AF

It is interesting because you are simply dismissing half of the reason to take the LR in the first place. It is a gun platform and a transport. It is not simply a transport that happens to have guns. Your statement about a flamestorm cannon being "better" is misleading because it is entirely situationally dependant. For instance if you are not in flaming range, the TL lascannon is infinitely better. The point is that "better" is entirely subjective and dependant on the position of the game as a whole.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

JSK-Fox wrote: everyone knows that the scariest thing inside an LR in objective-based games isn't termies, it's Tacticals.

If by "everyone" you mean "no one" then I guess thats true

Yeah, those scoring landraiders are easy to kill from across the table. I guess everyone has broadsides? /boggle

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Neither did I.

It seems logical. You dropped off the termies, now what? You go make the land raider into a supa-awesum rhino with big guns.

Well, I guess that works, but that's not why you took the land raider in the list (it's a good bonus though) And if you need a bunker, I can think of nothing better than a bunker with treads. Only downside is you can't shoot the tactical weapons while inside the raider (not like you need to, but other transports give you the option)

Dracos wrote:
If you think the game is that simplistic, I feel sorry for you. There is also all manner of play between those extremes. There is also "maneuver army to gain local superiority of forces and take your army apart peice by peice, with either shooting or CC."

9 times out of 10 it really is. sorry. I playa maneuver army btw. but it basically depends on my opponent messing up to win. a really hard core competitive strategy would be either sit and shoot or get in close combat by turn 2 and wreck everything. I dont write the rules man, I just play the game

Dracos wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that somehow getting to shoot 1 flamestorm cannon once for every two times the crusader can shoot both hurricane bolters is going to net more kills. This is not the case. The thing about template attacks is that your opponent can see you lining up the shot. On their turn, they have the opportunity to spread out and avoid losing the whole unit. The crusader will be able to shoot more often and is less avoidable.

you seem to be under the impression you'll get to shoot the crusaders guns twice for every 1 time you'll get to shoot the redeemer's. It aint so.
If I can get my opponent to rework his whole deployment based around what my 1 tank is going to do, great.
the crusader's weapons are not more avoidable - cover cuts their effectiveness in half, if you hit, if you wound. The redeemer is comparatively simple: I hit you, I wound on a 2+, you die. doesn't get much better than that.

Dracos wrote:[
Also, once your AV 14 vehicle gets within the template range, you are facing all manner of melta/S10CC/MC retribution. The crusader is not as vulnerable as it does not have to get that close to start shooting. Overall, the crusader is going to net more kills than your redeemer.

this is a problem with all land raiders. The crusader is every bit as vulnerable it still has to deliver the terminators. Unless you think 250 points is a good price to pay for an assault cannon and a pair of hurricane bolters.

Dracos wrote:
It is interesting because you are simply dismissing half of the reason to take the LR in the first place. It is a gun platform and a transport. It is not simply a transport that happens to have guns. Your statement about a flamestorm cannon being "better" is misleading because it is entirely situationally dependant. For instance if you are not in flaming range, the TL lascannon is infinitely better. The point is that "better" is entirely subjective and dependant on the position of the game as a whole.

I'm arguing that its not a very good gun platform. Look if you dont see that the two twin linked lascannons arent very good at killing vehicles then I'm not going to try to argue the point with you. Its just so.
Better is not subjective - the game is based on math its completely, 100%, entirely, objective. God I get tired of you "subjective" people. How much more objective can it possibly be? Its numbers just do the math.

Dracos wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

JSK-Fox wrote: everyone knows that the scariest thing inside an LR in objective-based games isn't termies, it's Tacticals.

If by "everyone" you mean "no one" then I guess thats true

Yeah, those scoring landraiders are easy to kill from across the table. I guess everyone has broadsides? /boggle

no......... but about half the armies do have meltaguns. but..... you knew that....
AF

As an Imperial Guard player, I'd say that the most dangerous things about land raider is the fact that they protect their cargo of sword wielding om nom nom ness VERY well. Even playing against someone who fields a Land Raider crusader, I find that I'm not scared of the giant flamethrowers, I'm scared of the cargo. The giant flamethrowers can be eliminated by glancing the Raider to death, but the cargo inside is still well protected, and against an army that needs to shoot things to death, the fact that the Land Raider will almost ALWAYS get its cargo close enough to assault you without a chance of being able to shoot at said cargo is, and always will be its greatest threat to me.

Unless your playing Apoc and someone puts down a Terminus Ultra. Then all tanks should hide until it is reduced to scrap metal.

Kolath wrote:

kenshin620 wrote:Hmm on the topic of raiders, how good are the 2 FW ones?

Land Raider Prometheus and Helios

Although they dont seem too good in my eyes. Prometheus is good at anti infantry but thats it(reduce cover saves by -1). More expensive than the normal raider and less mobile (it has 4 HB)

Helios is odd I guess. only holds 6 models I think and it basically all range power

I am a big fan of the helios. I just started proxying one (in the process of building the turret mount) and it is a blast. You get lascannons for popping vehicles, plus PotMS lets you fire an additional whirlwind pie plate at an unrelated infantry squad every turn.

That said, it is NOT a good answer for the OP because it only holds 6 models (3 termies) so it is not a transport. In my most recent game though, I mounted a tactical combat squad in it and used it as a scoring platform while it blasted away at range.

Hmm true. its obvious the 6 man transport is begging to be only used for fire support!

Now the Command Rhino and the Dreadnought Drop Pod, thats some messed up stuff.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:against MEQ shooting the flamestorm cannon just once is devestating. doing it twice is game-winning. Its difficult for me to understand why the crusader is getting so much love. this talk about the phobos being so awesome is just crazy.

The only time you're ever going to get maximum effect from that Flamestorm Cannon is when you pop a transport, then manage to get that thing into position and flame everybody while they're packed into a nice template formation.

Nobody's going to sit there and let you flame an entire squad. Unless your opponents are idiots they're going to spread out and you'll only get a few guys with that cannon anyway.

This isn't good advice at all. But I am torn between the Crusader and the Redeemer.

The normal land raider, being the only one chaos can take can feth off.

I honestly don't see Hurricane Bolters as that effective. The Firestorm cannons are basically oversized doom-sirens. That's AWESOME. And the Tled AC is....brutal.

Today my Phobos Patter Land Raider won me the game by wrecking or immobilizing 3 Rhinos and pulled the mobility right out from under the opponent, and on turn 5 I assaulted the one objective my opponent held with my Assault Terminators and Vulkan making the score 2-0. Battle report will be up tomorrow.

Anecdotal? Sure. But I just wanted to point out that this could not have been done with any other variant of Land Raider.

The LRC has about the same firepower as a tac squad. 12 TL bolter shots will net you about 11 hits. One less then 9 marines. It'll net you 5 wounds.

The TL-AC will net you 4 wounds (not counting rending, too much math...) and the MM will kill... something mechanized.

So total, the LRC will net 9 savable wounds. So about 3 dead MEQ. Not bad.

Now awaiting for someone to say that the LRR would of killed the entire squad...

Inigo Montoya wrote:I will say 4. None.
1 land raider is just too easy to open up.

They really depend on your play style. I run an 'ard boyz Vulkan list that uses 4 raiders, a redeemer, a phobos, and 2 crusaders. All are outstanding at what they do, but each has a very different role for me. YMMV, and I encourage you to really analyze exactly what holes you need filled. Again, I strongly advise against a single land raider!

Just wondering how you can have 4 Land Raiders if your only allowed to run 3 Heavy Support Choices?

Riddick40k wrote:

Inigo Montoya wrote:I will say 4. None.
1 land raider is just too easy to open up.

They really depend on your play style. I run an 'ard boyz Vulkan list that uses 4 raiders, a redeemer, a phobos, and 2 crusaders. All are outstanding at what they do, but each has a very different role for me. YMMV, and I encourage you to really analyze exactly what holes you need filled. Again, I strongly advise against a single land raider!

Just wondering how you can have 4 Land Raiders if your only allowed to run 3 Heavy Support Choices?

Dedicated transports

heck BA can ONLY get them that way!

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:The LRC has about the same firepower as a tac squad. 12 TL bolter shots will net you about 11 hits. One less then 9 marines. It'll net you 5 wounds.

The TL-AC will net you 4 wounds (not counting rending, too much math...) and the MM will kill... something mechanized.

So total, the LRC will net 9 savable wounds. So about 3 dead MEQ. Not bad.

Now awaiting for someone to say that the LRR would of killed the entire squad...

Yea I prefer the LRC :-)

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:The LRC has about the same firepower as a tac squad. 12 TL bolter shots will net you about 11 hits. One less then 9 marines. It'll net you 5 wounds.

The TL-AC will net you 4 wounds (not counting rending, too much math...) and the MM will kill... something mechanized.

So total, the LRC will net 9 savable wounds. So about 3 dead MEQ. Not bad.

Now awaiting for someone to say that the LRR would of killed the entire squad...

And how many terminators will the redeemer kill? Not everything in the game is 3+ save. Yeah, the redeemer works wonders against the MEQ if it can get there. However, the crusaders effectiveness increases drastically the lower the armor save of your opponent is. The Redeemer will always kill the same number of models regardless. The crusader is just murder vs Ork, IG, or other soft save models. Also believe it or not the extra 4 seats the crusader has does matter. My current SW list has 5 termies and three PAWG in a single unit. Only the Crusader has the seat room for that.

Assuming 6 hits per template and only one cannon firing, you'll net 5 wounds and about less then one terminator. The LRC will kill the same amount. The AC is being left out since it'll effect both equally.

@ AbaddonFidelis: Most of what you wrote is completely incorrect. So much so that it does not even warrant direct criticism, as anyone reading it can plainly see that its wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree on those points.

However, here is by far the most objectionable thing you wrote.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm arguing that its not a very good gun platform. Look if you dont see that the two twin linked lascannons arent very good at killing vehicles then I'm not going to try to argue the point with you. Its just so.
Better is not subjective - the game is based on math its completely, 100%, entirely, objective. God I get tired of you "subjective" people. How much more objective can it possibly be? Its numbers just do the math.

Again you cut out half of what I am saying. The strength of the LR variants are the fact that they are BOTH at the same time. That's right, they are both a gun platform AND a transport. You don't have to choose which to do with it, because it can do both simultaneously. How can you possibly say two twin-linked lascannons are not good at killing vehicles? That is mind-boggling.

What weapons are you proposing have a better chance at killing vehicles? The TL assault cannons on the other variants do offer slightly better chances, but there is only 1 of them and it has half the range. The flamestorm cannons certainly are not better at killing vehicles.

Better is subjective, because it requires a specified goal. In order to be better objectively, they have to be better in all possible situations. There are some situations where the flamestorm will be better, like you perfect example of against MEQs, and examples where the TL lascannons are better, like any opponent not in template range or against vehicles.

I get tired of you "black and white" people. You see things as binary, either one is the "best" or it is trash. You need to see that there are all manner of gray in between. Math is a tool to tell you what the expected result for a situation is going to be. The problem is that there is a myriad of situations to consider, and I have never seen the math that would actually take them all into account. You seem to have access to this math, can you post a link?

well Dracos I really dont feel like going round and rond with you. If at the end of the day we dont agree I can live with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The only time you're ever going to get maximum effect from that Flamestorm Cannon is when you pop a transport, then manage to get that thing into position and flame everybody while they're packed into a nice template formation.

Nobody's going to sit there and let you flame an entire squad. Unless your opponents are idiots they're going to spread out and you'll only get a few guys with that cannon anyway.

If I pop the transport on the same turn I deploy the flame storm cannon they wont have any choice about it. twin linked meltaguns have a way of exploding vehicles. Besides that not everything I want to flame is in a transport. Bugs for instance are totally incapable of hiding in a transport. Blood Angels assault marines (with jump packs) and Thunderwolves also cannot ride transports. So basically yes the transports are an added layer of defense for them but no it doesnt invalidate the weapon.
AF

I have to toss my hat in with Draco. Quite honestly, just like in real life, nothing is black and white. There are so many things to consider that are not just mathhammer either.

For example, a fluff player running a Salamanders army might find the Crusader 'better' for fluff reasons, while not considering in game performance.

A modeller or painter might find a specific Land Raider variant better for ease of assembly, or ease of painting. (I've never built a Land Raider so I have no idea ).

Not to mention everything Draco said earlier.....Unless you're comparing units with vastly different points value. (e.g. a Space Marine is def better than a Guardsmen) and even that is open to debate depending on a host of other factors.

Edit:

AbaddonFidelis wrote: If I pop the transport on the same turn I deploy the flame storm cannon they wont have any choice about it. twin linked meltaguns have a way of exploding vehicles. Besides that not everything I want to flame is in a transport. Bugs for instance are totally incapable of hiding in a transport. Blood Angels assault marines (with jump packs) and Thunderwolves also cannot ride transports. So basically yes the transports are an added layer of defense for them but no it doesnt invalidate the weapon.

Uh, no. You have to target the same unit with all your weapons. If you announce your firing your multimelta at my Chimera as well as the uberflamer and your mm blows up my Chimera, then oh no you wasted your Flamestorm shot. Unless Machine Spirit lets you change the target of a weapon after you've started rolling, I doubt you can do that.

Dracos wrote:I get tired of you "black and white" people. You see things as binary, either one is the "best" or it is trash. You need to see that there are all manner of gray in between.

Yeah, that ain't gonna happen.

Still, I'd like to hear why Lascannons aren't good at killing vehicles. Sorry, "twin-linked" lascannons.

Edited for spelling errors. Time to lay off the beer.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Assuming 6 hits per template and only one cannon firing, you'll net 5 wounds and about less then one terminator. The LRC will kill the same amount. The AC is being left out since it'll effect both equally.

Actually, that depends entirely on how many terminators there are. The crusader is better at killing terminators than the redeemer is when the number of target models goes down. What if a termi squad only has 3 guys left? The flame storm cannon will hit 3 guys, probably wound three guys, and probably will not kill any. The hurricane bolters will still hit 10 times, cause 5 wounds and has a really good chance at downing 1 of them.

Its a lot like the old discussions (back in 4th ed) that used to be about Bloodletters vs Damonettes in which will kill more.

ChrisWWII wrote:I have to toss my hat in with Draco. Quite honestly, just like in real life, nothing is black and white. There are so many things to consider that are not just mathhammer either.

For example, a fluff player running a Salamanders army might find the Crusader 'better' for fluff reasons, while not considering in game performance.

A modeller or painter might find a specific Land Raider variant better for ease of assembly, or ease of painting. (I've never built a Land Raider so I have no idea ).

well I'm just talking about the tactical value of this unit or that. the question was which is better. I assume he means in game terms. If he means whats more fluffy or whats more fun to model then I have NFI its entirely up to him. Other than that though it's all odds - 99% of the possible situations in the game are covered by the rules in your codex or main rule book in pretty good detail. Just run the numbers and you'll know what's most likely to happen, and hence have an answer to the question "in game terms which is better." The only thing you really cant know from the rule books is the meta. I mean its not subjective at all. Its numbers. Math is one of the few things known to man that is entirely objective. Its like gravity. It couldnt be less subjective.

chriswwII wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote: If I pop the transport on the same turn I deploy the flame storm cannon they wont have any choice about it. twin linked meltaguns have a way of exploding vehicles. Besides that not everything I want to flame is in a transport. Bugs for instance are totally incapable of hiding in a transport. Blood Angels assault marines (with jump packs) and Thunderwolves also cannot ride transports. So basically yes the transports are an added layer of defense for them but no it doesnt invalidate the weapon.

Uh, no. You have to target the same unit with all your weapons. If you announce your firing your multimelta at my Chimera as well as the uberflamer and your mm blows up my Chimera, then oh no you wasted your Flamestorm shot. Unless Machine Spirit lets you change the target of a weapon after you've started rolling, I doubt you can do that.

Machine spirit allows me to shoot at two different targets. I dont have to announce both at once. I roll 1 see what the result is then choose the other. Also I'm assuming the presence of other elements of my army. Like a bike squad rocking 4 meltaguns, for instance. The Land Raiders meltagun may or may not kill the transport. doesnt really matter.
AF




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
Still, I'd like to hear why Lascannons aren't good at killing vehicles.

they're outclassed by meltaguns, which are
A cheaper
B more damaging
C more numerous
D better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

chriswwII wrote: If I pop the transport on the same turn I deploy the flame storm cannon they wont have any choice about it. twin linked meltaguns have a way of exploding vehicles. Besides that not everything I want to flame is in a transport. Bugs for instance are totally incapable of hiding in a transport. Blood Angels assault marines (with jump packs) and Thunderwolves also cannot ride transports. So basically yes the transports are an added layer of defense for them but no it doesnt invalidate the weapon.

Uh, no. You have to target the same unit with all your weapons. If you announce your firing your multimelta at my Chimera as well as the uberflamer and your mm blows up my Chimera, then oh no you wasted your Flamestorm shot. Unless Machine Spirit lets you change the target of a weapon after you've started rolling, I doubt you can do that.

Machine spirit allows me to shoot at two different targets. I dont have to announce both at once. I roll 1 see what the result is then choose the other. Also I'm assuming the presence of other elements of my army. Like a bike squad rocking 4 meltaguns, for instance. The Land Raiders meltagun may or may not kill the transport. doesnt really matter.
AF

You know we've been playing 5th for over a year now its not news to anyone that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is it? Really we should be long past this discussion..... the real anti tank question is "whats the best way to get my meltagun to the target" or "what target should I shoot it at" not "what gun is better." That's a settled question. Sorry if anyone feels like I'm repeating myself. I am, really, but what I dont understand is "why do I have to?"
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You know we've been playing 5th for over a year now its not news to anyone that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is it? Really we should be long past this discussion..... the real anti tank question is "whats the best way to get my meltagun to the target" or "what target should I shoot it at" not "what gun is better." That's a settled question. Sorry if anyone feels like I'm repeating myself. I am, really, but what I dont understand is "why do I have to?"
AF

Because you're talking out of your posterior.

Again, if your understanding of the game is "MOAR MELTA! SCOND TURN ASSAULT FTW" I don't know where you get your condescending tone.

Your inability to even fathom the idea that the pattern of Land Raider to take is the one that best fits your army, and that some armies get more out of a Phobos pattern is mindboggling.

Melta guns are better at close range. But some IG non-mech builds are built around long range firepower, which is not what the Melta brings to the table. In that case the lascannon is better quite simply because it can hurt an enemy vehicle from further away, even if it has a lesser chance of killing it. They may be more numerous, but if your that close to an opponent how long is it going to be before they charge you and tie you up in combat. How long before you get wiped out by shooting? The individual melta shot might be better, but how many shots does it get?

[Leman Russ]----6"----|Melta is better|----6"-----|Melta and Lascannon about equal|------------------------------36"------------------|Lascannon better|

^This diagram illustrates my opinion quite well I think.

The meltagun is awesome, but it's not the end all be all of anti tank firepower.

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You know we've been playing 5th for over a year now its not news to anyone that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is it? Really we should be long past this discussion..... the real anti tank question is "whats the best way to get my meltagun to the target" or "what target should I shoot it at" not "what gun is better." That's a settled question. Sorry if anyone feels like I'm repeating myself. I am, really, but what I dont understand is "why do I have to?"
AF

Because you're talking out of your posterior.

Again, if your understanding of the game is "MOAR MELTA! SCOND TURN ASSAULT FTW" I don't know where you get your condescending tone.

Your inability to even fathom the idea that the pattern of Land Raider to take is the one that best fits your army, and that some armies get more out of a Phobos pattern is mindboggling.

Just get tired of defending the same points over and over. Its mathematically true that meltaguns are better at killing vehicles than lascannons are. The whole conversation is dumb. If you think (nonguard) lascannons are better you dont know what your talking about. end of story. So yeah..... try being wrong less often..... and I'll condescend to you less often. Deal?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:Melta guns are better at close range. But some IG non-mech builds are built around long range firepower, which is not what the Melta brings to the table. In that case the lascannon is better quite simply because it can hurt an enemy vehicle from further away, even if it has a lesser chance of killing it. They may be more numerous, but if your that close to an opponent how long is it going to be before they charge you and tie you up in combat. How long before you get wiped out by shooting? The individual melta shot might be better, but how many shots does it get?

[Leman Russ]----6"----|Melta is better|----6"-----|Melta and Lascannon about equal|------------------------------36"------------------|Lascannon better|

^This diagram illustrates my opinion quite well I think.

The meltagun is awesome, but it's not the end all be all of anti tank firepower.

Yes guard are an exception to the melta-spam rule because of orders. The battlecannon has better range than the meltagun true but its not equivalent in damage potential - the 2d6 + scatter + half strength rule means its on the whole less likely to hit its target than a meltagun, also it is not ap1, which increases the effectiveness of the meltagun about 16-17%. Additionally the battlecannon is much more expensive than the meltagun. While 1 battlecannon will probably shoot more than 1 meltagun over the course of a game meltaguns are much more numerous because a squad can carry several and most squads can carry at least one. So if you total the number of melta shots and battlecannon shots in an average of 10 space marine games and 10 guard games I think you'll find that the meltaguns have a much higher rate of fire. They can get knocked out in assaults true but the russ can too and in any there are plenty more meltaguns, its not all based on 1 squad. AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You know we've been playing 5th for over a year now its not news to anyone that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is it? Really we should be long past this discussion..... the real anti tank question is "whats the best way to get my meltagun to the target" or "what target should I shoot it at" not "what gun is better." That's a settled question. Sorry if anyone feels like I'm repeating myself. I am, really, but what I dont understand is "why do I have to?"
AF

Because you're talking out of your posterior.

Again, if your understanding of the game is "MOAR MELTA! SCOND TURN ASSAULT FTW" I don't know where you get your condescending tone.

Your inability to even fathom the idea that the pattern of Land Raider to take is the one that best fits your army, and that some armies get more out of a Phobos pattern is mindboggling.

Just get tired of defending the same points over and over. Its mathematically true that meltaguns are better at killing vehicles than lascannons are. The whole conversation is dumb. If you think (nonguard) lascannons are better you dont know what your talking about. end of story. So yeah..... try being wrong less often..... and I'll condescend to you less often. Deal?
AF

Nope, because you're missing a fundamental point. But it's okay. Again, for the third time, what are the odds of killing a tank with a melta gun from say... 40 inches away? If you're defending the same point over and over again, I think you should look inward for the person who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Consider also that its an objective based game 2/3 of the time which means fighting for space, generally at close quarters. hence the meltagun means that enemy armor either has to come close and risk being destroyed or stay away from the objectives, which is win/win for the meltagun player. the lascannon or battlecannon however derives no advantage from being close to its target and may actually lose efficiency bc it is harder for vehicles that mount it to move and shoot to full effect than it is for infantry squads to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain
I've already answered the range point. On this thread and others. The problem isnt that I cant see your point. The problem is that you cant be bothered to read my responses. Anyway I dont feel like getting into a hissy fight with you (anymore than I already have) we disagree you're wrong just suck it up. I'm moving on.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You know we've been playing 5th for over a year now its not news to anyone that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is it? Really we should be long past this discussion..... the real anti tank question is "whats the best way to get my meltagun to the target" or "what target should I shoot it at" not "what gun is better." That's a settled question. Sorry if anyone feels like I'm repeating myself. I am, really, but what I dont understand is "why do I have to?"
AF

Of course the meltagun gives you a better chance..... provided you are within 6". The range issue is a significant factor, which you have chosen to just ignore.

This goes back to the way you are looking at things as if the better mathhammer number means it is automatically better. Black and white, pass or fail. What you miss is that your melta having double the chance to destroy my vehicles means nothing if I can stop you from getting that close. Saying that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is just missing the big picture. Don't take me wrong, at range < or = 6", meltaguns win. But anything > 6" the meltagun is not better, and > 12" the lascannon is infinitely superior.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Consider also that its an objective based game 2/3 of the time which means fighting for space, generally at close quarters. hence the meltagun means that enemy armor either has to come close and risk being destroyed or stay away from the objectives, which is win/win for the meltagun player. the lascannon or battlecannon however derives no advantage from being close to its target and may actually lose efficiency bc it is harder for vehicles that mount it to move and shoot to full effect than it is for infantry squads to do so.

Did I miss a rule in the BRB that said you can't take meltas and lascannons?

And you know that you can put a Multi-melta on a Phobos pattern, right? The conversation isn't about the merits of meltas vs lascannons.

Dracos wrote:
This goes back to the way you are looking at things as if the better mathhammer number means it is automatically better. Black and white, pass or fail. What you miss is that your melta having double the chance to destroy my vehicles means nothing if I can stop you from getting that close. Saying that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is just missing the big picture. Don't take me wrong, at range < or = 6", meltaguns win. But anything > 6" the meltagun is not better, and > 12" the lascannon is infinitely superior.

Also this. Again.

one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:The conversation isn't about the merits of meltas vs lascannons.

uhhh.... you're the one who got the ball rolling in that direction.
You said the phobos was good at killing tanks.
I said that job was better performed by other units bc lascannons arent that good at it.
You said what is better
I said meltaguns.

If you dont want to talk about it dont bring it up. I think the redeemer is the best land raider for the reasons I gave above. We can talk about that instead of your obsession with 2nd class anti tank guns whenever you want.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.

That is your "addressing" of the range issue, to simply say that 2/3s of the time it does not matter? In capture and control, there are 2 objectives that can be placed far apart. That is not a close quarters game at all. really, only 1 of the missions forces close quarters, seize ground.

Your analysis is overly simplistic, to the point that it detracts from the conversation.

While we are on objectives, after dropping off the payload and picking up a few stragglers, the phobos offers the most protection purely because it does not have to be within 24".

And AF, all shooting is done at once. you can not fire one weapon, see what happens, then decide to shoot again. You declare your targets before you fire. So no melta on a rhino then flaming the guys inside.

Dracos wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.

That is your "addressing" of the range issue, to simply say that 2/3s of the time it does not matter? In capture and control, there are 2 objectives that can be placed far apart. That is not a close quarters game at all. really, only 1 of the missions forces close quarters, seize ground.

Your analysis is overly simplistic, to the point that it detracts from the conversation.

If you charge at your opponents objective with less than your full resources you arent going to take it. 1/2 of your army against all of theirs. who do you think is going to win? You go all in and start worrying about holding the rear objective on turn 4 or 5. Its not that my analysis is too simplistic - its that I dont feel like going into every little detail, you need to figure some stuff out for yourself. I cant believe you think 250 points is a good price for a pair of twin linked lascannons. What a bunch of nonsense. You could have bought a whole squad for that, with transport, with melta weapons, which is both scoring and can fight in assaults and is more likely to kill the thing it shoots at and can fire to full effect while moving and more resilient to anti tank guns. You're talking crazy talk.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Machine spirit allows me to shoot at two different targets. I dont have to announce both at once. I roll 1 see what the result is then choose the other.

That is incorrect. The shooting is done simultaneously.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:While we are on objectives, after dropping off the payload and picking up a few stragglers, the phobos offers the most protection purely because it does not have to be within 24".

And AF, all shooting is done at once. you can not fire one weapon, see what happens, then decide to shoot again. You declare your targets before you fire. So no melta on a rhino then flaming the guys inside.

Where in the rulebook does it say I have to choose both targets before shooting? If its in the rules then hey I'm wrong - but I dont think its there.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:The conversation isn't about the merits of meltas vs lascannons.

uhhh.... you're the one who got the ball rolling in that direction.
You said the phobos was good at killing tanks.
I said that job was better performed by other units bc lascannons arent that good at it.
You said what is better
I said meltaguns.

If you dont want to talk about it dont bring it up. I think the redeemer is the best land raider for the reasons I gave above. We can talk about that instead of your obsession with 2nd class anti tank guns whenever you want.
AF

I said it's good at... get ready for this... killing tanks A-T R-A-N-G-E. Which is good if you are playing a S-H-O-O-T-Y army.

You brought up meltas, not me. But since you're taking this tack, you're clearly out of ideas. I accept your apology.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Dracos wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.

That is your "addressing" of the range issue, to simply say that 2/3s of the time it does not matter? In capture and control, there are 2 objectives that can be placed far apart. That is not a close quarters game at all. really, only 1 of the missions forces close quarters, seize ground.

Your analysis is overly simplistic, to the point that it detracts from the conversation.

If you charge at your opponents objective with less than your full resources you arent going to take it. 1/2 of your army against all of theirs. who do you think is going to win? You go all in and start worrying about holding the rear objective on turn 4 or 5. Its not that my analysis is too simplistic - its that I dont feel like going into every little detail, you need to figure some stuff out for yourself. I cant believe you think 250 points is a good price for a pair of twin linked lascannons. What a bunch of nonsense. You could have bought a whole squad for that, with transport, with melta weapons, which is both scoring and can fight in assaults and is more likely to kill the thing it shoots at and can fire to full effect while moving and more resilient to anti tank guns. You're talking crazy talk.
AF

Right, because all you get for that 250 is the lascannons. Who's talking crazy?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:While we are on objectives, after dropping off the payload and picking up a few stragglers, the phobos offers the most protection purely because it does not have to be within 24".

And AF, all shooting is done at once. you can not fire one weapon, see what happens, then decide to shoot again. You declare your targets before you fire. So no melta on a rhino then flaming the guys inside.

Where in the rulebook does it say I have to choose both targets before shooting? If its in the rules then hey I'm wrong - but I dont think its there.
AF

A unit fires all of it's weapons at once. Page 67, vehicle Destroyed- Explodes states it explicitly.

Monster Rain wrote:
I said it's good at... get ready for this... killing tanks A-T R-A-N-G-E. Which is good if you are playing a S-H-O-O-T-Y army.

Would you just read the mission objectives? Just read them? What are you donig 2/3 of the time? Holding objectives. What does that require? For you to be on the objective. What will your opponent do to kick you off of the objective? Get on the objective. Your going to be fighting them up close get it? Thats why the range restriction doesnt matter.

Monster Rain wrote:
You brought up meltas, not me. But since you're taking this tack, you're clearly out of ideas. I accept your apology.

lol ok whatever.

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Dracos wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.

That is your "addressing" of the range issue, to simply say that 2/3s of the time it does not matter? In capture and control, there are 2 objectives that can be placed far apart. That is not a close quarters game at all. really, only 1 of the missions forces close quarters, seize ground.

Your analysis is overly simplistic, to the point that it detracts from the conversation.

If you charge at your opponents objective with less than your full resources you arent going to take it. 1/2 of your army against all of theirs. who do you think is going to win? You go all in and start worrying about holding the rear objective on turn 4 or 5. Its not that my analysis is too simplistic - its that I dont feel like going into every little detail, you need to figure some stuff out for yourself. I cant believe you think 250 points is a good price for a pair of twin linked lascannons. What a bunch of nonsense. You could have bought a whole squad for that, with transport, with melta weapons, which is both scoring and can fight in assaults and is more likely to kill the thing it shoots at and can fire to full effect while moving and more resilient to anti tank guns. You're talking crazy talk.
AF

So a Rhino is more resilient than a Land Raider now? Who's talking crazy?

ok..... I think we're done now. This conversation is obviously above your head. I mean what the hell are you even talking about? Honestly.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Next time I have a rule book nearby I'll look it up.

Here is why you can not melta a rhino and flame the tacticals inside.

The POTMS entry in the C:SM dex states that the extra weapon you fire is subject to normal rules for shooting.

Now in the BGB, the table on pg.15, which is a summary of shooting, says that when a unit fires:

1. Check LOS & pick a target, or in the LR's case, targets.

Now the squad in the rhino was NOT a target you could shoot at when you declared your targets. Therefore, you can not flame the tacticals inside after you used the MM to wreck it.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If you charge at your opponents objective with less than your full resources you arent going to take it. 1/2 of your army against all of theirs. who do you think is going to win? You go all in and start worrying about holding the rear objective on turn 4 or 5. Its not that my analysis is too simplistic - its that I dont feel like going into every little detail, you need to figure some stuff out for yourself. I cant believe you think 250 points is a good price for a pair of twin linked lascannons. What a bunch of nonsense. You could have bought a whole squad for that, with transport, with melta weapons, which is both scoring and can fight in assaults and is more likely to kill the thing it shoots at and can fire to full effect while moving and more resilient to anti tank guns. You're talking crazy talk.
AF

LOL this is gold. You have this thing where you think every game plays out the same way. While you are charging your whole army at me, I'll maneuver around a bit to delay your engagement for as long as possible, and blast your army away with superior range. I won't even try to claim your objective, I'll just hold mine and wait until late game and contest yours.

Again, your overly simplistic view is shown again by saying the bit about the 250 points for a pair of twin linked lascannons. Honestly, talking with you is a waste of time. By now a discerning reader will be able to see why you are wrong.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I said it's good at... get ready for this... killing tanks A-T R-A-N-G-E. Which is good if you are playing a S-H-O-O-T-Y army.

Would you just read the mission objectives? Just read them? What are you donig 2/3 of the time? Holding objectives. What does that require? For you to be on the objective. What will your opponent do to kick you off of the objective? Get on the objective. Your going to be fighting them up close get it? Thats why the range restriction doesnt matter.

Monster Rain wrote:
You brought up meltas, not me. But since you're taking this tack, you're clearly out of ideas. I accept your apology.

lol ok whatever.

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Dracos wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.

That is your "addressing" of the range issue, to simply say that 2/3s of the time it does not matter? In capture and control, there are 2 objectives that can be placed far apart. That is not a close quarters game at all. really, only 1 of the missions forces close quarters, seize ground.

Your analysis is overly simplistic, to the point that it detracts from the conversation.

If you charge at your opponents objective with less than your full resources you arent going to take it. 1/2 of your army against all of theirs. who do you think is going to win? You go all in and start worrying about holding the rear objective on turn 4 or 5. Its not that my analysis is too simplistic - its that I dont feel like going into every little detail, you need to figure some stuff out for yourself. I cant believe you think 250 points is a good price for a pair of twin linked lascannons. What a bunch of nonsense. You could have bought a whole squad for that, with transport, with melta weapons, which is both scoring and can fight in assaults and is more likely to kill the thing it shoots at and can fire to full effect while moving and more resilient to anti tank guns. You're talking crazy talk.
AF

So a Rhino is more resilient than a Land Raider now? Who's talking crazy?

ok..... I think we're done now. This conversation is obviously above your head. I mean what the hell are you even talking about? Honestly.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Next time I have a rule book nearby I'll look it up.

So you're arguing rules without a rule book?

And I responded to your post about resilience. I'm done feeding this troll. Good luck with your post count, and enjoy your last word.

pg 67 under the Destroyed-Explodes! result says that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, meaning that all weapons on a Land Raider also fire simultaneously. Thus a Land Raider can't pop a tank then flame the squad that pops out, Power of the Machine Spirit is meaningless. However, it can assault the squad...not that that helps the Land Raider in any way shape or form.

ANd yes, I have to agree with Dracos and Monster. Charging in to engage in close range firefights and close combat is not the only tactic in an objectives game. You can easily hang back and shoot enemies as they move through the open, which is the tactic most shooty armies would prefer. Additionally, you have to note that a meltagun will only ever be able to kill one thing at a time. One Terminator, one Space marine, one tank, but a battle cannon has a chance of being able to kill much more with each shot.

Sure it won't pop tanks as reliably, but it'll slaughter squads easily while still having a decent chance at popping transports and other light to medium tanks. If you go pure melta spam then what happens if you face a horde army that doesn't have many tanks or transports? Joy that melta gun killed an ork boy, an Imperial Guardsmen, or a 'Gaunt. In the same phrase, the shot from a battle cannon could have a decent chance at doing vehicular damage, while at the same time being able to slaughter light infantry by the handful. To me this added flexibility forces me to think in terms other than pure math hammer.


Btw, Monster I just noticed this. Is your avatar Sauron leading a bunch of Stormtroopers? Holy that's awesome. Gondor is so totally screwed.

ChrisWWII wrote:Btw, Monster I just noticed this. Is your avatar Sauron leading a bunch of Stormtroopers? Holy that's awesome. Gondor is so totally screwed.

Thanks man!

The Uruk-Hai just weren't cutting it...

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Here is why you can not melta a rhino and flame the tacticals inside.

The POTMS entry in the C:SM dex states that the extra weapon you fire is subject to normal rules for shooting.

Now in the BGB, the table on pg.15, which is a summary of shooting, says that when a unit fires:

1. Check LOS & pick a target, or in the LR's case, targets.

Now the squad in the rhino was NOT a target you could shoot at when you declared your targets. Therefore, you can not flame the tacticals inside after you used the MM to wreck it.

You can melt and flame the rhino. Roll the melta 1st, when the guys get out they'll get hit by the template. Really though this whole you cant melt and flame the same target discussion is a distraction. Maybe you cant melt the target witht he Land Raider, but the Land Raider isnt operating in a vacuum. Just get someone else to melt the rhino.
AF

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/314948.page#1894248

Phobos Pattern in action. Glorious, glorious action.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Here is why you can not melta a rhino and flame the tacticals inside.

The POTMS entry in the C:SM dex states that the extra weapon you fire is subject to normal rules for shooting.

Now in the BGB, the table on pg.15, which is a summary of shooting, says that when a unit fires:

1. Check LOS & pick a target, or in the LR's case, targets.

Now the squad in the rhino was NOT a target you could shoot at when you declared your targets. Therefore, you can not flame the tacticals inside after you used the MM to wreck it.

You can melt and flame the rhino. Roll the melta 1st, when the guys get out they'll get hit by the template. Really though this whole you cant melt and flame the same target discussion is a distraction. Maybe you cant melt the target witht he Land Raider, but the Land Raider isnt operating in a vacuum. Just get someone else to melt the rhino.
AF

You resolve a unit's shooting all at once. By that logic a half a long fang pack can shoot at a rhino and the rest will shoot at what pops out.

And it is also not a distraction. It was one of your points as to why the Redeemer is clearly the best.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Here is why you can not melta a rhino and flame the tacticals inside.

The POTMS entry in the C:SM dex states that the extra weapon you fire is subject to normal rules for shooting.

Now in the BGB, the table on pg.15, which is a summary of shooting, says that when a unit fires:

1. Check LOS & pick a target, or in the LR's case, targets.

Now the squad in the rhino was NOT a target you could shoot at when you declared your targets. Therefore, you can not flame the tacticals inside after you used the MM to wreck it.

You can melt and flame the rhino. Roll the melta 1st, when the guys get out they'll get hit by the template. Really though this whole you cant melt and flame the same target discussion is a distraction. Maybe you cant melt the target witht he Land Raider, but the Land Raider isnt operating in a vacuum. Just get someone else to melt the rhino.
AF

You resolve a unit's shooting all at once. By that logic a half a long fang pack can shoot at a rhino and the rest will shoot at what pops out.

And it is also not a distraction. It was one of your points as to why the Redeemer is clearly the best.

not exactly..... my point about why the redeemer is the best wasnt that it can shoot infantry and the vehicle at the same time.... it was that it has the most devastating gun, the flame storm cannon. My point about why the Phobos is *not* the best land raider was that its anti tank gun isnt very good, you can get the anti tank work in your army done better with other units. That may or may not be the Redeemer. Anyway if the weapons arent compatible against the same target just flame A and melt B, or flame A in one direction and flame B in the other, or just move 6-12 inches and shoot one gun. Whatever. Bottom line here is that the redeemer is the better tank than the Phobos. AF

well at my 2k list i use 3 redeemers and 2 crusaders

Devastator wrote:well at my 2k list i use 3 redeemers and 2 crusaders

Holy. Crap.

Whats in the other 750 pts of your army?

assaut marines,th/ss termies w/priest and liberian

AbaddonFidelis wrote:My point about why the Phobos is *not* the best land raider was that its anti tank gun isnt very good

No one asserted that the Phobos was the "best" lr variant. Some people asserted, including myself, that some armies will work better with the Phobos over the Redeemer. Again your assertion that the TL lascannon isn't very good is simply wrong. I can't beleive you are obtuse enough to make this statement repeatedly.

You are removing all semblance of context and making black and white statements. Entirely unhelpful. You should stop posting.

Devastator:

I take it you play the Blood Angels?

Dracos.
You're obviously a moron. Welcome to my ignore list.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Dracos.
You're obviously a moron. Welcome to my ignore list.
AF

Lol, yeah everyone disagrees with you and I'm the moron. Good, ignore me. That way when I refute your stupid posts you won't bother with your constant re-asserting of the same debunked position.

Crusader for me.

13 blood claws, a Wolf Priest and a WG in Termie armour - straight into combat.

Mine's got a Multi-melta to go tank hunting afterwards, and generally distract my opponent.

Wolfun wrote:Crusader for me.

13 blood claws, a Wolf Priest and a WG in Termie armour - straight into combat.

Mine's got a Multi-melta to go tank hunting afterwards, and generally distract my opponent.

I've never actually seen that unit on the table. How does it perform in CC versus other dedicated assault units, such as assault terminators, thunderwolves, banshees, harlies,warlocks, MCs/other nid units and nobs?

Er, everyone STOP with the personal attacks, OK?

IF there is a problem, please report it using the MOD ALERT button.

Thanks!

I have a 13 Blood Claw, Wolf Priest and Wolf Guard with mark of the wulfen coming out of a LRC... they really chew thru just about anything. I have not had them lose vs anything other than Fiends of Slaanesh and Genestealers... ... but they tend to get shot to death afterwards...

Dracos wrote:

Wolfun wrote:Crusader for me.

13 blood claws, a Wolf Priest and a WG in Termie armour - straight into combat.

Mine's got a Multi-melta to go tank hunting afterwards, and generally distract my opponent.

I've never actually seen that unit on the table. How does it perform in CC versus other dedicated assault units, such as assault terminators, thunderwolves, banshees, harlies,warlocks, MCs/other nid units and nobs?

Not a clue. I wiped out an entire brood of Hormogaunts as well as Genestealers with a Broodlord. Also have taken out a Brood of three Carnifex's in one charge with some lucky wounds and unlucky saves.

To Devastator- Did I miss your troops in that 2k list? assaut marines,th/ss termies w/priest and liberian with 3 redeemers and 2 crusaders...Is this a BT thing?

@mrwhoop - I wish! We don't even get redeemers...

mrwhoop wrote:To Devastator- Did I miss your troops in that 2k list? assaut marines,th/ss termies w/priest and liberian with 3 redeemers and 2 crusaders...Is this a BT thing?

That would be a Blood Angels thing. Their assault marines are troops.

BTs cannot take Librarians, just fyi.

On Topic: I would always choose the Crusader if it's carrying assaulty dudes. The amount of mid-range firepower that comes out of that thing has saved me several games. I've never really tried the redeemer, as it's not available to Templars, so I can't really comment. However, on paper I feel that it's flamers are a bit short ranged for my taste.

Stravo wrote:For a SM army with an assault Terminator force if you only had room point wise to throw in a single and raider as their dedicated transport which variant would you choose? The standard las cannon variant? The Redeemer? or Crusader? I've seen some people really in love with the redeemer for its flame cannons which accentuate the assault for the Termies but I am inclined towards the shooty goodness of the las cannons but that's coming from someone with little to no real experience what do you find in the game makes the best variant to choose pound for pound?

That's a huge run on sentence... (sorry for being a grammar nazi )

In answer to your question- If they're assaulty termies, the standard LR is the least usefull, especially if you want to add an IC. Redeemers are nice- drop off the termies on one target, go flame another. If you want lots and lots of termies, take a crusader (especially if small arms fire is not prevalent in your army). If you want to sit back and blow things apart as they come at you, then charge out from within, take the standard LR.

So... each is good in its own way. Don't start the whole "is a crusadder or redeemer [i]better?"
It really depends on your playing style, what you want the landraider to do.

kenshin620 wrote:

Riddick40k wrote:

Inigo Montoya wrote:I will say 4. None.
1 land raider is just too easy to open up.

They really depend on your play style. I run an 'ard boyz Vulkan list that uses 4 raiders, a redeemer, a phobos, and 2 crusaders. All are outstanding at what they do, but each has a very different role for me. YMMV, and I encourage you to really analyze exactly what holes you need filled. Again, I strongly advise against a single land raider!

Just wondering how you can have 4 Land Raiders if your only allowed to run 3 Heavy Support Choices?

Dedicated transports

heck BA can ONLY get them that way!

It's a Vulkan List so that means hes playing a Normal Marines List
And Normal Marines can only take LR as Heavy Support Choices

Riddick40k wrote:

kenshin620 wrote:

Riddick40k wrote:

Inigo Montoya wrote:I will say 4. None.
1 land raider is just too easy to open up.

They really depend on your play style. I run an 'ard boyz Vulkan list that uses 4 raiders, a redeemer, a phobos, and 2 crusaders. All are outstanding at what they do, but each has a very different role for me. YMMV, and I encourage you to really analyze exactly what holes you need filled. Again, I strongly advise against a single land raider!

Just wondering how you can have 4 Land Raiders if your only allowed to run 3 Heavy Support Choices?

Dedicated transports

heck BA can ONLY get them that way!

It's a Vulkan List so that means hes playing a Normal Marines List
And Normal Marines can only take LR as Heavy Support Choices

I think you'll find that to be incorrect upon review of the codex.

Chaos land raider's the best
hurhurhur

but seriously, as everyone's been saying both crusader and redeemer are good
Personally, redeemer's terrify me, s6 ap3 flamers = dead chaos space marines.

If you can't tell already, I play CSM haha

Monster Rain wrote:

Riddick40k wrote:

kenshin620 wrote:

Riddick40k wrote:

Inigo Montoya wrote:I will say 4. None.
1 land raider is just too easy to open up.

They really depend on your play style. I run an 'ard boyz Vulkan list that uses 4 raiders, a redeemer, a phobos, and 2 crusaders. All are outstanding at what they do, but each has a very different role for me. YMMV, and I encourage you to really analyze exactly what holes you need filled. Again, I strongly advise against a single land raider!

Just wondering how you can have 4 Land Raiders if your only allowed to run 3 Heavy Support Choices?

Dedicated transports

heck BA can ONLY get them that way!

It's a Vulkan List so that means hes playing a Normal Marines List
And Normal Marines can only take LR as Heavy Support Choices

I think you'll find that to be incorrect upon review of the codex.

They have a Transport Capacity but nowhere in the Codex does it say you are allowed to take LR as Dedicated Transports, they are under the Heavy Support choice

Except in the Elites section under the two Terminator Entries.

Probably a Crusader, im not perfectly sure about the stats of it, but i remember a friend telling me that they bring good firing support.

Unreal Toast wrote:Probably a Crusader, im not perfectly sure about the stats of it, but i remember a friend telling me that they bring good firing support.

Give them a Multi-melta to help take out tanks, and they're alright.

THe problem with the standard Land Raider for Assault Terminator is that they do not have Frag Launchers to it then limits your ability to assault enemies in cover. Ok if you have TH/SS Termies they are going to strike last anyway so this isn't important but for the few people who still use Lightning Claws then it totally takes away their advantage.

Personnally I would go Redeemer - Flamesorm Cannons are awesome
Crusader - Carrying capacity is fantastic and the hurricane bolters can be lethal to T3 troops.
Godhammer - Will actually be a threat once the Assault Terminators have got out but not ideal for driving towards the eneermy as fast as possible as this limits its considerable firepower capabilities.

Riddick40k wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Riddick40k wrote:

kenshin620 wrote:

Riddick40k wrote:

Inigo Montoya wrote:I will say 4. None.
1 land raider is just too easy to open up.

They really depend on your play style. I run an 'ard boyz Vulkan list that uses 4 raiders, a redeemer, a phobos, and 2 crusaders. All are outstanding at what they do, but each has a very different role for me. YMMV, and I encourage you to really analyze exactly what holes you need filled. Again, I strongly advise against a single land raider!

Just wondering how you can have 4 Land Raiders if your only allowed to run 3 Heavy Support Choices?

Dedicated transports

heck BA can ONLY get them that way!

It's a Vulkan List so that means hes playing a Normal Marines List
And Normal Marines can only take LR as Heavy Support Choices

I think you'll find that to be incorrect upon review of the codex.

3 x heavy support, 1 with my terminators. You seriously didn't know that assault terminators can take a land raider as a dedicated transport (1 squad can, anyway?)

They have a Transport Capacity but nowhere in the Codex does it say you are allowed to take LR as Dedicated Transports, they are under the Heavy Support choice

3 x heavy, 1 as dedicated for assault terminators.

This should be a poll.

I like the Helios. Changing the Heavy Bolter for a Whirlwind launcher is worth the decreased transport cap.

what are the other forge world variants?
I cant afford their books :(

AbaddonFidelis wrote:what are the other forge world variants?
I cant afford their books :(

Helios, which has 2 TL Lascannons and a Whirlwind Launcher, and the Prometheus, which has 4 TL Heavy Bolters and grants bonuses to Reserves.

Helios trades the HB for the whirlwind missile launcher and can only hold 6 guys.

Terminus Ultra has 2 TL-LC and 3 normal LC( or was that the other way around?)

Ares has a built in demo cannon

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Helios trades the HB for the whirlwind missile launcher and can only hold 6 guys.

Terminus Ultra has 2 TL-LC and 3 normal LC( or was that the other way around?)

Ares has a built in demo cannon

Terminus Ultra has 3 TL Las and 2 normal Las

Ares has TL Heavy Flamer sponsons and a Demolisher Cannon.

Droooool

I may need try picking up more FW things

Wow, I didn't expect the ton of useful and helpful comments and suggestions. Thanks so much guys. To answer an earlier question I was thinking of ferrying in a close combat squad of Terminators with the LR. I wanted to have the LR give as much punch as possible, not so much to help out in the assault for the Terminators because I figure with the one two punch of these CC monsters and an Ironclad drop podding in to help out that they wouldn't need the flame storm cannons as much and that the Las would be more useful to pop off shots as of turn one on the approach. Again though having not actually played this approach I don't know how useful that would be in a real game situation. On a modeling note I do find the Lasa cannon version a much better looking model.

well.... I would advise not to glue anything into place. If you want to experiment buy the phobos kit and then buy the redeemer/crusader upgrade sprue, its like 10 dollars. Then you can just see which one you like best. I think you'll be disappointed by the performance of the lascannons but by all means see for yourself which you like best....

Abbadon is probably trying to say that you are going to be very happy with your new Phobos Land Raider and its wonderous Godhammer Pattern Lascannons, and that it would certainly be helpful against any opponents of yours.

right. thats what I meant to say. If by "very happy" you mean "miserably disappointed" and by "helpful against opponents" you mean "next to worthless."
AF

Godhammer raiders are underrated. The possibility to destroy 2 transports per turn is good, but the range is what shines here. You can comfortably sit 40" away and blast away happily without having to suscept yourself to horrible melta-inflicted death, which tends to be the weakness of the other 2 variants.

Yeah, I agree jabbdo. But that's really it. Lascannons are near worthless against blobs.

I love the debate about the classic design having range and the others needing to get in close to do their work.

Doh! That is the whole point of having different designs!

The classic is a sniper. The other two variants are for more up close work. The decision is basically determined by one thing: what are you doing with the guys inside? Counterattack unit or scoring unit inside, then take the classic. In your face assault delivery system, then take one of the two variants.

And don't forget that all can take a Multi-melta so if you have Vulkan lurking around you may just be moving 12" and firing that weapon anyway.

Apart from the fact that the OP wants a transport, not a gunboat, godhammers are still dumb.

Jabbdo wrote:Godhammer raiders are underrated. The possibility to destroy 2 transports per turn is good, but the range is what shines here.

You're going to spend HOW many points in order to blow up HOW few points of transports to temporarily inconvenience the passengers who now move up to 12" instead of exactly 12"?

... well, hope you don't ever let the vehicle get shaken. Because you have so much control over that...

Ailaros wrote:Apart from the fact that the OP wants a transport, not a gunboat, godhammers are still dumb.

Jabbdo wrote:Godhammer raiders are underrated. The possibility to destroy 2 transports per turn is good, but the range is what shines here.

You're going to spend HOW many points in order to blow up HOW few points of transports to temporarily inconvenience the passengers who now move up to 12" instead of exactly 12"?

... well, hope you don't ever let the vehicle get shaken. Because you have so much control over that...

POTMS helps that a bit.

And as he said, you can put a Multi-Melta on top so it's still got a little something for everyone whether you're moving forward or shooting from afar.

Also, comparing points to points is misleading. If you can wreck or immobilize a few Chimeras in an objective based game it could make all the difference in the world, and you can't put a point cost on something like that.

Monster Rain wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Apart from the fact that the OP wants a transport, not a gunboat, godhammers are still dumb.

Jabbdo wrote:Godhammer raiders are underrated. The possibility to destroy 2 transports per turn is good, but the range is what shines here.

You're going to spend HOW many points in order to blow up HOW few points of transports to temporarily inconvenience the passengers who now move up to 12" instead of exactly 12"?

... well, hope you don't ever let the vehicle get shaken. Because you have so much control over that...

POTMS helps that a bit.

And as he said, you can put a Multi-Melta on top so it's still got a little something for everyone whether you're moving forward or shooting from afar.

Also, comparing points to points is misleading. If you can wreck or immobilize a few Chimeras in an objective based game it could make all the difference in the world, and you can't put a point cost on something like that.

What? Comparing points to points is misleading? 250 points for a AV 14 wall that'll kill some useless rhinos?

Lets say you blow up two rhinos in a game and score a bunch of shakens and stunned. Your paying 250 points to kill less than a hundred points. Oh, you have an AV 14 wall that just gets in the way of LOS of your own models? Wonderful.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Apart from the fact that the OP wants a transport, not a gunboat, godhammers are still dumb.

Jabbdo wrote:Godhammer raiders are underrated. The possibility to destroy 2 transports per turn is good, but the range is what shines here.

You're going to spend HOW many points in order to blow up HOW few points of transports to temporarily inconvenience the passengers who now move up to 12" instead of exactly 12"?

... well, hope you don't ever let the vehicle get shaken. Because you have so much control over that...

POTMS helps that a bit.

And as he said, you can put a Multi-Melta on top so it's still got a little something for everyone whether you're moving forward or shooting from afar.

Also, comparing points to points is misleading. If you can wreck or immobilize a few Chimeras in an objective based game it could make all the difference in the world, and you can't put a point cost on something like that.

What? Comparing points to points is misleading? 250 points for a AV 14 wall that'll kill some useless rhinos?

Lets say you blow up two rhinos in a game and score a bunch of shakens and stunned. Your paying 250 points to kill less than a hundred points. Oh, you have an AV 14 wall that just gets in the way of LOS of your own models? Wonderful.

Okay, I explained why that can be good. If you disable your opponent's mobility and it wins you the game, how many points is that worth?

Also, it's not all that you'd be doing but it's nice to have the option. The Phobos Pattern is the thinking man's Land Raider.

Monster Rain wrote:Also, comparing points to points is misleading. If you can wreck or immobilize a few Chimeras in an objective based game it could make all the difference in the world, and you can't put a point cost on something like that.

Actually, you sort of can. The problem with a godhammer is an opportunity cost that can easily be demonstrated in an arms race scenario.

Let's say that a single raider takes out 2 chimeras before it's too late and they horribly melta the vehicle. The problem is that the raider costs more than the mechvet chimeras that you're actually killing (remember, there's still the squad inside who is only somewhat slowed by losing its transport). This means that I can take more mechvets than you're taking godhammers. Thus, you have a certain number of mechvets that are allowed to survive because you took the godhammer to deal with them. Every single godhammer you take allows me to take more mechvets, which mean that even MORE of them survive than before (or than if you had taken something else). As such, every godhammer you put down gives your opponent an advantage.

This advantage is something that is easy to put a point cost to, and it can make even more of the difference in the world every game, rather than compared to the above example, which will only sometime occur.

Ailaros wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Also, comparing points to points is misleading. If you can wreck or immobilize a few Chimeras in an objective based game it could make all the difference in the world, and you can't put a point cost on something like that.

Actually, you sort of can. The problem with a godhammer is an opportunity cost that can easily be demonstrated in an arms race scenario.

Let's say that a single raider takes out 2 chimeras before it's too late and they horribly melta the vehicle. The problem is that the raider costs more than the mechvet chimeras that you're actually killing (remember, there's still the squad inside who is only somewhat slowed by losing its transport). This means that I can take more mechvets than you're taking godhammers. Thus, you have a certain number of mechvets that are allowed to survive because you took the godhammer to deal with them. Every single godhammer you take allows me to take more mechvets, which mean that even MORE of them survive than before (or than if you had taken something else). As such, every godhammer you put down gives your opponent an advantage.

This advantage is something that is easy to put a point cost to, and it can make even more of the difference in the world every game, rather than compared to the above example, which will only sometime occur.

Is this where we start talking about nothing but Math Hammer and the thread just becomes silly?

I'm talking about these things in an All-Comers List context here, not the merits of Phobos Land Raiders against armies mathematically tailored to kill it without thought being given to terrain and tactics.

it doesn't need to devolve into a fight over mathhammer, as the mathhammer here is pretty obvious: godhammers are expensive for what they do.

Deciding to put it into an "all comers" list doesn't change this.

Ailaros wrote:it doesn't need to devolve into a fight over mathhammer, as the mathhammer here is pretty obvious: godhammers are expensive for what they do.

Deciding to put it into an "all comers" list doesn't change this.

And what is it that they do or don't do that you find so objectionably over priced?

Comparing points costs of units compared to what they've killed is flawed, and that type of thinking wont win you any games. The problem I have with the other variants apart from Godhammer is that they have to get so close that they expose themselves to meltafire, and will inevitably die.

Jabbdo wrote:Comparing points costs of units compared to what they've killed is flawed, and that type of thinking wont win you any games.

That is exactly my point.

Here's a slightly off topic one - at a cost of... approx 265 points, what would you put on your landraider if you had:

-2 Sponsons
-1 Front weapon
-2 pintle mounted weapons

Imperial/CSM guns only!

liam0404 wrote:Here's a slightly off topic one - at a cost of... approx 265 points, what would you put on your landraider if you had:

-2 Sponsons
-1 Front weapon
-2 pintle mounted weapons

Imperial/CSM guns only!

That would be my Apocalypse Datasheet.

2 Sponson Mounted Thunderfire Cannons, one front mounted Twin-Linked Thunderfire Cannon... and a Multimelta.

Thanks people. You just delayed the next non-space marine codex by 3 months and managed to kill 3 kittens on this one page by incorrectly calling Phobos Land Raiders by the pattern of lascannons they have.

Anyways, on the topic of putting things on a land raider - 2 Sponson Mounted Assault Cannons (twin linked), one Front Mounted Demolisher Cannon, and 2 Pintle-mounted Multi-Meltas. Tanks would be vapourized.

I have a crusader in my army and have also heard from others that it is very good to use

liam0404 wrote:Here's a slightly off topic one - at a cost of... approx 265 points, what would you put on your landraider if you had:

-2 Sponsons
-1 Front weapon
-2 pintle mounted weapons

Imperial/CSM guns only!

Sponsons are TL executioner plasma cannons

front is TL Rocket Pod

2 Missile Launchers for pintles

Actually, Typhoon Missile Launchers all over a Land Raider would be a lot of fun too.

2 TL- Battlecannons
1 front- mounted demo cannon
and two MM

I think the main point here is that if you want a pair of lascannons and a scoring unit in a transport, get yourself a Las Predator to babysit a Tac squad in a Rhino. It's cheaper and puts out more shots.

@Nurgz - That's a fair comment. To be honest, i'd never put a tactical squad in a LR (of any variant). Land raiders are for shuttling terminators and sword brethern

On my Custom Land Raider Design:

2 TL plasma cannon sponsons
1 Frontal Battle cannon
2 Sponson mounted Auto cannons

NuggzTheNinja wrote:I think the main point here is that if you want a pair of lascannons and a scoring unit in a transport, get yourself a Las Predator to babysit a Tac squad in a Rhino. It's cheaper and puts out more shots.

And watch them both get obliterated with Missiles and Autocannons? Lollerskates!

Seriously though, a scoring land raider isn't the reason to take one, but it's a good use for it after it's dropped of the goods.

Monster Rain wrote:Seriously though, a scoring land raider isn't the reason to take one, but it's a good use for it after it's dropped of the goods.

QFT.

Monster Rain wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:I think the main point here is that if you want a pair of lascannons and a scoring unit in a transport, get yourself a Las Predator to babysit a Tac squad in a Rhino. It's cheaper and puts out more shots.

And watch them both get obliterated with Missiles and Autocannons? Lollerskates!

Seriously though, a scoring land raider isn't the reason to take one, but it's a good use for it after it's dropped of the goods.

Didn't we establish that like 4 pages ago?

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:I think the main point here is that if you want a pair of lascannons and a scoring unit in a transport, get yourself a Las Predator to babysit a Tac squad in a Rhino. It's cheaper and puts out more shots.

And watch them both get obliterated with Missiles and Autocannons? Lollerskates!

Seriously though, a scoring land raider isn't the reason to take one, but it's a good use for it after it's dropped of the goods.

Didn't we establish that like 4 pages ago?

We did. I was just reiterating it for someone who missed it, apparently.

This has been a very informative thread. It's not always easy to visualise the multiple applications of a land raider given a particular army list.

I still wish we got redeemers though - I do prefer the crusader, but it couldn't hurt to try it out with my BT's.

Once the redeemer closes its weapon is devastating. The godhammer lascannons are subpar at any range. Yes you can get melted up close if you're worried about that don't run land raiders. It's a transport it gets close. Sitting back and shooting lascannons is a miserable use of the points, taking pot shots on the way in is just that - taking pot shots. You're much better off devastating a whole infantry squad than you are hoping and praying that 1 lascannon shot will kill it's target against all odds. I mean I wish I could get you lascannon guys to appreciate how pitiful the odds of actually killing a vehicle with it are. If the target is in cover it's 1 in 6 if you hit if you penetrate. Get with it. Lascannons blow. AF

liam0404 wrote:I still wish we got redeemers though - I do prefer the crusader, but it couldn't hurt to try it out with my BT's.

Run your BTs as Vanilla Marines and see how you like it!

If I need one reason to say why the Phobos is good, it's because it is the only one that can kill Monoliths. Also, it will not be vulnerable to melta as often as the others will. What is it's best use? Providing support for a Tactical Terminator (as opposed to Assault Terminator) squads, typically with heavy flamers. They can kill lots of infantry, but when the big bad tank comes, they won't need to waste an assault on it, whereas otherwise they would need to.

Monster Rain wrote:

liam0404 wrote:I still wish we got redeemers though - I do prefer the crusader, but it couldn't hurt to try it out with my BT's.

Run your BTs as Vanilla Marines and see how you like it!

I think running BT as BA would be better

Suped up Chaplain HQ's and Red Thirst rules seem to make an ok proxy

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Get with it. Lascannons blow. AF

While we are on lascannons. So how do you feel about vendettas? I know it's not a land raider but you say that the phobos sucks mostly due to it's lascannons (the TL-HB is also subpar I admit, feels more like an afterthought).

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Once the redeemer closes its weapon is devastating. The godhammer lascannons are subpar at any range. Yes you can get melted up close if you're worried about that don't run land raiders. It's a transport it gets close. Sitting back and shooting lascannons is a miserable use of the points, taking pot shots on the way in is just that - taking pot shots. You're much better off devastating a whole infantry squad than you are hoping and praying that 1 lascannon shot will kill it's target against all odds. I mean I wish I could get you lascannon guys to appreciate how pitiful the odds of actually killing a vehicle with it are. If the target is in cover it's 1 in 12 if you hit if you penetrate. Get with it. Lascannons blow. AF

Hi broken record. I see we have still been unable to turn you off.

Everyone knows your opinion. You don't have to keep spamming the thread every time someone offers up their opinion.

Your assertion that lascannons blow completely incorrect. Its no surprise that you can't figure out that they are good at damaging vehicles, you can't even do simple math. If the target is in cover and you have already got your hit and penetrate, its a 1/6 chance to destroy it (2/6 chance to destroy multiplied by 1/2 chance for cover to negate).

Cover affects metaguns and lascannons the same, so I don't see why you are including it in your analysis at all anyways.

Its hard to explain to you why the lascannons are good, because you completely take range out of your thinking. Most people can see why this is a mistake, but you are just going to go on playing your broken record.

You also have to remember, that hiding a Land Raider Phobos away in the back increases its survivability a LOT. Hiding in the back means that melta equipped infantry can't really get to it very easily, not can melta bomb armed assault units. For Imperial factions that means you need a really lucky lascannon or artillery shot to take it out.

I do believe there was a nice article on dakka which explains exactly why the normal Land Raider is a decent vehicle in its own right...

ChrisWWII wrote:You also have to remember, that hiding a Land Raider Phobos away in the back increases its survivability a LOT. Hiding in the back means that melta equipped infantry can't really get to it very easily, not can melta bomb armed assault units. For Imperial factions that means you need a really lucky lascannon or artillery shot to take it out.

I do believe there was a nice article on dakka which explains exactly why the normal Land Raider is a decent vehicle in its own right...

QFT.

Though I bet someone will say this: drop pod with sternies and combi-meltas will kill it.

Also you may not wanna charge the enemy as soon as you can, sometimes (read: a lot) you may want to hang back a little bit and let them come to you, shoot them on the way, AND then you get out and beat face. Who you say? Orkz. Certain Nid lists. And generally other Land Raiders.

Oh well of course a drop pod with fancy meltas can kill it....but by then we're really getting far away from the original thing about the land raider. There are LOTS of ways you can kill a land raider easier than a ridic lucky lascannon shot. The IG can shoot it with a Medusa, or drop a Manticore rocket on it. The Tau can blast it with railguns. Space Marines can drop pod. Eldar can lance it to death....

Land Raiders aren't invincible, not by a long shot. Getting them closer, really just makes them more vulnerable....something AF needs to grasp.

On a side note, it's not fair to call him a troll. He'd be a troll if he was making crap up to piss us off. I think he's telling us he really believes....those things are just really fething stupid.

Chris, your reasons for saying why the land raider isn't the best at movement are my main argument as to why it should have its points cost lowered slightly

liam0404 wrote:Chris, your reasons for saying why the land raider isn't the best at movement are my main argument as to why it should have its points cost lowered slightly

Thank you. But still, I'm in favor of keeping its cost high as an AV14 all around METAL BAWX can still absorb a HUGE amount of fire before dieing. If we were to start dropping its cost, I would demand that its armor value be lowered, at least on the rear section. The Land Raider spam is still devastating, even if it does get easier to kill them while they get closer, and I don't see a reason to make it easier to do.

I have to completely agree with you, ChrisWWII, since I would hate to see an LR in 500 points with tacticals (normally the only thing you can do is two groups of 5 scouts, and 1 captain. Then, the land raider.

What happens if I destroy a Redeemer using a normal Land Raider from across the table?

Always a possibility

I think we have all lost the point of this post.. The man asked which would be best to transport assualt terminators, not which land raider is the best to use all around, The guys probably thinking to himself (god i didn't mean to start a war) i mean some of you guys are really getting to each others throats with this

liam0404 wrote:Here's a slightly off topic one - at a cost of... approx 265 points, what would you put on your landraider if you had:

-2 Sponsons
-1 Front weapon
-2 pintle mounted weapons

Imperial/CSM guns only!

2 plasma cannon sponsons
Demolisher cannon or reaper autocannon
2 combi-meltas

Well... I transport my lovely Vulkan He'Stan with a veterans squad in a heavily upgraded redeemer and hunt for enemy CQB threats.

If I used a crusader, I would maybe use it with a large squad of terminators and get it in place fast. I could counter any vehicle type.

If I used the standard, I would probably put anything in it that would harm tanks in close combat. Maybe CQB terminators, but I haven't thought out the tactic alot yet.