Again, curiosity has gotten the better of me. I often hear folks on Dakka putting down the Land Raider, but I'm curious how many players are actually using them in their games (or are seeing them across the table being used by opponents).
For those using them, what are you using them for and have they been successful at that role?
For myself, I own each of the main variants (Base, Redeemer, Crusader, a Mark I and one I made from a pizza box back in the 80's). I don't usually use one (games tend to be too small), but the times I have it's a Crusader carrying Terminators aimed for enemy objective holders. I find it an okay model - it's generally so tough my opponent doesn't bother with trying to get rid of it and focuses on stuff that is easier to kill. Best game I had with it, I used it to rush and exterminate my opponent's Demon Prince Warlord and thus take the game-winning objective from him.
I used one back when 8th first dropped, but I learned quickly that they are just not competitively viable, for many of the same reasons that terminators are not viable. Too many points sunk into one package that isn't really hard to destroy if your opponent makes a real effort. Plus if a single Grot tags a fender it can't shoot. The Repulsor has kind of the same problem, minus the fender tagging (due to Fly keyword).
As mentioned above the main problem for me is getting locked in combat. Your paying alot of points for multiple heavy weapons on a transport that is designed to drive into the enemy. One infantry model can deny you the use of all that firepower very easily.
Plus if you bring anti tank weaponry it just isn't that easy to take down, lascannons are likely more effective against one than they are against flimsy dark elder vehicles half the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Should be is to easy to take down
I love fielding mine but they’re so spendy points-wise that I only take it in ‘fun games’. Even against one of my regular gaming buddies it’s not much good as he play Eldar with fairly competitive builds.
I find the Crusader a bit more points-efficient purely because it’s cheaper! Puts out a lot of shots and can rinse infantry and light vehicles if paired with a Lieutenant and Captain/Master. But it’s still 300+ points tied up in one model.
Transport capacity is generally overcosted this edition when calculating cost of a vehicle. Land Raiders needs a good 50pts knocking off it, and some sort of assault deployment rule to help the people it's carrying get into melee faster, and to represent the advantage of the front hatch. Disembark after vehicle moves basically.
If I’m gonna field one I’d almost rather go the whole hog and field my Spartan. Very much a “feth you kill me first otherwise EIGHT LASCANNONS hahaha” metal box.
I have used one LRC to carry my 7 men Wuflens before the 2017 CA dropped in. It was the only way to even gain a hope those Wuflen will reach combat. However, taking one of this is already another squad of 5 TH and SS Wuflen already. This shows how skewed its cost and benefit relationship is. After the CA gave Space Wolves Infantry outflank choice, I just gave up the LRC entirely.
I have 4 land raiders.
2 godhammers
1 crusader
1 redeemer
They are all trash.
I have 3 Repulsors - they are much better but still a little overpriced. Honestly I'd be happy with the replusor getting a 2+ save and a like it's brother and going down in price by about 20-30 base.
Land raiders need to go down by about 40-50 base and get a special rule that they can shoot while in close combat.
This isn't specific to land raiders but I think everything over 250 points should come stock with a 5++ save minimum. At 250 points you are drawing ap-4 weapons...Need more protection.
Don't know what to do choose. I own one, but I keep changing my mind as to which army I want to use it with. So, I haven't painted it fully yet (and it probably needs to be stripped again and repainted). That said, I'm not sure which option to pick.
Have 3, would never use one outside of a casual game where I'm handicapping myself. Like the monolith, GW designers put these overpriced and undergunned vehicles on a pedestal for some reason. Probably nostalgia glasses but these things need a rework from the top down as they face an environment where high strength multi-damage weapons are the norm.
ServiceGames wrote: Don't know what to do choose. I own one, but I keep changing my mind as to which army I want to use it with. So, I haven't painted it fully yet (and it probably needs to be stripped again and repainted). That said, I'm not sure which option to pick.
SG
The clear best option is to take a 4 las LR. Getting close with a tank that can't fallback and shoot is not wise. Best to think of it more like a bunker you can't shoot out of than a transport. If Centurions weren't so freaking over-costed they would synergize well with the LR because they can get out and shoot with no penalty. Then you'd had 10 LC and 3d3 missle launchers coming out of those 4 models. Wanna know whats crazy though? Those 4 models cost over 800 points. LOL.
I have one unbuilt with a Crusader sprue added later. Probably going to build it as a Deathwing Crusader (only other choices are regular Greenwing, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, or Iron Warrriors). Don't expect I'll use it much, but don't want it languishing in a box forever either.
It is the easiest fix, but I'd like to look at it theoretically, just to investigate. Instead of "fixing" the Land Raider by simply making it so cheap that its flaws disappear relative to it's price, lets investigate it's flaws so we can avoid committing them in the future? We may perhaps end up discovering a flaw in the core rules, for example, that affects Vehicles specifically.
It is the easiest fix, but I'd like to look at it theoretically, just to investigate. Instead of "fixing" the Land Raider by simply making it so cheap that its flaws disappear relative to it's price, lets investigate it's flaws so we can avoid committing them in the future? We may perhaps end up discovering a flaw in the core rules, for example, that affects Vehicles specifically.
I agree with Unit. So many discussions around the viability of certain units centre on 'making them cheaper'. That's not really a fix for the problem, though. The issue, and it has been an issue for a few editions, is that Landraiders don't actually DO much. They're a 300 point taxi that will never make its points back and isn't enough of a force multiplier to pick over anything else.
If we keep just saying 'make marines cheaper' you've basically turned them into a horde army and taking away from their character. Marines need reworking. A lot of reworking.
Well, one thing that sticks out that others have mentioned is locking it in close combat. Vehicles of Rhino size and larger ought to be able to use their bigger guns against distant targets even if surrounded by infantry, and I would think be trying to dissuade surrounding troops with the pintle weapons (or flat running troops in the way over). Something the size and power of the Land Raider should have the steel behemoth rule - allowing it to back up and blast anything that attempts to lock it in melee.
I feild mine alot I got a pretty casual meta but god dam for it's cost it sucks. Your paying around 300 points for a 10 man tac squads worth of shots and transports in general for marines don't really make sense anymore when you can just put more dudes on the table.
Some sort of Steel-Behemoth-esque combat ability to shoot/fall back and shoot?
Or is it worse than that?
It needs that ability, but at the current price I don't think it would be enough for it to see play.
What would? Enhanced durability? Enhanced firepower? Enhanced speed? Enhanced transport capacity/options?
In addition to Steel Behemoth to protect it from getting locked in combat, I'd also give it the ability to allow units to disembark after movement instead of before, as a rule for its Assault Ramp. I'd also give the same rule to Stormravens who also struggle a bit at the moment.
I appreciate why you don't want to reduce points much, I feel the same way about regular marines. If you drop points too much it devalues them. However I feel there is still room for maneuvering down on the Land Raider before we get to that problem. It's currently only a little less than a Baneblade and about the same as the cheapest Knight loadouts. I don't think it belongs in that category. 300 makes more sense to me, whilst still being significantly higher than a fully kitted predator.
We could look at durability too, as I still don't think the fixes I've suggested so far make the unit all that great even at 300. It's already fantastic against small arms, but drops pretty quickly to heavy weapons. Which is fine, except with how many Lascannons people spam it still feels like they go down a bit too quick. Invulns don't really help as a 5+ is basically irrelevant and a 4+ I feel is too strong. It's a really fine balance. Instead I'd suggest a rule (incidentally one I'd also give to Terminators) where if the model has more than 1 wound, a single attack cannot reduce it to 0 wounds. Basically while you're above 1, it will always take at least two attacks to down it. That might be enough.
ServiceGames wrote: They used to be what? 240 to 250 points in 7th? And even then, they didn't see a ton of play.
SG
IMO they were alot better last edition. Since you needed something like grav/lance like rule or S8+ to even hurt them and their transport ability was better.
Some sort of Steel-Behemoth-esque combat ability to shoot/fall back and shoot?
Or is it worse than that?
It needs that ability, but at the current price I don't think it would be enough for it to see play.
What would? Enhanced durability? Enhanced firepower? Enhanced speed? Enhanced transport capacity/options?
In addition to Steel Behemoth to protect it from getting locked in combat, I'd also give it the ability to allow units to disembark after movement instead of before, as a rule for its Assault Ramp. I'd also give the same rule to Stormravens who also struggle a bit at the moment.
I appreciate why you don't want to reduce points much, I feel the same way about regular marines. If you drop points too much it devalues them. However I feel there is still room for maneuvering down on the Land Raider before we get to that problem. It's currently only a little less than a Baneblade and about the same as the cheapest Knight loadouts. I don't think it belongs in that category. 300 makes more sense to me, whilst still being significantly higher than a fully kitted predator.
We could look at durability too, as I still don't think the fixes I've suggested so far make the unit all that great even at 300. It's already fantastic against small arms, but drops pretty quickly to heavy weapons. Which is fine, except with how many Lascannons people spam it still feels like they go down a bit too quick. Invulns don't really help as a 5+ is basically irrelevant and a 4+ I feel is too strong. It's a really fine balance. Instead I'd suggest a rule (incidentally one I'd also give to Terminators) where if the model has more than 1 wound, a single attack cannot reduce it to 0 wounds. Basically while you're above 1, it will always take at least two attacks to down it. That might be enough.
"A little less than a Baneblade" means 158 points cheaper (Baneblade stock is 458), so meh.
And your proposed rule is a bit extreme - first of all, it doesn't do much, as I think the only single attack that can kill a Land Raider is a Shadowsword or perhaps the new Knight maybe. I think the bigger problem ( and this is a point I harp on all the time) is the ridiculously high lethality of Warhammer 40k, right now. I know that's unfixable, but just to make sure I understand:
Your basic premise is that the problem with the Land Raider is its durability?
I would use mine but I have the God hammer variant and I can get a repulsor with twin lascanon and lastalon plus more dakka for less. Plus my friend can already take it down turn 1 anyway
It should be 158pts cheaper than a Baneblade, currently it is not, it's about 100 less.
Durability is not the main problem. Killing power relative to point cost is the main problem. But I don't think we can fix that without sticking more guns on it or giving it rules that don't make much sense.
So instead I had to look at other things including durability and hope the overall package is more appealing.
I agree that the general lethality of the game is an issue, but as you say we can't do much to change that so if we're talking about a fix within 8th then this is what we have to work with.
Transports without crazy durability (wavies), firing ports (repressors), fly or invulns are a joke.
Too fragile for its points (great place for all those anti-knight guns to go and if armies can kill a knight or two in one round what's going to happen to that land raider...). Spends too much to be able to transport troops that do nothing for 1-2 turns. Weapon options are inefficient. Gets tart pitted too easy. Outclassed by a million options. Not good at anything, bad at a lot of them (like the marine dex in general).
In order to be good it would need sooooo many changes. A couple strats would be a good place to start:
1 cp Disembark after moving
2 cp this unit can fall back and still shoot. Furthermore any enemy units w/in 1 inch take d3 mortal wounds
1 cp any unit assaulting this model takes d3 mortal wounds on a 4+
1 cp can use smoke launchers and still shoot @ -1
It needs firing ports. Hell go crazy and allow embarked units to shoot at enemies in combat with the tank.
50ish points cheaper
Even with all of that until marines get a rework or substantial points drops across the board there's so many things that do so much more for so much less the army doesn't really work at a high competitive level.
Never got around to buying one when I started my marine army and 3 editions latter they're just not worth it. The biggest problem I see with them besides getting locked up in assault or not having that much fire power relative to it's cost is that it's a transport that does not have anything worth transporting. Terminators are garbage and it's to expensive to put normal MEQs in.
Some sort of Steel-Behemoth-esque combat ability to shoot/fall back and shoot?
Or is it worse than that?
It needs that ability, but at the current price I don't think it would be enough for it to see play.
What would? Enhanced durability? Enhanced firepower? Enhanced speed? Enhanced transport capacity/options?
In addition to Steel Behemoth to protect it from getting locked in combat, I'd also give it the ability to allow units to disembark after movement instead of before, as a rule for its Assault Ramp. I'd also give the same rule to Stormravens who also struggle a bit at the moment.
I appreciate why you don't want to reduce points much, I feel the same way about regular marines. If you drop points too much it devalues them. However I feel there is still room for maneuvering down on the Land Raider before we get to that problem. It's currently only a little less than a Baneblade and about the same as the cheapest Knight loadouts. I don't think it belongs in that category. 300 makes more sense to me, whilst still being significantly higher than a fully kitted predator.
We could look at durability too, as I still don't think the fixes I've suggested so far make the unit all that great even at 300. It's already fantastic against small arms, but drops pretty quickly to heavy weapons. Which is fine, except with how many Lascannons people spam it still feels like they go down a bit too quick. Invulns don't really help as a 5+ is basically irrelevant and a 4+ I feel is too strong. It's a really fine balance. Instead I'd suggest a rule (incidentally one I'd also give to Terminators) where if the model has more than 1 wound, a single attack cannot reduce it to 0 wounds. Basically while you're above 1, it will always take at least two attacks to down it. That might be enough.
"A little less than a Baneblade" means 158 points cheaper (Baneblade stock is 458), so meh.
And your proposed rule is a bit extreme - first of all, it doesn't do much, as I think the only single attack that can kill a Land Raider is a Shadowsword or perhaps the new Knight maybe. I think the bigger problem ( and this is a point I harp on all the time) is the ridiculously high lethality of Warhammer 40k, right now. I know that's unfixable, but just to make sure I understand:
Your basic premise is that the problem with the Land Raider is its durability?
It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
Stux wrote:It should be 158pts cheaper than a Baneblade, currently it is not, it's about 100 less.
Durability is not the main problem. Killing power relative to point cost is the main problem. But I don't think we can fix that without sticking more guns on it or giving it rules that don't make much sense.
So instead I had to look at other things including durability and hope the overall package is more appealing.
I agree that the general lethality of the game is an issue, but as you say we can't do much to change that so if we're talking about a fix within 8th then this is what we have to work with.
I was assuming the people saying it was right around 300 were right. I know the Crusader is 296, making it 162 points cheaper than a Baneblade.
Stux wrote:If you don't like the durability rule I proposed though, we could use the existing 'reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1' instead.
That'd be okay, I suppose. I don't really have any specific thoughts on how to improve it, mostly just trying to discover the problem, which seems to be "it doesn't do anything".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
I wouldn't give it T9. I'd give it maybe 18-20 wounds, instead, and the Titanic keyword, like the monolith, for free. Would that be sufficient?
The assault ramp (being able to disembark after it moves) would be cool but it would need a restriction, e.g. half speed, or no advancing, or the like. Otherwise you end up with really trivial first-turn charges for every Marine force, which is not a good idea.
Give it Steel Behemoth and allow troops to disembark after movement and you'd go a long way to seeing both them and assault termies making an appearance in a lot of games.
Some sort of Steel-Behemoth-esque combat ability to shoot/fall back and shoot?
Or is it worse than that?
It needs that ability, but at the current price I don't think it would be enough for it to see play.
What would? Enhanced durability? Enhanced firepower? Enhanced speed? Enhanced transport capacity/options?
In addition to Steel Behemoth to protect it from getting locked in combat, I'd also give it the ability to allow units to disembark after movement instead of before, as a rule for its Assault Ramp. I'd also give the same rule to Stormravens who also struggle a bit at the moment.
I appreciate why you don't want to reduce points much, I feel the same way about regular marines. If you drop points too much it devalues them. However I feel there is still room for maneuvering down on the Land Raider before we get to that problem. It's currently only a little less than a Baneblade and about the same as the cheapest Knight loadouts. I don't think it belongs in that category. 300 makes more sense to me, whilst still being significantly higher than a fully kitted predator.
We could look at durability too, as I still don't think the fixes I've suggested so far make the unit all that great even at 300. It's already fantastic against small arms, but drops pretty quickly to heavy weapons. Which is fine, except with how many Lascannons people spam it still feels like they go down a bit too quick. Invulns don't really help as a 5+ is basically irrelevant and a 4+ I feel is too strong. It's a really fine balance. Instead I'd suggest a rule (incidentally one I'd also give to Terminators) where if the model has more than 1 wound, a single attack cannot reduce it to 0 wounds. Basically while you're above 1, it will always take at least two attacks to down it. That might be enough.
"A little less than a Baneblade" means 158 points cheaper (Baneblade stock is 458), so meh.
And your proposed rule is a bit extreme - first of all, it doesn't do much, as I think the only single attack that can kill a Land Raider is a Shadowsword or perhaps the new Knight maybe. I think the bigger problem ( and this is a point I harp on all the time) is the ridiculously high lethality of Warhammer 40k, right now. I know that's unfixable, but just to make sure I understand:
Your basic premise is that the problem with the Land Raider is its durability?
It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
It is tougher than a leman russ, it's got more wounds and more armor. Even against lascannons it gets a 5+ save. Giving it T9 implies it's somehow tougher than a baneblade? I get the purpose of your suggestion, I just think it will be out of line with other vehicles.
So, I don't have any LR's, as I play IG for the most part. IMO the easy fix for them is a small point cost decrease, a steel behemoth rule, and the ability to disembark after moving. Durability-wise, they are right where they should be if you ask me. Without these abilities, to me, they are just one more tank to crack open with basilisks, lascannons, knights, plasma, melta, the list goes on....
Stux wrote:It should be 158pts cheaper than a Baneblade, currently it is not, it's about 100 less.
Durability is not the main problem. Killing power relative to point cost is the main problem. But I don't think we can fix that without sticking more guns on it or giving it rules that don't make much sense.
So instead I had to look at other things including durability and hope the overall package is more appealing.
I agree that the general lethality of the game is an issue, but as you say we can't do much to change that so if we're talking about a fix within 8th then this is what we have to work with.
I was assuming the people saying it was right around 300 were right. I know the Crusader is 296, making it 162 points cheaper than a Baneblade.
Stux wrote:If you don't like the durability rule I proposed though, we could use the existing 'reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1' instead.
That'd be okay, I suppose. I don't really have any specific thoughts on how to improve it, mostly just trying to discover the problem, which seems to be "it doesn't do anything".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
I wouldn't give it T9. I'd give it maybe 18-20 wounds, instead, and the Titanic keyword, like the monolith, for free. Would that be sufficient?
The assault ramp (being able to disembark after it moves) would be cool but it would need a restriction, e.g. half speed, or no advancing, or the like. Otherwise you end up with really trivial first-turn charges for every Marine force, which is not a good idea.
No it shouldn't have the titanic keyword that just gives shadowswords a bonus to one rounding it.
I think it should be T9 as it's supposed to be able to go up against baneblades etc which it currently can't. The jump from T8 to T9 would make the lack of invulnerable save much less of an issue.
I was more thinking diembark but can't move onlu charge.
Some sort of Steel-Behemoth-esque combat ability to shoot/fall back and shoot?
Or is it worse than that?
It needs that ability, but at the current price I don't think it would be enough for it to see play.
What would? Enhanced durability? Enhanced firepower? Enhanced speed? Enhanced transport capacity/options?
In addition to Steel Behemoth to protect it from getting locked in combat, I'd also give it the ability to allow units to disembark after movement instead of before, as a rule for its Assault Ramp. I'd also give the same rule to Stormravens who also struggle a bit at the moment.
I appreciate why you don't want to reduce points much, I feel the same way about regular marines. If you drop points too much it devalues them. However I feel there is still room for maneuvering down on the Land Raider before we get to that problem. It's currently only a little less than a Baneblade and about the same as the cheapest Knight loadouts. I don't think it belongs in that category. 300 makes more sense to me, whilst still being significantly higher than a fully kitted predator.
We could look at durability too, as I still don't think the fixes I've suggested so far make the unit all that great even at 300. It's already fantastic against small arms, but drops pretty quickly to heavy weapons. Which is fine, except with how many Lascannons people spam it still feels like they go down a bit too quick. Invulns don't really help as a 5+ is basically irrelevant and a 4+ I feel is too strong. It's a really fine balance. Instead I'd suggest a rule (incidentally one I'd also give to Terminators) where if the model has more than 1 wound, a single attack cannot reduce it to 0 wounds. Basically while you're above 1, it will always take at least two attacks to down it. That might be enough.
"A little less than a Baneblade" means 158 points cheaper (Baneblade stock is 458), so meh.
And your proposed rule is a bit extreme - first of all, it doesn't do much, as I think the only single attack that can kill a Land Raider is a Shadowsword or perhaps the new Knight maybe. I think the bigger problem ( and this is a point I harp on all the time) is the ridiculously high lethality of Warhammer 40k, right now. I know that's unfixable, but just to make sure I understand:
Your basic premise is that the problem with the Land Raider is its durability?
It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
It is tougher than a leman russ, it's got more wounds and more armor. Even against lascannons it gets a 5+ save. Giving it T9 implies it's somehow tougher than a baneblade? I get the purpose of your suggestion, I just think it will be out of line with other vehicles.
So, I don't have any LR's, as I play IG for the most part. IMO the easy fix for them is a small point cost decrease, a steel behemoth rule, and the ability to disembark after moving. Durability-wise, they are right where they should be if you ask me. Without these abilities, to me, they are just one more tank to crack open with basilisks, lascannons, knights, plasma, melta, the list goes on....
I mean last edition the land raider had better AV then the baneblade. So if you carry on with that trend it would be ok for it to have higher T and less wounds then the baneblade,
Stux wrote:It should be 158pts cheaper than a Baneblade, currently it is not, it's about 100 less.
Durability is not the main problem. Killing power relative to point cost is the main problem. But I don't think we can fix that without sticking more guns on it or giving it rules that don't make much sense.
So instead I had to look at other things including durability and hope the overall package is more appealing.
I agree that the general lethality of the game is an issue, but as you say we can't do much to change that so if we're talking about a fix within 8th then this is what we have to work with.
I was assuming the people saying it was right around 300 were right. I know the Crusader is 296, making it 162 points cheaper than a Baneblade.
Stux wrote:If you don't like the durability rule I proposed though, we could use the existing 'reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1' instead.
That'd be okay, I suppose. I don't really have any specific thoughts on how to improve it, mostly just trying to discover the problem, which seems to be "it doesn't do anything".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
I wouldn't give it T9. I'd give it maybe 18-20 wounds, instead, and the Titanic keyword, like the monolith, for free. Would that be sufficient?
The assault ramp (being able to disembark after it moves) would be cool but it would need a restriction, e.g. half speed, or no advancing, or the like. Otherwise you end up with really trivial first-turn charges for every Marine force, which is not a good idea.
Crusader is 308, but near enough
T9 is too much. There are armies that really struggle to bring anything above S8, and they need it to be possible to kill it still!
Yes, no advancing is probably necessary. But I think that's enough, it's only 4" faster than normal infantry. I am of course assuming the transported unit cannot also move after disembarking here, so first turn charges would not normally be possible.
Thinking about it some more, another big issue is that there isn't much that's especially exciting you'd want to transport in a LR. The traditional Terminators is a terrible idea! Vanguard with Hammers is probably the best bet, but very expensive still. Very eggs in one basket.
Some sort of Steel-Behemoth-esque combat ability to shoot/fall back and shoot?
Or is it worse than that?
It needs that ability, but at the current price I don't think it would be enough for it to see play.
What would? Enhanced durability? Enhanced firepower? Enhanced speed? Enhanced transport capacity/options?
In addition to Steel Behemoth to protect it from getting locked in combat, I'd also give it the ability to allow units to disembark after movement instead of before, as a rule for its Assault Ramp. I'd also give the same rule to Stormravens who also struggle a bit at the moment.
I appreciate why you don't want to reduce points much, I feel the same way about regular marines. If you drop points too much it devalues them. However I feel there is still room for maneuvering down on the Land Raider before we get to that problem. It's currently only a little less than a Baneblade and about the same as the cheapest Knight loadouts. I don't think it belongs in that category. 300 makes more sense to me, whilst still being significantly higher than a fully kitted predator.
We could look at durability too, as I still don't think the fixes I've suggested so far make the unit all that great even at 300. It's already fantastic against small arms, but drops pretty quickly to heavy weapons. Which is fine, except with how many Lascannons people spam it still feels like they go down a bit too quick. Invulns don't really help as a 5+ is basically irrelevant and a 4+ I feel is too strong. It's a really fine balance. Instead I'd suggest a rule (incidentally one I'd also give to Terminators) where if the model has more than 1 wound, a single attack cannot reduce it to 0 wounds. Basically while you're above 1, it will always take at least two attacks to down it. That might be enough.
"A little less than a Baneblade" means 158 points cheaper (Baneblade stock is 458), so meh.
And your proposed rule is a bit extreme - first of all, it doesn't do much, as I think the only single attack that can kill a Land Raider is a Shadowsword or perhaps the new Knight maybe. I think the bigger problem ( and this is a point I harp on all the time) is the ridiculously high lethality of Warhammer 40k, right now. I know that's unfixable, but just to make sure I understand:
Your basic premise is that the problem with the Land Raider is its durability?
It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
It is tougher than a leman russ, it's got more wounds and more armor. Even against lascannons it gets a 5+ save. Giving it T9 implies it's somehow tougher than a baneblade? I get the purpose of your suggestion, I just think it will be out of line with other vehicles.
So, I don't have any LR's, as I play IG for the most part. IMO the easy fix for them is a small point cost decrease, a steel behemoth rule, and the ability to disembark after moving. Durability-wise, they are right where they should be if you ask me. Without these abilities, to me, they are just one more tank to crack open with basilisks, lascannons, knights, plasma, melta, the list goes on....
I mean last edition the land raider had better AV then the baneblade. So if you carry on with that trend it would be ok for it to have higher T and less wounds then the baneblade,
I think the better armour is reflected in the improved save, and it wasn't tougher than a Baneblade. The Baneblade had exactly the same armour on the front, and 3 Structure Points. The way older editions translate is no longer relevant. (For example, Baneblades used to be 50% more durable than a Knight, not just 2 wounds).
It is the easiest fix, but I'd like to look at it theoretically, just to investigate. Instead of "fixing" the Land Raider by simply making it so cheap that its flaws disappear relative to it's price, lets investigate it's flaws so we can avoid committing them in the future? We may perhaps end up discovering a flaw in the core rules, for example, that affects Vehicles specifically.
It has 2 major flaws. #1 is being invalidated by a gretchen #2 being 350 points. Nothing else is particularly bad about it. It has a nice weapons load-out and host of options for the different data sheets.
If it could shoot out of combat and was 300 points. It would be playable. Honestly though compared to the field. It needs to be even less than that to see competitive play. Like 280.
This would make crusaders something like 250. This seems right.
Space Marines are more a "just for funsies" army for me. I bought a land raider when 8th dropped because i figured they might become cool. They're not bad. It's just that some shooting (Guard, Eldar) is too strong. It's hard to justfiy, for instance, investing in a land raider when literally any baneblade variant exists. The main weakness of the land raider is that there's nothing worth transporting. The land raider itself is maybe a bit over costed, but that's also in the context of what it currently transports.
Stux wrote:It should be 158pts cheaper than a Baneblade, currently it is not, it's about 100 less.
Durability is not the main problem. Killing power relative to point cost is the main problem. But I don't think we can fix that without sticking more guns on it or giving it rules that don't make much sense.
So instead I had to look at other things including durability and hope the overall package is more appealing.
I agree that the general lethality of the game is an issue, but as you say we can't do much to change that so if we're talking about a fix within 8th then this is what we have to work with.
I was assuming the people saying it was right around 300 were right. I know the Crusader is 296, making it 162 points cheaper than a Baneblade.
Stux wrote:If you don't like the durability rule I proposed though, we could use the existing 'reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1' instead.
That'd be okay, I suppose. I don't really have any specific thoughts on how to improve it, mostly just trying to discover the problem, which seems to be "it doesn't do anything".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
I wouldn't give it T9. I'd give it maybe 18-20 wounds, instead, and the Titanic keyword, like the monolith, for free. Would that be sufficient?
The assault ramp (being able to disembark after it moves) would be cool but it would need a restriction, e.g. half speed, or no advancing, or the like. Otherwise you end up with really trivial first-turn charges for every Marine force, which is not a good idea.
Crusader is 308, but near enough
T9 is too much. There are armies that really struggle to bring anything above S8, and they need it to be possible to kill it still!
Yes, no advancing is probably necessary. But I think that's enough, it's only 4" faster than normal infantry. I am of course assuming the transported unit cannot also move after disembarking here, so first turn charges would not normally be possible.
Thinking about it some more, another big issue is that there isn't much that's especially exciting you'd want to transport in a LR. The traditional Terminators is a terrible idea! Vanguard with Hammers is probably the best bet, but very expensive still. Very eggs in one basket.
They were always 'Eggs in one basket', though. Way back as far as I can remember, if you were bringing a Land Raider, then your battle plan pretty much revolved around it. Also, I think TH/SS Terminators are still worth it. The issue is delivering them!
Knights bending the meta seems to be opening a space for them I think. First, more knight players are interested in getting terrain on the board to hide a knight. If a knight can hide, a land raider can hide. Second Lots of those knight forces are pushing people into fielding heavy weapons, but a LR with a 2+ and cover is actually a better bet for your save over a 3+ and 5++. Last, that D6 wounds off the Lascannon helps more than some people realized.
It is the easiest fix, but I'd like to look at it theoretically, just to investigate. Instead of "fixing" the Land Raider by simply making it so cheap that its flaws disappear relative to it's price, lets investigate it's flaws so we can avoid committing them in the future? We may perhaps end up discovering a flaw in the core rules, for example, that affects Vehicles specifically.
It has 2 major flaws. #1 is being invalidated by a gretchen #2 being 350 points. Nothing else is particularly bad about it. It has a nice weapons load-out and host of options for the different data sheets.
If it could shoot out of combat and was 300 points. It would be playable. Honestly though compared to the field. It needs to be even less than that to see competitive play. Like 280.
This would make crusaders something like 250. This seems right.
So the problem really is just "combat shuts it down" and "it's a bit overpriced"; there's nothing more specific than those changes? Because I'd be absolutely okay with that. How would this rule be, combined with dropping the Land Raider to 300 flat-ish:
"Assault Tank: The Land Raider's machine spirit is known for its aggression, and the tanks themselves are often used to breach enemy positions before disgorging their cargo in the heart of the enemy. A Land Raider can never be prevented from shooting by enemy models within 1" of it. Furthermore, on any turn it charges, it may choose to count its weapons as having the "Melee" type during the subsequent assault phase."
That, I think, gives Land Raiders an incentive to charge and also preserves their ability to shoot while locked in combat, but doesn't let them fall back willingly.
That would be amazing. As would a stratagem to slam down the assault hatch at the perfect moment and deploy the transported models directly into combat after successfully charging with the land raider.
It is the easiest fix, but I'd like to look at it theoretically, just to investigate. Instead of "fixing" the Land Raider by simply making it so cheap that its flaws disappear relative to it's price, lets investigate it's flaws so we can avoid committing them in the future? We may perhaps end up discovering a flaw in the core rules, for example, that affects Vehicles specifically.
It has 2 major flaws. #1 is being invalidated by a gretchen #2 being 350 points. Nothing else is particularly bad about it. It has a nice weapons load-out and host of options for the different data sheets.
If it could shoot out of combat and was 300 points. It would be playable. Honestly though compared to the field. It needs to be even less than that to see competitive play. Like 280.
This would make crusaders something like 250. This seems right.
So the problem really is just "combat shuts it down" and "it's a bit overpriced"; there's nothing more specific than those changes? Because I'd be absolutely okay with that. How would this rule be, combined with dropping the Land Raider to 300 flat-ish:
"Assault Tank: The Land Raider's machine spirit is known for its aggression, and the tanks themselves are often used to breach enemy positions before disgorging their cargo in the heart of the enemy. A Land Raider can never be prevented from shooting by enemy models within 1" of it. Furthermore, on any turn it charges, it may choose to count its weapons as having the "Melee" type during the subsequent assault phase."
That, I think, gives Land Raiders an incentive to charge and also preserves their ability to shoot while locked in combat, but doesn't let them fall back willingly.
That would be really cool but maybe too good. Charging with landraiders does sound fun though. I kind of imagine this is how land-raiders are supposed to work.
More realistically (like I'm not going to advocate this becomes a rule) but in melle I think it would be realistic if it got WS5+ with a str user ap-2 d3 damage weapon.
Just as a funsies maybe give them a rule like the Carnifex. On a turn it charges roll 3 dice. on a 4+ the unit takes that many mortal wounds. (these are rules on models that I don't really think should cost many points) it just adds some variety to the game.
Maybe we could make it a 1CP stratagem to fire the weapons on the charge. Call it "Assault Protocols" or something and key it to the Land Raider keyword rather than datasheet names.
I don't like the W5+ -2 d3 damage because that's what a baneblade has, and even with Crush Them the incentive to charge with a baneblade is lower than I'd like it to be for a Land Raider. A baneblade gets into combat kinda "incidentally", while a Land Raider should absolutely be deliberately getting into combat.
As for allowing the passengers to disembark straight into combat: I think they already do that the next turn after the Land Raider charges. That's a sufficient abstraction. Getting the passengers auto-in to combat without overwatch or a charge move is just complicated and probably ridiculously overpowered (not allowing for Heroic Interventions, not triggering Overwatch, allowing the unit to hit any enemy it can reach even if it didn't charge them, etc. etc.).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Maybe we could make it a 1CP stratagem to fire the weapons on the charge. Call it "Assault Protocols" or something and key it to the Land Raider keyword rather than datasheet names.
I don't like the W5+ -2 d3 damage because that's what a baneblade has, and even with Crush Them the incentive to charge with a baneblade is lower than I'd like it to be for a Land Raider. A baneblade gets into combat kinda "incidentally", while a Land Raider should absolutely be deliberately getting into combat.
As for allowing the passengers to disembark straight into combat: I think they already do that the next turn after the Land Raider charges. That's a sufficient abstraction. Getting the passengers auto-in to combat without overwatch or a charge move is just complicated and probably ridiculously overpowered (not allowing for Heroic Interventions, not triggering Overwatch, allowing the unit to hit any enemy it can reach even if it didn't charge them, etc. etc.).
But should a land radier really be charging units? It's an assualt tank not an assualt unit, also you can't disembark into combat.
The Assault Ramp needs to allow a unit to either
1 Models embarked within this transport can assualt from the assualt ramp roll as normal but measure the charge distance from the assualt ramp of the vehical.
2 models may diembark from this vehical at the end of its movement phase howecer they may not move further this turn except to charge an anemy unit.
Also on the T9 vrs T8 debate in previous editions a land raider was harder to kill than a leman russ etc in 8th edition it just doesn't feel that much tougher especially for something that is supposed to be rhe pinical of Imperium STC construction.
Everything can still wound it on 6's and anything Strength 5+ is wounding on 5's T10 and T12 are the real tipping points where things become increasingly difficult to kill. With lascannons etc still be wounding on 4+.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Maybe we could make it a 1CP stratagem to fire the weapons on the charge. Call it "Assault Protocols" or something and key it to the Land Raider keyword rather than datasheet names.
I don't like the W5+ -2 d3 damage because that's what a baneblade has, and even with Crush Them the incentive to charge with a baneblade is lower than I'd like it to be for a Land Raider. A baneblade gets into combat kinda "incidentally", while a Land Raider should absolutely be deliberately getting into combat.
As for allowing the passengers to disembark straight into combat: I think they already do that the next turn after the Land Raider charges. That's a sufficient abstraction. Getting the passengers auto-in to combat without overwatch or a charge move is just complicated and probably ridiculously overpowered (not allowing for Heroic Interventions, not triggering Overwatch, allowing the unit to hit any enemy it can reach even if it didn't charge them, etc. etc.).
But should a land radier really be charging units? It's an assualt tank not an assualt unit, also you can't disembark into combat.
The Assault Ramp needs to allow a unit to either
1 Models embarked within this transport can assualt from the assualt ramp roll as normal but measure the charge distance from the assualt ramp of the vehical.
2 models may diembark from this vehical at the end of its movement phase howecer they may not move further this turn except to charge an anemy unit.
Also on the T9 vrs T8 debate in previous editions a land raider was harder to kill than a leman russ etc in 8th edition it just doesn't feel that much tougher especially for something that is supposed to be rhe pinical of Imperium STC construction.
Everything can still wound it on 6's and anything Strength 5+ is wounding on 5's T10 and T12 are the real tipping points where things become increasingly difficult to kill. With lascannons etc still be wounding on 4+.
Well, yes. The gap between the Land Raider and the Leman Russ was lower than the gap between the Predator and the Russ, however. Now? I'd argue the Land Raider is further from the Russ than the Russ is from the predator (+1 save, giving it a 5+ against lascannons and a 4+ against missiles in the open, and 4 wounds more).
And yes, I'd like to see the Land Raider charging units. I think that's an awesome image, and isn't a niche a tank typically fills, giving it a unique, iconic function. Lastly, you can absolutely disembark while the tank is in combat - just get out the back, then charge whatever it's in combat with, like you normally would. No need for a special rule for that.
well in regards to the transport ability. I don't see it as being worth much. Maybe about 2 points per transport slot in the grand scheme. So with capticty of 10 - you take the cost as a battle tank and ad 20 points.
This is the problem with the LR currently, a major part of it's cost is it's ability to transport, which fine makes sense. BUT, look at what you out in there, tac marine? Kinda a waste, so terminators, well now you have a 200 point unit, sitting inside a 300 point transport, you basically made a massive pinata. It becomes a huge target and gets wasted because the land raider is meh in survivability with all the massive damage weapons on the board right now
It depends a bit on what version of the Land Raider we're talking about. Anything with a Lascannon has the problem of kind of needing to be a turret, wanting to sit back and safely lance shots across the battlefield. In that role, the LR really on has an edge in the ability to gain LOS at no penalty, but the chassis cost is such that more efficient turrets can double the shots and cover the same area for often less.
It feels like its really designed to be an assault vehicle, but on that front, it really shows struggles in its design. It falls apart completely in CC and the output really just isn't close to worthwhile. It compares poorly to a Razorback and really either needs to be able to shoot into combat or be substantially cheaper to make sense in the role it seems designed for.
I said owned but not used.
Mostly because I really haven't played my Space Marines much in 8th, and I need to repair it after it got damaged in a move.
Chaos Marines : Standard Land Raider
Dark Angels: Crusader
Grey Knights: Crusader
Space Wolves: Crusader
Custodes: 2 Venerable Land Raiders
Deathwatch: One unbuilt, could be any variant.
UltraMarines: Terminus Ultra.
I have yet to field any of them this edition. I would field the Terminus Ultra just for the LULZ though.
I would give it T9 and a rule to fall back and shoot. T9 would make it hard to kill (and better reflect the old 14/14/14 it had). I would use it at current price with that change
It is the easiest fix, but I'd like to look at it theoretically, just to investigate. Instead of "fixing" the Land Raider by simply making it so cheap that its flaws disappear relative to it's price, lets investigate it's flaws so we can avoid committing them in the future? We may perhaps end up discovering a flaw in the core rules, for example, that affects Vehicles specifically.
It has 2 major flaws. #1 is being invalidated by a gretchen #2 being 350 points. Nothing else is particularly bad about it. It has a nice weapons load-out and host of options for the different data sheets.
If it could shoot out of combat and was 300 points. It would be playable. Honestly though compared to the field. It needs to be even less than that to see competitive play. Like 280.
This would make crusaders something like 250. This seems right.
So the problem really is just "combat shuts it down" and "it's a bit overpriced"; there's nothing more specific than those changes? Because I'd be absolutely okay with that. How would this rule be, combined with dropping the Land Raider to 300 flat-ish:
"Assault Tank: The Land Raider's machine spirit is known for its aggression, and the tanks themselves are often used to breach enemy positions before disgorging their cargo in the heart of the enemy. A Land Raider can never be prevented from shooting by enemy models within 1" of it. Furthermore, on any turn it charges, it may choose to count its weapons as having the "Melee" type during the subsequent assault phase."
That, I think, gives Land Raiders an incentive to charge and also preserves their ability to shoot while locked in combat, but doesn't let them fall back willingly.
That would be really cool but maybe too good. Charging with landraiders does sound fun though. I kind of imagine this is how land-raiders are supposed to work.
More realistically (like I'm not going to advocate this becomes a rule) but in melle I think it would be realistic if it got WS5+ with a str user ap-2 d3 damage weapon.
Just as a funsies maybe give them a rule like the Carnifex. On a turn it charges roll 3 dice. on a 4+ the unit takes that many mortal wounds. (these are rules on models that I don't really think should cost many points) it just adds some variety to the game.
I really like this idea.
My Helios get used only when I'm facing either a flying centric or big stuff opponent. not worth the points but i sure do love how it looks.
Martel732 wrote: Cheaper is usually better in 8th. Table coverage matters. Not losing hundreds of points to a few lucky or unlucky rolls matters.
Don't you feel that is changing though? Well the Table Coverage at least. With Knights here, and doing well, the horde force doesn't seem to be as effective.
I think hordes do better vs knights than elite infantry. Knights don't shoot well, especially hordes. Also, get up on the 2nd floor and laugh at knights. Yes, they have a strat, but can only use it once a phase.
So I'm going to take an horde army, engineer that I play against a knight army, engineer that there are a plethora of 2 story ruins, with enough objectives in them, that the ruins are big enough that he can't get close enough to contest them, and I'm going to get stuff on them, quick enough the Knight player can't react, even though I move 6 inch moves, and he has 12 inch moves, and then camp out and win the game, surviving all his pitiful firepower?
Martel732 wrote: Cheaper is usually better in 8th. Table coverage matters. Not losing hundreds of points to a few lucky or unlucky rolls matters.
Don't you feel that is changing though? Well the Table Coverage at least. With Knights here, and doing well, the horde force doesn't seem to be as effective.
The issue is mono Knights have some glaring weakness that can be exploited. No screening out Slamquinius's. 1 knight can be Obsec with a relic. Limited CP and no regenerate in faction.
They're great in soup but monofaction they are relying on being counter meta.
Knights are here to stay, Knights are doing well, (despite the idea they are countered with crotch level ruins) Soup is currently the rules as written.
As a knight player. I had a very hard time dealing with a base Land Rider in cover. He was able to have a 1+ save, was harder to deal with than I thought it would be (He got a save against all my weaponry. It was worth the 350 points in that game.
His investment might not have been worth it against hordes, but when 50% of your people in a tourney are the target you want, I think some people might find them coming off the shelf.
I still advocate against T9. The armor difference between a Land Raider and a Baneblade is quite high (50% more durable against any given lascannon shot), making them T9 will be even worse. You'd have to make all vehicles tougher then, I think.
Remember, the Baneblade used to have less armor on the rear than the Land Raider by 2, and sometimes on the side by 1 if a certain upgrade wasn't being taken. From the front, i.e. in most cases, it was equally durable (number of wounds aside). People saying T9 will represent the 14/14/14 are forgetting that the difference between a 2+ and a 3+ against lascannons is literally a 50% improvement; you're twice as durable against -3 weapons already.
Martel732 wrote: But what did the land raider do to the IKs? Probably very little, relative to its cost.
It did well. Survived the game.
But math is averaging 7 wounds a turn, with a wound or so kicking in from the HB fairly often also. Lots of things you can spend 350 points on that isn't going to give you that kind of return.
I own two, a chaos one that gets used but typically in Apoc games, alongside a pair of laser cannon armed predators, simply because I have it and don't have a third predator.
Also a Custodis one, useful for making up the points but also for giving them some S9 long range firepower, oddly it tends to last quite a while as the banana boys are the priority target
Martel732 wrote: But what did the land raider do to the IKs? Probably very little, relative to its cost.
It did well. Survived the game.
But math is averaging 7 wounds a turn, with a wound or so kicking in from the HB fairly often also. Lots of things you can spend 350 points on that isn't going to give you that kind of return.
How on earth do you keep a landraider 50% obscured for the entire game?
Also surely if it was being such a workhorse the knoght player should have just charged it and squished it in a single round
Martel732 wrote: But what did the land raider do to the IKs? Probably very little, relative to its cost.
It did well. Survived the game.
But math is averaging 7 wounds a turn, with a wound or so kicking in from the HB fairly often also. Lots of things you can spend 350 points on that isn't going to give you that kind of return.
How on earth do you keep a landraider 50% obscured for the entire game?
Also surely if it was being such a workhorse the knoght player should have just charged it and squished it in a single round
He put it on the 2nd floor of a ruin. Also kept if from being attacked in melee
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 2CP is correct for a firing twice Strategem but Land Raiders already have unremarkable firepower. Make that 1CP and we would be talking.
First thought for best use of Fire Twice is Obliterators, whose average rolls against a Leman Russ get you 5.3 wounds. A bare bones traditional Land Raider gets you 5.8. For Nids you have Fire Twice on Hive Guard, and I think their numbers wind up being about the same. 2CP is appropriate, imo.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 2CP is correct for a firing twice Strategem but Land Raiders already have unremarkable firepower. Make that 1CP and we would be talking.
First thought for best use of Fire Twice is Obliterators, whose average rolls against a Leman Russ get you 5.3 wounds. A bare bones traditional Land Raider gets you 5.8. For Nids you have Fire Twice on Hive Guard, and I think their numbers wind up being about the same. 2CP is appropriate, imo.
And how many points are those units compared to the Land Raider again?
Insectum7 wrote: ^Irrelevant. You're paying CP to fire twice, the cost of the unit doesn't matter, it's the potential effectiveness of the Strat that counts.
Those other strategems are MUCH more generic in use and you darn well know it. THAT is why those Strategems are 2CP. You can only use your proposed one on Land Raiders, an already super expensive unit, for lower damage for the points.
Points dont matter. You could use the Chaos Fire Twice on a 90 point unit or a 500 point unit of Terminators with combo-plasma. The fact that it's more generic doesnt matter, it's the potential output that counts. There are 3CP Stratagems that require specific units, and those aren't discounted for specificity either.
Insectum7 wrote: Points dont matter. You could use the Chaos Fire Twice on a 90 point unit or a 500 point unit of Terminators with combo-plasma. The fact that it's more generic doesnt matter, it's the potential output that counts. There are 3CP Stratagems that require specific units, and those aren't discounted for specificity either.
And those more generic ones are priced like you can use it on either a minimum squad of Noise Marines OR those Obliterators. That makes 2CP more fair.
You only get the Land Raider in your case. Why price it like a generic Strategem?
Also don't get me started on those overcosted Strategems. Any of the fight twice strategems need to be just 2CP if they're generic.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Irrelevant. You're paying CP to fire twice, the cost of the unit doesn't matter, it's the potential effectiveness of the Strat that counts.
The cost of the unit matters because it's how much you're paying to make the stratagem useful.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Irrelevant. You're paying CP to fire twice, the cost of the unit doesn't matter, it's the potential effectiveness of the Strat that counts.
The cost of the unit matters because it's how much you're paying to make the stratagem useful.
1CP is too cheap for a Land Raider to fire twice. They can bring more firepower than people tend to credit them for.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Irrelevant. You're paying CP to fire twice, the cost of the unit doesn't matter, it's the potential effectiveness of the Strat that counts.
The cost of the unit matters because it's how much you're paying to make the stratagem useful.
1CP is too cheap for a Land Raider to fire twice. They can bring more firepower than people tend to credit them for.
I'm not talking about the CP. I'm saying you can't really say two units with the same benefit from a stratagem are just as effective when one of them costs almost half as much as the other.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Irrelevant. You're paying CP to fire twice, the cost of the unit doesn't matter, it's the potential effectiveness of the Strat that counts.
The cost of the unit matters because it's how much you're paying to make the stratagem useful.
1CP is too cheap for a Land Raider to fire twice. They can bring more firepower than people tend to credit them for.
If your just trying to give it a Bandaid fix in giving a stragime it kinda needs to be to good other wise your just buffing a bad unit with an decent buff.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Irrelevant. You're paying CP to fire twice, the cost of the unit doesn't matter, it's the potential effectiveness of the Strat that counts.
The cost of the unit matters because it's how much you're paying to make the stratagem useful.
1CP is too cheap for a Land Raider to fire twice. They can bring more firepower than people tend to credit them for.
Um no they don't. For 350+ points you get:
1. 4 Lascannon shots and 6 Heavy Bolter shots
2. 12 Assault Cannon shots and 12-24 Bolter shots
3. 12 Assault Cannon shots and 7 slightly better Heavy Flamer shots
4. 4 Lascannon shots and 7 S7 shots
5. 4 Multi-Melta shots and 1 Quad Launcher
6. 24 Heavy Bolter shots
Now the question is, for the points, this any good?
I have the one with the flamers (can't remember its name). The short range of the flamers makes it unusable vs a lot of charging units/models and then I'm locked in combat where I can't use them to clear off the models assaulting me. I doesn't make much sense that an anti-personnel weapon can't be used in close combat with infantry. To be fair flamers in general need a rework in 8th.
I also think that the assault ramp should mean something. I think that it should allow a unit to disembark after the LR moves but the unit itself can not move for the remainder of the turn (unless they disembark into CC).
Insectum7 wrote: ^Irrelevant. You're paying CP to fire twice, the cost of the unit doesn't matter, it's the potential effectiveness of the Strat that counts.
The cost of the unit matters because it's how much you're paying to make the stratagem useful.
1CP is too cheap for a Land Raider to fire twice. They can bring more firepower than people tend to credit them for.
Um no they don't. For 350+ points you get:
1. 4 Lascannon shots and 6 Heavy Bolter shots
2. 12 Assault Cannon shots and 12-24 Bolter shots
3. 12 Assault Cannon shots and 7 slightly better Heavy Flamer shots
4. 4 Lascannon shots and 7 S7 shots
5. 4 Multi-Melta shots and 1 Quad Launcher
6. 24 Heavy Bolter shots
Now the question is, for the points, this any good?
"For the points" isn't the relevant question in regards to CP cost, but I'm all for a points reduction.
The question is, what units have better firepower than a Land Raider and have access to a Fire Twice Stratagem. By my math, a fully loaded Land Raider Phobos (Lascannons), with Chapter Master and Lt. Buffs will one-shot a Leman Russ with average rolls. That firing again is worth more than 1 CP, hands down.
Well a 6 man hive gaurd unit cost much less than a land raider and can shoot twice for 2 cp with 12( str 8 ap-2 d3 damage ignore cover doesn't need LOS weapons)
Or essentially -2.5x the firepower of a landraider. 1 CP would be fine for that strat. However - I'd like the base unit to be fixed rather than giving it some nuance use due to stratagems.
A Wave Serpent isn't good "for it's points" of dakka. For the same points, you can have a lot more firepower (even Marines can).
You have to look at the entire package. The Land Raider is a brick. It's really hard to remove. It can transport super-durable stuff. It's got a large amount of firepower. You have to consider the price for the whole package.
(And the whole package isn't worth it's price.)
A straight up double dakka would be too much (it pays less than twice what a QuadLas Pred pays). So giving it that rule baseline might be a bit much.
Bharring wrote: A Wave Serpent isn't good "for it's points" of dakka. For the same points, you can have a lot more firepower (even Marines can).
You have to look at the entire package. The Land Raider is a brick. It's really hard to remove. It can transport super-durable stuff. It's got a large amount of firepower. You have to consider the price for the whole package.
(And the whole package isn't worth it's price.)
A straight up double dakka would be too much (it pays less than twice what a QuadLas Pred pays). So giving it that rule baseline might be a bit much.
Why does it matter that it can transport super durable stuff? Transporting units has very little value in this game. Deep-strike exists and works better.
Wave serpents are valuable because they are more durable the land-raiders for 1/3 their cost and during mop up time they can do d3 mortal wounds and tie up units that can't really hurt them. Fast/fly key word/ and decent fire on the move. The fact that they are transports is just a bonus.
They're more durable for their cost, but aren't more durable overall. It takes contrived examples to make it look that way. The Serpent *is* a lot more versatile, though.
Deepstrike does work better, in almost all cases. And the stuff that wants a ride in it tend to also be overcosted. But there are uses for it - so prices should keep that in mind.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Irrelevant. You're paying CP to fire twice, the cost of the unit doesn't matter, it's the potential effectiveness of the Strat that counts.
The cost of the unit matters because it's how much you're paying to make the stratagem useful.
1CP is too cheap for a Land Raider to fire twice. They can bring more firepower than people tend to credit them for.
Um no they don't. For 350+ points you get:
1. 4 Lascannon shots and 6 Heavy Bolter shots
2. 12 Assault Cannon shots and 12-24 Bolter shots
3. 12 Assault Cannon shots and 7 slightly better Heavy Flamer shots
4. 4 Lascannon shots and 7 S7 shots
5. 4 Multi-Melta shots and 1 Quad Launcher
6. 24 Heavy Bolter shots
Now the question is, for the points, this any good?
"For the points" isn't the relevant question in regards to CP cost, but I'm all for a points reduction.
The question is, what units have better firepower than a Land Raider and have access to a Fire Twice Stratagem. By my math, a fully loaded Land Raider Phobos (Lascannons), with Chapter Master and Lt. Buffs will one-shot a Leman Russ with average rolls. That firing again is worth more than 1 CP, hands down.
Actually in your case that's 4CP since you like adding Chapter Masters that way, and that's an extra 130ish points minimum in your case.
It's MORE than reasonable at that point to kill a Leman Russ.
Bharring wrote: They're more durable for their cost, but aren't more durable overall. It takes contrived examples to make it look that way. The Serpent *is* a lot more versatile, though.
Deepstrike does work better, in almost all cases. And the stuff that wants a ride in it tend to also be overcosted. But there are uses for it - so prices should keep that in mind.
Yeah I think earlier I suggested that the transport capacity is worth roughly 2 points per slot. So a standard LR it's worth 20 points of it's total cost. Even that is pretty generous.
Nah man a WS with spirit stones is more durable than a LR straight up vs anything that isn't str 8. However - str 8 typically comes with a d3 damage mechanic - which reducing the average damage of those weapons to 1 is a 50% buff to survival - -1 to wound represents an 18% buff. 13 wounds to 16....Come on man.
Lascannons:
(2/3)(2/3)(21/6) = 14/9 wounds/hit, or 10.3 hits to pop a LR (2/3)(5/6)(16/6) = 160/108 wounds/hit, or 8.8 hits to pop a Serpent
LR is more durable
Boltguns:
(1/6)(1/6) = 1/36 wounds/hit = 576 hits to pop a LR (1/3)(1/3) = 1/9 wounds/hit = 117 hits to pop a Serpent
Big or small, if it's not tailored to not hurt a Serpent, the Serpent dies faster.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For numbers on the serpent shield, it provides:
D1: 0%
D2: 50%
Dd3: 33%
D3: 33%
Dd6: 24%
D4: 25%
D5: 20%
....
In the best case, it's a 50% damage resistance buff. But only vs D2 weapons - it's much less vs anything else.
I think the Wave Serpent is far more worth its points (roughly half of a Land Raider). Faster, carries more - mostly, and can fly. Doesn't have much in the way of weaponry and is plenty tough for what it needs to be.
Point for point, I'd argue the Wave Serpent is much better. I wouldn't compare the two directly though, they're different animals.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Irrelevant. You're paying CP to fire twice, the cost of the unit doesn't matter, it's the potential effectiveness of the Strat that counts.
The cost of the unit matters because it's how much you're paying to make the stratagem useful.
1CP is too cheap for a Land Raider to fire twice. They can bring more firepower than people tend to credit them for.
Um no they don't. For 350+ points you get:
1. 4 Lascannon shots and 6 Heavy Bolter shots
2. 12 Assault Cannon shots and 12-24 Bolter shots
3. 12 Assault Cannon shots and 7 slightly better Heavy Flamer shots
4. 4 Lascannon shots and 7 S7 shots
5. 4 Multi-Melta shots and 1 Quad Launcher
6. 24 Heavy Bolter shots
Now the question is, for the points, this any good?
"For the points" isn't the relevant question in regards to CP cost, but I'm all for a points reduction.
The question is, what units have better firepower than a Land Raider and have access to a Fire Twice Stratagem. By my math, a fully loaded Land Raider Phobos (Lascannons), with Chapter Master and Lt. Buffs will one-shot a Leman Russ with average rolls. That firing again is worth more than 1 CP, hands down.
Actually in your case that's 4CP since you like adding Chapter Masters that way, and that's an extra 130ish points minimum in your case.
It's MORE than reasonable at that point to kill a Leman Russ.
It can kill 2 Leman Russes if it fires twice. Average rolls drop the second to 1 wound.
The LR was bad in previous editions too, but the AV14-all-sides schtick was impressive, compared to Russes. There were some mean things that could happen to Russes that LRs wouldn't care about. The game doesn't have those distinctions anymore, though.
Xenomancers wrote: Well a 6 man hive gaurd unit cost much less than a land raider and can shoot twice for 2 cp with 12( str 8 ap-2 d3 damage ignore cover doesn't need LOS weapons)
Or essentially -2.5x the firepower of a landraider.
My math scores the Hive Guard at 5.3 w on a Leman Russ, bare bones Land Raider Phobos 5.8.
Insectum do you mind explaining your maths here are you have said tow posts appart that a land raider does 5.8 wounds to a LR vrs two posts earlier saying it could kill 2 LR's if it shoots twice.
I'm confused as LR don't have 6 wounds?
My maths says 5.86 wounds fron everything on a Land raider even shooting twice it cant achive a 50% return on its points.
Ice_can wrote: Insectum do you mind explaining your maths here are you have said tow posts appart that a land raider does 5.8 wounds to a LR vrs two posts earlier saying it could kill 2 LR's if it shoots twice.
I'm confused as LR don't have 6 wounds?
My maths says 5.86 wounds fron everything on a Land raider even shooting twice it cant achive a 50% return on its points.
Base Land Raider unbuffed gets 5.8something.
Loaded Land Raider (+Multimelta and HK missile), plus rerolls to hit and reroll 1s to wound gets 12 something. (I calculated the Multimelta being not within 12", the presumption being this is a first turn alpha type of thing. Move forward 10" and fire, or whatever)
So my "Fire Twice" scenario has the first round of shooting averaging a Leman Russ kill, and the second round slightly less because the HK missile is spent. Which, imo, is awesome firepower.
Apologies, I'd write it all up but it's a hectic day.
Xenomancers wrote: Well a 6 man hive gaurd unit cost much less than a land raider and can shoot twice for 2 cp with 12( str 8 ap-2 d3 damage ignore cover doesn't need LOS weapons)
Or essentially -2.5x the firepower of a landraider.
My math scores the Hive Guard at 5.3 w on a Leman Russ, bare bones Land Raider Phobos 5.8.
Yeah - killing LR with heavy weapons is tough. LC can do it well but vs custodes bikers or ravagers or even rhinos - the hive guard unit does significantly more damage.
Xenomancers wrote: Well a 6 man hive gaurd unit cost much less than a land raider and can shoot twice for 2 cp with 12( str 8 ap-2 d3 damage ignore cover doesn't need LOS weapons)
Or essentially -2.5x the firepower of a landraider.
My math scores the Hive Guard at 5.3 w on a Leman Russ, bare bones Land Raider Phobos 5.8.
Yeah - killing LR with heavy weapons is tough. LC can do it well but vs custodes bikers or ravagers or even rhinos - the hive guard unit does significantly more damage.
Vs. Rhino Hive guard get 7.0, a Land Raider with the additional Multimelta scores 7.3. I'm sure Hive Guard pull ahead against models with invuln saves, and that's fair. But there's a huge benefit coming from the potential buffs, as illustrated by the 12 potential wounds given in the post above. Hive Guard can't be nearly as buffed, I think it's just Kronos reroll 1s to hit? The Fire Twice Stratagem is almost a substitute for buffs. Buffed Land Raider +Fire Twice would be very valuable, and that's how it would likely be played. Stacked Buffs are the way of competetive builds, generally.
Almost every week I play my regular buddy. Many of the times I use my SM, I tell myself I'm going to bust out my Land Raider for funsies.
Even in a casual game, (we generally play at 1k points since we play late night and only have time for a 1 hour game, max, including setup and takedown) I have a very hard time ever including the Land Raider. It's just too expensive and the transport thing never plays out right. What is worth putting in a Land Raider that's not better either with Jump Packs (vanguard vets) or not using at all (Termies)? I have a Crusader for my Raven Guard which actually does see some use, and a Redeemer for my BA's which I have used, literally, twice in 3 years.
Xenomancers wrote: Well a 6 man hive gaurd unit cost much less than a land raider and can shoot twice for 2 cp with 12( str 8 ap-2 d3 damage ignore cover doesn't need LOS weapons)
Or essentially -2.5x the firepower of a landraider.
My math scores the Hive Guard at 5.3 w on a Leman Russ, bare bones Land Raider Phobos 5.8.
Yeah - killing LR with heavy weapons is tough. LC can do it well but vs custodes bikers or ravagers or even rhinos - the hive guard unit does significantly more damage.
Vs. Rhino Hive guard get 7.0, a Land Raider with the additional Multimelta scores 7.3. I'm sure Hive Guard pull ahead against models with invuln saves, and that's fair. But there's a huge benefit coming from the potential buffs, as illustrated by the 12 potential wounds given in the post above. Hive Guard can't be nearly as buffed, I think it's just Kronos reroll 1s to hit? The Fire Twice Stratagem is almost a substitute for buffs. Buffed Land Raider +Fire Twice would be very valuable, and that's how it would likely be played. Stacked Buffs are the way of competetive builds, generally.
The unit needs to be able to perform without buffs. I'm assuming you didn't take into account Kronos either, which would be a baked-in rule?
Xenomancers wrote: Well a 6 man hive gaurd unit cost much less than a land raider and can shoot twice for 2 cp with 12( str 8 ap-2 d3 damage ignore cover doesn't need LOS weapons)
Or essentially -2.5x the firepower of a landraider.
My math scores the Hive Guard at 5.3 w on a Leman Russ, bare bones Land Raider Phobos 5.8.
Yeah - killing LR with heavy weapons is tough. LC can do it well but vs custodes bikers or ravagers or even rhinos - the hive guard unit does significantly more damage.
Vs. Rhino Hive guard get 7.0, a Land Raider with the additional Multimelta scores 7.3. I'm sure Hive Guard pull ahead against models with invuln saves, and that's fair. But there's a huge benefit coming from the potential buffs, as illustrated by the 12 potential wounds given in the post above. Hive Guard can't be nearly as buffed, I think it's just Kronos reroll 1s to hit? The Fire Twice Stratagem is almost a substitute for buffs. Buffed Land Raider +Fire Twice would be very valuable, and that's how it would likely be played. Stacked Buffs are the way of competetive builds, generally.
The unit needs to be able to perform without buffs. I'm assuming you didn't take into account Kronos either, which would be a baked-in rule?
Post literally mentions Kronos. Prior comparisons are without buffs. It's pretty clear.
This feeds back to the biggest issue with a lot of marinr anti tank right now.
GW has gone invulnerable save for everyone.
Marines did rely on Lascannons for their anti vehical shooting.
A lascannon is paying alot of points for S9 AP-3 and Dd6 however.
1 lascannon looses it advantage from AP-3 against anything with an invulnerable save.
2 most vehicals only being T7 or T6 limits the advantages of S9 over say S8.
3 D6 damage is incredibly swingy and can lead to multiple lascannon shots failing to take significant wounds from the target.
Like I seen a quad las predator do 2 wounds to a rhino that just isn't good enough for 100points of weapons befire the platform to mount them on.
Insectum7 wrote: D6 also gives you one of the best option for the Reroll Stratagem though. And when you get those 5s and 6s it is sweeeet.
Personally I would trade the higher average damage and niche use of being able to make a bit better use of the reroll stratagem to just have a flat 3 damage you can count on.
Perhaps the likes of Lascannons should do 3 + D3 instead of D6? Maybe even 2 + D3 (This takes off extremes, but gives an average closer to 3.5, instead of 4.5 above).
Insectum7 wrote: D6 also gives you one of the best option for the Reroll Stratagem though. And when you get those 5s and 6s it is sweeeet.
Personally I would trade the higher average damage and niche use of being able to make a bit better use of the reroll stratagem to just have a flat 3 damage you can count on.
I just take them alongside Plasma Cannons which have multiple shots and can do a flat 2 D. They complement each other well.
Insectum7 wrote: D6 also gives you one of the best option for the Reroll Stratagem though. And when you get those 5s and 6s it is sweeeet.
Personally I would trade the higher average damage and niche use of being able to make a bit better use of the reroll stratagem to just have a flat 3 damage you can count on.
I just take them alongside Plasma Cannons which have multiple shots and can do a flat 2 D. They complement each other well.
Since when can a Landraider be equipped with twin plasma cannon sponsons?
Though that might actually be a cool way yo make them sort of work over the bad lascannons.
Insectum7 wrote: D6 also gives you one of the best option for the Reroll Stratagem though. And when you get those 5s and 6s it is sweeeet.
Personally I would trade the higher average damage and niche use of being able to make a bit better use of the reroll stratagem to just have a flat 3 damage you can count on.
I just take them alongside Plasma Cannons which have multiple shots and can do a flat 2 D. They complement each other well.
Since when can a Landraider be equipped with twin plasma cannon sponsons?
Though that might actually be a cool way yo make them sort of work over the bad lascannons.
Disingenuous post is disingenuous.
I take Plasma Cannons on my Devastators, and Lascannons on whatever, since there's a wide array of units with access to them.
Insectum7 wrote: D6 also gives you one of the best option for the Reroll Stratagem though. And when you get those 5s and 6s it is sweeeet.
Personally I would trade the higher average damage and niche use of being able to make a bit better use of the reroll stratagem to just have a flat 3 damage you can count on.
I just take them alongside Plasma Cannons which have multiple shots and can do a flat 2 D. They complement each other well.
Since when can a Landraider be equipped with twin plasma cannon sponsons?
Though that might actually be a cool way yo make them sort of work over the bad lascannons.
Disingenuous post is disingenuous.
I take Plasma Cannons on my Devastators, and Lascannons on whatever, since there's a wide array of units with access to them.
In a thread about how playable are landradiers damn skippy I'm gona call you on saying take plasma cannons over lascannons as marines can't field plasmacannons on Vehicals.
Insectum7 wrote: D6 also gives you one of the best option for the Reroll Stratagem though. And when you get those 5s and 6s it is sweeeet.
Personally I would trade the higher average damage and niche use of being able to make a bit better use of the reroll stratagem to just have a flat 3 damage you can count on.
I just take them alongside Plasma Cannons which have multiple shots and can do a flat 2 D. They complement each other well.
Since when can a Landraider be equipped with twin plasma cannon sponsons?
Though that might actually be a cool way yo make them sort of work over the bad lascannons.
Disingenuous post is disingenuous.
I take Plasma Cannons on my Devastators, and Lascannons on whatever, since there's a wide array of units with access to them.
In a thread about how playable are landradiers damn skippy I'm gona call you on saying take plasma cannons over lascannons as marines can't field plasmacannons on Vehicals.
In a side conversation about the benefits/faults of Lascannons? Ok man, your perogative I guess.
Plasma Cannons can be taken on vehicles, just fewer options for it. Dreds and Storm Ravens come to mind though. Technically its "Heavy" Plasma Cannons, but it's the same weapon only it deals mortal wounds overheating instead of slaying the model.
