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.

Hey folks,

So recently I got a great deal on a standard landraider and a landraider crusader, and I've been painting them and ogling over their coolness for days. I'll admit, a big part of the appeal for me is that when I was a kid and just starting to get into the hobby they seemed like this super-cool/super-expensive bit of kit that I would never get to afford. Ah, youth.

Anyway, these days I keep hearing about how bad they are, how you should never run them, ect, ect.

My question is: why?

I mean, sure, they are definitely a priority target, but so is anything with a big footprint and a lot of dakka. Even if they function as basically just bullet magnets, well, I mean the opponent is going to be blowing SOMETHING off the table, and those suckers can take a real beating before going down. So what gives? I see similar hate for things like baneblades and the like, but not nearly as much as the hate for the good old WW1 style Marine death-box.

So can someone please explain where this idea comes from? And, as a follow-up question: do you think they will stay as loathed in 9th ed?

(Edited for spelling)

With the older editions, they were just a huge point sink that died to a stiff breeze. Then with 8th, they got the durability boost but were now stopped by even a mere Gaunt sitting in front of it. Now THAT issue is fixed (kinda) but I'm betting they got more expensive.

leerm02 wrote:
Hey folks,

So recently I got a great deal on a standard landraider and a landraider crusader, and I've been painting them and ogling over their coolness for days. I'll admit, a big part of the appeal for me is that when I was a kid and just starting to get into the hobby they seemed like this super-cool/super-expensive bit of kit that I would never get to afford. Ah, youth.

Anyway, these days I keep hearing about how bad they are, how you should never run them, ect, ect.

My question is: why?

I mean, sure, they are definitely a priority target, but so is anything with a big footprint and a lot of dakka. Even if they function as basically just bullet magnets, well, I mean the opponent is going to be blowing SOMETHING off the table, and those suckers can take a real beating before going down. So what gives? I see similar hate for things like baneblades and the like, but not nearly as much as the hate for the good old WW1 style Marine death-box.

So can someone please explain where this idea comes from? And, as a follow-up question: do you think they will stay as loathed in 9th ed?

(Edited for spelling)

Having a bunch of wounds is not a big help if you do not have an Invul save. Its a lot of points in a single target for the opponent to focus high AP, D6 damage weapons into. Additionally, most players have to have a plan for Knights, which means that they can certainly deal with Land Raiders. Things like Knights also tend to have weapons that can wipe a Land Raider.

Still, run if you love em!

Part of the problem with LRs is that they're paying for Transport capability that is at odds with their shooting profile and they're honestly not quite tough enough for how much they cost.

The other part of the problem is ... was that they're an awful lot of capability to be susceptible to being shut down by a single Gretchen making it into melee. That problem is going away. It doesn't hurt that Terminators are effectively getting cheaper.. I suspect they'll be a fair bit more popular in 9th.

I don't think I've seen a lot hate for them per say, but they have definitely suffered for a real purpose until 8th.

I'm in the same camp as you that I have a soft spot for them, and I try to run one at least once every time a new edition drops. 8th is the only time I didn't feel *bad* running one since I could actually make use of all the guns and the transport capacity.

All that said, it's always more fun to run the models and units you like, so do what makes you happy.

Under-gunned for the point cost, pure and simple.

Over-costed for the transport role.


9th may be a turn around, but personally I think they're still under-gunned. 8th set the bar for killing power really high.

Historically they are expensive, large targets that tend to not return their value. I recent days, as lots of people are moving towards Primaris, Land Raiders can't carry Primaris units, which probably hurts them further. A MAJOR problem with LAnd Raiders in 8th edition was that if a model engaged it in close combat, the Land Raider couldn't fire in the next turn. Thankfully, that's no longer the case in 9th.

I've got a ton of them, and I absolutely love the model (especially with the FW reinforced armor on it). But I still struggle to get it into my armies most of the time.

A few things are happening in 9th which can be to the benefit of Land Raiders.
1. They will be easier to hide from lots of firepower. Obscuring terrain means that you can pick your engagements better and try to keep them safer.
2. They can fire into combat when they are engaged, which is awesome.
3. This is unknown atm, buuut, all vehicles can now move and fire without penalty. Normally Land Raiders would do that anyways because of their Power of the Machine Spirit rule. However, since the new vehicle rules make that redundant, I think its likely that POTMS will wind up doing something else nifty for the Land Raider.

Another thing that Land Raiders are good at, is being LOS blockers. You can hide a ton of stuff behind a Land Raider, and use it a moving wall to protect your models. This might be a more viable tactic now with Obscuring terrain potentially splitting up the battlefield into smaller sectors of engagement. Land Raiders remain pretty tough against any non AT weapons, so if you can protect it from lots of AT fire, it can in turn protect other units from anti-personnel fire.


All that aside, the last time I took Land Raiders out was in a more casual 3000 point battle against Custodes. I loaded them up with Lascannon Devastators, protecting them from fire. I also had a bunch of Razorbacks and Tactical Squads. I was going for a goofy "Laser" theme army for fun. I might have packed 30 Lascannons into the army. As it turned out it worked great, and I basically irreparably damaged the Custodes army in the first turn. He conceded at the beginning of my turn two.

leerm02 wrote:
Hey folks,

So recently I got a great deal on a standard landraider and a landraider crusader, and I've been painting them and ogling over their coolness for days. I'll admit, a big part of the appeal for me is that when I was a kid and just starting to get into the hobby they seemed like this super-cool/super-expensive bit of kit that I would never get to afford. Ah, youth.

Anyway, these days I keep hearing about how bad they are, how you should never run them, ect, ect.

My question is: why?

I mean, sure, they are definitely a priority target, but so is anything with a big footprint and a lot of dakka. Even if they function as basically just bullet magnets, well, I mean the opponent is going to be blowing SOMETHING off the table, and those suckers can take a real beating before going down. So what gives? I see similar hate for things like baneblades and the like, but not nearly as much as the hate for the good old WW1 style Marine death-box.

So can someone please explain where this idea comes from? And, as a follow-up question: do you think they will stay as loathed in 9th ed?

(Edited for spelling)

Crusaders and Redeemers may be in for a better day, but the regular Land Raider definitely no.

Land Raiders have a bunch of issues
First off, they exist in a defensive profile range where they're large and meaty and are too expensive to be brought en-masse, but also lack a invulnerable saving throw, meaning they're really not survivable at all. Vehicles as a whole are pretty poorly survivable because of a number of flaws of the edition in general, and anything big and expensive needs to have an invulnerable save to really be viable.
Second off, they're fairly under-armed for their cost. 2 twin-linked lascannons isn't really an armanent to write home about on a vehicle, and many cheaper vehicles trivially outperform the Land Raider in firepower. If you want 4 Lascannons, you can buy a Predator or Devastator squad for much less.
Third, they're confused. They're a heavy tank with mid-range AT guns, that carries infantry. In order to fulfill it's task as a transport, it needs to be heading towards the enemy. It pays in points for both capabilities, but driving to the enemy is generally not great for it's ability to engage targets with its guns and sitting behind a skirmish line to protect it from being tagged and from other dangerous short-ranged infantry AT weapons isn't using it's transport.
Finally, as a transport, it's not great. Any normal transporting of tactical marines and similar units is more efficiently accomplished by a Rhino or Razorback, which are far cheaper. That leaves the Land Raider to carry Terminators, but Terminators themselves are not only bad, but can deep strike, and thus don't need the transporter.

In short, it does a lot of things, none of them neccessary, none of them well, and pays a lot of points for all of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I've got a ton of them, and I absolutely love the model (especially with the FW reinforced armor on it). But I still struggle to get it into my armies most of the time.

A few things are happening in 9th which can be to the benefit of Land Raiders.
1. They will be easier to hide from lots of firepower. Obscuring terrain means that you can pick your engagements better and try to keep them safer.
2. They can fire into combat when they are engaged, which is awesome.
3. This is unknown atm, buuut, all vehicles can now move and fire without penalty. Normally Land Raiders would do that anyways because of their Power of the Machine Spirit rule. However, since the new vehicle rules make that redundant, I think its likely that POTMS will wind up doing something else nifty for the Land Raider.

POMS was outright deleted as per the FAQ

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

POMS was outright deleted as per the FAQ

Hopefully temporary as it is purely redundant atm. My fingers are crossed.

Doesn't cover provide zero benefits to vehicles in 9th? Like whether you are 1% obscured or 99% obscured, you get nothing? No +1 to your save. No -1 To Hit. If so, that's another nail in the Land Raider-shaped coffin.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Doesn't cover provide zero benefits to vehicles in 9th? Like whether you are 1% obscured or 99% obscured, you get nothing? No +1 to your save. No -1 To Hit. If so, that's another nail in the Land Raider-shaped coffin.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It depends on the terrain rules, which... the writing drives me nuts.

Obstacles...only infantry, beasts and swarms receive the benefits while within 3"
Area Terrain... only beasts, infantry and swarms 'receive the benefits' while _in_ it.

However,
Dense Cover (-1 to hit) can apply when drawing lines _through_ it. (as long as the attacker isn't in it). And the qualifications just require _one_ 'hypothetical' line (from shooter to target) to cross the terrain. (unlike obscuring, which requires _all_ hypothetical lines to cross the terrain). The terrain rules are not very consistent.
Dense Cover also specifically mentions hulls, so that suggests the writer was at least thinking of vehicles while coming up with the rule.


Light Cover requires the model to be 'receiving the benefits' as does heavy cover, which for vehicles is never.

By default Woods, Industrial Structure and Ruined Walls have Dense Cover (if they're at least 3" tall). The walls are obstacles and I'm less sure that would work (and I'm not 100% sure on any of it, because the terrain rules are trained contortionists.

I don’t think anyone hates land raiders. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The rules just have not been kind to them.

However, I think 9th May make them quote competitive. Maybe not tournament level, but likely they’ll feel good and not like you’re actively trying to handicap your army.

For the OP, I should add that the Land Raider Crusader can actually do good things as it has a focused purpose. The new edition should be good for it as it wants to get up close, and if it ends up in Engagement during its shooting phase it has some good tools. I'm kinda optimistic..

Thanks for your responses everyone!

Yeah, I'm optimistic about the future of the Landraider myself, but of course the "all primaris all the time" thing does worry me a bit.

If nothing else: I have some cool models that I've enjoyed painting and displaying, so not a total waste in that department. Obviously, once my local store opens again I'm going to give one or both of them a go on the table, see how my mileage compares to everyone else's (who knows, maybe lady luck also likes Landraiders!)

Landraider's were solid in 5th ed because they were good for delivering Hammer+Shield terminators straight into a charge. This made up for their lack of ability to make back their own points. This worked because they had the Assault Ramps rule that allowed it to move, and then for the passengers to get out and still charge.

In 8th, they went way up in price due to paying full price for weapons, and they lost their Assault Ramps. But their increase in firepower from the twin-linked weapon changes isn't enough to justify their price. You're better off running an equivalent cost of las preds or something.

So yeah, GW gutted the defining aspect of land raiders, which was Assault Ramps. That's why they are bad.

I'm hoping at least the Crusader will be good in 9th myself. I've got one that actually made it into some games in early 8th edition (when Azrael could give vehicles a 4++), but it hasn't seen play since the DA codex dropped (late 2017).

IMHO the land raider crusader was very good in 8th: 266 points for a quite resilient model that could take out hordes very efficiently while also carrying 16 models actually was a deal. I always had it in my lists, with lots of armor redundancy so it was never the only big target (I also had 3 razorbacks and the gunship) on the table. In 9th only got a small price hike and new rules should benefit it more than ever so it should be even better now.

I mostly recommend the crusader though, other kinds of land raiders never had an appeal to me, but for different armies they could have their niche as well maybe.

Real problem with land raiders is the same problem 80%+ of SM units have: high internal competition. With 10k datasheets they'll always have something that does the same job but better. It doesn't mean that land raiders are bad though, and for people that want to stay away from primaris, like me, they can actually serve their purpose. I never regretted using mine pretty much every time in 8th SW lists.

Voss wrote:
Under-gunned for the point cost, pure and simple.

Over-costed for the transport role.


9th may be a turn around, but personally I think they're still under-gunned. 8th set the bar for killing power really high.

One thing that always got me was back in 30K most of the Land raiders had dual QUAD lascannons. I always wondered why the landraider couldn't take quad las in 40K.

 Togusa wrote:

Voss wrote:
Under-gunned for the point cost, pure and simple.

Over-costed for the transport role.


9th may be a turn around, but personally I think they're still under-gunned. 8th set the bar for killing power really high.

One thing that always got me was back in 30K most of the Land raiders had dual QUAD lascannons. I always wondered why the landraider couldn't take quad las in 40K.

Larger-than-Land-Raiders like Spartans could. Land Raider has always been twin.

Land Raiders... The biggest paperweights since 3E...

I love Land Raiders, I just don't like their rules (at least from 4th to 8th edition. They were okayish in 3.5 edition, and look better in 9th.

I love the look of them. My favorite tank of all time is the WWI British Mk 4.

Land raiders should be T9. That would better match their old 14/14/14 which was better than a knight. It would also give them a niche as really tough. Stay the same price though. Chaos also needs some alternative build. Just my thoughts.

The Land Raider was the reason I started 40K. I'd say it was the first tank I bought for 40K, but at the time there were only three vehicle kits, so that's not saying much. I love the Land Raider so much I once bought one by accident! And I own 8 of them... I think.

I wish it was awesome. It is not.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Land Raider was the reason I started 40K. I'd say it was the first tank I bought for 40K, but at the time there were only three vehicle kits, so that's not saying much. I love the Land Raider so much I once bought one by accident! And I own 8 of them... I think.

I wish it was awesome. It is not.

LOL. I feel ya, I have eight of them myself. Four of the current and four of the OG. Only three total are finished/restored and painted though. But I can't wait to get them all done. I don't even care that I may never use them all, I just love em.

but at the time there were only three vehicle kits, so that's not saying much

I'm struggling to remember what the third one was. Obviously the Rhino, and the LR. The weird metal Land Speeder? With seats and engines glued haphazardly onto the central spine?

The battlewagon and the eldar vehicles all took a while, so not them.

Voss wrote:
I'm struggling to remember what the third one was. Obviously the Rhino, and the LR. The weird metal Land Speeder? With seats and engines glued haphazardly onto the central spine?The battlewagon and the eldar vehicles all took a while, so not them.

Yes, the Land Speeder and the really wonky OG Dreads existed, but I'm more talking plastic vehicles, so in this case it would be the original Predator kit.

I once saw the original box with two Land Raiders in a store. Didn't have the presence of mind to get it though.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't even care that I may never use them all, I just love em.

Your Land Raiders are very pretty.

Two of mine are painted (the OG one, and the first one I got when the Mk.III came out). There's a Crusader, a Redeemer, another regular ones, two have fallen to the Dark Gods, and two remain unbuilt - the one I got by accident and the one that came with the Talons of the Emperor box.

I like everything about the land raiders other than the tracks on the new one D: Looks like it would get stuck on small rocks, but i think its one of GW best designs for marines. Both versions above.
Its kind of a shame they seem to have no idea what to do with it in game.

Also they do look snazzy in white !

Also crazy to think, My chaos one in 3rd eiditon got stolen by a Dingo D: They are strange creatures.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'm struggling to remember what the third one was. Obviously the Rhino, and the LR. The weird metal Land Speeder? With seats and engines glued haphazardly onto the central spine?The battlewagon and the eldar vehicles all took a while, so not them.

Yes, the Land Speeder and the really wonky OG Dreads existed, but I'm more talking plastic vehicles, so in this case it would be the original Predator kit.

Oh, well that's just cheating. Its just the (tangent: utterly bizzare*) Rhino kit plus a few bits.
Plus the only early Predator I had was the chaos one, which had metal gun bits, so I didn't even think of it.


*the fact that top and bottom hull were the same utterly confused me when assembling my first Rhino. And I did the overhang slot for the 'light strip' wrong. I didn't leave space, just glued them together as far apart as I could. Left an annoying gap.

Apple fox wrote:
I like everything about the land raiders other than the tracks on the new one D:

The rocks make way for the tanks! Yeah it's true, the thing has no suspension and no clearance. The original though. . . a Terminator could lie down and the Land Raider would pass right over it.

I love the little rosary-eagle detail on the tracks on the new one, too.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Raiders are very pretty.

Tanks!

Landraiders will always, always, be cooler than the new repulsive floating tanks. I've got one, with spikes, naturally, and have always wanted a Proteus (fw resin model of the original Landraider) and Achilles (which comes with a sweet 4++).

Always remember: REAL TANKS HAVE TREADS.