Let's Talk Land Raiders (Poll)

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.

**LunarSol**

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.

**Mmmpi**

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.

**cuda1179**

I have several armies with LandRaiders:

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.

**xeen**

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

**Racerguy180**

Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Lowering the cost is the easiest fix.

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.

**Stormonu**

Gotta say I’m a bit surprised that the Land Raider truly isn’t seeing a lot of use - almost 60% as of this post don’t use it in game.

The “fixes” people have been suggesting don’t sound like they’d be major overhauls either.

Is there somewhere to make official suggestions to GW? Would it be the Warhammer Community site somewhere?

**Martel732**

Cheaper is usually better in 8th. Table coverage matters. Not losing hundreds of points to a few lucky or unlucky rolls matters.

**Reemule**

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.

**Martel732**

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.

**Reemule**

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?

Did I miss anything?

**Martel732**

I didn't say any of that.

And knights don't contest worth a damn.

Most lists can kill 2 knights in a game. That's enough. Knights put S5 over S4 at a real premium, sure.

**Ice_can**

Reemule wrote:
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.

**Reemule**

To tie this back into the OP's question...

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.

**Martel732**

But what did the land raider do to the IKs? Probably very little, relative to its cost.

**LunarSol**

I think shooting into combat is the right fix. T9 is probably a good idea as well.

**Unit1126PLL**

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**

It's not 50% more durable vs a lascannon shot. Saving on a 5 vs a 6 affects the overall probability a small amount.

**Unit1126PLL**

Martel732 wrote:
It's not 50% more durable vs a lascannon shot. Saving on a 5 vs a 6 affects the overall probability a small amount.

Oh, you're right.

It's "only" 20% more durable, which considering it was exactly as durable from the front in older editions is still quite the buff.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's not 50% more durable vs a lascannon shot. Saving on a 5 vs a 6 affects the overall probability a small amount.

Oh, you're right.

It's "only" 20% more durable, which considering it was exactly as durable from the front in older editions is still quite the buff.

Yeah heaven forbid the transport be durable enough for the cost that it can deliver its already expensive itself cargo.

**Unit1126PLL**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's not 50% more durable vs a lascannon shot. Saving on a 5 vs a 6 affects the overall probability a small amount.

Oh, you're right.

It's "only" 20% more durable, which considering it was exactly as durable from the front in older editions is still quite the buff.

Yeah heaven forbid the transport be durable enough for the cost that it can deliver its already expensive itself cargo.

Based on this thread, the Land Raider's durability isn't its worst problem.

**Reemule**

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.

**leopard**

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

**Slayer-Fan123**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's not 50% more durable vs a lascannon shot. Saving on a 5 vs a 6 affects the overall probability a small amount.

Oh, you're right.

It's "only" 20% more durable, which considering it was exactly as durable from the front in older editions is still quite the buff.

Yeah heaven forbid the transport be durable enough for the cost that it can deliver its already expensive itself cargo.

Based on this thread, the Land Raider's durability isn't its worst problem.

Honestly all those factors are pretty equal in my book when the model is as expensive as is.

**Ice_can**

Reemule wrote:
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

**Stormonu**

Ice_can wrote:
Reemule wrote:
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

**Insectum7**

2CP Power of the Machine Spirit

A Landraider may immediately fire again.

**Slayer-Fan123**

2CP is correct for a firing twice Strategem but Land Raiders already have unremarkable firepower. Make that 1CP and we would be talking.

**Insectum7**

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**

Insectum7 wrote:
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**

^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.