Why does everyone despise the Land Raider?

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.

**nareik**

I think part of the problem is that 'Heavy' fails to serve as an intermediary between regular vehicles and super heavy vehicles.

For stuff that is at the top end of regular vehicles (or the bottom end of super heavy) such as Land Raider variants (which literally straddle this divide, as aka_mythos points out), 'Heavy' should fill this role.

Instead the 'Heavy' rule just means slow and ungainly.

**BBAP**

Jefffar wrote:
Since Tau lost the ability to spam Strength 10 shots, I've hated the Land Raider.

But I haven't tried out a Stormsurge yet.

I'd imagine they'll smush a Land Raider just fine with a couple of Markerlights. Last time I played mine it was wrecked by Super Saiyan Riptide cannons.

**oldzoggy**

meh the issue isn't really the traditional single shot S10 thiniges. Its things like grav, all other cheap high rate of fire kill all guns and the insane fast and hard hitting modern close combat squats. An average Tau army is more than capable of evaporating multiple landraides in a shooting phase.

It isn't just the landraider all the units who haven't really changed since 5th in points and rules are just totally out competed right now.

What makes landraiders worse than most other of those units is that it is such a large part of your army.

**Rosebuddy**

It's funny how the Land Raider would be improved by removing weapons from it.

Nevelon wrote:
BBAP wrote:
It's not power creep. Even in 5th, when vehicles were at the height of their power, Land Raiders sucked. It's main problem, I think, is that it was designed 20-odd years ago and as far as I'm aware its rules haven't changed in all that time even though the game has evolved. I don't think its points cost has either.

Yes and no.

In the 3rd edition codex they were mostly the same. Just the basic LR, as the LRR/C weren’t around yet. 250 points, 2xTLLC, TLHB. No PotMS, and also no smoke/searchlight; those had to be purchased separately. No option for the MM, Not an assault vehicle, but that wasn’t an issue then IIRC. You could however take dozer blades as well as smoke/lights/HKs/SBs. Which helped with the getting stuck on a bush issue.

4th was much the same (still at 250), with the inclusion of the assault ramp and PotMS (which worked differently). 4th also saw the LRC introduced. It came stock with the MM and extra armor, at 265. Only held 15 guys. Could still take dozer blades

5th was much like today’s LR, but with a 12 man capacity. Also introduced the LRR. No more dozer blades, but free smoke and searchlights.

6th-7th we are all familiar with.

I thought the Crusader variant was first introduced for Black Templars in their 3rd edition codex. I do remember that when it was introduced everyone thought it was obviously better than the base LR due to having more specialised firepower and more room for dudes. I think people still preferred rhinos and razorbacks, though, not the least because the mixed metal/plastic kit had a multimelta that was a real pain to put together.

**Stormonu**

Is the Crusader variant some sort of Tardis? How can it possibly hold more troops than the regular LR?

**Nevelon**

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's funny how the Land Raider would be improved by removing weapons from it.
I thought the Crusader variant was first introduced for Black Templars in their 3rd edition codex. I do remember that when it was introduced everyone thought it was obviously better than the base LR due to having more specialised firepower and more room for dudes. I think people still preferred rhinos and razorbacks, though, not the least because the mixed metal/plastic kit had a multimelta that was a real pain to put together.

You are correct. I was just being lazy and pulled the full codexes from my shelf for reference, and didn’t bother with riffling through old WDs or Codex:Armageadon.

But the LRC from the BT section of C:A was 255 points. Came stock with the normal guns, plus the MM, extra armor, and the frag launchers. Had to pay extra for the whistles and bells (including a dozer blade). 15 man capacity. No PotMS, but did heave a special rule where you could fire the hurricanes regardless of how far you moved or other weapons you shot. BT could take as many as they could fit into the FOC, other chapters could only take 1 in an army.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormonu wrote:
Is the Crusader variant some sort of Tardis? How can it possibly hold more troops than the regular LR?

The fluff reason was that the generators powering the Godhammers take up a lot of space. So by taking them out, there was more room inside for troops.

**Formosa**

For me it breaks down like this.

Land raider 250pts for a 190pts model

Terminator 175pts for a 130pt unit

Both are heavily over costed for what they bring, which is not that much really.

How I'd fix it.

All twin lascannon get 2 shots and the twin heavy bolter gets 6

Add to that that all vehicles can target each weapon at a different unit if you wish.

All terminator get 2 wound and go up to 200pts again.

**NivlacSupreme**

People always complain that points costs are skewed. War is very rarely fair.

**Nevelon**

NivlacSupreme wrote:
People always complain that points costs are skewed. War is very rarely fair.

Wargames should be. It’s OK for them to be asynchronous, It’s fine to have rock/paper/scissor balance. Every unit is not going to excel in every role. But if you have a point based games, the points should be relevant, and provide a balance. You should get what you pay for, in a relative manner.

**Martel732**

NivlacSupreme wrote:
People always complain that points costs are skewed. War is very rarely fair.

That's not a valid argument when i can actively avoid overcosted units in army selection.

**CrownAxe**

NivlacSupreme wrote:
People always complain that points costs are skewed. War is very rarely fair.

This isn't war. We're playing a table top game

**Table**

Never played with a land raider. But I have blown up a few. Terrible tank for its cost. Low transport capacity and las cannons on a av 14 shell is not worth the price. AV 14 is not what it used to be with all of the melta access most armies get and add lance USR on top of it and its a relic of bygone era. GW just has not caught up yet.

**pm713**

Table wrote:
Never played with a land raider. But I have blown up a few. Terrible tank for its cost. Low transport capacity and las cannons on a av 14 shell is not worth the price. AV 14 is not what it used to be with all of the melta access most armies get and add lance USR on top of it and its a relic of bygone era. GW just has not caught up yet.

Since when is a Land Raiders capacity low....

**Martel732**

I wish it were lower. That way, fewer models end up stranded.

**pm713**

You could just use less models...

**Martel732**

pm713 wrote:
You could just use less models...

Was being a smartass.

**Dakka Wolf**

Martel732 wrote:
pm713 wrote:
You could just use less models...

Was being a smartass.

He is too.
I'd probably forgive the cost if it could carry Jump or Bike units.

**Martel732**

Ah, okay. Insert the Fry with narrowed eyes meme here.

**AnomanderRake**

pm713 wrote:
Table wrote:
Never played with a land raider. But I have blown up a few. Terrible tank for its cost. Low transport capacity and las cannons on a av 14 shell is not worth the price. AV 14 is not what it used to be with all of the melta access most armies get and add lance USR on top of it and its a relic of bygone era. GW just has not caught up yet.

Since when is a Land Raiders capacity low....

He's talking about the normal one with 10-model transport that can't haul a squad and an IC.

**Table**

pm713 wrote:
Table wrote:
Never played with a land raider. But I have blown up a few. Terrible tank for its cost. Low transport capacity and las cannons on a av 14 shell is not worth the price. AV 14 is not what it used to be with all of the melta access most armies get and add lance USR on top of it and its a relic of bygone era. GW just has not caught up yet.

Since when is a Land Raiders capacity low....

When you look at other transport options. Such as the Spartan. I could make a list, but yea, you can look it up

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnomanderRake wrote:
pm713 wrote:
Table wrote:
Never played with a land raider. But I have blown up a few. Terrible tank for its cost. Low transport capacity and las cannons on a av 14 shell is not worth the price. AV 14 is not what it used to be with all of the melta access most armies get and add lance USR on top of it and its a relic of bygone era. GW just has not caught up yet.

Since when is a Land Raiders capacity low....

He's talking about the normal one with 10-model transport that can't haul a squad and an IC.

This as well. I guess my chaos bias is showing. Seeing as thats all we get.