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.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I remember coming into 40k after playing DoW back on my lenovo PC, and thinking that LR's were these super-OP behemoths that could literally take down anything and never die. Now jump almost 20 years later and think, why does this even exist? It's kinda hilariously bad. For the cost you could do so much more.

It really the transport capacity that is the problem. They charge to much for it. Plus like I pointed out. Expensive targets without invune saves (or a special survivability mechanic) are insanely bad no mater what they are.

GW is going to have to introduce a rule that ignores up to certain point of AP to better emulate the kind of 'immunity' vehicles had to small arms fire.

Reducing the efficacy of dedicated anti-AV weapons (via introduction of Sv++ to vehicles in question) is only going to tilt the meta towards focusing on weight of dice over quality of shots.

Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?

I would think giving LR invul is like giving a mouse a cookie.

If LR gets invul, then you're going to need to give invuls to all equivalent units. Once these units get tougher, then all units that are above LR's tier will ask for invul too. Once you give these units invul, then all the units that already had invul is going to ask for better invul saves. If you give these units better invul saves, then LR's are going to want better invul too. So then you give LR's better invul saves. Then the units that are aboe LR's tier is going to ask for better invul saves too! Then, if you give these units better invul saves, then the units that already had invul saves that already received better invul saves is going to want something even better! Then these units are going to get a FNP. Then LR's are going to ask for FNP too! After all, hunky warmachine MUST have better save mechanics than a measly infantry unit relying on invul saves! Then guess what the units above LR's tier is going to want?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?

An invuln save of what? You could give it a 5++ but since the LR has a 2+ save it saves a Lascannon on a 5+ anyways. You'd be better off making it ignore the first point of AP or something. I don't want an invuln on the LR.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?

An invuln save of what? You could give it a 5++ but since the LR has a 2+ save it saves a Lascannon on a 5+ anyways. You'd be better off making it ignore the first point of AP or something. I don't want an invuln on the LR.

Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc.

@Xeno: We don't want to give those ugly Repulsive Executioners an invul, it would make it harder for me to beautify the game by reducing two of them a turn into burning slag with my Hellforged Fellblade. Nothing makes a table look better than removing two of those things from it and leaving the prettiest tank in all of 40k sitting in the middle of it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc...

I kind of like the results I got from using damage reduction (like the Wave Serpent, but minimum 0 and applied to most vehicles/monsters) as the "armour" stat in one of my homebrew projects.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc...

I kind of like the results I got from using damage reduction (like the Wave Serpent, but minimum 0 and applied to most vehicles/monsters) as the "armour" stat in one of my homebrew projects.

Wouldn't that negate the whole "anything can wound anything on a 6" thing gw did with the new wounding table? Not saying I don't like it, just that it isn't the direction gw seems to be going.

That rule is one of the worst changes in 8th.

Right now, the question is this: Is it a transport or a main battle tank?

The answer is "Yes".

What you need to do is approach the fundamental aspects of a Land Raider and turn it into either a transport *or* a tank.

For example.

Let's say you make Land Raider Shield, which is a transport, and Land Raider Sword, a tank.

Shield can hold 12 Marines, or 6 Terminators, giving it a full squad of vets and an HQ to lead them. It has the high Toughness, great armor save, and wounds to get you there, but isn't armed all that well. Probably a multimelta (for opening a hole in bulkheads, to pour your cargo into) and a pair of anti-infantry weapons (Heavy flamrs, hurricane bolters, etc) to clear out chafe so that the big boys have a clear path. Give it the Assault key so that troops can come out after it moves, give it a cost of 10 per wound + guns, good to go.

Sword has no transport capability, but is bristling with firepower. Twin lascannons or multimelts on the side, twin heavy bolters or heavy flamer on the front, a pintel-mounted storm bolter, maybe a couple of other weapons, like frag airburst launchers, for point defense, and top it off with a turret that has some nastybad in there, like another twin las, a heavy plasma, or SOMEthing. Again, costs around 10 per wound, plus guns.

If you really want, you can make a third, Land Raider Spear, with the standard 10/5 transport and weapons between Sword and Shield, but it'll not be taken as much due to not being as dedicated as the other two.

But it'd require a new kit with the options and a radial reformation of points to get there.

As it stands?

Well, mine looks pretty on the shelf...

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc...

I kind of like the results I got from using damage reduction (like the Wave Serpent, but minimum 0 and applied to most vehicles/monsters) as the "armour" stat in one of my homebrew projects.

Wouldn't that negate the whole "anything can wound anything on a 6" thing gw did with the new wounding table? Not saying I don't like it, just that it isn't the direction gw seems to be going.

That was part of the point, yes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc...

I kind of like the results I got from using damage reduction (like the Wave Serpent, but minimum 0 and applied to most vehicles/monsters) as the "armour" stat in one of my homebrew projects.

Wouldn't that negate the whole "anything can wound anything on a 6" thing gw did with the new wounding table? Not saying I don't like it, just that it isn't the direction gw seems to be going.

That was part of the point, yes.

Like I said, I wasn't saying I don't like it (I do), just gw seems to want massed lasguns to be able to plink off a wound or two from big stuff for some reason.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just give it a dang invune save. It is not that complicated. It's a LR and you pay a tone of points for it. It should have an invune save. Heck even a crappy terminator has an invune save. Why would the iron-bulwark specifically designed to transport them be less durable to anti tank weapons?

An invuln save of what? You could give it a 5++ but since the LR has a 2+ save it saves a Lascannon on a 5+ anyways. You'd be better off making it ignore the first point of AP or something. I don't want an invuln on the LR.

Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc.

Oh yeah, T9 would be a pretty nice move to make it tough without an invuln. Cron Monolith could use T9. Either that or a special rule to make them immune to small arms in the way that AV 14 all around used to be.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
@Xeno: We don't want to give those ugly Repulsive Executioners an invul, it would make it harder for me to beautify the game by reducing two of them a turn into burning slag with my Hellforged Fellblade. Nothing makes a table look better than removing two of those things from it and leaving the prettiest tank in all of 40k sitting in the middle of it.

I approve this message. At least the Repulsive part. I'm kinda meh on the Fellblade.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...Land Raiders should be T9. As usual, fw did a better job than gw when representing heavy armour when they gave the Hellforged/relic super heavys the T9 2+ profile. It's better against weapons like lascannons and melta but lets actual anti-tank weapons work. That way you need to actually use anti-tank weapons instead of high ROF low strength D2 stuff. There are too many invuls in the game already. Give people a reason to use all those S10 railguns, demolisher cannons, Fire Prisms, etc...

I kind of like the results I got from using damage reduction (like the Wave Serpent, but minimum 0 and applied to most vehicles/monsters) as the "armour" stat in one of my homebrew projects.

Wouldn't that negate the whole "anything can wound anything on a 6" thing gw did with the new wounding table? Not saying I don't like it, just that it isn't the direction gw seems to be going.

That was part of the point, yes.

Like I said, I wasn't saying I don't like it (I do), just gw seems to want massed lasguns to be able to plink off a wound or two from big stuff for some reason.

That is probably because knights can be played as a stand alone faction.

ERJAK wrote:
Having played plenty of games of 9th at this point, I can honestly tell you that allowing everyone to disembark after moving would more effectively break the game than reverting the Ironhands nerfs.

The problem is that while Land Raiders are still pretty crap, transports in general are VERY good in 9th and allowing all infantry to pull impulsor shenanigans would likely result in the average game ending bottom of 2 with both armies as steaming craters in the center of the board.

I am sure you are correct. Like I said, Youtube has been saying Transports are good in 9th. I also have a very bad track record making good use of transports no matter the game system.

Sterling191 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

OH. Those guys. You have an entire turn 1 to wipe them off the table with the rest of your army, unless they've brought back turn-1 Deep Strike.

If you're not on planet bowling ball, that's a far taller order than you think.

I can attest - very difficult - especially when they're not the ones on the objective but positioned well enough to screw everything over.

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
The little I hear from Youtube seems to think transports are going to be in for 9th edition. That said, I am not confident that Land Raiders are making a comeback. I think for my little meta (assuming it hasn't changed in the last 6 months) the Land Raider (or my Chaos Land Raider) could be frightening. Of course, my meta has las Predators being pretty good. So hardly a good litmus test for what is optimal and what isn't.

I can agree that toward the end of 8th, Deep Striking was getting trickier and trickier to pull off. My area was very good at screening out the parts of the table they didn't want their opponent to drop on to. Not to mention the race to the bottom unit point costs. Now for 9th edition, I suppose it all depends on your area desire to play on minimum table sizes or stay at 6'x4' as to whether Deep Strike is going more or less of an option for Deep Striking Terminators vs. Land Raider.

Me, I would very much like if all Transports allowed units to disembark after movement with some even allowing charging after disembarking. I think the Land Raider would be a prime candidate for that. I envision 9th edition tables having far more terrain than 8th making transport move distances not as appealing already. Not to mention, those giant metal bawkes have less space to maneuver. If I remember correctly, 9th ed mission often shave of a turn for each player meaning having units wait inside mobile bunkers a round is even less appealing.

So, I don't know. I would like them to be good, but I kinda doubt it.

Having played plenty of games of 9th at this point, I can honestly tell you that allowing everyone to disembark after moving would more effectively break the game than reverting the Ironhands nerfs.

The problem is that while Land Raiders are still pretty crap, transports in general are VERY good in 9th and allowing all infantry to pull impulsor shenanigans would likely result in the average game ending bottom of 2 with both armies as steaming craters in the center of the board.

If this is true then wouldn't it make sense to remove that rule from the Impulsor? If it's bad for other factions then it's bad for loyalists as well.

Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
@Xeno: We don't want to give those ugly Repulsive Executioners an invul, it would make it harder for me to beautify the game by reducing two of them a turn into burning slag with my Hellforged Fellblade. Nothing makes a table look better than removing two of those things from it and leaving the prettiest tank in all of 40k sitting in the middle of it.

I approve this message. At least the Repulsive part. I'm kinda meh on the Fellblade.

Eh, I guess great minds can't always think alike.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

OH. Those guys. You have an entire turn 1 to wipe them off the table with the rest of your army, unless they've brought back turn-1 Deep Strike.

If you're not on planet bowling ball, that's a far taller order than you think.

I can attest - very difficult - especially when they're not the ones on the objective but positioned well enough to screw everything over.

Yes, I could see how 30 T4 3+ wounds sitting in cover could be....problematic.

the invuln is an option that gets you no weapons other than a stormbolter & you pay points for as a piece of wargear.

if you paid points for an invuln and there were restrictions on how many you could give out, I think there would be less problems.

The LR is still too expensive, and can't decide on what's its role. Deathguard is probably the only faction that can make it survivable enough for its points because DG can spend 2 CP to give it disgustingly resilient. But even then, it still has its other problems.

A Land Raider isn't worth more than 180 points with the absolute dogshit profile it's had for the last like 20 years.

The transport capacity should be at least 20 for the points it currently costs. Imagine claiming to care about balance yet thinking its okay for a troop transport to have the same transportation capacity for decades despite the relative army sizes in the game going up by at least 60%.

edit- The cope in this thread is adorable. "w-well if you d-don't play waac tfg list it's pretty good!" No it isn't lmao. In every fluffy play-what-you-want game I've seen since the start of 8th Land Raiders have never lasted past the first turn without being destroyed or crippled. You have to actively go out of your way to take a terrible list to not be able to pop land raiders with how much lethality is in this game.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A Land Raider isn't worth more than 180 points with the absolute dogshit profile it's had for the last like 20 years.

The transport capacity should be at least 20 for the points it currently costs. Imagine claiming to care about balance yet thinking its okay for a troop transport to have the same transportation capacity for decades despite the relative army sizes in the game going up by at least 60%.

edit- The cope in this thread is adorable. "w-well if you d-don't play waac tfg list it's pretty good!" No it isn't lmao. In every fluffy play-what-you-want game I've seen since the start of 8th Land Raiders have never lasted past the first turn without being destroyed or crippled. You have to actively go out of your way to take a terrible list to not be able to pop land raiders with how much lethality is in this game.

180 pts? Well sheeeet. Maybe lets make it free?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A Land Raider isn't worth more than 180 points with the absolute dogshit profile it's had for the last like 20 years.

The transport capacity should be at least 20 for the points it currently costs. Imagine claiming to care about balance yet thinking its okay for a troop transport to have the same transportation capacity for decades despite the relative army sizes in the game going up by at least 60%.

edit- The cope in this thread is adorable. "w-well if you d-don't play waac tfg list it's pretty good!" No it isn't lmao. In every fluffy play-what-you-want game I've seen since the start of 8th Land Raiders have never lasted past the first turn without being destroyed or crippled. You have to actively go out of your way to take a terrible list to not be able to pop land raiders with how much lethality is in this game.

Are you a Kellermorph? Because you came out guns blazing from A Perfect Ambush with that post with more shots than two hands can accomplish.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A Land Raider isn't worth more than 180 points with the absolute dogshit profile it's had for the last like 20 years.

The transport capacity should be at least 20 for the points it currently costs. Imagine claiming to care about balance yet thinking its okay for a troop transport to have the same transportation capacity for decades despite the relative army sizes in the game going up by at least 60%.

edit- The cope in this thread is adorable. "w-well if you d-don't play waac tfg list it's pretty good!" No it isn't lmao. In every fluffy play-what-you-want game I've seen since the start of 8th Land Raiders have never lasted past the first turn without being destroyed or crippled. You have to actively go out of your way to take a terrible list to not be able to pop land raiders with how much lethality is in this game.

Are you a Kellermorph? Because you came out guns blazing from A Perfect Ambush with that post with more shots than two hands can accomplish.

to put it into perspective a wave serpent is 150pts with twin shuriken cannon and nothing else..

The only way it would justify, is if you are playing a list that wants to be super aggressive, rush out on to the midboard and camp there, and you are so resilient you are not afraid of the shooting that will come your way.

So, like if you have a whole bunch of grey knight terminators sitting in a LR that turn 1 rushes onto the midboard objective. So now, the opponent has a hard time stopping you from scoring VP at the top of turn 2, because he has to first pop that LR, and then even if he does, now he has to kill off all the ob sec terminators that are sitting on the objective.

This assumes 2 things.

1) that you do get first turn, or at least your opponent is slow or unable to block you from rushing that LR up.

2) That your opponent does not have the shooting firepower to kill a LR plus the troops in it.

Both are somewhat questionable assumptions...

Grey knights can possibly pull it off, only because they can also use psychic to teleport other units onto the objective. So its a case of them literally moving most of their army onto the midboard and challenging their opponent to shoot them off.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Yes, I could see how 30 T4 3+ wounds sitting in cover could be....problematic.

Worse than that - he'll give them T5 or -1 to be hit while also in cover.

I'm seriously considering a Contemptor w/ Butcher Cannons, because even if I kill four models it's so rare for him to fail morale. But knowing him he's more than happy to drop 2 CP to make them stick. Never under estimate the importance of a single model - especially late game.

 Argive wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A Land Raider isn't worth more than 180 points with the absolute dogshit profile it's had for the last like 20 years.

The transport capacity should be at least 20 for the points it currently costs. Imagine claiming to care about balance yet thinking its okay for a troop transport to have the same transportation capacity for decades despite the relative army sizes in the game going up by at least 60%.

edit- The cope in this thread is adorable. "w-well if you d-don't play waac tfg list it's pretty good!" No it isn't lmao. In every fluffy play-what-you-want game I've seen since the start of 8th Land Raiders have never lasted past the first turn without being destroyed or crippled. You have to actively go out of your way to take a terrible list to not be able to pop land raiders with how much lethality is in this game.

Are you a Kellermorph? Because you came out guns blazing from A Perfect Ambush with that post with more shots than two hands can accomplish.

to put it into perspective a wave serpent is 150pts with twin shuriken cannon and nothing else..

My comment is less about the meat of the post and more about the hot fire from fannin' the hammer of it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Can't speak for you Corpse Worshippers but my Hellforged Achilles will definitely be getting dusted off once those new rules for multi-meltas drop. Eight S8, -4AP, D6 shots, and a mortal wound spitting LOS ignoring Soulburner Bombard on a T8, 2+, 4++, 19W chassis sounds pretty good. Especially with six of those soon to be 2W Chosen loaded up with plasma along for the ride.

The difference maker I see there is 4++ Give Landraiders a 4++ and you'll see a ton more of them even without the Multimeltas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
The little I hear from Youtube seems to think transports are going to be in for 9th edition. That said, I am not confident that Land Raiders are making a comeback. I think for my little meta (assuming it hasn't changed in the last 6 months) the Land Raider (or my Chaos Land Raider) could be frightening. Of course, my meta has las Predators being pretty good. So hardly a good litmus test for what is optimal and what isn't.

I can agree that toward the end of 8th, Deep Striking was getting trickier and trickier to pull off. My area was very good at screening out the parts of the table they didn't want their opponent to drop on to. Not to mention the race to the bottom unit point costs. Now for 9th edition, I suppose it all depends on your area desire to play on minimum table sizes or stay at 6'x4' as to whether Deep Strike is going more or less of an option for Deep Striking Terminators vs. Land Raider.

Me, I would very much like if all Transports allowed units to disembark after movement with some even allowing charging after disembarking. I think the Land Raider would be a prime candidate for that. I envision 9th edition tables having far more terrain than 8th making transport move distances not as appealing already. Not to mention, those giant metal bawkes have less space to maneuver. If I remember correctly, 9th ed mission often shave of a turn for each player meaning having units wait inside mobile bunkers a round is even less appealing.

So, I don't know. I would like them to be good, but I kinda doubt it.

People think transports are coming back because they think bikes are coming back(and theyre probably right), and Rhino Rush was paired with the last bike meta. I suspect in a the next few editions we're going to see the boards have pre-placed terrain that comes in the starter box - they're including scenery in more boxes Kill Team, these new starter sets, game board + terrain sets, etc. I'd guess by 11th or 12th we'll see the missions already have terrain placed on a grid lined map showing you were to put the terrain.

Breton wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Can't speak for you Corpse Worshippers but my Hellforged Achilles will definitely be getting dusted off once those new rules for multi-meltas drop. Eight S8, -4AP, D6 shots, and a mortal wound spitting LOS ignoring Soulburner Bombard on a T8, 2+, 4++, 19W chassis sounds pretty good. Especially with six of those soon to be 2W Chosen loaded up with plasma along for the ride.

The difference maker I see there is 4++ Give Landraiders a 4++ and you'll see a ton more of them even without the Multimeltas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
The little I hear from Youtube seems to think transports are going to be in for 9th edition. That said, I am not confident that Land Raiders are making a comeback. I think for my little meta (assuming it hasn't changed in the last 6 months) the Land Raider (or my Chaos Land Raider) could be frightening. Of course, my meta has las Predators being pretty good. So hardly a good litmus test for what is optimal and what isn't.

I can agree that toward the end of 8th, Deep Striking was getting trickier and trickier to pull off. My area was very good at screening out the parts of the table they didn't want their opponent to drop on to. Not to mention the race to the bottom unit point costs. Now for 9th edition, I suppose it all depends on your area desire to play on minimum table sizes or stay at 6'x4' as to whether Deep Strike is going more or less of an option for Deep Striking Terminators vs. Land Raider.

Me, I would very much like if all Transports allowed units to disembark after movement with some even allowing charging after disembarking. I think the Land Raider would be a prime candidate for that. I envision 9th edition tables having far more terrain than 8th making transport move distances not as appealing already. Not to mention, those giant metal bawkes have less space to maneuver. If I remember correctly, 9th ed mission often shave of a turn for each player meaning having units wait inside mobile bunkers a round is even less appealing.

So, I don't know. I would like them to be good, but I kinda doubt it.

People think transports are coming back because they think bikes are coming back(and theyre probably right), and Rhino Rush was paired with the last bike meta. I suspect in a the next few editions we're going to see the boards have pre-placed terrain that comes in the starter box - they're including scenery in more boxes Kill Team, these new starter sets, game board + terrain sets, etc. I'd guess by 11th or 12th we'll see the missions already have terrain placed on a grid lined map showing you were to put the terrain.

Well, the lists I play are capable of blowing up 1 forgefiend, 2 hellbrutes with a 5++, 1 lascannon squad and a bike squad all in one turn. So ... I honestly don't know ...

Also, the question is, if you just want to deliver a veteran squad or chosen squad into multi melta range, then why not just put them in strategic reserve? Seems like a much safer surefire way to deliver them as opposed to sticking them into a LR.

I do love the LR because it was an icon for space marines.

The Achilles with Iron Hands is rather nice in my testing, but I'm not a tournament player.

19 Wounds with a T8 2+ 4++ 6+++ with repairs each turn. Add in main gun and Multi meltas it runs great next to my Stormraven as two things moving around that draw fire while Intercessors, Outriders and double Invictor Warsuits challenge for points.