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.

You would neither outshoot me nor out assault me with a LR+terminators in your list. That I can assure you of. As I said in the other thread, the LR is largely a non-sequitur.

Good luck with your boltguns/heavy bolters against WS and fast preds.

Like I said i play orks entirely now. But I did have a LR and a lot of termies when i played marines and I always made them work for me, im sorry you haven't figured out how to best utilize them but you will find a way one day if you keep experimenting with them and above all the best tip I can give you is have fun with the game not try to win every single time. (easy to say as an ork player )

I always try to win.

then your either very competitive or a WAAC player who I wouldn't want to play with. It's called a game for a reason, your supposed to enjoy playing it.

So you don't play with people who like to win?

We all play to try and win, but we don't even try to play if we aren't going to have fun. Twice in the last year we have asked players to either change their play style or find a new venue to play in because of their aggressive/argumentative play style that resulted in people complaining about them.

There's a world of difference between aggressive and argumentative.

I don't have fun against Eldar. Ever. But I have to play them to be a good sport.

My LR Vanquisher will destroy the Land raiders! Also I find the Land Raider more effective the more models they carry but it does carry more risk.

If you don't enjoy a matchup, it might be better for a 'sport' to play it, or if you're training for a tourney, but isn't it better for a 'game' to not? Let them play someone who they like to play, and you play something/someone that you'll enjoy playing?

I play different armies/lists against different people, because I know what will challenge who. Some people will want to see my 'A' game, but others don't enjoy that. Some people like playing my SM, but not my Eldar. Several Ork players, for instance, hate playing Mechdar, but when I throw down Swordwind, they have a blast. And some people just don't like playing me, so I avoid playing them.

Its a game. Why do things that aren't fun?

Bharring wrote:
If you don't enjoy a matchup, it might be better for a 'sport' to play it, or if you're training for a tourney, but isn't it better for a 'game' to not? Let them play someone who they like to play, and you play something/someone that you'll enjoy playing?

I play different armies/lists against different people, because I know what will challenge who. Some people will want to see my 'A' game, but others don't enjoy that. Some people like playing my SM, but not my Eldar. Several Ork players, for instance, hate playing Mechdar, but when I throw down Swordwind, they have a blast. And some people just don't like playing me, so I avoid playing them.

Its a game. Why do things that aren't fun?

It's just not done in my group. You play who you draw. It got to the point where no matchups were fun with the old codex, so I quit coming for a while. BA got better, but Eldar are still very frustrating. We're pretty much all "A" game all the time.

Ghazkuul wrote: im sorry you haven't figured out how to best utilize them but you will find a way one day if you keep experimenting with them and above all the best tip I can give you is have fun with the game not try to win every single time.

Ghazkuul wrote:then your either very competitive or a WAAC player who I wouldn't want to play with. It's called a game for a reason, your supposed to enjoy playing it.

I don't think any part of the OP asks you to be judgmental about anyone. It's not there. I like it when posts in a thread about making things competitive use competitiveness as a scale, instead of just telling people they are personally defective.

Martel732 wrote:Take the weapons off and drop the points to 150

365 points is still really expensive for a close combat unit that kills one thing and then dies. I don't think there is a threshold where a marine cc unit in an av14 taxi becomes good. 300 points? It is still kind of a pass.

If you have av14 4hp, I think you have to be a wave serpent. You buy it for the guns and transport a cheap ObSec squad. Not as good as a wave serpent at Maelstrom, but with split fire and heavy 2 lascannons maybe ok for some stuff. So you have to fix the guns and fix the other units in the book.

Doubling the transport capacity might help. If you have 2x units in 2x LR, and one is made useless due to a lucky pen, you should be able to load the unit into the other transport and keep moving towards the enemy. You would also be able to retreat decimated squads inside the LR to deny kill points.

It's not an enormous change but every little bit helps. Two Land Raiders then end up having some synergy together -- if one is destroyed, you have enough space to ferry the stranded squad to their destination.

Still expensive but costing is easy to adjust.

Give LR's escape hatch

I think the best way to make land raiders viable would be to give them wings.



http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y196/Bobmakenzie/BA/IMG_3535.jpg


jk

The ability to carry 20 units would definitely be nice but what would be really awesome would be if they were able to carry 2 squads as well. Then you could put 2 squads of 10 CSM in it and have them jump out to hold objectives or engage different targets.

wtnind wrote:
The ability to carry 20 units would definitely be nice but what would be really awesome would be if they were able to carry 2 squads as well. Then you could put 2 squads of 10 CSM in it and have them jump out to hold objectives or engage different targets.

Sorry, yeah. That's what I meant. 20 capacity, 4 squads even, you have a very efficient taxi that has a bit of armed utility on the field and becomes a decent alternative to drop pods, bikes or Rhinos/Razorbacks to move your teams around.

Wings are good too.

We are using this

...I am in awe of "Build-a-Land-Raider" Workshop.

Interestingly, the cheapest combination is Hurricane+Heavy Bolters, for a total of 185 points, with a transport capacity of 16 models.

I'd recommend making the twin-linked Lascannons 25 points (this is what a Predator pays for the twin-linked lascannon), and twin-linked ACs down to 20 points (Razorbacks can take twin-linked ACs for that).

Interestingly, even just configuring it into the extant patterns (Godhammer/Phobos, Crusader, Redeemer), you save 25-35 points over the current Codex costing.

As an aside, is it intended to be able to take two different sponson guns? The sentence preceding the sponson options could be interpreted to allow that (even though it's dumb).

Also, I find it interesting that the cheapest configuration is almost what the Crusader should have been- leaving the bow HB mount in place, and exchanging lascannon sponsons for Hurricane Bolters.

You should put the Ares in here. Drop transport capacity in trade for a Demolisher Cannon for the main gun.

Come to think of it, it should probably include a Whirlwind launcher as a turret option (that would be the Helios), and require that the Thunderfire Cannon/Whirlwind Launcher reduce transport capacity by 6, with a Demolisher Cannon reducing capacity to "0, cannot be increased".

Also, Typhoon MLs are, AFAIK, the primary vehicle mounted option for a higher RoF ML. Cyclones are almost exclusively used by Terminators- FW Contemptor Dreads are the only other unit that can take CMLs.

Hi Rhinosaur

Is that old 40k or did you design the list?

What is the SV 3+ used for?

Evil Party Girl wrote:
Hi Rhinosaur

Is that old 40k or did you design the list?

What is the SV 3+ used for?

I made it myself. It is a work in progress. We use a 3+ save for ground vehicles and 4+ for skimmers as a way of reducing all the glancing hits from non-anti-tank weapons. It is kind of pointless on a land raider though. With the introduction of hull points vehicles just seem to get blown away too easily by heavy bolters and scatter lasers which are meant for anti infantry.

As to everyone else - thanks for all the suggestions. Originally we were experimenting with the option for two different sponson weapons but in reality everyone has been using two of the same - they compliment each other that way.

 rhinosaur wrote:
I made it myself. It is a work in progress. We use a 3+ save for ground vehicles and 4+ for skimmers as a way of reducing all the glancing hits from non-anti-tank weapons. It is kind of pointless on a land raider though. With the introduction of hull points vehicles just seem to get blown away too easily by heavy bolters and scatter lasers which are meant for anti infantry.

I that's a great idea! Can I expand on it? Basically, give every armour facing an AV rating and a Penetration rating (2+, 3+, 4+).

Land Raiders with a 2+ front facing, but a 3+ side/rear facing, wouldn't be stronger against Lascannon or Melta but you couldn't glance them out with massed AP3 Krak from the front. In addition, it makes the points premium for anti-tank AP1/AP2 weapons more valuable rather than spamming high-volume but low AP shots to scrub HP off vehicles.

Not bad yo!

It also deals with the whole skimmers are twice as durable as regular tanks thing. And deals with ignores cover being so awesome on gravcents/waveserpents etc.

Some upgrades are required some just buff the thing to much. This thing is a moving fortress and it shouldn't cost less then 200 with all its upgrades.

It doesn't matter that it's a fortress. It's a fortress that comes to you and can be ignored once it is empty.

 rhinosaur wrote:
As to everyone else - thanks for all the suggestions. Originally we were experimenting with the option for two different sponson weapons but in reality everyone has been using two of the same - they compliment each other that way.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that your group did so, just that there absolutely exists people who are such flaming buttnuggets that they would try to weasel around such a thing. I'd recommend changing the wording to be explicitly "you MUST take two of the SAME sponson weapon", to avoid problems with such buttnuggetry.

Yoyoyo wrote:
I that's a great idea! Can I expand on it? Basically, give every armour facing an AV rating and a Penetration rating (2+, 3+, 4+).

Land Raiders with a 2+ front facing, but a 3+ side/rear facing, wouldn't be stronger against Lascannon or Melta but you couldn't glance them out with massed AP3 Krak from the front. In addition, it makes the points premium for anti-tank AP1/AP2 weapons more valuable rather than spamming high-volume but low AP shots to scrub HP off vehicles.

Not bad yo!

Massed Krak fire isn't likely to do that in the first place though- Krak Missiles (and their equivalents) are all S8, which means a 6 is needed to glance. Statistically speaking, you'll need to fire thirty-six S8/AP3 shots to glance a Land Raider to death in one turn, assuming you have the luxury of massed BS4 Krak. If you're BS3, you'll need to fire a whopping 48 shots, and at BS2 it's something like 72.

I rather feel that massed Krak is not actually a problem for a Land Raider, due to the difficulties Krak fire has in actually damaging the LR in the first place.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Some upgrades are required some just buff the thing to much. This thing is a moving fortress and it shouldn't cost less then 200 with all its upgrades.

The Ork super walker things can get a D-strength melee weapon. They shouldn't cost less than 300 points.
Battlewagons are Fast AV14 front bawkses that can hold 20 mans. They shouldn't cost less than 200 points.

I'm sure we both agree that the above two sentences are complete groxshit. The logical extension is that your own statement is equally that as well. A Land Raider with Hurricane Bolter sponsons and a twin-linked HB in the bow is not a scary thing. So it can carry 16 mans, an is AV14 on all sides? I guess it's good for you that the only useful SM assault units you can chuck into it are also ridiculously expensive by themselves anyways.

It's also worth noting that I intentionally "gamed" the posted ruleset for Build-Your-Own-LR. I purposely picked the cheapest armaments possible, to find out what I'd end up with. As something that will be used as a pure transport, 185 points for AV14/14/14, 4HPs, 16 transport capacity and an assault ramp... it's not bad. Especially when you consider that the guns aren't likely to ever be fired, and that if you want Frag Launchers (for Clawnators, who have no grenades), then it goes to 195 points. Frag Launchers are a pretty nice upgrade to have for it, and consistent with fielding a big heavy duty transport bawkse for something punchy.

If you decide to throw on EA to guarantee it arriving in the enemy's lines, then that's 200 points on top of the base HB/Hurricane configuration, 210 if you want Frag Launchers. That's perfectly reasonable for what is essentially going to be treated as an unarmed vehicle, given that the guns will probably not fire, on account of simply having it go forward as fast as possible to deliver a punchy unit of your choice.

If we permit only the extent Godhammer, Crusader, and Redeemer patterns as "legal", then it comes out as 225 points for a Godhammer or Redeemer, and 215 points for a Crusader. Both are quite obviously more than 200 points anyways, which makes you look like you didn't actually go through and hammer out a few configurations with the posted entry.

AnomanderRake wrote:You should put the Ares in here. Drop transport capacity in trade for a Demolisher Cannon for the main gun.

Ah yes, I missed that one. Looking at the predator and vindicator give the demolisher cannon a value of 60pts. Does that seem right or should it be modified because of the loss of transport? It looks like it has TL heavy flamers as well.

Whiskey144 wrote:Come to think of it, it should probably include a Whirlwind launcher as a turret option (that would be the Helios), and require that the Thunderfire Cannon/Whirlwind Launcher reduce transport capacity by 6, with a Demolisher Cannon reducing capacity to "0, cannot be increased".

Also, Typhoon MLs are, AFAIK, the primary vehicle mounted option for a higher RoF ML. Cyclones are almost exclusively used by Terminators- FW Contemptor Dreads are the only other unit that can take CMLs.

Yep, missed that one too. the transcap should be -6 for thunderfire. I guess you could still manage 10 transcap by taking the hurricanes. I am not familiar with the whirlwind launcher on a land raider. Where does it fit? it seems too big for the front turret.

It has always seemed absurd that a term who is half as big as a dreads' arm can fire two missiles and the great big dread only gets one shot. Just a house rule we have.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 rhinosaur wrote:
I made it myself. It is a work in progress. We use a 3+ save for ground vehicles and 4+ for skimmers as a way of reducing all the glancing hits from non-anti-tank weapons. It is kind of pointless on a land raider though. With the introduction of hull points vehicles just seem to get blown away too easily by heavy bolters and scatter lasers which are meant for anti infantry.

I that's a great idea! Can I expand on it? Basically, give every armour facing an AV rating and a Penetration rating (2+, 3+, 4+).

Land Raiders with a 2+ front facing, but a 3+ side/rear facing, wouldn't be stronger against Lascannon or Melta but you couldn't glance them out with massed AP3 Krak from the front. In addition, it makes the points premium for anti-tank AP1/AP2 weapons more valuable rather than spamming high-volume but low AP shots to scrub HP off vehicles.

Not bad yo!

I have toyed with the idea of different values of save for different facings. At least -1save for rear perhaps. In practice It seems best to leave the max at 3+ because AP3 is considered anti tank. Ork tank busters with tank hunter USR should be allowed to do their job.

 rhinosaur wrote:
Ah yes, I missed that one. Looking at the predator and vindicator give the demolisher cannon a value of 60pts. Does that seem right or should it be modified because of the loss of transport? It looks like it has TL heavy flamers as well.

I'd slightly reduce the price to ~40 points- the Demolisher Cannon should by far be the most expensive 'turret' mount you can stick on the Land Raider, but IMO 60 points is too much since all you're really doing is making a very expensive (though very durable) Vindicator.

 rhinosaur wrote:
Yep, missed that one too. the transcap should be -6 for thunderfire. I guess you could still manage 10 transcap by taking the hurricanes. I am not familiar with the whirlwind launcher on a land raider. Where does it fit? it seems too big for the front turret.

Check out the FW Land Raider Helios model; rather than using the bow mount, it slaps some kind of targeting/sensor device in that position, and simply mounts the Whirlwind Launcher on the vehicle's roof. It's also worth noting that both the Demolisher and Thunderfire Cannons both preclude the inclusion of an Assault Ramp- or even a forward access point, for that matter. It may be the case that the Thunderfire should be slightly cheaper, on account of the -6 capacity and the removal of the forward access point and associated assault ramp.

 rhinosaur wrote:
It has always seemed absurd that a term who is half as big as a dreads' arm can fire two missiles and the great big dread only gets one shot. Just a house rule we have.

I think you may have misunderstood me; I was merely saying that it's slightly more consistent with the current SM vehicle design for a non-walker vehicle (like the Land Raider) to use the Typhoon ML rather than the Cyclone ML, despite the fact that both weapons are literally identical in every way except the name.

That said, you do bring up an excellent point: Dreads getting a regular, single-shot ML and Terminators getting a double-tap rig is kind of silly. OTOH, there may have been a balancing reason for that, given that Dreads can also take a twin-linked Autocannon for a 2-shot S7 weapon that's, as mentioned, twin-linked.

 rhinosaur wrote:
I have toyed with the idea of different values of save for different facings. At least -1save for rear perhaps. In practice It seems best to leave the max at 3+ because AP3 is considered anti tank. Ork tank busters with tank hunter USR should be allowed to do their job.

Hmm, I didn't know that Tankbustas had the Tank Hunter USR. I'm also not sure how that affects the number shots that they'd have to fire (statistically speaking); but even then it's probably not going to be less than 36 shots fired, as that's the best-case scenario I could come up with; most SM units (or models in general, AFAIK) that can do mass S8 shots tend to lack twin-linked on the relevant weapon.

Of course, as I mentioned, even with the 3+ save being voided by AP3, massed Krak fire still takes ridiculous amounts of shots to actually kill a Land Raider via glancing.

Lythrandire Biehrellian made a vehicle creation chart. You can find it in this thread here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/634211.page. That might have what a person wants for fixing land raiders. If not, then I would just give increased troop capacity, drop their point cost, and give it an ability called "mobile assault gunship" This vehicle may move at cruising speed and fire all weapons at full BS in the shooting phase. This vehicle may disembark troops in the shooting phase. Troops disembarked in the shooting phase may not shoot, but may still charge and assault.

A crusader would have a capacity of 20 models, a redeemer would have room for 16, and a land raider godhammer would have room for 14 models. An alternate to this would be to let the land raider treat bulky and it's variants as taking up one less troop. So you could have 16 terminators in a crusader.