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.

Not to mention an immobilise is enough to cripple a lot of vehicles.
MCs suffer no such indignities.

 Lance845 wrote:
Martel,

We all know BA suck. They got the short end of the SM stick. The rest of the game doesn't need to be nerfed so BA feel better. BA need a mild boost to bring them more in line.

In fact, I think all the SM books need to go into a single codex and get the 30k treatment. 1 Book, all the core units. Each chapter gets it's tactics with some unique units that are in addition to or replace the base line units. If Chaos Legions can do it SM can do it.

A big part of the reason BA suck so bad is they didn't get the updates the other chapters have received. That gets fixed when they all get updated at once. BA sucking is not the metric by which the rest of the game should be judged.

Was talking about the land raider. BA sucking is only relevant to demonstrate how mind bogglingly bad the land raider is.

Martel732 wrote:


Was talking about the land raider. BA sucking is only relevant to demonstrate how mind bogglingly bad the land raider is.

Not really, the LR in that case sucks because BA suck. In a non ultra competitive game regular SM and SW can field land raiders, I've seen many times wulfen in a standard land raider that allows them to reach close combat without taking wounds in the process, or arjac shield brothers in a crusader which is a nice formation.

Many armies can't wreck a LR in the shooting phase without a huge amount of luck and the multimelta, assault cannon and las cannons mounted on the big vehicle are good weapons. If it manages to carry its passengers wherever they need to arrive or if it has the possibility to shoot for 2-3 turns before being melted in close combat the LR has done its job. In the SW codex there are several worse choices.

But also in competitive games I've taken units that are considered among the best ones from the armies that I play (only bottom or mid tiers) and sometimes they perform. I've seen ork kommandos and burnaboyz being effective, but also dark eldar incubi, wracks and mandrakes that contributed to score points. Now we all know that the LR is not among the best units in any SM chapter but it's not that stupid thing that does nothing in the entire game and/or it's wrecked turn 1.

It's probably bad played as it's not a vehicle that wins games alone, it needs to have synergy with the rest of the list, and it surely can be an average unit in the hands of an experienced player. In any SM (and specific chapters) general review LR are typically rated with 5,6,7 out of 10, not with 1, 2 or 3. Sometimes you require 10-20 bad losses in order to learn how to play a unit efficiently.

BA have drop pods, stormravens, a lot of badass units with jump packs and dreads among their best units. The LR probably doesn't have synergy with that army, I'm not sure about that as I faced BA as an opponent and never played them, but generally speaking it's not that bad.

Blackie wrote:I don't care about an "high viewpoint", I only care about a more balanced game. If a rule seems stupid but actually keeps the game more balanced is actually clever. So changing the core rules IMHO can be a good idea only if the result of that action is a more balanced game. Not a more realistic one.

The "high viewpoint" is seeing the game from more or all army perspectives, rather than from a single one. When considering many of these options, I try to consider it as a Templar, Chaos Marine, Tau, and Necron player. So a "high viewpoint" is concerned about balance.

Blackie wrote:You're scared about gauss and MCs? they're only a small part of the game. Take a land raider against orks, dark eldars, harlequins, GK, tyranids, sisters and it would probably perform, even againts good lists. Necrons have those "superscary" gauss shots, but overall SM outperform them about everything. Necrons are a mid tier army currently, relying on gauss doesn't make them overpowered at all. Grav spam SM are.

I never said I was scared, only that some fear that Glance-spam makes their Vehicle toys useless. I'm saying that certain things are unbalanced and MCs are the organic equivalent to Vehicles. This is made obvious since the Dreadknight came out and suddenly Monstrous Batlesuits joined them, while pretty close to that Chaos Marines got Walkers and a Flyer that could fit the same bill as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Not by much. A kitted out Tomb Blade squad with 5 members is 110 points. That's S5 AP4 Ignores Cover. Ain't too shabby. That 5-10 TL shots that are Gauss.
5 Marine Bikers with 2 Grav Guns and a Combi-Grav is 135 or 145 points off the top of my head.

I think anyone can tell you which one is going to fare better against the most amount of targets.

How much Tesla is taken in Troops vs Gauss? How much can a Ghost Ark put out? If there is an option for Gauss vs something else, Gauss is taken 90% of the time, with Tomb Blades and the Triarch Stalker getting most of those non-Gauss options. It is to this which I indicate that Availibility is higher for Gauss than for Grav.

 Charistoph wrote:

The "high viewpoint" is seeing the game from more or all army perspectives, rather than from a single one. When considering many of these options, I try to consider it as a Templar, Chaos Marine, Tau, and Necron player. So a "high viewpoint" is concerned about balance.

This is where I disagree mostly. I don't think about all armies, only the weakest ones. Making the game more balanced means promoting the bottom tiers to at lest mid tiers levels. With that in mind any change to the core rules should be made thinking about those armies. Chaos, tau and necrons don't need any kind of help, some SM chapters are weaker than others but a huge amount of cheesy SM chapters would be bad overall, with lesser variety of armies played at higher levels. I think several imperium armies are too powerful right now, so if a couple of them are not that's not that huge problem. With the alliances system they can also solve some of their problems.

I'm totally fine with my bottom-mid tier armies and I wouldn't change anything in the core rules (I would only add the complete range in close combat to hit rolls, because it's not acceptable that WS8 models hit on 3s instead of 2s units that have a 4-5 points lower WS, and viceversa it's not fair that WS3 units hit of 5s instead of 6s those skilled close combat models), but if some efforts are made to improve the game IMHO those armies should get attention, and eventual rule changings should be made only with that in mind. For example promoting DA or SW to eldar levels is not making the game more balanced. Letting tyranids, dark eldar or orks reaching DA and SW levels is. Improving armies like sisters, AM or BA would be fine if the process doesn't make other SM chapters that are competitive already better too.

 Blackie wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The "high viewpoint" is seeing the game from more or all army perspectives, rather than from a single one. When considering many of these options, I try to consider it as a Templar, Chaos Marine, Tau, and Necron player. So a "high viewpoint" is concerned about balance.

This is where I disagree mostly. I don't think about all armies, only the weakest ones. Making the game more balanced means promoting the bottom tiers to at lest mid tiers levels. With that in mind any change to the core rules should be made thinking about those armies.

You are very wrong about this. A balanced game is not about addressing the weakest elements. It's about attacking the problems at their source. If the core rules are creating imbalance issues (like the way vehicle rules and in particular walker rules actively hamper many unit types) then fixing that fixes all those unit types across the entire game. The weaker codexes are not weak because of the core rule books. They are weak because of poor internal and external balance with their codex. Nids don't need any boosts from the base rule book. They need their core rules to make sense without hampering them. Their units to have clear functions and roles that they can actually perform in. And some sense of synergy that allows for more units to work well in tandem.

No proposed change to unit types, wounding, CORE RULES, will balance Nids. Again, the core rules are not what makes them weak. When you consider a change to the core rules, you need to consider how it would impact all armies, because all armies are effected.

 Lance845 wrote:


When you consider a change to the core rules, you need to consider how it would impact all armies, because all armies are effected.

That's what I'm saying, if the change improves mid or top tiers armies and not the weakest ones, IMHO the game was better before. A change in the core rules would obviously affect all armies, but some of them would have benefits and other ones wouldn't. That's why I think that if the the game is unbalanced (and with unbalanced I mean average armies levels, not single units levels) any possible change should be focused to reduce the gap between armies. With the current huge amount of possible combinations of units and wargear every codex would always have some options that are more competitive than other ones. But the average quality of every army should be around the same level IMHO.

I agree that most of the issues about 40k are caused by codex rules and not core ones, but I think that making vehicles stronger would mostly affect positively some armies that don't need improvements.

 Blackie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


When you consider a change to the core rules, you need to consider how it would impact all armies, because all armies are effected.

That's what I'm saying, if the change improves mid or top tiers armies and not the weakest ones, IMHO the game was better before. A change in the core rules would obviously affect all armies, but some of them would have benefits and other ones wouldn't. That's why I think that if the the game is unbalanced (and with unbalanced I mean average armies levels, not single units levels) any possible change should be focused to reduce the gap between armies. With the current huge amount of possible combinations of units and wargear every codex would always have some options that are more competitive than other ones. But the average quality of every army should be around the same level IMHO.

I agree that most of the issues about 40k are caused by codex rules and not core ones, but I think that making vehicles stronger would mostly affect positively some armies that don't need improvements.

It's not about making vehicles stronger. It's about getting rid of unneeded complexity, removing random rolls on random charts which adds no strategy and is only a detriment to the game play experience, and allowing all unit types to function well on the table. How that impacts any particular army doesn't matter. Those issues need addressing because those issues are actual issues. If vehicles become "tougher" because it's now no longer possible to roll a lucky result on a random chart that causes the vehicle to loose guns or end up just sitting in one spot facing a wall for the rest of the game then so be it. The game itself is better because of it.

I would rather re-balance nids and the other lower tier armies against a set of core rules that actually work than leave the core rules in the gak state they are in just for the sake of not inadvertently improving SM.

That's your opinion, I respect it. I think warhammer40k is a wonderful game and there aren't many issues in the core rules. I love the actual rules about vehicles so in my opinion the game wouldn't be better if tanks lose the chance of being immobilized, get a weapon destroyed or even exploded. I like how this system works and I don't think it needs some changings. A bit of randomness is also vital, otherwise assuming both players having the same experience, the better list would always win.

I usually play with lots of vehicles and I don't think they need different rules. I don't care if my gorkanaut is currently useless, if I am a good player I would find a way to play it efficiently at least against mid tiers lists. I don't care if in a competitive environment many units always stay on the bench, I'd like a game in which orks, sisters and tyranids have same possibilities to win tournaments than eldar or SM. Regardless of the core rules of the game.

In friendly casual games almost every unit can be fielded with success.

In the current meta land raiders, AM tanks and even rhinos are tough to kill for many armies, and they really deal with them only in close combat. Which means that transport tanks like rhinos or LR crusader can do their job, and shooty ones have good chances to make some damage. Vehicles seem to be nerfed only because a couple of armies can deal with them awfully easily. But those armies that spam grav (and even melta) and D shots are overpowered in several perspectives, not only in dealing with AV.

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Was talking about the land raider. BA sucking is only relevant to demonstrate how mind bogglingly bad the land raider is.

Not really, the LR in that case sucks because BA suck. In a non ultra competitive game regular SM and SW can field land raiders, I've seen many times wulfen in a standard land raider that allows them to reach close combat without taking wounds in the process, or arjac shield brothers in a crusader which is a nice formation.

Many armies can't wreck a LR in the shooting phase without a huge amount of luck and the multimelta, assault cannon and las cannons mounted on the big vehicle are good weapons. If it manages to carry its passengers wherever they need to arrive or if it has the possibility to shoot for 2-3 turns before being melted in close combat the LR has done its job. In the SW codex there are several worse choices.

But also in competitive games I've taken units that are considered among the best ones from the armies that I play (only bottom or mid tiers) and sometimes they perform. I've seen ork kommandos and burnaboyz being effective, but also dark eldar incubi, wracks and mandrakes that contributed to score points. Now we all know that the LR is not among the best units in any SM chapter but it's not that stupid thing that does nothing in the entire game and/or it's wrecked turn 1.

It's probably bad played as it's not a vehicle that wins games alone, it needs to have synergy with the rest of the list, and it surely can be an average unit in the hands of an experienced player. In any SM (and specific chapters) general review LR are typically rated with 5,6,7 out of 10, not with 1, 2 or 3. Sometimes you require 10-20 bad losses in order to learn how to play a unit efficiently.

BA have drop pods, stormravens, a lot of badass units with jump packs and dreads among their best units. The LR probably doesn't have synergy with that army, I'm not sure about that as I faced BA as an opponent and never played them, but generally speaking it's not that bad.

That's the problem. Most of the problems with the LR are not in the controller's hands. You are paying a ton of points for a single assault that may or may not ever happen.

It doesn't matter what you put in the land raider. It still sucks. Badly. I'd much rather face a SW list with a Land Raider in it because they just bought 250 pts of suck.

"BA have drop pods, stormravens, a lot of badass units with jump packs and dreads among their best units"

Sigh. Wrong. Stormravens and jump pack units are garbage. So are most BA dreads.

Martel732 wrote:


It doesn't matter what you put in the land raider. It still sucks. Badly. I'd much rather face a SW list with a Land Raider in it because they just bought 250 pts of suck.

Well I disagree. I always play wulfen on foot because I like playing 5-6 footslogging close combat oriented units and I hate the model of the land raider, but if you face orks with lots of S5 shots (bikes and lobbas) and S8 from tankbustas, which are their typical best shooty units, that land raider would deliver you wulfen wherever they need to be. Otherwise an average turn of ork shooting can cripple them badly. Same against DE, they typically have 70+ poisoned shots at BS4, but very little anti AV 12-14. AM can hurt footslogging wulfen way better than a unit inside a land raider. Tau can wipe out 2x5 wulfen on foot with their average shooting, they are typically better against infantries models and low-mid AV rather than AV14. That vehicle, while is far from being an autoinclude, is not a 1/10 rated unit.

I think if we just used the armor save/AP system it would help with the glanced to death problem.

Give stuff like rhinos a 4+ armor save. Preds/MBTs a 3+, and big stuff like a LR can have a 2+ save. Speeders and light stuff maybe get a 5+

Almost all dedicated AV firepower (melta, LCs, bright lances, etc) is already AP1-2. So if you are bring an anti-tank gun to a tank fight, you will get the same results as you always have. Mid range guns like autocannons still work for cracking open light armor like rhinos, as AP4 still gets the job done.

Scatter lasers get the shaft, but I think we are all OK with that. And frankly still have the weight of fire to put wounds in.

Doesn’t touch grav, which is an issue, and I’d have to read the fine print on haywire.

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


It doesn't matter what you put in the land raider. It still sucks. Badly. I'd much rather face a SW list with a Land Raider in it because they just bought 250 pts of suck.

Well I disagree. I always play wulfen on foot because I like playing 5-6 footslogging close combat oriented units and I hate the model of the land raider, but if you face orks with lots of S5 shots (bikes and lobbas) and S8 from tankbustas, which are their typical best shooty units, that land raider would deliver you wulfen wherever they need to be. Otherwise an average turn of ork shooting can cripple them badly. Same against DE, they typically have 70+ poisoned shots at BS4, but very little anti AV 12-14. AM can hurt footslogging wulfen way better than a unit inside a land raider. Tau can wipe out 2x5 wulfen on foot with their average shooting, they are typically better against infantries models and low-mid AV rather than AV14. That vehicle, while is far from being an autoinclude, is not a 1/10 rated unit.

It's a -1/10 rated unit. I can immobilize itself on any terrain feature, with no option for a dozer blade. So no, it may not be delivering anything anywhere. Without your opponent firing a shot.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


It doesn't matter what you put in the land raider. It still sucks. Badly. I'd much rather face a SW list with a Land Raider in it because they just bought 250 pts of suck.

Well I disagree. I always play wulfen on foot because I like playing 5-6 footslogging close combat oriented units and I hate the model of the land raider, but if you face orks with lots of S5 shots (bikes and lobbas) and S8 from tankbustas, which are their typical best shooty units, that land raider would deliver you wulfen wherever they need to be. Otherwise an average turn of ork shooting can cripple them badly. Same against DE, they typically have 70+ poisoned shots at BS4, but very little anti AV 12-14. AM can hurt footslogging wulfen way better than a unit inside a land raider. Tau can wipe out 2x5 wulfen on foot with their average shooting, they are typically better against infantries models and low-mid AV rather than AV14. That vehicle, while is far from being an autoinclude, is not a 1/10 rated unit.

It's a -1/10 rated unit. I can immobilize itself on any terrain feature, with no option for a dozer blade. So no, it may not be delivering anything anywhere. Without your opponent firing a shot.

Terrain covers only 25% of the table, an immobilized result for the LR can be easily avoided. When I use my open topped vehicles sometimes they get stuck somewhere, but they're mostly AV10 so I must use covers and run them through terrain. A land raider is AV14-14-14 which means that against many lists he should easily survive 1-2 turn of shooting and there's no need to pass dangerous terrains, even if you are forced to pass through terrain there's only 1/6 chance to get stuck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
I think if we just used the armor save/AP system it would help with the glanced to death problem.

Give stuff like rhinos a 4+ armor save. Preds/MBTs a 3+, and big stuff like a LR can have a 2+ save. Speeders and light stuff maybe get a 5+

Almost all dedicated AV firepower (melta, LCs, bright lances, etc) is already AP1-2. So if you are bring an anti-tank gun to a tank fight, you will get the same results as you always have. Mid range guns like autocannons still work for cracking open light armor like rhinos, as AP4 still gets the job done.

Scatter lasers get the shaft, but I think we are all OK with that. And frankly still have the weight of fire to put wounds in.

Doesn’t touch grav, which is an issue, and I’d have to read the fine print on haywire.

That would make Gladius impossible to defeat. Many armies can't defeat those spamming free vehicles SM even with the current rules.

"Terrain covers only 25% of the table"

We typically play with considerably more. There are typically no driving lanes for something as ridiculously massive as the Land Raider.

"many lists he should easily survive 1-2 turn of shooting "

You sure about that? Because a single grav hit, or a single immobilize cripples it to the point of uselessness. So much for your fancy assault unit. Even lowly BA can drop quite a bit of melta right on it.

LOL what Land Raider is surviving 2 turns unless the opponent is literally that bad...

Blackie wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The "high viewpoint" is seeing the game from more or all army perspectives, rather than from a single one. When considering many of these options, I try to consider it as a Templar, Chaos Marine, Tau, and Necron player. So a "high viewpoint" is concerned about balance.

This is where I disagree mostly. I don't think about all armies, only the weakest ones. Making the game more balanced means promoting the bottom tiers to at lest mid tiers levels. With that in mind any change to the core rules should be made thinking about those armies. Chaos, tau and necrons don't need any kind of help, some SM chapters are weaker than others but a huge amount of cheesy SM chapters would be bad overall, with lesser variety of armies played at higher levels. I think several imperium armies are too powerful right now, so if a couple of them are not that's not that huge problem. With the alliances system they can also solve some of their problems.

You are using Tunnel Vision to view my responses, so you miss the point. Chaos Marines DO need help, but much of it is in the same vein as Tyranids, more internal than issues with what they are given then overall mechanisms. I focus more on them as I simply know them better than I do other armies. This does not mean I ignore all other armies. I consider changes from as many armies as I know the rules and stats for. A "high viewpoint" is stepping away from the tunnel vision of one or two armies' perspectives and looking at balance as an overall whole.

Sometimes, good armies need a slight buff because a rule is damaging and presents a non-sensical dichotomy like the huge divergence of survivability between Vehicles and MCs. If a general rule, this can affect mid to lower tier armies as well. As I pointed out earlier, treat MCs as Vehicles, and see how many MC's see the table then. This shows a huge balance problem.

Blackie wrote:I'm totally fine with my bottom-mid tier armies and I wouldn't change anything in the core rules (I would only add the complete range in close combat to hit rolls, because it's not acceptable that WS8 models hit on 3s instead of 2s units that have a 4-5 points lower WS, and viceversa it's not fair that WS3 units hit of 5s instead of 6s those skilled close combat models), but if some efforts are made to improve the game IMHO those armies should get attention, and eventual rule changings should be made only with that in mind. For example promoting DA or SW to eldar levels is not making the game more balanced. Letting tyranids, dark eldar or orks reaching DA and SW levels is. Improving armies like sisters, AM or BA would be fine if the process doesn't make other SM chapters that are competitive already better too.

And nothing about this thread invalidates the need for low-tier armies like Tyranids to be improved. Tyranids have problems with Vehicles now. Most of these changes (if taken with balance in mind, more Armour Save than Invul Save, for example) will not disimprove them greatly, and would not greatly affect them if they were balanced against current Vehicle rules.

Martel732 wrote:You sure about that? Because a single grav hit, or a single immobilize cripples it to the point of uselessness. So much for your fancy assault unit. Even lowly BA can drop quite a bit of melta right on it.

It can take more than one single grav hit to Immobilize a Vehicle. It's only a 1/6 chance, so usually about 10 hits with my dice.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL what Land Raider is surviving 2 turns unless the opponent is literally that bad...

Those focusing on more immediate threats that are easier to deal with. Kind of like ignoring 3rd Edition Necron Monoliths.

 Charistoph wrote:

Blackie wrote:I don't care about an "high viewpoint", I only care about a more balanced game. If a rule seems stupid but actually keeps the game more balanced is actually clever. So changing the core rules IMHO can be a good idea only if the result of that action is a more balanced game. Not a more realistic one.

The "high viewpoint" is seeing the game from more or all army perspectives, rather than from a single one. When considering many of these options, I try to consider it as a Templar, Chaos Marine, Tau, and Necron player. So a "high viewpoint" is concerned about balance.

Blackie wrote:You're scared about gauss and MCs? they're only a small part of the game. Take a land raider against orks, dark eldars, harlequins, GK, tyranids, sisters and it would probably perform, even againts good lists. Necrons have those "superscary" gauss shots, but overall SM outperform them about everything. Necrons are a mid tier army currently, relying on gauss doesn't make them overpowered at all. Grav spam SM are.

I never said I was scared, only that some fear that Glance-spam makes their Vehicle toys useless. I'm saying that certain things are unbalanced and MCs are the organic equivalent to Vehicles. This is made obvious since the Dreadknight came out and suddenly Monstrous Batlesuits joined them, while pretty close to that Chaos Marines got Walkers and a Flyer that could fit the same bill as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Not by much. A kitted out Tomb Blade squad with 5 members is 110 points. That's S5 AP4 Ignores Cover. Ain't too shabby. That 5-10 TL shots that are Gauss.
5 Marine Bikers with 2 Grav Guns and a Combi-Grav is 135 or 145 points off the top of my head.

I think anyone can tell you which one is going to fare better against the most amount of targets.

How much Tesla is taken in Troops vs Gauss? How much can a Ghost Ark put out? If there is an option for Gauss vs something else, Gauss is taken 90% of the time, with Tomb Blades and the Triarch Stalker getting most of those non-Gauss options. It is to this which I indicate that Availibility is higher for Gauss than for Grav.

I'm guessing you don't play Necrons a lot.
10 Warriors and a Ghost Ark is 235 points. That's more than compared to the Bikers I made mention of.

Yeah you're getting a few more Gauss Shots. That's not comparable to stripping a HP and causing immobilized results though and to think it is near is quite frankly unintelligent on your end.

"Those focusing on more immediate threats that are easier to deal with"

I dont' know. It's hard to beat the efficiency of a single immobilize screwing over 500+ pts of stuff. You are necessarily, reducing your table presence by taking a land raider.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm guessing you don't play Necrons a lot.
10 Warriors and a Ghost Ark is 235 points. That's more than compared to the Bikers I made mention of.

Yeah you're getting a few more Gauss Shots. That's not comparable to stripping a HP and causing immobilized results though and to think it is near is quite frankly unintelligent on your end.

Tunnel Vision. How many times is an army about just an Ark Phalax versus a squad of Bikers? How many Ark Phalanxes will you be facing against with a Decurion along with the Immortals? How many Bike Squads will you see in a Gladius Strike Force?

Run the numbers, how many Gauss shots can the average Decurion Force at 1850 points? How many Grav Shots can the average Gladius Strike Force provide?

Martel732 wrote:"Those focusing on more immediate threats that are easier to deal with"

I dont' know. It's hard to beat the efficiency of a single immobilize screwing over 500+ pts of stuff. You are necessarily, reducing your table presence by taking a land raider.

And if you armies don't carry tools to Penetrate a Land Raider (or have them on the other side of the board dealing with a more important threat), how do you propose to immobilize a Land Raider? Especially when most of your AV is focused on Glancing a Vehicle to death and not Penetrating a Vehicle like it was in Editions past?

There wont' BE other threats if your opponent paid for a land raider plus cargo.

Also, the land raider will immobilize itself, have no fear.

Martel732 wrote:
There wont' BE other threats if your opponent paid for a land raider plus cargo.

Also, the land raider will immobilize itself, have no fear.

Depends on the army build, really.

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There wont' BE other threats if your opponent paid for a land raider plus cargo.

Also, the land raider will immobilize itself, have no fear.

Depends on the army build, really.

If you say so. I haven't seen someone who fielded a land raider win in a long, long time. Whether their opponent could penetrate it or not. Fielding one skews the game against you that badly.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I'm guessing you don't play Necrons a lot.
10 Warriors and a Ghost Ark is 235 points. That's more than compared to the Bikers I made mention of.

Yeah you're getting a few more Gauss Shots. That's not comparable to stripping a HP and causing immobilized results though and to think it is near is quite frankly unintelligent on your end.

Tunnel Vision. How many times is an army about just an Ark Phalax versus a squad of Bikers? How many Ark Phalanxes will you be facing against with a Decurion along with the Immortals? How many Bike Squads will you see in a Gladius Strike Force?

Run the numbers, how many Gauss shots can the average Decurion Force at 1850 points? How many Grav Shots can the average Gladius Strike Force provide?

Martel732 wrote:"Those focusing on more immediate threats that are easier to deal with"

I dont' know. It's hard to beat the efficiency of a single immobilize screwing over 500+ pts of stuff. You are necessarily, reducing your table presence by taking a land raider.

And if you armies don't carry tools to Penetrate a Land Raider (or have them on the other side of the board dealing with a more important threat), how do you propose to immobilize a Land Raider? Especially when most of your AV is focused on Glancing a Vehicle to death and not Penetrating a Vehicle like it was in Editions past?

There's only a few more Gauss Shots compared to the more devastating Grav shots. I showed how many points those were already...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
There's only a few more Gauss Shots compared to the more devastating Grav shots. I showed how many points those were already...

For two units (one of which may or may not be taken) compared to one. Two units which make up the core of an army vs one unit which is usually an auxiliary status when compared to the free Transports Detachment.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Was talking about the land raider. BA sucking is only relevant to demonstrate how mind bogglingly bad the land raider is.

Not really, the LR in that case sucks because BA suck. In a non ultra competitive game regular SM and SW can field land raiders, I've seen many times wulfen in a standard land raider that allows them to reach close combat without taking wounds in the process, or arjac shield brothers in a crusader which is a nice formation.

Many armies can't wreck a LR in the shooting phase without a huge amount of luck and the multimelta, assault cannon and las cannons mounted on the big vehicle are good weapons. If it manages to carry its passengers wherever they need to arrive or if it has the possibility to shoot for 2-3 turns before being melted in close combat the LR has done its job. In the SW codex there are several worse choices.

But also in competitive games I've taken units that are considered among the best ones from the armies that I play (only bottom or mid tiers) and sometimes they perform. I've seen ork kommandos and burnaboyz being effective, but also dark eldar incubi, wracks and mandrakes that contributed to score points. Now we all know that the LR is not among the best units in any SM chapter but it's not that stupid thing that does nothing in the entire game and/or it's wrecked turn 1.

It's probably bad played as it's not a vehicle that wins games alone, it needs to have synergy with the rest of the list, and it surely can be an average unit in the hands of an experienced player. In any SM (and specific chapters) general review LR are typically rated with 5,6,7 out of 10, not with 1, 2 or 3. Sometimes you require 10-20 bad losses in order to learn how to play a unit efficiently.

BA have drop pods, stormravens, a lot of badass units with jump packs and dreads among their best units. The LR probably doesn't have synergy with that army, I'm not sure about that as I faced BA as an opponent and never played them, but generally speaking it's not that bad.

That's the problem. Most of the problems with the LR are not in the controller's hands. You are paying a ton of points for a single assault that may or may not ever happen.

It doesn't matter what you put in the land raider. It still sucks. Badly. I'd much rather face a SW list with a Land Raider in it because they just bought 250 pts of suck.

"BA have drop pods, stormravens, a lot of badass units with jump packs and dreads among their best units"

Sigh. Wrong. Stormravens and jump pack units are garbage. So are most BA dreads.

That's debatable - SW Land Raiders under the Ironwolves detachment are quite a bit better than regular ones, they move further, they pack what little upgrades Land Raiders have access to for free and drop their target's leadership while tank-shocking, on top of that I chock it full of Axe and Claw Wulfen.
Also, I nab the Redeemer for 240 points.