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.
I would use mine but I have the God hammer variant and I can get a repulsor with twin lascanon and lastalon plus more dakka for less. Plus my friend can already take it down turn 1 anyway
It should be 158pts cheaper than a Baneblade, currently it is not, it's about 100 less.
Durability is not the main problem. Killing power relative to point cost is the main problem. But I don't think we can fix that without sticking more guns on it or giving it rules that don't make much sense.
So instead I had to look at other things including durability and hope the overall package is more appealing.
I agree that the general lethality of the game is an issue, but as you say we can't do much to change that so if we're talking about a fix within 8th then this is what we have to work with.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/13 15:00:19
Transports without crazy durability (wavies), firing ports (repressors), fly or invulns are a joke.
Too fragile for its points (great place for all those anti-knight guns to go and if armies can kill a knight or two in one round what's going to happen to that land raider...). Spends too much to be able to transport troops that do nothing for 1-2 turns. Weapon options are inefficient. Gets tart pitted too easy. Outclassed by a million options. Not good at anything, bad at a lot of them (like the marine dex in general).
In order to be good it would need sooooo many changes. A couple strats would be a good place to start:
1 cp Disembark after moving
2 cp this unit can fall back and still shoot. Furthermore any enemy units w/in 1 inch take d3 mortal wounds
1 cp any unit assaulting this model takes d3 mortal wounds on a 4+
1 cp can use smoke launchers and still shoot @ -1
It needs firing ports. Hell go crazy and allow embarked units to shoot at enemies in combat with the tank.
50ish points cheaper
Even with all of that until marines get a rework or substantial points drops across the board there's so many things that do so much more for so much less the army doesn't really work at a high competitive level.
Never got around to buying one when I started my marine army and 3 editions latter they're just not worth it. The biggest problem I see with them besides getting locked up in assault or not having that much fire power relative to it's cost is that it's a transport that does not have anything worth transporting. Terminators are garbage and it's to expensive to put normal MEQs in.
Some sort of Steel-Behemoth-esque combat ability to shoot/fall back and shoot?
Or is it worse than that?
It needs that ability, but at the current price I don't think it would be enough for it to see play.
What would? Enhanced durability? Enhanced firepower? Enhanced speed? Enhanced transport capacity/options?
In addition to Steel Behemoth to protect it from getting locked in combat, I'd also give it the ability to allow units to disembark after movement instead of before, as a rule for its Assault Ramp. I'd also give the same rule to Stormravens who also struggle a bit at the moment.
I appreciate why you don't want to reduce points much, I feel the same way about regular marines. If you drop points too much it devalues them. However I feel there is still room for maneuvering down on the Land Raider before we get to that problem. It's currently only a little less than a Baneblade and about the same as the cheapest Knight loadouts. I don't think it belongs in that category. 300 makes more sense to me, whilst still being significantly higher than a fully kitted predator.
We could look at durability too, as I still don't think the fixes I've suggested so far make the unit all that great even at 300. It's already fantastic against small arms, but drops pretty quickly to heavy weapons. Which is fine, except with how many Lascannons people spam it still feels like they go down a bit too quick. Invulns don't really help as a 5+ is basically irrelevant and a 4+ I feel is too strong. It's a really fine balance. Instead I'd suggest a rule (incidentally one I'd also give to Terminators) where if the model has more than 1 wound, a single attack cannot reduce it to 0 wounds. Basically while you're above 1, it will always take at least two attacks to down it. That might be enough.
"A little less than a Baneblade" means 158 points cheaper (Baneblade stock is 458), so meh.
And your proposed rule is a bit extreme - first of all, it doesn't do much, as I think the only single attack that can kill a Land Raider is a Shadowsword or perhaps the new Knight maybe. I think the bigger problem ( and this is a point I harp on all the time) is the ridiculously high lethality of Warhammer 40k, right now. I know that's unfixable, but just to make sure I understand:
Your basic premise is that the problem with the Land Raider is its durability?
It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
Stux wrote:It should be 158pts cheaper than a Baneblade, currently it is not, it's about 100 less.
Durability is not the main problem. Killing power relative to point cost is the main problem. But I don't think we can fix that without sticking more guns on it or giving it rules that don't make much sense.
So instead I had to look at other things including durability and hope the overall package is more appealing.
I agree that the general lethality of the game is an issue, but as you say we can't do much to change that so if we're talking about a fix within 8th then this is what we have to work with.
I was assuming the people saying it was right around 300 were right. I know the Crusader is 296, making it 162 points cheaper than a Baneblade.
Stux wrote:If you don't like the durability rule I proposed though, we could use the existing 'reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1' instead.
That'd be okay, I suppose. I don't really have any specific thoughts on how to improve it, mostly just trying to discover the problem, which seems to be "it doesn't do anything".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
I wouldn't give it T9. I'd give it maybe 18-20 wounds, instead, and the Titanic keyword, like the monolith, for free. Would that be sufficient?
The assault ramp (being able to disembark after it moves) would be cool but it would need a restriction, e.g. half speed, or no advancing, or the like. Otherwise you end up with really trivial first-turn charges for every Marine force, which is not a good idea.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/13 15:25:42
Give it Steel Behemoth and allow troops to disembark after movement and you'd go a long way to seeing both them and assault termies making an appearance in a lot of games.
Some sort of Steel-Behemoth-esque combat ability to shoot/fall back and shoot?
Or is it worse than that?
It needs that ability, but at the current price I don't think it would be enough for it to see play.
What would? Enhanced durability? Enhanced firepower? Enhanced speed? Enhanced transport capacity/options?
In addition to Steel Behemoth to protect it from getting locked in combat, I'd also give it the ability to allow units to disembark after movement instead of before, as a rule for its Assault Ramp. I'd also give the same rule to Stormravens who also struggle a bit at the moment.
I appreciate why you don't want to reduce points much, I feel the same way about regular marines. If you drop points too much it devalues them. However I feel there is still room for maneuvering down on the Land Raider before we get to that problem. It's currently only a little less than a Baneblade and about the same as the cheapest Knight loadouts. I don't think it belongs in that category. 300 makes more sense to me, whilst still being significantly higher than a fully kitted predator.
We could look at durability too, as I still don't think the fixes I've suggested so far make the unit all that great even at 300. It's already fantastic against small arms, but drops pretty quickly to heavy weapons. Which is fine, except with how many Lascannons people spam it still feels like they go down a bit too quick. Invulns don't really help as a 5+ is basically irrelevant and a 4+ I feel is too strong. It's a really fine balance. Instead I'd suggest a rule (incidentally one I'd also give to Terminators) where if the model has more than 1 wound, a single attack cannot reduce it to 0 wounds. Basically while you're above 1, it will always take at least two attacks to down it. That might be enough.
"A little less than a Baneblade" means 158 points cheaper (Baneblade stock is 458), so meh.
And your proposed rule is a bit extreme - first of all, it doesn't do much, as I think the only single attack that can kill a Land Raider is a Shadowsword or perhaps the new Knight maybe. I think the bigger problem ( and this is a point I harp on all the time) is the ridiculously high lethality of Warhammer 40k, right now. I know that's unfixable, but just to make sure I understand:
Your basic premise is that the problem with the Land Raider is its durability?
It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
It is tougher than a leman russ, it's got more wounds and more armor. Even against lascannons it gets a 5+ save. Giving it T9 implies it's somehow tougher than a baneblade? I get the purpose of your suggestion, I just think it will be out of line with other vehicles.
So, I don't have any LR's, as I play IG for the most part. IMO the easy fix for them is a small point cost decrease, a steel behemoth rule, and the ability to disembark after moving. Durability-wise, they are right where they should be if you ask me. Without these abilities, to me, they are just one more tank to crack open with basilisks, lascannons, knights, plasma, melta, the list goes on....
Stux wrote:It should be 158pts cheaper than a Baneblade, currently it is not, it's about 100 less.
Durability is not the main problem. Killing power relative to point cost is the main problem. But I don't think we can fix that without sticking more guns on it or giving it rules that don't make much sense.
So instead I had to look at other things including durability and hope the overall package is more appealing.
I agree that the general lethality of the game is an issue, but as you say we can't do much to change that so if we're talking about a fix within 8th then this is what we have to work with.
I was assuming the people saying it was right around 300 were right. I know the Crusader is 296, making it 162 points cheaper than a Baneblade.
Stux wrote:If you don't like the durability rule I proposed though, we could use the existing 'reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1' instead.
That'd be okay, I suppose. I don't really have any specific thoughts on how to improve it, mostly just trying to discover the problem, which seems to be "it doesn't do anything".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
I wouldn't give it T9. I'd give it maybe 18-20 wounds, instead, and the Titanic keyword, like the monolith, for free. Would that be sufficient?
The assault ramp (being able to disembark after it moves) would be cool but it would need a restriction, e.g. half speed, or no advancing, or the like. Otherwise you end up with really trivial first-turn charges for every Marine force, which is not a good idea.
No it shouldn't have the titanic keyword that just gives shadowswords a bonus to one rounding it.
I think it should be T9 as it's supposed to be able to go up against baneblades etc which it currently can't. The jump from T8 to T9 would make the lack of invulnerable save much less of an issue.
I was more thinking diembark but can't move onlu charge.
Some sort of Steel-Behemoth-esque combat ability to shoot/fall back and shoot?
Or is it worse than that?
It needs that ability, but at the current price I don't think it would be enough for it to see play.
What would? Enhanced durability? Enhanced firepower? Enhanced speed? Enhanced transport capacity/options?
In addition to Steel Behemoth to protect it from getting locked in combat, I'd also give it the ability to allow units to disembark after movement instead of before, as a rule for its Assault Ramp. I'd also give the same rule to Stormravens who also struggle a bit at the moment.
I appreciate why you don't want to reduce points much, I feel the same way about regular marines. If you drop points too much it devalues them. However I feel there is still room for maneuvering down on the Land Raider before we get to that problem. It's currently only a little less than a Baneblade and about the same as the cheapest Knight loadouts. I don't think it belongs in that category. 300 makes more sense to me, whilst still being significantly higher than a fully kitted predator.
We could look at durability too, as I still don't think the fixes I've suggested so far make the unit all that great even at 300. It's already fantastic against small arms, but drops pretty quickly to heavy weapons. Which is fine, except with how many Lascannons people spam it still feels like they go down a bit too quick. Invulns don't really help as a 5+ is basically irrelevant and a 4+ I feel is too strong. It's a really fine balance. Instead I'd suggest a rule (incidentally one I'd also give to Terminators) where if the model has more than 1 wound, a single attack cannot reduce it to 0 wounds. Basically while you're above 1, it will always take at least two attacks to down it. That might be enough.
"A little less than a Baneblade" means 158 points cheaper (Baneblade stock is 458), so meh.
And your proposed rule is a bit extreme - first of all, it doesn't do much, as I think the only single attack that can kill a Land Raider is a Shadowsword or perhaps the new Knight maybe. I think the bigger problem ( and this is a point I harp on all the time) is the ridiculously high lethality of Warhammer 40k, right now. I know that's unfixable, but just to make sure I understand:
Your basic premise is that the problem with the Land Raider is its durability?
It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
It is tougher than a leman russ, it's got more wounds and more armor. Even against lascannons it gets a 5+ save. Giving it T9 implies it's somehow tougher than a baneblade? I get the purpose of your suggestion, I just think it will be out of line with other vehicles.
So, I don't have any LR's, as I play IG for the most part. IMO the easy fix for them is a small point cost decrease, a steel behemoth rule, and the ability to disembark after moving. Durability-wise, they are right where they should be if you ask me. Without these abilities, to me, they are just one more tank to crack open with basilisks, lascannons, knights, plasma, melta, the list goes on....
I mean last edition the land raider had better AV then the baneblade. So if you carry on with that trend it would be ok for it to have higher T and less wounds then the baneblade,
Stux wrote:It should be 158pts cheaper than a Baneblade, currently it is not, it's about 100 less.
Durability is not the main problem. Killing power relative to point cost is the main problem. But I don't think we can fix that without sticking more guns on it or giving it rules that don't make much sense.
So instead I had to look at other things including durability and hope the overall package is more appealing.
I agree that the general lethality of the game is an issue, but as you say we can't do much to change that so if we're talking about a fix within 8th then this is what we have to work with.
I was assuming the people saying it was right around 300 were right. I know the Crusader is 296, making it 162 points cheaper than a Baneblade.
Stux wrote:If you don't like the durability rule I proposed though, we could use the existing 'reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1' instead.
That'd be okay, I suppose. I don't really have any specific thoughts on how to improve it, mostly just trying to discover the problem, which seems to be "it doesn't do anything".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
I wouldn't give it T9. I'd give it maybe 18-20 wounds, instead, and the Titanic keyword, like the monolith, for free. Would that be sufficient?
The assault ramp (being able to disembark after it moves) would be cool but it would need a restriction, e.g. half speed, or no advancing, or the like. Otherwise you end up with really trivial first-turn charges for every Marine force, which is not a good idea.
Crusader is 308, but near enough
T9 is too much. There are armies that really struggle to bring anything above S8, and they need it to be possible to kill it still!
Yes, no advancing is probably necessary. But I think that's enough, it's only 4" faster than normal infantry. I am of course assuming the transported unit cannot also move after disembarking here, so first turn charges would not normally be possible.
Thinking about it some more, another big issue is that there isn't much that's especially exciting you'd want to transport in a LR. The traditional Terminators is a terrible idea! Vanguard with Hammers is probably the best bet, but very expensive still. Very eggs in one basket.
Some sort of Steel-Behemoth-esque combat ability to shoot/fall back and shoot?
Or is it worse than that?
It needs that ability, but at the current price I don't think it would be enough for it to see play.
What would? Enhanced durability? Enhanced firepower? Enhanced speed? Enhanced transport capacity/options?
In addition to Steel Behemoth to protect it from getting locked in combat, I'd also give it the ability to allow units to disembark after movement instead of before, as a rule for its Assault Ramp. I'd also give the same rule to Stormravens who also struggle a bit at the moment.
I appreciate why you don't want to reduce points much, I feel the same way about regular marines. If you drop points too much it devalues them. However I feel there is still room for maneuvering down on the Land Raider before we get to that problem. It's currently only a little less than a Baneblade and about the same as the cheapest Knight loadouts. I don't think it belongs in that category. 300 makes more sense to me, whilst still being significantly higher than a fully kitted predator.
We could look at durability too, as I still don't think the fixes I've suggested so far make the unit all that great even at 300. It's already fantastic against small arms, but drops pretty quickly to heavy weapons. Which is fine, except with how many Lascannons people spam it still feels like they go down a bit too quick. Invulns don't really help as a 5+ is basically irrelevant and a 4+ I feel is too strong. It's a really fine balance. Instead I'd suggest a rule (incidentally one I'd also give to Terminators) where if the model has more than 1 wound, a single attack cannot reduce it to 0 wounds. Basically while you're above 1, it will always take at least two attacks to down it. That might be enough.
"A little less than a Baneblade" means 158 points cheaper (Baneblade stock is 458), so meh.
And your proposed rule is a bit extreme - first of all, it doesn't do much, as I think the only single attack that can kill a Land Raider is a Shadowsword or perhaps the new Knight maybe. I think the bigger problem ( and this is a point I harp on all the time) is the ridiculously high lethality of Warhammer 40k, right now. I know that's unfixable, but just to make sure I understand:
Your basic premise is that the problem with the Land Raider is its durability?
It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
It is tougher than a leman russ, it's got more wounds and more armor. Even against lascannons it gets a 5+ save. Giving it T9 implies it's somehow tougher than a baneblade? I get the purpose of your suggestion, I just think it will be out of line with other vehicles.
So, I don't have any LR's, as I play IG for the most part. IMO the easy fix for them is a small point cost decrease, a steel behemoth rule, and the ability to disembark after moving. Durability-wise, they are right where they should be if you ask me. Without these abilities, to me, they are just one more tank to crack open with basilisks, lascannons, knights, plasma, melta, the list goes on....
I mean last edition the land raider had better AV then the baneblade. So if you carry on with that trend it would be ok for it to have higher T and less wounds then the baneblade,
I think the better armour is reflected in the improved save, and it wasn't tougher than a Baneblade. The Baneblade had exactly the same armour on the front, and 3 Structure Points. The way older editions translate is no longer relevant. (For example, Baneblades used to be 50% more durable than a Knight, not just 2 wounds).
It is the easiest fix, but I'd like to look at it theoretically, just to investigate. Instead of "fixing" the Land Raider by simply making it so cheap that its flaws disappear relative to it's price, lets investigate it's flaws so we can avoid committing them in the future? We may perhaps end up discovering a flaw in the core rules, for example, that affects Vehicles specifically.
It has 2 major flaws. #1 is being invalidated by a gretchen #2 being 350 points. Nothing else is particularly bad about it. It has a nice weapons load-out and host of options for the different data sheets.
If it could shoot out of combat and was 300 points. It would be playable. Honestly though compared to the field. It needs to be even less than that to see competitive play. Like 280.
This would make crusaders something like 250. This seems right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/13 15:53:51
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Space Marines are more a "just for funsies" army for me. I bought a land raider when 8th dropped because i figured they might become cool. They're not bad. It's just that some shooting (Guard, Eldar) is too strong. It's hard to justfiy, for instance, investing in a land raider when literally any baneblade variant exists. The main weakness of the land raider is that there's nothing worth transporting. The land raider itself is maybe a bit over costed, but that's also in the context of what it currently transports.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Stux wrote:It should be 158pts cheaper than a Baneblade, currently it is not, it's about 100 less.
Durability is not the main problem. Killing power relative to point cost is the main problem. But I don't think we can fix that without sticking more guns on it or giving it rules that don't make much sense.
So instead I had to look at other things including durability and hope the overall package is more appealing.
I agree that the general lethality of the game is an issue, but as you say we can't do much to change that so if we're talking about a fix within 8th then this is what we have to work with.
I was assuming the people saying it was right around 300 were right. I know the Crusader is 296, making it 162 points cheaper than a Baneblade.
Stux wrote:If you don't like the durability rule I proposed though, we could use the existing 'reduce damage by 1 to a minimum of 1' instead.
That'd be okay, I suppose. I don't really have any specific thoughts on how to improve it, mostly just trying to discover the problem, which seems to be "it doesn't do anything".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: It needs T9 really it's supposed to be way tougher than a Leman Russ but currently just isn't.
It needs the assualt ramp rule back. It would also help distinguishing it from the repulsor.
I wouldn't give it T9. I'd give it maybe 18-20 wounds, instead, and the Titanic keyword, like the monolith, for free. Would that be sufficient?
The assault ramp (being able to disembark after it moves) would be cool but it would need a restriction, e.g. half speed, or no advancing, or the like. Otherwise you end up with really trivial first-turn charges for every Marine force, which is not a good idea.
Crusader is 308, but near enough
T9 is too much. There are armies that really struggle to bring anything above S8, and they need it to be possible to kill it still!
Yes, no advancing is probably necessary. But I think that's enough, it's only 4" faster than normal infantry. I am of course assuming the transported unit cannot also move after disembarking here, so first turn charges would not normally be possible.
Thinking about it some more, another big issue is that there isn't much that's especially exciting you'd want to transport in a LR. The traditional Terminators is a terrible idea! Vanguard with Hammers is probably the best bet, but very expensive still. Very eggs in one basket.
They were always 'Eggs in one basket', though. Way back as far as I can remember, if you were bringing a Land Raider, then your battle plan pretty much revolved around it. Also, I think TH/SS Terminators are still worth it. The issue is delivering them!
Knights bending the meta seems to be opening a space for them I think. First, more knight players are interested in getting terrain on the board to hide a knight. If a knight can hide, a land raider can hide. Second Lots of those knight forces are pushing people into fielding heavy weapons, but a LR with a 2+ and cover is actually a better bet for your save over a 3+ and 5++. Last, that D6 wounds off the Lascannon helps more than some people realized.
It is the easiest fix, but I'd like to look at it theoretically, just to investigate. Instead of "fixing" the Land Raider by simply making it so cheap that its flaws disappear relative to it's price, lets investigate it's flaws so we can avoid committing them in the future? We may perhaps end up discovering a flaw in the core rules, for example, that affects Vehicles specifically.
It has 2 major flaws. #1 is being invalidated by a gretchen #2 being 350 points. Nothing else is particularly bad about it. It has a nice weapons load-out and host of options for the different data sheets.
If it could shoot out of combat and was 300 points. It would be playable. Honestly though compared to the field. It needs to be even less than that to see competitive play. Like 280.
This would make crusaders something like 250. This seems right.
So the problem really is just "combat shuts it down" and "it's a bit overpriced"; there's nothing more specific than those changes? Because I'd be absolutely okay with that. How would this rule be, combined with dropping the Land Raider to 300 flat-ish:
"Assault Tank: The Land Raider's machine spirit is known for its aggression, and the tanks themselves are often used to breach enemy positions before disgorging their cargo in the heart of the enemy. A Land Raider can never be prevented from shooting by enemy models within 1" of it. Furthermore, on any turn it charges, it may choose to count its weapons as having the "Melee" type during the subsequent assault phase."
That, I think, gives Land Raiders an incentive to charge and also preserves their ability to shoot while locked in combat, but doesn't let them fall back willingly.
That would be amazing. As would a stratagem to slam down the assault hatch at the perfect moment and deploy the transported models directly into combat after successfully charging with the land raider.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/13 16:17:11
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
It is the easiest fix, but I'd like to look at it theoretically, just to investigate. Instead of "fixing" the Land Raider by simply making it so cheap that its flaws disappear relative to it's price, lets investigate it's flaws so we can avoid committing them in the future? We may perhaps end up discovering a flaw in the core rules, for example, that affects Vehicles specifically.
It has 2 major flaws. #1 is being invalidated by a gretchen #2 being 350 points. Nothing else is particularly bad about it. It has a nice weapons load-out and host of options for the different data sheets.
If it could shoot out of combat and was 300 points. It would be playable. Honestly though compared to the field. It needs to be even less than that to see competitive play. Like 280.
This would make crusaders something like 250. This seems right.
So the problem really is just "combat shuts it down" and "it's a bit overpriced"; there's nothing more specific than those changes? Because I'd be absolutely okay with that. How would this rule be, combined with dropping the Land Raider to 300 flat-ish:
"Assault Tank: The Land Raider's machine spirit is known for its aggression, and the tanks themselves are often used to breach enemy positions before disgorging their cargo in the heart of the enemy. A Land Raider can never be prevented from shooting by enemy models within 1" of it. Furthermore, on any turn it charges, it may choose to count its weapons as having the "Melee" type during the subsequent assault phase."
That, I think, gives Land Raiders an incentive to charge and also preserves their ability to shoot while locked in combat, but doesn't let them fall back willingly.
That would be really cool but maybe too good. Charging with landraiders does sound fun though. I kind of imagine this is how land-raiders are supposed to work.
More realistically (like I'm not going to advocate this becomes a rule) but in melle I think it would be realistic if it got WS5+ with a str user ap-2 d3 damage weapon.
Just as a funsies maybe give them a rule like the Carnifex. On a turn it charges roll 3 dice. on a 4+ the unit takes that many mortal wounds. (these are rules on models that I don't really think should cost many points) it just adds some variety to the game.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Maybe we could make it a 1CP stratagem to fire the weapons on the charge. Call it "Assault Protocols" or something and key it to the Land Raider keyword rather than datasheet names.
I don't like the W5+ -2 d3 damage because that's what a baneblade has, and even with Crush Them the incentive to charge with a baneblade is lower than I'd like it to be for a Land Raider. A baneblade gets into combat kinda "incidentally", while a Land Raider should absolutely be deliberately getting into combat.
As for allowing the passengers to disembark straight into combat: I think they already do that the next turn after the Land Raider charges. That's a sufficient abstraction. Getting the passengers auto-in to combat without overwatch or a charge move is just complicated and probably ridiculously overpowered (not allowing for Heroic Interventions, not triggering Overwatch, allowing the unit to hit any enemy it can reach even if it didn't charge them, etc. etc.).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Maybe we could make it a 1CP stratagem to fire the weapons on the charge. Call it "Assault Protocols" or something and key it to the Land Raider keyword rather than datasheet names.
I don't like the W5+ -2 d3 damage because that's what a baneblade has, and even with Crush Them the incentive to charge with a baneblade is lower than I'd like it to be for a Land Raider. A baneblade gets into combat kinda "incidentally", while a Land Raider should absolutely be deliberately getting into combat.
As for allowing the passengers to disembark straight into combat: I think they already do that the next turn after the Land Raider charges. That's a sufficient abstraction. Getting the passengers auto-in to combat without overwatch or a charge move is just complicated and probably ridiculously overpowered (not allowing for Heroic Interventions, not triggering Overwatch, allowing the unit to hit any enemy it can reach even if it didn't charge them, etc. etc.).
But should a land radier really be charging units? It's an assualt tank not an assualt unit, also you can't disembark into combat.
The Assault Ramp needs to allow a unit to either
1 Models embarked within this transport can assualt from the assualt ramp roll as normal but measure the charge distance from the assualt ramp of the vehical.
2 models may diembark from this vehical at the end of its movement phase howecer they may not move further this turn except to charge an anemy unit.
Also on the T9 vrs T8 debate in previous editions a land raider was harder to kill than a leman russ etc in 8th edition it just doesn't feel that much tougher especially for something that is supposed to be rhe pinical of Imperium STC construction.
Everything can still wound it on 6's and anything Strength 5+ is wounding on 5's T10 and T12 are the real tipping points where things become increasingly difficult to kill. With lascannons etc still be wounding on 4+.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Maybe we could make it a 1CP stratagem to fire the weapons on the charge. Call it "Assault Protocols" or something and key it to the Land Raider keyword rather than datasheet names.
I don't like the W5+ -2 d3 damage because that's what a baneblade has, and even with Crush Them the incentive to charge with a baneblade is lower than I'd like it to be for a Land Raider. A baneblade gets into combat kinda "incidentally", while a Land Raider should absolutely be deliberately getting into combat.
As for allowing the passengers to disembark straight into combat: I think they already do that the next turn after the Land Raider charges. That's a sufficient abstraction. Getting the passengers auto-in to combat without overwatch or a charge move is just complicated and probably ridiculously overpowered (not allowing for Heroic Interventions, not triggering Overwatch, allowing the unit to hit any enemy it can reach even if it didn't charge them, etc. etc.).
But should a land radier really be charging units? It's an assualt tank not an assualt unit, also you can't disembark into combat.
The Assault Ramp needs to allow a unit to either
1 Models embarked within this transport can assualt from the assualt ramp roll as normal but measure the charge distance from the assualt ramp of the vehical.
2 models may diembark from this vehical at the end of its movement phase howecer they may not move further this turn except to charge an anemy unit.
Also on the T9 vrs T8 debate in previous editions a land raider was harder to kill than a leman russ etc in 8th edition it just doesn't feel that much tougher especially for something that is supposed to be rhe pinical of Imperium STC construction.
Everything can still wound it on 6's and anything Strength 5+ is wounding on 5's T10 and T12 are the real tipping points where things become increasingly difficult to kill. With lascannons etc still be wounding on 4+.
Well, yes. The gap between the Land Raider and the Leman Russ was lower than the gap between the Predator and the Russ, however. Now? I'd argue the Land Raider is further from the Russ than the Russ is from the predator (+1 save, giving it a 5+ against lascannons and a 4+ against missiles in the open, and 4 wounds more).
And yes, I'd like to see the Land Raider charging units. I think that's an awesome image, and isn't a niche a tank typically fills, giving it a unique, iconic function. Lastly, you can absolutely disembark while the tank is in combat - just get out the back, then charge whatever it's in combat with, like you normally would. No need for a special rule for that.
well in regards to the transport ability. I don't see it as being worth much. Maybe about 2 points per transport slot in the grand scheme. So with capticty of 10 - you take the cost as a battle tank and ad 20 points.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
This is the problem with the LR currently, a major part of it's cost is it's ability to transport, which fine makes sense. BUT, look at what you out in there, tac marine? Kinda a waste, so terminators, well now you have a 200 point unit, sitting inside a 300 point transport, you basically made a massive pinata. It becomes a huge target and gets wasted because the land raider is meh in survivability with all the massive damage weapons on the board right now
- 10,000 pts 
