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

The land raider has long been an enigma for me, and spending the last hour filtering through dakka posts and seeing little more than bickering over which sponsons to take, I'm still confused. As such, I want to know what the tactical purpose of a land raider is.

On the one hand, it's clearly not about firepower. No configuration of guns makes a land raider worth its points as a long range support vehicle. This is doubly true compared to other options in power armor armies that do the job better for cheaper, like havocs, or TLLC dreads, or predators, etc. Of course, given that it's a transport vehicle with an assault ramp, I wouldn't expect it. Of course, when you're using it as a transport, you're probably not doing that much shooting at all...

But I still don't get it as a transport either. Yes, with the AV14, you're probably keeping what's inside safe until the cargo gets a chance to attack turn 2 or 3. On the other hand, the cargo isn't doing jack until turn 2 or 3. Basically, this makes whatever you're lugging around behave as if it is deepstriking - totally safe, until they show up mid-game and start doing damage. I just can't wrap my brain around spending 250 points to give a unit the ability to "deepstrike" that wouldn't normally have that rule. This is doubly true for units that already have deepstrike, like terminators. Yes, we're talking about an assault ramp rather than deepstriking, but still, 250 points to give a different 250 point unit "heroic intervention"? For that price, you could just take twice as many terminators.

I don't see how a land raider is worth it either in its own killing power, or in its ability to supplement the killing power of other units. This means that land raiders are more like units like ogryn where the point of them isn't how much damage they contribute, but is something else. The question is, what is that else?

They're not particularly fast, so it's not about mobility. They can't spread out, so it's not about field position. They're still killed by melta rather as fast as most other things, so it's not about being proactive and being able to take ground just by themselves. Basically nothing else is AV14 in armies that can take raiders, so they don't even provide target saturation that well.

What in the heck makes a land raider ever worth fielding?

Reliability really.
a deepstriking unit is vulnerable, a unit in a land raider isn't, even after delivery they can roll around and do damage, they can roadblock with their huge size, block LOS, ect. ect.

On paper they aren't the greatest, I agree, but you don't really have a choice in deep striking terminators or similiar, if you DS them only half if any are reaching combat, in a LR they are probably all making it.

I've only ever played against the default Land Raider, which I assume is the most popular.
you get two twin-linked lascannons and twin-linked heavy bolter, with POTMS guarenteeing at least one can always shoot.
BS4 and twin-linked means you're pretty much guarenteed a hit, with strength 9 capable of slicing through most armour.
and AV 14 means you can ignore pretty much all long range anti-tank, getting cover saves just in case for that extra security.
And when your opponant finally blows it...out storm a unit of elite combat infantry, who run out and kill everything. Blowing up a land raider is only ever a pyrric victory.

Delivering a big nasty unit can easily be worth 250 pts. It’s more accurate, faster, safer, and reaches deeper into the enemy army than deepstriking. Then as you go in and afterward its shooting is more than an afterthought. Not to mention frag launchers for your assault termies which is HUGE.

AV14 all around is also tough. Not unbreakable, but very tough. It takes focus away from your weaker transports that can now do their thing unmolested. And even melta guns are still not a sure thing against it. It will take a few of them at 6inches to do anything significant, which means you’re in assault range of the awfulness inside.

Not the best thing in the world, but certainly useful. I know some very successful players that use them regularly.

There are a few reasons to take a landraider.

The first is it's crazy hard for anything non-melta to kill.

The second is for foot troops, it's the fastest and best way to assure they assault first, and don't get shot on the way.

After those 2, you have a very powerful fire support unit. Depending on what your army needs, it can sport lascannons, dead-killy flamers, and more bolters than you can shake a stick at.

Taking a landraider at under 1000 points is stupid. Taking a landraider and having many other tough to kill vehicles makes taking it much more worthwhile.

Grundz wrote:Reliability really.
a deepstriking unit is vulnerable, a unit in a land raider isn't, even after delivery they can roll around and do damage, they can roadblock with their huge size, block LOS, ect. ect.

On paper they aren't the greatest, I agree, but you don't really have a choice in deep striking terminators or similiar, if you DS them only half if any are reaching combat, in a LR they are probably all making it.

Exactly, I know that my CC termies are going to get into cc on turn 2/3. Even if I were to take a second unit of Termies instead, each only has a 50% chance of showing up on turn 1 and can only assault turn 2. Mathhammer that and you get the same result (exculding DS mishap) 1 unit in cc by turn 3. Include scattering/DS mishap it's even lower. However with a LR I know that they have a better chance of getting into cc, even when they are in Melta range, that usually means I'm in assault range. Plus you get 2-3 turns of shooting with the LR. If it's a dedicated transport it, with the unit, only counts as 1 KP.

Another benifit is one that unit is done in combat, they can embark and go somewhere else, to contest an objective, to assault again, etc. The DS unit is forced to foot slog their way around, and they don't have a AV14 shell around them.

I play vanilla marines (no special characters) and the way I use it depends on my enemy (I almost always use the Godhammer + pintle mounted multi melta filled with assault terminators and maybe a librarian):

1.) Against aggressive armies, I'll use it defensively, moving 6 inches into better position and firing 2 twin linked lascannons a turn until I'm within range to jump something.

2.) Against defensive armies, it's moving forward along with my other rhinos/razorbacks to get into their face -- usually multiple vehicles converging on a particular point as opposed to across a broad front.

The first usually happens far more than the second in my group.

The assault vehicle rule also adds a threat range that has to be considered by the opponent. Having a 20.9" kill zone bubble for your assault unit is a good deterrent for soft units from getting too close or making sure that they can't run away for too long.

Well, here is my experience with Land Raiders:

When I use them, they seem to go up like they are made of tinfoil.
When I go against them, they seem to be impregnable forces of doom that I cannot even scratch the paint on.

Land Raiders are a pain that force your opponent to deal with.

Marshal_Gus wrote:The assault vehicle rule also adds a threat range that has to be considered by the opponent. Having a 20.9" kill zone bubble for your assault unit is a good deterrent for soft units from getting too close or making sure that they can't run away for too long.

That is the biggest point. Compare that to a rhino where you cannot move, disembark and assault so you really only have an 8" assault range from the side or rear of a rhino whereas a landraider can move 12", disembark (about 3" out in the case of terminators) and then assault so a 21" assault range. For me that is where the types of LR come in. If you take a LRC you can put in 7 terminators and a command character to make one nasty assault unit. The crusader, while primarily anti-infantry, mounts a multi-melta so you can move 12" and still get all your hurricane bolters to fire. The odd duck for me is the redeemer, I think the layout and the limitations of the templates do not work real well in my mind and the carrying capacity of 12 just doesn't make it worthwhile but others may come up with some situational reason for it.

The vanilla Land Raider IS bad, you're correct there. Redeemer's aren't much better.

The reason the Crusader is the only one used much is because it can transport a large unit in safety, while firing to full effect.

Chaos Land Raiders are terrible because they have the sh*tty weapons of the vanilla LR, without even PotMS or an increased carrying capacity to make up for it.

I've never been all that impressed by landraiders.

I'm not saying I"ve never lost to them. I sure have! I just think that they are a classic "if you take one, take two" type unit, and soon you're spending most of your points on two attack vectors.

Toss in the pain in the ass that is Dawn of War, and I'm not sure they're worth it from a purely top table standpoint.

odorofdeath wrote:The vanilla Land Raider IS bad, you're correct there. .

Incorrect. In a list somewhat lacking in anti-tank, a vanilla land raider moving 6 and shooting two separate targets with twin linked lascannons tends to work well for dealing with enemy light vehicles.

It's true that the land raider is going to be close to the enemy after it's primary job is done, but getting some pot shots off along the way can turn the tide.

The CSM landraiders are terrible. The landraiders with the hurricane bolters are only for getting a massive death squad into melee, after that they are pretty worthless.

juraigamer wrote:

odorofdeath wrote:The vanilla Land Raider IS bad, you're correct there. .

Incorrect. In a list somewhat lacking in anti-tank, a vanilla land raider moving 6 and shooting two separate targets with twin linked lascannons tends to work well for dealing with enemy light vehicles.

It's true that the land raider is going to be close to the enemy after it's primary job is done, but getting some pot shots off along the way can turn the tide.

The CSM landraiders are terrible. The landraiders with the hurricane bolters are only for getting a massive death squad into melee, after that they are pretty worthless.

How does a crusader become useless? If you are smart you are putting a multimelta on the thing and odds are it is within close proximity to a lot of heavy vehicles. Not to mention enough bolters to thin out a horde very nicely. I have to disagree strongly with that comment as my crusader filled with a mix of LC and THSS plus libby is the bane of my opponents side. Sure it's a deathstar fire magnet but hey it's less shots at my dreads and tac squads...which often fail to take it down until turn 3 or 4.

Joey wrote:you get two twin-linked lascannons and twin-linked heavy bolter, with POTMS guarenteeing at least one can always shoot.
BS4 and twin-linked means you're pretty much guarenteed a hit

But for their points, raiders still have awful firepower. I could get that much firepower elsewhere for less, and perhaps even on scoring units.

Joey wrote:Blowing up a land raider is only ever a pyrric victory.

Yeah, but if it doesn't matter if it gets blown up, that's not much of a reason to take it. "Yeah? well it was so useless that I don't even notice that it's gone, so there!"

juraigamer wrote:Taking a landraider at under 1000 points is stupid. Taking a landraider and having many other tough to kill vehicles makes taking it much more worthwhile.

See, it's quotes like this that tell of a land raider's crappiness, or at least how much it's understood. If it is a worthwhile unit, it's worthwhile to take at 750 as much as it is at 2000. If you need to have over a thousand points of other stuff just to support this one unit, something's probably wrong...

Grundz wrote:if you DS them only half if any are reaching combat, in a LR they are probably all making it.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:It's... safer... than deepstriking

Is it? Remember that if you're not taking the raider, you could be taking two squads of termies, which are also something that's pretty difficult to kill with long range anti-tank weapons, especially once we start talking storm shields.

What's more likely to get the most number of terminators to your opponent's stuff turn 3, a squad of 5 with a raider, or two squads of 5?

It may be safer for that one unit of termies to be in a raider, but overall, whether by deepstrike or by just running, saying that you're going to get more termies with the raider doesn't seem convincing. Especially when you consider the fact that AV14 CAN get blown up straight away turn 1, and then you're on foot anyways, but with half the number of models.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:It’s more accurate, faster... and reaches deeper into the enemy army than deepstriking.

Is it? deepstriking can go anywhere, which makes me think penetration is better. Also, while you have to wait until turn 2 or 3 before you get in there with deepstriking, you also have to wait that long before the raider makes its splash (assuming the raider survives that long), given that it's not a fast vehicle.

It's certainly slightly more accurate, but is it 250 points more accurate?

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:It takes focus away from your weaker transports that can now do their thing unmolested.

Does it? If I had autocannons and missile launchers, I'd be shooting them at rhinos, not at raiders. Really, it seems that it would only be keeping lascannons and railguns off of them. Once again, though, 250 points just to make a few 35 point transports slightly more survivable?

Marshal_Gus wrote:The assault vehicle rule also adds a threat range that has to be considered by the opponent.

So does better field position.

With more troops covering more area you are able to threaten just as much as if you had fewer, faster troops. Now, the assault ramp does help ensure that you don't get assaulted, but if you have two units, at the absolute very least, the first can act as a speedbump. The end result is still the same - a single unit getting the charge in.

Grundz wrote:block LOS

juraigamer wrote:The second is for foot troops, it's the... best way to assure they assault first

So, these are the only two real benefits I'm seeing so far. The LOS one is rather flimsy (all those points just to stop a single rhino from being in LOS of half the field?) but real, none the less. The second is for those times when even losing the charge once would be disastrous, like against wyches or harlequins, or a small handful of other units that you really need to get the charge in against or the fact that you brought twice as many guys still might not cut it.

Still, that's a pretty narrow band...

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure they're worth it from a purely top table standpoint.

So what, abstractly, is the point? Usually with poorly designed units, you can still see at least what the game designer was going for. Most of the time, if you use them in what their theoretical role is, they can be made to be at least decent (like ogryn, in my opinion). I don't even get what the point of raiders is though.

Usually my 40k units don't come with an existential crisis built into them.

5 Scouts in Godhammer LR. Good luck!

The role of the land raider in a shooty list is to provide fire support from a durable platform, that allows for a counter-charge to deal with the enemy when they get too close. The role is also filled by dreadnoughts with one gun and one ccw.

In an assault army, their role is to provide reliable heavy assault support. Deep striking is well and good, but unfortunately you cannot control when they come in, and too many units can nullify deep striking / reserves.

Ailaros wrote:

Joey wrote:Blowing up a land raider is only ever a pyrric victory.

Yeah, but if it doesn't matter if it gets blown up, that's not much of a reason to take it. "Yeah? well it was so useless that I don't even notice that it's gone, so there!"

You don't notice it's been destroyed because at that point your terminators have wiped out the bulk of the enemy army. Maybe I'm talking from a guard perspective, but that unit of badass assault troops which could all be wiped out by a single ordinance template is instead nuts deep in the enemy bowels and is pumping firey vengeance into their enemy's gunline.
What would you get instead? A couple of predators? With side armour 11 they wouldn't last long. And you'd better hope your assault troops get lucky against enemy shooting.

Horst wrote:The role of the land raider in a shooty list is to provide fire support from a durable platform, that allows for a counter-charge to deal with the enemy when they get too close. The role is also filled by dreadnoughts with one gun and one ccw.

Then why not get a dread? Plus, what's the point of durable shooting if you're not actually doing very much shooting? Sounds like a unit that your opponents could ignore, and being ignorable is hardly a benefit.

Horst wrote:In an assault army, their role is to provide reliable heavy assault support. Deep striking is well and good, but unfortunately you cannot control when they come in, and too many units can nullify deep striking / reserves.

And the raider can be popped.

Also, look at foot termies instead. You know where and when they're coming in, and dont' have to worry about mishaps. They're slower, but that's partially ameliorated with field position. Also, I have a hard time seeing 10 termies on foot (especially with storm shields) as being much easier to shut down than 5 termies and a single AV14 vehicle.

Joey wrote:You don't notice it's been destroyed because at that point your terminators have...

But still, the raider is just a wrapper. It doesn't do anything by itself, and once you've spent 250 points to deliver 250 points of terminators a turn faster, then it's still useless. I don't see how it's worth its points as just a transport.

Joey wrote: Maybe I'm talking from a guard perspective, but that unit of badass assault troops which could all be wiped out by a single ordinance template is instead nuts deep in the enemy bowels and is pumping firey vengeance into their enemy's gunline.

It's not a guard perspective, it's a wishful thinking perspective. What 250 points of guard artillery is going to stop a unit of terminators (on foot or deepstriking) from getting at least a chainfist or worse into close combat?

Joey wrote:What would you get instead?

Something that had a clearly defined role, or set of them, for one. Were I looking for firepower, it would be something that puts down more guns more efficiently. If it were being a transport, I'd need to see how it would be worth the cost, etc.

Ailaros wrote:

Joey wrote:You don't notice it's been destroyed because at that point your terminators have...

But still, the raider is just a wrapper. It doesn't do anything by itself, and once you've spent 250 points to deliver 250 points of terminators a turn faster, then it's still useless. I don't see how it's worth its points as just a transport.

Consider it as 500 points of terminators with some twin-linked weapons thrown in, hence why it's useless below 1000 or 1500 points, too expensive.
It's also fething difficult to kill. Predators might be cheaper but you're getting 1 or 2 turns of shooting out of them. Land Raiders cost twice as much but you're getting 3-4 rounds of shooting out of them.

Ailaros wrote:

Joey wrote: Maybe I'm talking from a guard perspective, but that unit of badass assault troops which could all be wiped out by a single ordinance template is instead nuts deep in the enemy bowels and is pumping firey vengeance into their enemy's gunline.

It's not a guard perspective, it's a wishful thinking perspective. What 250 points of guard artillery is going to stop a unit of terminators (on foot or deepstriking) from getting at least a chainfist or worse into close combat?

Well a demolisher tank can and will wipe out a squad of terminators in a turn, and lascannons will whittle them down. Even FRFSRF lasguns can cause problems. Terminators that aren't in a Land Raider or deep striking can die pretty quickly for an expensive unit.

The firepower from a land raider is not something that can be ignored. 2 twin linked lascannons, a twin linked heavy bolter, and a multimelta for 260 points isn't a great deal, but its not bad either.

Take an auto-las predator... widely regarded as a good deal. Its 120 points. I would say a linked heavy bolter is similar in utility to the autocannon.

Add maybe 30 points to make the lascannons twin linked. Add another 10 pints for the multimelta. Add another 20 points or so for machine spirit.

That puts you at around 180 points worth of firepower. 80 points is not unreasonable price to pay for increased armor, transport capacity, and an assault ramp.

Horst wrote:The firepower from a land raider is not something that can be ignored. 2 twin linked lascannons, a twin linked heavy bolter, and a multimelta for 260 points isn't a great deal, but its not bad either.

Hear hear! Though the MM might be overkill on a backfield unit. Make it Scoring!

I use a single, vanilla LR in my 2K Smurf list and find it to be very worthwhile. I agree that its firepower isn't overly impressive, but it is very consistent and reliable with AV14 and POTMS. The main benefit comes from it's ability to provide firepower while also acting as an assault transport. TH/SS Termies are the Vanilla Codex's answer to many of life's problems... and getting them into combat quicker or allowing them to project threat across a larger part of the board is huge. Yes, dedicated melta fire can destroy the LR, but generally that will require your opponent to expose their units to do so because of the large threat radius. That and while it is alive, you are forcing your opponent to waste the shots from the non-melta-toters trying to pry the Termies out, helping increase their life expectancy.

3++ talks quite a bit about Thunderbubble (using 10 TH/SS on foot to bubble wrap a shooty army) and I think it is definately a viable technique. I also think that a Landraider with 5 TH/SS is just as viable.

Seems like a durable, multi-purpose unit that can do a whole lot of things on the battlefield, including some things that can't be found elsewhere in the codex. If you take each capability on its own, sure most of them could be had for cheaper elsewhere, but no unit compares as far as number of capabilities. Not for someone who doesn't want alot of eggs in one basket.

I see the LR as a rolling bunker, that's damn near unkillable for some armies.

Since when does a pair of twinlinked lascannons become crappy armament, especially if you can fire them at full speed?

The LR isn't just a gunwagon. It is a heavily armed av 14,all round WALL that shoots you even as it bombs an assault unit exactly where you want it to not go.

If your army has no melta or S9 + guns LR's are a huge PITA. Marines can down them easy, but not so for everyone. When you finally do crack the thing open (or more likely glance it's engines and guns down over several rounds) it's generally filled with badasses who don't like that you wrecked their ride, and take it out on the nearest units..

LR are the best tank in the game, right now, as far as durability goes.

Also, look at foot termies instead. You know where and when they're coming in, and dont' have to worry about mishaps. They're slower, but that's partially ameliorated with field position. Also, I have a hard time seeing 10 termies on foot (especially with storm shields) as being much easier to shut down than 5 termies and a single AV14 vehicle.

It's basically the fact that termies on foot are easily avoided. Their threat range is 12" which is the minimum threat range in the game. Anything that moves faster than them can ignore them. and:

a unit that your opponents could ignore, and being ignorable is hardly a benefit.

Monoliths are like Landraiders that they seem to do psychological damage to your opponent. It's like their sole purpose in the game is to pop that AV 14 so they can write home about it. I found with my GK's it becomes a bullet magnet , likewise with my monolith when I play the crons.

Overall, in a 1500 point or less game, not worth it. If I had a payload I wanted to deliver (terminators ) , then a monolith moving as fast as possible to its destination is the best, safest way.

Here's my take on the LR:

My LR is full of Termies, and they are going to ruin your day if they get close enough. That means you must to stop them before they get there. So I put those Termies inside a LR, to ensure that they will get there. And the LR is very difficult to bring down thanks to the AV 14. This means that my opponent will have to use most of his anti-tank fire to bring down the LR, and that means his anti-tank is not pointing at my four other transports, which are considerably weaker at AV 11.

So it's a 2-for-1 deal: you get a delivery system that forces your opponent to concentrate on it, and thus is also a decoy for the weaker transports to get through.

azazel the cat wrote:Here's my take on the LR:

My LR is full of Termies, and they are going to ruin your day if they get close enough. That means you must to stop them before they get there. So I put those Termies inside a LR, to ensure that they will get there. And the LR is very difficult to bring down thanks to the AV 14. This means that my opponent will have to use most of his anti-tank fire to bring down the LR, and that means his anti-tank is not pointing at my four other transports, which are considerably weaker at AV 11.

So it's a 2-for-1 deal: you get a delivery system that forces your opponent to concentrate on it, and thus is also a decoy for the weaker transports to get through.

Bingo ! Suddenly those rhinos w/ psycannons get overlooked

I can only speak to this as a CSM player, but the way I see it, the Landraider is kind of a gamble: if your opponent has a hard time dealing with it, it´s probably gonna be worth it´s points. If your opponent doesn´t have a lot of trouble with it, it´s probably not worth it.

It´s almost more of a metagame threat: a balanced army has got to be able to handle AV14 or they could face some very rough matchups...wether those matchups can do well against other armies (in a tournament, for example), is different question altogether.

Allaros, from what I´ve gathered from your posts, you´re an Infantry-guy at heart, much like myself. I´m afraid we´re going to have a rough time understanding why tank-lovers love their shiny toys so much, just like they´re going to have a rough time understanding why we´d rather have more boots on the ground...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:Here's my take on the LR:

My LR is full of Termies, and they are going to ruin your day if they get close enough. That means you must to stop them before they get there. So I put those Termies inside a LR, to ensure that they will get there. And the LR is very difficult to bring down thanks to the AV 14. This means that my opponent will have to use most of his anti-tank fire to bring down the LR, and that means his anti-tank is not pointing at my four other transports, which are considerably weaker at AV 11.

So it's a 2-for-1 deal: you get a delivery system that forces your opponent to concentrate on it, and thus is also a decoy for the weaker transports to get through.

So, your opponent´s bad target priority makes Landraiders better? That´s true for most units though, I should think?