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.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Rybrook wrote:
I think the terminus ultra shouldn’t explode if all weapons are fired at the same time,
It should be a one time use or as a last resort

It doesn't explode if it shoots all it's guns though.

It has a catastrophic power overload if your unlucky and roll ones

For it to overload there should be a power setting like a plasma cannon

Rybrook wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Rybrook wrote:
I think the terminus ultra shouldn’t explode if all weapons are fired at the same time,
It should be a one time use or as a last resort

It doesn't explode if it shoots all it's guns though.

It has a catastrophic power overload if your unlucky and roll ones

For it to overload there should be a power setting like a plasma cannon

It's not a serious unit like most of the mess that was the CA landradiers. Better options exsist if uou really need 8 lascannons in your list.

In general being tarpit by grots etc for a mobile house is daft it should be allowed to fall back and shoot or shoot its heavy weapons when in combat.
It really needs a rule for it's assualt ramp like allowing a unit to charge from the vehicle at the end of it's move just this alone would make it much more realistically points costed.

An Invulnerable save would add cost and it isn't really to terrible in terms of durability or firepower. It's paying for that barely useable transport capacity that really hurts

Now they need protection. For the points it cost you need to have him shooting all the time. If the enemy charges him you are wasting lots of points. Actually I think the Stormraven is a much better option for your points.

Rybrook wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Rybrook wrote:
I think the terminus ultra shouldn’t explode if all weapons are fired at the same time,
It should be a one time use or as a last resort

It doesn't explode if it shoots all it's guns though.

It has a catastrophic power overload if your unlucky and roll ones

For it to overload there should be a power setting like a plasma cannon

1. It needs 3 rolls of a 1 to 'explode' which (if my maths is right) is about a 1/4 chance each time it fires all its guns. But with re-rolls (and why wouldn't you have re-rolls) that number drops to about a 1/800 chance.

2. It doesn't 'explode', it loses 6W.

It's fine how it is given the likelihood of it happening and the outcome not being too awful.

Rybrook wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

Rybrook wrote:
I think the terminus ultra shouldn’t explode if all weapons are fired at the same time,
It should be a one time use or as a last resort

It doesn't explode if it shoots all it's guns though.

It has a catastrophic power overload if your unlucky and roll ones

For it to overload there should be a power setting like a plasma cannon

Place a captain next to it and you are safe.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Just compare the land raider to what the storm raven can do. The day they balance these two relative to each other (whether by abilities or points), then I would say the Land Raider is balanced.

Land raider might be better after the cover FAQ. Stormravens are almost unplayable b/c of their cost now.

Land Raiders were another victim of the Horde/Static Gun line game. More expensive than they should have been to begin with, and much less durable than a unit costing a 1/4th its price, they just had nothing to justify them on the field.

Some of that might change soon though. Horde forces appear to be getting pushed from several sources primary being Chess clocks, but other factors like Knights being an army of the moment, and the ongoing changes to ITC missions.

I think if you can hit the meta intersection of Good firepower versus renewed interest in heavy support, and the need for Mobility, you might have a window where they make sense. For now.

 chimeara wrote:
In your opinion what would it take for land raiders to be good, or even competitive?

I think a major points reduction and some kind of strategem(s) that help it's survivability.

Cost reduction and/or the ability to fire while engaged in close quarters.

Survivability isn't a problem. The problem is that it's an armored transport with expensive guns that's going in a direction where it, in all probably, won't be able to use it's guns. Alternatively, it's a gun platform with equivalent firepower to a Predator that has 10 transport space that's doing nothing.

In addition, it's special feature is the ability to transport terminators, which can transport themselves to the enemy.

So, it sits in the middle of a perfect pile of "this unit has no purpose, and is expensive".


And the other variants aren't in a better boat. The Crusader could have purpose as a dedicated infantry-killer, but has no redundancy and needs to get up to 12" range.

Make 12 the default transport size instead of 10. Enough for a full squad and character support. I know imperium has higher capacity, but chaos does not.

It's basically like in every edition before. Either is impenetrable or one-shot. Too expensive regardless.

I've just bought a Land Raider Achilles... I think it'll do okay; my lists rarely feature armour outside of transports and wanted something to draw fire away from guilliman, devastators and razorbacks...


I wouldn't take it necessarily to a competitive fight? testing necessary of course, but I've got a good feeling.... the sheer size of the hull may prove valuable; its a main battle tank that will want to get up close due to the 4 multi-meltas… theres a huge hull space behind that I plan to slipstream a rhino or razorback in; maybe even hide a dreadnought.... leviathan anyone?

Finally this thread! LRs have always been the best Assault tanks in the game and now it all comes down to the FLY keyword. Oh whats that? It costs almost as some knights, shoots less than a leman russ and a few cheap infantry models can negate all its capabilities by just charging? Please!

 pique311 wrote:
LRs have always been the best Assault tanks in the game

When was this "always"? Because it hasn't been true for the last 31 years.

I have a helios and the handful of times ive run it almost 50/50 Blown up/not by turn 2. I would like falling back & shooting and maybe points reduction or other buff/ability. Charging out the front to meet your opponents is very apropos for the Lands raider .

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 pique311 wrote:
LRs have always been the best Assault tanks in the game

When was this "always"? Because it hasn't been true for the last 31 years.

Considering they're pretty much the only assault tank....

Racerguy180 wrote:
I have a helios and the handful of times ive run it almost 50/50 Blown up/not by turn 2. I would like falling back & shooting and maybe points reduction or other buff/ability. Charging out the front to meet your opponents is very apropos for the Lands raider .

It getting blown up on turn 2 isn't the problem. The problem is that it's almost more valuable getting blown up on turn 2 thank doing either of it's other capabilities, and it's not super awesome for that.

It's a failure of a transport, and a failure of a tank. It's only real value is the fact that it's fairly difficult to destroy, but resiliency is only as valuable as the enemy wants and needs it dead.

And it's so expensive that it's not a good fire magnet, because you don't have enough left over to punish them for the effort invested in destroying it.

Jbz` wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 pique311 wrote:
LRs have always been the best Assault tanks in the game

When was this "always"? Because it hasn't been true for the last 31 years.

Considering they're pretty much the only assault tank....

Wave Serpents have been assault tanks since they have existed.

Stux wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I dislike introducing suggested rules which ignore a key rule in the game. I've never been a fan of that, at all.

I feel the most interesting abilities are ones that ignore rules, so long as they are used appropriately.

Sorry, I'm with Elbows on this one. Abilities ignoring rules was the daily slogan of 7th Ed and we all know what a clusterfeth that became.

I think it should have a rule to represent the fact it's a frag-off massive battle tank with huge grinding tracks.

Squishy infantry units trying to assault it should get tank-shocked/run over.

The whole 'vehicles in assault' change is garbage, like many of 8th's simplifications.

zerosignal wrote:
I think it should have a rule to represent the fact it's a frag-off massive battle tank with huge grinding tracks.

Squishy infantry units trying to assault it should get tank-shocked/run over.

The whole 'vehicles in assault' change is garbage, like many of 8th's simplifications.

Yeah. Landraiders need 9th ed to be Landraiders again.
Current rules gave no place for such tactical variance.

Land raiders should cost 260 - not 350 - and get the baneblade rule where you can fire out of assault. Opinion is shared by most this fourm - lets get on the line to GW and get this change going...NOW. I've got 4 land raiders and havn't played 1 in over 2 years because they have always been flat gak.

I remember the first thing that got me back into 8th after swearing off the game for good after 7th ed. Was the promise that LR would become good again. Las cannons getting a huge buff - I thought that was the key. Until I realized that the LR went up in cost by about 100 points while most infantry stayed the same....WUT? Why?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Land raiders should cost 260 - not 350 - and get the baneblade rule where you can fire out of assault. Opinion is shared by most this fourm - lets get on the line to GW and get this change going...NOW. I've got 4 land raiders and havn't played 1 in over 2 years because they have always been flat gak.

I remember the first thing that got me back into 8th after swearing off the game for good after 7th ed. Was the promise that LR would become good again. Las cannons getting a huge buff - I thought that was the key. Until I realized that the LR went up in cost by about 100 points while most infantry stayed the same....WUT? Why?

This and Termies.

The Proteus is one of the coolest looking models in the game. LRs get fixed, next day I go out and buy one.

Generally, imo the LR is THE most iconic large model in 40k. How GW have let it become a complete laughing stock is beyond me.

 grouchoben wrote:
The Proteus is one of the coolest looking models in the game. LRs get fixed, next day I go out and buy one.

Generally, imo the LR is THE most iconic large model in 40k. How GW have let it become a complete laughing stock is beyond me.

The main reason is because the 40k rules team don't understand the game mechanics well enough to be able to understand why units do or don't work.

They also still have the idea of an army should be based on 30-50% troops, 10-30% HQ, 0-20% elites, 0-20% Fast Attack, 0-20% heavy support and 0-1 LoW. So 1 unit in a given slot being undercosted won't show up the way they play.

They also rather knee-jerk balance things based on player feedback without looking into why something doesn't work or is over performing.

Just make it T9 then you'll see them everywhere lol

 fraser1191 wrote:
Just make it T9 then you'll see them everywhere lol

For once the toughness is not the factor of why Land Raiders aren't being used

Martel732 wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Just compare the land raider to what the storm raven can do. The day they balance these two relative to each other (whether by abilities or points), then I would say the Land Raider is balanced.

Land raider might be better after the cover FAQ. Stormravens are almost unplayable b/c of their cost now.

The cover faq? Is this something that’s coming?

 chimeara wrote:
In your opinion what would it take for land raiders to be good, or even competitive?

I think a major points reduction and some kind of strategem(s) that help it's survivability.

Ditch the transport capacity for another gun and a 50+ point reduction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Just make it T9 then you'll see them everywhere lol

For once the toughness is not the factor of why Land Raiders aren't being used

I think it's more of a commentary on just how ridiculously strong T9 is compared to T8. T8-T9 and T9-T10 are the biggest toughness breakpoints in the game. When melta starts wounding on 5s, vehicles get a lot safer. When Lascannons and Brightlances start wounding on 5s you start getting terrifying.

Make it cheaper. Easiest fix for any model and if it dose not work you can just do it again.

Ice_can wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
The Proteus is one of the coolest looking models in the game. LRs get fixed, next day I go out and buy one.

Generally, imo the LR is THE most iconic large model in 40k. How GW have let it become a complete laughing stock is beyond me.

The main reason is because the 40k rules team don't understand the game mechanics well enough to be able to understand why units do or don't work.

They also still have the idea of an army should be based on 30-50% troops, 10-30% HQ, 0-20% elites, 0-20% Fast Attack, 0-20% heavy support and 0-1 LoW. So 1 unit in a given slot being undercosted won't show up the way they play.

They also rather knee-jerk balance things based on player feedback without looking into why something doesn't work or is over performing.

Yeah, I mean...I don't even dislike GW anymore really and I still can't fault any of these. They DON'T understand what makes things powerful, they DO have nonsense ideas about how armies 'should' be played their rules writing doesn't support and they have been very kneejerk cough*ruleof3*cough.