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.

aka_mythos wrote:
For the Alpha Legion, I'd avoid calling it "cloaking."

A tank with Infiltrate, I guess? Now there's a thought.

For a new Chaos Raider, a few new weapons need to be made just for it. Tacking on new weaposn (especially two that are largely support and optional ones, as oppose to the true heavy weapons of the Crusader and Redeemer) doesnt seem to make for a very interesting Raider.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:For a new Chaos Raider, a few new weapons need to be made just for it. Tacking on new weaposn (especially two that are largely support and optional ones, as oppose to the true heavy weapons of the Crusader and Redeemer) doesnt seem to make for a very interesting Raider.

Well its suppose to be a variant. If you want something "interesting" I think a variant is generally going to fall short. I think you cease to be a variant and end up with something else.

Another issue is that adding to a Land Raider is a iffy thing. Unless you're FW you have to appreciate that the standard Raider is already pushing the upper echelons of point costs.

Changing the weapons I think is really only the first step to making the "variant," that a small rule comparable in degree to PotMS would complete it.

undivided wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:
For the Alpha Legion, I'd avoid calling it "cloaking."

A tank with Infiltrate, I guess? Now there's a thought.

That can be justified as Alpha Legion using clandestine allies to strategically hide units before a battle... which might make a neat army rule, but not so much a Land Raider variant.

GW could easily make a kit that gave you the option of Havoc or Reaper Sponsons in one kit (Liek the Crusader/Redeemer kit). It could also include an option to replace the Hull Heavy Bolter with another Havoc.

Maybe chuck in some plastic chaos doors and details actually modelled into the hull woudl be great too.

If not then there are a couple of Bitz sites that sell the entire sponson pack for £2.50. You could buy 2 of these, 4 Havocs and Reapers and have a fully modular Chaos 'Raider.

Although I can agree that LR chaos variants (different from loyal ones) is a good idea, getting rules from FW probably makes it either too weak or too powerful.

There's all sorts of possible variations on the Land Raider hull. It just needs FW to find one they like and test it properly. Out of boredom, here's a few quick ideas of mine. No points listed as they'd be guesses at best! :

Land Raider Decimator: 14/14/14 BS4, Hull TL Heavy Bolter, 4xTL Reaper Autocannons, 2 sets per side.
Loses side door access points.
Advanced Targeting: If the LR Decimator does not move, each pair of TL Reaper Autocannons (i.e., each side of the Land Raider) may fire at different targets. The Heavy Bolter must fire at one of the two reaper autocannon targets.
Capacity: 12.

Land Raider Vortex: 14/14/14, 2xTL Lascannons side mounted.
No access points.
No transport capacity.
Possessed: Immune to Stunned/Shaken.
Warp Vortex: The Land Raider Vortex has an arcane portal mounted into it's front, allowing friendly models in reserve to enter play from the Warp Vortex as if it were a table edge. Vehicles may not use the Warp Vortex.

Land Raider Shatterer: 14/13/12, 2xHurricane Bolters side mounted.
Open Topped.
22 Transport Capacity.
Quick moving: A Land Raider Shatterer that does not fire it's weapons and moves in a straight line may move up to 24". Occupants may not disembark if this happens.
Deep Strike: A Shatterer is light enough to be attached beneath Chaos Thunderhawks. It may deep strike onto the battlefield.

I like the first 2.

even i woudl cry shenanigans on the third one.





If anyone has any to hand.....is a Reaper any longer than a Lascannon? ( i mean the actual models, not range)

What about a chaos LR that fired psychic shots? For example, if the LR is possesed it can fire Bolt of Change. Nurgles rot, etc. Side sponsons with flamer templates type of thing...

Who would want to be transported in a daemonic possessed tank that would sooner eat you? I realize that Chaos has similar sorts of upgrades, but those never really made sense and seemed more superfical possessions than what you're saying. The old rules for that sort of thing made it sealed shut and lose transport, if I remember correctly. I'm fine with the idea of more Daemon engines, but a Landraider might not be the best avenue without thought out specificity... like maybe Daemons are only bound to the sponsons or the weapons... kinda like the "Obliterator Landraider" I mentioned before.

I can see that. If a LR got "properly" Possessed it should have amzing weapons otr "extras" but lose all its transport capacity. After all, at that point it basically becomes more animal than vehicle. Thinking about it, this is probably the only time you could get away with the tank firing more weapons on the go or at different targets.

The only ones i coudl see having specific weapons per god would be Slaanesh (Sonic weapons) or Tzeentch (Inferno bolts)

The downside of this is that if you start making cult/god/demon/legion specific varients, you'll quickly end up with a HUGE list of tanks.

That excess variety is why I think it would be just an Undivided and the 4 Cult variants... usable by all chaos armies. Beyond that I think Iron Warriors are the only ones who might justify having a truely unique variant. That would put them on an equal footing in terms of quantities of variety to the Loyalists.

I do kind of like the idea of the Cult ones, on the condition that it means you HAVE to take at least one unit of that cult in the army list, or maybe have an HQ with the mark of that god.

Not sure if saying the cult transport can only carry the cult unit is going too far or not.

I like the Decimator (add on an option for Havoc sponsons, i'm in love with the idea of those now!) and the Vortex offered above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If we're lookign for an equivilant to PotMS spirit how about something about the gunnery crew being absorbed into or possessed by the tank, thus improving accuracy. This could allow you to fire one additional weapon of your choice if the tank has moved.

What about a variant that focuses purely on the assault role?

"Land Raider WRIDNHMS (we-realized-it-does-not-have-machine-spirit)": standard capacity etc., twin-linked heavy bolters + heavy bolter sponsons, costing about 190-200 points? The optimal sponson armament would be just flamers (defensive weapons rule...), but that's probably a bit too good.

How about something unorthodox? ...where the sponsons are Heavy-Combi-Bolter-Flamers.... Heavy Bolter with a single shot flamer. This might not be the best, but I think it was a good half out of the box idea.

I kind of liek the Combi idea for outside the box. Although Might be easier to just have a single Heavy Bolter in a sponson with a single Flamer.

Maybe you could choose which weapon to shoot each turn (wodl have to fire the same weapon from each sponson)

Isn't flamer defensive? I don't think that heavy bolters and flamers on sponsons are particularly scary and balanced out with a twin Reapers on the hull... I think it'd be pretty well balanced while having the right unorthodox chaos flair.

Personally, my fave so far is the Twin Reaper/Havoc sponsons with.....something in the Hull Mount. Maybe a H.Bolter as standard btu with options to replace that with another Reaper or Havoc.

I just have an image of a Chaos Land Raider rumbling accross the field spewing out dakka and rockets, then havinf Termies charge out of it.



The downside is, looking at the models last ngiht, i dont think 2 Havocs woudl fit on your normal sponson mounting. one might if you turned it on it's side though, i think. So if that is the case you coudl always put one on and make it Heavy 2 instead of Heavy 1.

Well, I think that's something like how a kit would turn out... They'd probably end up as two pods of 4 on each side of the swivel.

aka_mythos wrote:That excess variety is why I think it would be just an Undivided and the 4 Cult variants... usable by all chaos armies. Beyond that I think Iron Warriors are the only ones who might justify having a truely unique variant. That would put them on an equal footing in terms of quantities of variety to the Loyalists.

Isnt that basically what I was arguing for? =.=

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:That excess variety is why I think it would be just an Undivided and the 4 Cult variants... usable by all chaos armies. Beyond that I think Iron Warriors are the only ones who might justify having a truely unique variant. That would put them on an equal footing in terms of quantities of variety to the Loyalists.

Isnt that basically what I was arguing for? =.=

I don't think its basically the same thing just that it shares strong common elements.

I think this quote best summarizes your assertions:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:This is why Cult-specific Land Raiders or Legion specific land raiders are much more easier to come up with than generalized Undivided Raiders. Iron Warriors can concievably upgrade their Raiders with captured ordinance and heavy weapons at the expense of transport capacity...

The crucial difference being you're placing emphasis on Cult "or" Legion variants to the exclusion or marginalization of Undivided, based on ease. My point is further distinguished because I am ruling out the possibility of Legion specific variants, with the Iron Warrior exclusion, on the basis of excess variety negatively impacting the idea and characters of different legions; something you do not touch on. I'm also placing great importance on an Undivided variant being the most essential over other variants.

I agree with you in general but with some refinements to your ideas. Those refinements were what I was attempting to convey.

hence, the qualifier "basically" and not "exactly". =P

GCMandrake wrote:Land Raider Decimator: 14/14/14 BS4, Hull TL Heavy Bolter, 4xTL Reaper Autocannons, 2 sets per side.
Loses side door access points.
Advanced Targeting: If the LR Decimator does not move, each pair of TL Reaper Autocannons (i.e., each side of the Land Raider) may fire at different targets. The Heavy Bolter must fire at one of the two reaper autocannon targets.
Capacity: 12.

Land Raider Vortex: 14/14/14, 2xTL Lascannons side mounted.
No access points.
No transport capacity.
Possessed: Immune to Stunned/Shaken.
Warp Vortex: The Land Raider Vortex has an arcane portal mounted into it's front, allowing friendly models in reserve to enter play from the Warp Vortex as if it were a table edge. Vehicles may not use the Warp Vortex.

I like these two. Very cool ideas.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:hence, the qualifier "basically" and not "exactly". =P

"Basically" means that the simplest forms are the same, but the essence of my post was how my view varied from yours.

Basically, our views are different. There are commonalities but crucial, essential, and "basic" differences that exist at the root of what we each posted.

My view is much narrower than yours, because you leave open the possibility of something that I don't see as viable, while you exclude something I think is essential.

We agree on cult variants and that Iron Warriors outside of everything else deserve something unique. We disagree on the rest which is as much at the heart of this, I don't see how you can lump it all together and claim it to all be "basically" the same.

aka_mythos wrote:I agree with you in general but with some refinements to your ideas. Those refinements were what I was attempting to convey.

I think that qualifies as the "simplest forms are the same", since in your own words you refined my ideas.

Back to the topic at hand. The Decimator has some potential, but the Warp Vortex looks kinda like a rehash of the Necron Monolith minus the survivability and deepstriking ability of it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

GCMandrake wrote:

Land Raider Vortex: 14/14/14, 2xTL Lascannons side mounted.
No access points.
No transport capacity.
Possessed: Immune to Stunned/Shaken.
Warp Vortex: The Land Raider Vortex has an arcane portal mounted into it's front, allowing friendly models in reserve to enter play from the Warp Vortex as if it were a table edge. Vehicles may not use the Warp Vortex.

I wonder, if you took the doors off the front of the LR, would the plastic "portal" bt from a Necron Monolith fit in the gap? This could be a very cool variant. There woudl probably need to be some rule as to how many models can come out of the portal to stop people "transporting" massive quads across the tabel. Presumably, because the portal counts as a tabel edge, they can still assault after enterign via the portal. Also maybe make it so only Infantry can use it (so no Raptors or Bikes).

Chuck the rules on the Proposed Rules forum and get soem more feedback.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I agree with you in general but with some refinements to your ideas. Those refinements were what I was attempting to convey.

I think that qualifies as the "simplest forms are the same", since in your own words you refined my ideas.

Back to the topic at hand. The Decimator has some potential, but the Warp Vortex looks kinda like a rehash of the Necron Monolith minus the survivability and deepstriking ability of it.

Except that refinement means a distillation to a smaller constituent part which I then add to. That segment maybe the same to yours, but what I add to that very thin overlap is not the same. Since the emphasis of my statement were the differences our ideas, as a whole, are not the same, basically or otherwise. You've only insisted that as a whole our ideas are the same. They are not.

aka_mythos wrote: You've only insisted that as a whole our ideas are the same. They are not.

Again the qualifier "basically". You're now just making things up as in the first post you already said "I agree with you in general" and that we "share strong common elements". Now you're trying to make it sound like your idea was wholly different from mine despite already admitting to the general similarites. Keep your story straight without redefining every word in every post. Also your views is not that different from mine. Cult raiders and Iron Warrior Raiders (and, in my own opinion a few select legion raiders) are the only ones that wont get utterly ridiculous and unfluffy in their abilities and resulting in something akin to the Achilles being released, no? That's why Undivided ones are hard to come up with (although not impossible) since without the help of the Chaos Gods, they're effectively rehashes of whatever the Imperium had. Anything with heavy weapons turn into an IW Raider and Daemon-related Raiders can easily be lumped with the Word Bearers legion.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Again the qualifier "basically". You're now just making things up as in the first post you already said "I agree with you in general" and that we "share strong common elements". Now you're trying to make it sound like your idea was wholly different from mine despite already admitting to the general similarites. Keep your story straight without redefining every word in every post.

My story has been straight. You are implying I agree with you more than I do. I'm not trying to claim your idea as my own. I'm saying that at a point mine deviate from yours but are so crucial to the over arching theme of my post, that over saturation of variants is bad, that your discussion of my post shouldn't subdivide the ideas without specifity. That when you said my ideas were basically the same, you should have been more specific.

The distinction is that as long as my original point was about the differences between our ideas you can't claim they are the same. "I agree with you in general" but with the exception I proceeded to go into detail about. Your insistance is that as long as any part of what I say is in agreement with you they are "basically" the same, but they aren't because I make the distinction of how they aren't.

I am not trying to change what I've said, I am trying to point at the very specific distinctions between what each of our opinions are and say as basically similar they are they are as much basically different and thus on a whole are basically different.

This is highly pedantic. It is about how its spliced. Your original statment was that I basically agree with you, but I only basically agree with you on two points, not the totality of your idea with the totality of my idea.

You: X+Y+Z=R
Me: X+Y+A=C

We agree on "X." That cult specific landraiders play a part in what should happen. So our notions on that are "basically" the same.

We agree on "Y." That Iron Warriors seemingly deserve a unique choice due to their fluff. So our notions on that are "basically" the same.

On "A," undivided variant, I said it was absolutely necessary, while from what you wrote it wasn't as much. We disagree on "A".

On "Z," legion specific variants, beyond the "Y" exception, we disagree. Your original statement lay it out as a possible basis for variants, but I disagree that it really isn't a possible basis of variants due to over saturation of variants that accomplish nothing. We disagree on "Z."

I know there are other things I disagree with you on, these are just the examples off the top of my head.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Also your views is not that different from mine. Cult raiders and Iron Warrior Raiders (and, in my own opinion a few select legion raiders)...

What you're missing is that the few select legions, is a big thing I disagree with and while you have continued to post more of your opinion, my above comments have always been about distinguishing what I said in one post from what you had said before that point. Adding clarification does little to change a past point of distinction.

aka_mythos wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Again the qualifier "basically". You're now just making things up as in the first post you already said "I agree with you in general" and that we "share strong common elements". Now you're trying to make it sound like your idea was wholly different from mine despite already admitting to the general similarites. Keep your story straight without redefining every word in every post.

My story has been straight. You are implying I agree with you more than I do. I'm not trying to claim your idea as my own. I'm saying that at a point mine deviate from yours but are so crucial to the over arching theme of my post, that over saturation of variants is bad, that your discussion of my post shouldn't subdivide the ideas without specifity. That when you said my ideas were basically the same, you should have been more specific.

The distinction is that as long as my original point was about the differences between our ideas you can't claim they are the same. "I agree with you in general" but with the exception I proceeded to go into detail about. Your insistance is that as long as any part of what I say is in agreement with you they are "basically" the same, but they aren't because I make the distinction of how they aren't.

I am not trying to change what I've said, I am trying to point at the very specific distinctions between what each of our opinions are and say as basically similar they are they are as much basically different and thus on a whole are basically different.

This is highly pedantic. It is about how its spliced. Your original statment was that I basically agree with you, but I only basically agree with you on two points, not the totality of your idea with the totality of my idea.

You: X+Y+Z=R
Me: X+Y+A=C

We agree on "X." That cult specific landraiders play a part in what should happen. So our notions on that are "basically" the same.

We agree on "Y." That Iron Warriors seemingly deserve a unique choice due to their fluff. So our notions on that are "basically" the same.

On "A," undivided variant, I said it was absolutely necessary, while from what you wrote it wasn't as much. We disagree on "A".

On "Z," legion specific variants, beyond the "Y" exception, we disagree. Your original statement lay it out as a possible basis for variants, but I disagree that it really isn't a possible basis of variants due to over saturation of variants that accomplish nothing. We disagree on "Z."

I know there are other things I disagree with you on, these are just the examples off the top of my head.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Also your views is not that different from mine. Cult raiders and Iron Warrior Raiders (and, in my own opinion a few select legion raiders)...

What you're missing is that the few select legions, is a big thing I disagree with and while you have continued to post more of your opinion, my above comments have always been about distinguishing what I said in one post from what you had said before that point. Adding clarification does little to change a past point of distinction.

A.) when did I ever claim that undivided raiders wasn't as necessary? I claimed that they were hard to do. You seem hard bent on forcing the "no undivided" raider view on me.

B.) You yourself stated that we agree on 50% of the points stated, yet you're still trying to say that we have little in common, based solely on the fact that you had a quib about Iron warriors being the only exception.

C.) It was you who initially shot down my proposal for Cult-specific landraiders. Now you've effectively made the same argument I did on the cult raiders while simultaniously claiming that our arguments are completely different. Double standard much?

EDIT: You know what, I'm tired of arguing, and we've derailed the thread enough as it is. If you're so dead set on claiming that your idea has only a vague resemblance to mine then fine believe what you want, I know what I said and proposed.

Its more than resemblance but with clear distinctions.

A) The reason I don't agree on you with this is that what you keep proposing as "undivided" variants are minorly varied versions of the same vehicles you proposed as a legion specific variant... such as a evil chapel, daemonic amplifier of sorts which you proposed both as undivided and as word bearers. Although they are "undivided" I think its too much an aspect of their unique character to translate broadly into undivided.

B) It is a central point to my sentiment and one of the main reasons I even made that post. If you sat long enough you could come up with a rationale for a variant for every little subfaction, but tha doesn't always mean its justified. Given a limited need for variants and GW's limited resources if they ever chose to do anything like this some theoretical line should be drawn and given the feasible cutting off point. I feel whatever undivided variant should be relatively straight forward and preeminent to any other notions of variants.

C) The first time I responded to your idea of a cult specific raider, I said it...

aka_mythos wrote:...would be ok if GW were doing a book focusing on each cult, but it wouldn't be right in a list focused on Undivided. If I were doing cult Land Raiders I'd break it down like this...

I'm merely qualifying the situation in which I do not see cult variants appropriate, and then I proceed to consider your proposal. I wouldn't call that "shooting down," just an extension of my personal view that until GW or FW does cult specific armylists or codices that the focus of Chaos Space Marines should be on the nature of chaos undivided.