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.

Ailaros wrote:A list with lots of land raiders is going to struggle against a list that is specifically designed to stop a list with lots of land raiders?

Name a unit for which that isn't true. It seems hardly a complaint specific to this unit.

Certainly bringing a LR spam list would effect local meta, but the only way it's going to be more than a nuisance is if your opponent specifically takes a certain list when they face off against you. If you don't want to call this flat-out cheating, then it's certainly at least poor form.

You don't need a list specifically tailored to stop a lot Land Raiders. People load up on mobile melta anyways, because that's the only reliable way to deal with nine razorbacks or twelve chimeras. You get an anti-land-raider list "for free" in preparing for razorspam.

odorofdeath wrote: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..

You cannot move at cruising speed (6"-12") and fire your hurricane bolters unless you use POTMS. Don't worry, this is a common mistake people make.
"A vehicle that moved at combat speed can fire all of its defensive weapons in addition to the single weapon it is usually allowed to fire." p57 BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Land raiders have a number of uses, and provide a number of advantages.

Mars Pattern
A mars-pattern LR can sit on a home objective and provide a squad very good protection. While melta guns are great for killing a raider, at 30" away, they are extremely hard to crack.
While this does provide a modest amount of firepower (about the same as 1.5 LC/AC preadators), its real value is to give strong protection to a squad. They are vulnerable to deep striking melta.
Is this worth it? Well, most people do not think so -- and your mileage may vary.

Crusader
This is the go-to for most people.
This version is great for moving an assault squad (ie, terminators) into position. It can carry up to 8 terminators, but realistically most people only bring at most 6.
An AC is better than a LC for penetrating armor and killing infantry. Its really an overall better weapon -- especially because you will be moving the crusader in 24". The MM that you can add also gives strong anti-armor firepower, especially if you are running Vulcan.
The hurricane bolters are good at clearing GEQ. If your shooting at units in cover, they are are much less effective. Shooting all 12 bolters at orks in cover will result in 2-3 orks dead.
This vehicle also allows for models assaulting out of it to count as having gernades when assaulting into cover. This is extremely useful for DCAs or TH/SS terminators.

Redeemer
This is the alternate to the crusader. Its cheaper and has less transport capacity. It has the same base 2 weapons.as the crusader and also has the frag launchers.
The main difference between this and the Crusader is if you want the templates or hurricane bolters.
Personally I like the STR 6 AP3 templates, as it cleares out MEQ in cover, or denies FNP to T3 armies. As 40% of the armies in local tournies are GK, I can use a template to kill 5-6 of them, instead of the bolters which will kill ~2.
Its all a matter of personal choice.

AV 14
AV14 is extremely difficult to crack. Meltas are the best tool for it, but not all armies are brimming to the rim with meltas.
Given that the current meta is GK, LRs have improved in effect due to the lack of meta in the GK codex. This allows for the LR to use its alternate guns more often.

notabot187 wrote:not much mobility difference? On the turn of the assault the difference is: 12 with walking. 12+2+6. Now in my neck of the woods 8 inches of movement is a full turn different.

It isn´t if your ride gets blown up anyway. Or if you want to sit on an objective. Or if your opponent closes in on you because he wants CC too. Assaulting out of a LR is awesome, but Berzerkers, if used properly (i.e. as a countercharging objective-holder), you often find yourself in a position where you simply don´t need the extra mobility.

Eldar Brightlance has a better chance of cracking up a LR from a far, than a squad of melta equiped models with the survivability also in consideration. Lets say for 1500 pt:
shooty raider DE: 13 Darklances and 4+ invul saves, reduceing range of fire by 6"
Jet/Wavedar: in between 3-5/1-3+at least 2 twin linked. Basically, you cant get the assaul unites in to range, cause if their in trouble, they just zip to the other corner/side of te table, or behind a building.

Personally i only love the way a LR looks, but its function: id rather bee droppin' my unites in via droppods. Whyt i drop in is mostly Assault Marines, cause of the jump pack. Until then, cover behind the pod...well not from everything, but id risk takeing 4-5 Assmarines full in a DP than a LR with 6-7 termies.

if you can blow up a 250+ AV14 tank for the cost of 80-180 pt, you do it...well, after the other trans/tanks are wiped out, anderson tilly then, their pretty much-loved safe. Or young haven sufficient amount of long range fire, that after an amount is bound to boom that 14AV bunker. After all, the karma of big numbers... - 150 s3ap- shots at a termi sq of 10...is going to kill them, and its only an IG squad...1 SQUAD! Tie those up in cc after a dropp is much better.

it just cracks to easy. Min 100pt for a Wave serpent: much more like it.

enfernux wrote:Eldar Brightlance has a better chance of cracking up a LR from a far, than a squad of melta equiped models .

Well if your past melta range then yea, but otherwise no.

A MM has a ~21.07% of destroying AV 14 within 12" (or a melta within 6")
A BL has a ~7.33% of destroying the same raider, even with the lance effect.

That's assuming that both weapons are fired with a BS of 4, like from a wraithlord.
Tanks are tough. End of story.

enfernux wrote:Eldar Brightlance has a better chance of cracking up a LR from a far, than a squad of melta equiped models with the survivability also in consideration.

Which is why I love playing Black Templars. I really should carry around a printed version of the "trollface" just in case I run into a Dark Eldar player.

grifter wrote:

notabot187 wrote:not much mobility difference? On the turn of the assault the difference is: 12 with walking. 12+2+6. Now in my neck of the woods 8 inches of movement is a full turn different.

It isn´t if your ride gets blown up anyway. Or if you want to sit on an objective. Or if your opponent closes in on you because he wants CC too. Assaulting out of a LR is awesome, but Berzerkers, if used properly (i.e. as a countercharging objective-holder), you often find yourself in a position where you simply don´t need the extra mobility.

The list being talked about is only zerkers with LRs. I brought up how bad that is if they get shot up. He said that walking isn't that much slower.

Labmouse, I usually include immobilized for these types of arguments. A LR is a pretty crappy thing if it can't move. Not that it helps with eldar's chances much, they just can't bring enough BL to do enough. That is why unlike DE (who can bring enough lances) Eldar get fire dragons.

Oh yes, dragons will sort a land raider right out!

I dunno there isn't much better than dropping 7 land raiders (4 LRC, 3 normal) in a 2500 pt game with plenty of CC back up. Well until you hit that DE player and tell them that 4 of 'em have blessed hull.

Yeah that was a dumb game...

labmouse42 wrote:Oh yes, dragons will sort a land raider right out!

Sort of.

Killing a Land Raider with Fire Dragons means whatever was inside now kills your Fire Dragons. Sure, you might not care, but that's all those Land Raider occupants were going to do that game anyway, kill your vehicle upgrade units if they somehow caught them outside.

You just made it happen faster and for certain, it didn't change the game much.

DarknessEternal wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:Oh yes, dragons will sort a land raider right out!

Killing a Land Raider with Fire Dragons means whatever was inside now kills your Fire Dragons. Sure, you might not care, but that's all those Land Raider occupants were going to do that game anyway, kill your vehicle upgrade units if they somehow caught them outside.

You just made it happen faster and for certain, it didn't change the game much.

I completely disagree with this. The threat radius of the Land Raider and its occupants affects the game just as much as whatever they actually manage to kill (and they're totally capable of killing a Wave Serpent). If you block its movement on Turn 1 and then Fire Dragon it on Turn 2, you strand the big, bad squad of hammernators in their own deployment zone and give yourself free reign over midfield (until the hammernators slog their way to midfield, anyways, but you'll probably manage to gun some or all of them down before then).

notabot187 wrote:I brought up how bad that is if they get shot up.

If what you're worried about is dudes in transports getting shot up, well, that's what putting them in a transport is for. If you're really worried, that's what putting them in a AV14 transport is for.

Of course, this speaks to the main drawback in all mech armies. For the points you spent on transports, you could have spent on getting more models so that you could absorb getting shot up better. The only difference with the landraider is that it's this same dilemma on steroids. You could get another entire squad of termies for the cost of their ride, which is supposed to make them much more durable instead of marines in a rhino, which costs much less, but offers much less protection. I'm failing to see how it's not basically the same, though. Certainly the price cost to protection ratio is roughly the same on both a land raider and a razorback.

If the concern is that transports will get shot up, and then the guys inside have to walk (and you no longer have as many guys, so they can't take as many hits), then don't play a mech list. Foot lists do just fine. If you're going to make the sacrifices for the benefits of a mech list, though, I guess I don't see why a few raiders do this any worse than several flimsier transports.

DarknessEternal wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:Oh yes, dragons will sort a land raider right out!

Sort of.

Killing a Land Raider with Fire Dragons means whatever was inside now kills your Fire Dragons. Sure, you might not care, but that's all those Land Raider occupants were going to do that game anyway, kill your vehicle upgrade units if they somehow caught them outside.

You just made it happen faster and for certain, it didn't change the game much.

Yea...you traded an 80 point unit for a 250+ point LR and made the unit inside have to run on foot, making them slower and vulnerable to small arms fire.

Imagine, in chess if you traded a pawn for a rook. Thats about the same trade.

Depends on the situation. If me giving up the rook for that pawn means that the pawn doesn't queen and rape my ass, I'd be happy with that trade. But if taking that rook with my pawn let's him have an open pawn that I can't catch, then I'm not gunna do it, am I? I guess what i'm saying is that positional advantages can be much better than material advantages. If you are playing eldar, and he has a bunch of landraiders, you can probably run away from him all day if you want. Why give him the kp he would otherwise not have?

Ailaros wrote:

notabot187 wrote:I brought up how bad that is if they get shot up.

If what you're worried about is dudes in transports getting shot up, well, that's what putting them in a transport is for. If you're really worried, that's what putting them in a AV14 transport is for.

Of course, this speaks to the main drawback in all mech armies. For the points you spent on transports, you could have spent on getting more models so that you could absorb getting shot up better. The only difference with the landraider is that it's this same dilemma on steroids. You could get another entire squad of termies for the cost of their ride, which is supposed to make them much more durable instead of marines in a rhino, which costs much less, but offers much less protection. I'm failing to see how it's not basically the same, though. Certainly the price cost to protection ratio is roughly the same on both a land raider and a razorback.

Protection is only part of it. Threat radius and ability to allocate (or re-direct) force to different areas of the table more quickly are also part of it. Also serving as mobile terrain.

Ailaros wrote:[If the concern is that transports will get shot up, and then the guys inside have to walk (and you no longer have as many guys, so they can't take as many hits), then don't play a mech list. Foot lists do just fine. If you're going to make the sacrifices for the benefits of a mech list, though, I guess I don't see why a few raiders do this any worse than several flimsier transports.

Partially because of reduced flexibility in how you allocate your forces (having five or six elements which can maneuver independently is normally better than having three), and partially because having one disabled or destroyed represents a larger proportional loss when it's one of three as opposed to one of five or six. Having one Rhino Immobilize itself on terrain is not normally crippling (although it can suck); having a Land Raider do it may be. For the enemy to expend a "suicide melta" unit on a Rhino is debateably worthwhile, depending on the position and tactical importance of that particular Rhino. Expending one on a Land Raider usually is worth it, even mid-game after the contents have been delivered, because it prevents the LR from continuing to shoot, or act as a bunker for a scoring unit, or block LOS to an important unit, or tank-shock onto and contest an objective, or even redeploy the original assault unit onto a new target, particularly if the game goes 6-7 turns.

I like land raiders, though I'm not fond of the chaos one until you get to larger point size games, as it's a big investment and lacks the melta and split-fire capabilities of the loyalist ones. When I use one in CSM, it's normally just one, along with several Rhinos and some summoned/deep-striking units to further capitalize on the mobility of the transports.

I agree with the point that a land raider isn't exactly the best thing ever on paper, but it's flexible. You get fire support, transport capacity and armor 14. There are so many things you can do with it. It performs, consistently.

Mannahnin wrote:and partially because having one disabled or destroyed represents a larger proportional loss when it's one of three as opposed to one of five or six.

Well, this is sort of what I was talking about. They are more disastrous when they die, but it's also less likely that they will.

I mean, say, for the sake of argument, you had two transports. One of them gave you the ability to field four of them, and the other allowed you to field only two, but those two were twice as durable. It would be a draw, right? Of course, in this particular case, they also soak up points spent on infantry. In this case we're talking about something that comes with two with two units of guys, and four with four units of guys (it's not quite this, but you see my point). In this case, even if the transports were of relative equal toughness, the latter would be better because you get more overall durability (equal for the transports, double for the troops). This means that the land raider needs to be somewhat less than three times as durable as a rhino in order to be equal in overall quality.

So that's really the question. Take off for the fact that the LR also has guns, and the question is "is a land raider about 2.5x times as durable as a rhino?" If the answer is that it's less, then it would be better to take more, crapper units as they give more overall durability. If it's more, then it's actually better to take the raiders, despite the extra vagary of vehicles, because you actually get more staying power. If it's about the same, then, well, you could do either and it wouldn't matter.

loota boy wrote:positional advantages can be much better than material advantages.

Mannahnin wrote:Partially because of reduced flexibility in how you allocate your forces (having five or six elements which can maneuver independently is normally better than having three)

So, this is the axis on which LRs have to be judged, it seems to me. Where the LR has its most utility isn't in the world of materiel, it's in the world of field position.

It seems that the best way to understand raiders is to note that they give up, say, half your flexibility with regards to field position, but in return they gain the ability to roughly double your force concentration. Whether you're looking for field position like a horde army, or force concentration like a grey knights army, I suppose really is just a matter of play style preference, as I don't see either of them as being necessarily better than the other.

Ailaros wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:and partially because having one disabled or destroyed represents a larger proportional loss when it's one of three as opposed to one of five or six.

Well, this is sort of what I was talking about. They are more disastrous when they die, but it's also less likely that they will.

...

So that's really the question. Take off for the fact that the LR also has guns, and the question is "is a land raider about 2.5x times as durable as a rhino?" If the answer is that it's less, then it would be better to take more, crapper units as they give more overall durability. If it's more, then it's actually better to take the raiders, despite the extra vagary of vehicles, because you actually get more staying power. If it's about the same, then, well, you could do either and it wouldn't matter.

That is a key point. Against most longer-ranged firing units, the LR is a lot more durable. Against a Manticore or a unit packing multiple meltaguns, not so much. Manticores and units packing multiple meltaguns are pretty common; but I do tend to find that most people on the internet overestimate how easily and reliably they can get the meltas into range when they need to.

Ailaros wrote:

loota boy wrote:positional advantages can be much better than material advantages.

Mannahnin wrote:Partially because of reduced flexibility in how you allocate your forces (having five or six elements which can maneuver independently is normally better than having three)

So, this is the axis on which LRs have to be judged, it seems to me. Where the LR has its most utility isn't in the world of materiel, it's in the world of field position.

It seems that the best way to understand raiders is to note that they give up, say, half your flexibility with regards to field position, but in return they gain the ability to roughly double your force concentration. Whether you're looking for field position like a horde army, or force concentration like a grey knights army, I suppose really is just a matter of play style preference, as I don't see either of them as being necessarily better than the other.

I wouldn't say that they necessarily aid your force concentration, so to speak, as they eat up a lot of points which could otherwise be spent on more troops at the point of contact. But they do add speed/threat range. A unit in a Rhino has roughly a 33" one-turn assault threat radius: 3" width of transport, 3" for disembarking, 12" move + charge. A unit in a LR, OTOH, has roughly a 46" assault threat radius. Maybe a little more with a pivot.

Mannahnin wrote:That is a key point. Against most longer-ranged firing units, the LR is a lot more durable. Against a Manticore or a unit packing multiple meltaguns, not so much. Manticores and units packing multiple meltaguns are pretty common; but I do tend to find that most people on the internet overestimate how easily and reliably they can get the meltas into range when they need to.

Right, this is actually a kind of hard problem to think about, as it depends so much on things like terrain and your opponent's list and movement. I don't even have any good personal experiences to draw from as I've destroyed most raiders I've come across, but that was because they did silly things like leave them near a board edge for Al'Rahem to TL melta in melta range / charge with eviscerator priests, a mistake I'm pretty sure I wouldn't make. The ones I haven't taken down have been largely due to ludicrously poor rolling on my part, which doesn't tell me much either.

I mean, I guess you could do a little mathhammer, but in this particular case, it rings somewhat hollow. For example, a single melta hit in melta range wrecks a raider on about a .24, while it wrecks a rhino is about .45. In this worst case scenario, the land raider is only about twice as durable, but then you've got to take into consideration that you'll never outright destroy a raider with a S8 weapon, and it's literally immune to autocannons, plasma weapons, and krak greanades, which rhinos certainly aren't.

I mean, I guess I'd say that raiders are at least as durable as their points + lack of other infantry would imply, but it's kind of hard to tell.

Mannahnin wrote:I wouldn't say that they necessarily aid your force concentration, so to speak, as they eat up a lot of points which could otherwise be spent on more troops at the point of contact.

Yeah, but if you practice force concentration with twice as many guys, you're bordering on the suicidal. In order to get three whole extra squads in a place that already has three squads, you're one battlecannon shot, or one vindicator shot, or one plasma cannon barrage from an utter disaster. I don't know if you'd actually be getting all that much more in contact, given that units would have to go around each other in order to fit into assaults, and your casualties would be so much higher.

That they also have this long reach seems to me to be a way of ameliorating the field position problem talked about earlier.

labmouse42 wrote:Yea...you traded an 80 point unit for a 250+ point LR and made the unit inside have to run on foot, making them slower and vulnerable to small arms fire.

Imagine, in chess if you traded a pawn for a rook. Thats about the same trade.

Thing is, Eldar don't have to trade anything to negate a Land Raider, they can just fly around while it grumbles around pointlessly.

Eldar don't win by engaging the enemy.

DarknessEternal wrote:
Thing is, Eldar don't have to trade anything to negate a Land Raider, they can just fly around while it grumbles around pointlessly.

Eldar don't fear TL lascannons?

DarknessEternal wrote:Eldar don't win by engaging the enemy.

In the immortal words of Arnold Jackson, "What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

my debate on LR - updated ^^ - is i sacrifice a squad of 80pt dragons, for a 250+ heavy. Deal? 5 melta shots from 6" can get VERY nasty. imo: use smaller transports, sadly, Eldar have only one normal - and it is the best in the game as experienced. A LR from 12" of melta is in very low a danger, where as a serpent is in moderate. On 6", the serpent is still in moderate, whyle the LR gets moderate as well. Tau s10ap1: LR glance 4+, Serpent glance 4+ (WTF?!)
DE nightshield: ow, you are a melta gun 12"...shoot on me from 6" to get the normal effect. You want to melt? Dont you do it from half range? 6/2 is 3"? Good luck, like I'll let that happen.

just rememgered something, but thats for a DE topic...im off

DarknessEternal wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:Yea...you traded an 80 point unit for a 250+ point LR and made the unit inside have to run on foot, making them slower and vulnerable to small arms fire.

Imagine, in chess if you traded a pawn for a rook. Thats about the same trade.

Thing is, Eldar don't have to trade anything to negate a Land Raider, they can just fly around while it grumbles around pointlessly.

Eldar don't win by engaging the enemy.

You also don't win by ignoring the Land Raider barelling towards your objective.

Ran wrote:

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 concur!

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You also don't win by ignoring the Land Raider barelling towards your objective.

If a LR is up against a shooty DE - my favorite, cheep and is overdice - 13 dl hits WILL kill it, the terms inside: wasted to run and can be mowed down. Problem is, a few races may be squishy, but are nimble and lightning fast and to win, focus their fire and keep mobile.

And the twin LCs and MMs wont be good if the LR is lost. 260pt. Ok, i comited every shot for it, but the bunkers gone, have 4+ cover, 5+ invul, nmy shooting range -6" and my cargo can shoot at a different target - say: 1-1 devastator or tac, whichever is closer. To me, it is just a big bunker with to much points.

Or for the Mechdar: FD annihilate the LR, everything shoots on the termies, decapitating them to give a chance to the FD to live a nother day...round...

I know, im a bit overzealous, but it wins me the maches. Well, the DE config does, started playing eldar only recently. That works to

enfernux wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You also don't win by ignoring the Land Raider barelling towards your objective.

If a LR is up against a shooty DE - my favorite, cheep and is overdice - 13 dl hits WILL kill it, the terms inside: wasted to run and can be mowed down. Problem is, a few races may be squishy, but are nimble and lightning fast and to win, focus their fire and keep mobile.

And the twin LCs and MMs wont be good if the LR is lost. 260pt. Ok, i comited every shot for it, but the bunkers gone, have 4+ cover, 5+ invul, nmy shooting range -6" and my cargo can shoot at a different target - say: 1-1 devastator or tac, whichever is closer. To me, it is just a big bunker with to much points.

Or for the Mechdar: FD annihilate the LR, everything shoots on the termies, decapitating them to give a chance to the FD to live a nother day...round...

I know, im a bit overzealous, but it wins me the maches. Well, the DE config does, started playing eldar only recently. That works to

Blessed Hull.

im a bit off track of SM, what the heck does blessed armor do? does it negate explode or wreck?? of no, then not much of a problem.

DarknessEternal wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:Yea...you traded an 80 point unit for a 250+ point LR and made the unit inside have to run on foot, making them slower and vulnerable to small arms fire.

Imagine, in chess if you traded a pawn for a rook. Thats about the same trade.

Thing is, Eldar don't have to trade anything to negate a Land Raider, they can just fly around while it grumbles around pointlessly.

Eldar don't win by engaging the enemy.

I think that you are not giving the LR its due.

A LR gives a unit of TH/SS terminators a 22" threat radius. If that LR parks in the middle of the board, that can to many different points on the board. In order to avoid the assault you need to push your mobile forces away from the center.

What is that threat? Even hitting on 6", 5 TH/SS terminators have 18 attacks on the charge, and can reasonably expect to get 3 penetrating hits on the serpent.
The MM on the redeemer/crusader is also a concern, as its AP1, which dramatically increases the possible effect on vehicles. As energy shields don't cover the rear, a AC to the rear end of a serpent or a MM within 12" is devastating.

At best, you are being forced to avoid the LR and cargo. This means that your movement is being dictated by your opponent, and not yourself, making it extremely hard to win objective based games. What do you do when that LR has parked on your objective in a 'Roll dice and tie" game? Do you plan on ramming it off the objective so you can at least contest your own?

As such, stopping a LR is nearly always a good idea. Trading an 80 point unit of fire dragons to do the job is a great trade -- and the main reason people list fire dragons as the #1 or #2 Eldar unit. (Eldrad is the other)

enfernux wrote:im a bit off track of SM, what the heck does blessed armor do? does it negate explode or wreck?? of no, then not much of a problem.

It's a Black Templars upgrade for LRCs that negates the Lance rule. So yes, it does negate explode and wreck, in a sense.

then we'll just have to be sneaky vs black templar. Or trying to get 4 MCs in range, or 5 wraithguards from serpent 3-4glance 5-6 pen.