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.

So, how do you think the change to 6th ed. affected land raiders? Better/worse/the same?

I personally feel they got better, especially phobos thanks to snapfire, no stuns/shakes from glancing and the AP change for vehicle damage.
Against necrons though, they will die fast.

This belongs in General Discussion.

But to answer, I think they got a little better.

they are worse against lances, pretty much the same against everything else, or better since glancing doesnt slow them down at all.

depending on the variant the snap fire rules helped them too, so id say they are better overall.

Land raiders still deliver their cargo under normal circumstances.

While ap 2 and ap 1 can hurt more, you could still lose your raider in one shot in 5th.

Being able to pivot, move 12, pop smoke, move 6 more, then next turn move 6 deploy 6 and charge 2d6... pimp my landraider.

Popping smoke now occurs in the shooting phase. You cannot go Flat Out and pop smoke (pg 87).

Yea. That. Drive faster or gain a 5+.

I'd say it's a wash.
They move faster but are easier to hit.
Glances aren't as bad, but they can still be single shotted.
They now have to contend with enemy fliers straffing them (my storm talon runs twin-multi-meltas and twin lascannons).
They also to the full hit from templates.

Given the option, I think I'd rather have a storm talon than land raider. Storm talon is much more durable against conventional solutions for armor.

-Matt

I used to run 3 land raiders with my blood angels in 5th, but I have found in testing they are far worse. If their job is to transport then I guess they get the job done still, but that is a lot of points to move a squad. I play with redeemers, and for that many points I like to be able to use the raider after I drop off the cargo.

Between the amount of gauss weapons and the buffs to monsters, you folks do not think based on what we have seen thus far, that land raiders are capable of less than they were last edition?

Monsters are worse against land raiders-half attacks at S10, only a single D6 as opposed to last edition, which was typically S7ish (carnies n BTs) +2D6 at full attacks. Last edition the strong monsters were better, this edition all monsters are the same. My BTs last edition hit tanks at S9, plus 2D6. Hurts more than S10+D6 at half attacks.

Edit-they are more likely to hit now, less likely to wound.

I still got 1 shotted by a lucky lascannon in my last game :|

I certainly wasn't expecting it.

timetowaste85 wrote:Monsters are worse against land raiders-half attacks at S10, only a single D6 as opposed to last edition, which was typically S7ish (carnies n BTs) +2D6 at full attacks. Last edition the strong monsters were better, this edition all monsters are the same. My BTs last edition hit tanks at S9, plus 2D6. Hurts more than S10+D6 at half attacks.

Edit-they are more likely to hit now, less likely to wound.

That is debatable and depends on the strength of the MC.

For a Bloodthirster at Str 9 on the charge (with UM), the 2d6 was more favorable with more attacks. Especially given the double strength doesn't add a whole amount.

But, for an MC with say STR 5 or 6, I think it is way easier for them to disable vehicles.
They hit WAY easier now (i.e. either auto hit or on a 3+ as opposed to auto, 4+, or 5+)

But, the real plus is in the to damage roll. I will base this on AV14.

Str 6 needed a 9 on 2d6 to make one pen. (or 10 out of 36 for .27778)
Now, you get half your attacks, but hit more often. Additionally, you are now STR 10 needing a 5+ to pen (re-rollable). Now you have a .3333 chance rerollable to pen on each hit.

So, the answer is it depends on the STR of the MC. Some got better. Some got worse.

timetowaste85 wrote:Monsters are worse against land raiders-half attacks at S10, only a single D6 as opposed to last edition, which was typically S7ish (carnies n BTs) +2D6 at full attacks. Last edition the strong monsters were better, this edition all monsters are the same. My BTs last edition hit tanks at S9, plus 2D6. Hurts more than S10+D6 at half attacks.
Edit-they are more likely to hit now, less likely to wound.

Most MC's in 5e are better than MC's in 6e, assuming you're hitting immobile vehicles. I always made sure that my vehicles had moved at least a bit and usually over 6" meaning that those MC's only hit on 6's. So against any vehicle that moved over 6" you're getting at least twice as many hits. Also remember that Smash allows you to re-roll failed penetration roll if you wish.

S7 A5 MC in 5e and 6e, trying to kill LR
LR immobile
5e: 0.83 glance, 2.08 pen
6e: 0.75 glance, 1.5 pen
LR moving max 6"
5e: 0.42 glance, 1.04 pen
6e: 0.5 glance, 1 pen
LR moving over 6"
5e: 0.14 glance, 0.35 pen
6e: 0.5 glance, 1 pen

So against slow moving target, S7 A5 MC has basically save power as before, assuming odd amount of attacks.

Still function just like it used to, delivering troops into the fray while laying down decent amount of firepower.
The closest thing to compare to is a Storm Raven (For GK and BA anyway), which might kill your whole squad if it blows up unless it hovers.

Saturate with a couple more av 13 facings and try to keep your land raiders in the mid field or further back. There may be less melta out there but gauss, haywire and close combat are more spooky. Armor value and hull points get more valuable the farther away you are. Those guns will work harder for you too the less time you spend rushing forward. It may also be nifty to have a couple tech marines trying to do some improved regeneration.

Land raiders remain a really dorky unit though. It's pretty clunky these days, it's sort of hard to work with for what it costs, but it's always had its uses. The "better way" I describe above for land raiders may not even be worth it, because, at the end of the day, what are a couple of accurate lascannon shots and a durable troop bunker really doing for you? I guess they make target priority really frustrating vs your autolas