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.

Grey40k wrote:
There are better transports (impulsor).
There are better AT sources (eradicators).

Honestly, it just isn't priced appropriately. For whatever reason GWS is not trying to push landraiders (I'd guess because they want to sell primaris kids instead).

Since we are at it, can someone please explain to me why primaris cannot fit in a landraider, marines in a chimera, and guardsmen in an impulsor?

The Razorback is better as well. Three Razorbacks 2xTLLC and 1x TLHB matches the armament, and carries more dudes (but not Terminators) And I think its cheaper but don't quote me on it.

The only reason to go Land Raider is
A) you can't unlock three razorback Dedicated Transports for 15 dudes - which feels pretty hard to do in a normal list.
B) You want to ferry Terminators instead of Deep Striking them

As for priced appropriately there's yeah's and nay's on that. They're probably only overcharging for the transport part on it and the Repulsor both especially given the limited value of that transport ability as only "necessary" for Gravis/Terminators because you'd go with cheaper Impulsors/Razorbacks for anything that would fit - and that just makes it a bigger target. You compare it to a Banehammer/Superheavy Transports for example, two Lascanon sponsons and two HB sponsons, Transport for 25 instead of 6/10/12/16 or whatever - about a hundred points for: the Big Gun, 10 -15 more chairs, a point of BS, and 10 more wounds (a 10 Wound T7 not T8 Rhino is well more than half that hundred points, while the Big Gun is likely another half) Drop the hull cost by 50ish points of Transport Premium and it starts getting pretty interesting.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

You shoot what you have at the priority targets. I'll happily plug Eradicators and Obliterators with Lascannons, and I'll happily shoot S5 weapons like Grav Cannons at T8 tanks, Knights etc.

In fact S5 Grav Cannons are actually better than Lascannons against T8.

And Lascannons fired at things like Eradicators, Obliterators, etc. will reduce the opponents return fire faster than firing Lascannons at Land Raiders, which need to take 8 wounds before degrading it's ability. Eradicators can take only 3 wounds before losing 2 Melta shots from their unit.

If the choice is, deal 6 wounds to a Land Raider or 6 wounds to an Eradicator Squad, shooting the Eradicators can make a ton of sense since that's removing 4 melta shots against you next turn, while shooting the Land Raider will change nothing about the opponents capability. Being snooty about firing Lascannons at "infantry" isn't really going to come into it.

Its maybe removing 4 melta. Melta, like Grav is still 24" so not necessarily in the danger zone on T1 - and rolling a 6 on that Lascannon Damage doesn't remove 6 wounds, it removes 3 and 3 are lost?
S5 Grav is even better at removing T5 right? I absolutely agree these hardened infantry are almost always a more dangerous target than a big heavy tank. My point is also that there are much better options for taking those units down than the big heavy anti-tank weapons.

Honest question, Am I not being clear? I'm not being cheeky, I just keep seeing people argue something I didn't say was wrong.

You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.

You're also saying:

I did say there's generally only the one T8 LR/etc on the board for the Anti-tank meaning they're going to generally shoot it at the tank first the elites second.
. . .
I did say several armies had some way of taking multiple T8 Tanks/Units to force more decision making than "It's there"

Statements which are contradictory, but also imo arbitrarily focused on the "band" of T8. Hard target is hard target, be it T8 Land Raider T7 Predator, T6, Carnifex. All of which are fine targets for high power weapons, Grav, Plasma, Melta or Las. There are minor fluctuations in weapon efficiency, but the decisions to use weapons has more to do with target priority and the available firepower one can bring to bear.

 Insectum7 wrote:


You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.

To be fair, at least part of this is due to the eradicators being more dangerous that the firepower of the landraider. A single unit of 3 eradicators, for 120 points, outputs better AT than a 300 land raider. 4 lascannon shots vs 6 melta shots, even without the half range rule for meltas (5.19 vs 7 wounds, without rerolls). I don't think we should even bother to do point per point comparisons.

 Blackie wrote:
Nerf them, remove the ability of free deep strike from terminators

I didn't expect for Terminators of all things to be called OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey40k wrote:
I don't think we should even bother to do point per point comparisons.

Yes, it's completely pointless since you'd have to consider all the OTHER things in which these two units are different as well, not just firepower.

Breton thinks Land Raiders are " not good ". I think we all understand that going forward here, lets move on.

I think Land Raiders are good. I think they were good during 8th, and I will think they are good going into 9th, if you bring a single LR in your list with other targets that are worth shooting at, and your oponent has to make a choice during his turn what to shoot at, then you have built a decent list. Also take advantage of relics/psychic powers to buff your LR and it performs well, especially if your squad inside gets to where it needs to be and opens up an objective for you so you can claim and score. Multiple LR's are nice and can move and hopefully claim more objectives for you with the squads inside and provide even more target saturation and descisions your opponent has to think about. Also Redeemer's anti heavy infantry capability is quite nasty once it gets closer after dropping off its squad on an objective. In a Marine heavy meta I will always give a slight nod to the firepower of the Redeemer atm.

Grey40k wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.

To be fair, at least part of this is due to the eradicators being more dangerous that the firepower of the landraider. A single unit of 3 eradicators, for 120 points, outputs better AT than a 300 land raider. 4 lascannon shots vs 6 melta shots, even without the half range rule for meltas (5.19 vs 7 wounds, without rerolls). I don't think we should even bother to do point per point comparisons.

It honestly has little to do with Eradicators specifically and more to do with the amount of "capability removal" even a single AT shot can provide against infantry. I have no qualms about firing Lascannons at Devastators or Dark Reapers if each kill is removing a heavy weapon from my opponents next firing phase. (Or, potentially helping achieve secondaries through unit kills in 9th).

nekooni wrote:


I didn't expect for Terminators of all things to be called OP.

Terminators are very similar to LRs in this matter: they've always been good since 8th but they suffered from being part of a codex with thousand of overpowered stuff and lack of synergy with many common builds. And yes, free deepstrike for heavy elites is overpowered, we orks always pay 155 points for a transport or 2 CPs to carry our terminator equivalents. Now that they're going to get 3W and 4 damage Thunder Hammers they could easily be really overpowered. SW ones get +1 to hit in combat most of the times, up to +2A thanks to other unit's auras, and easy access to re-rolls. Terminators aren't a unit that does the job alone, find some synergy and they'll get their points back. Of course they never worked for SM gunlines, and they shouldn't do.

Free deepstrike ability is the reason why a unit doesn't need a transport. If all units could deepstrike transport will have no purpose at all, unless they are cheap gun boats, like razorbacks.

I use my LR crusader to carry 5 wulfen, 5 blood claws and eventually one character (Wolf Priest or Battle Leader). It's obviously a bullet magnet, but by making it a priority target I could save the flyer and the razorbacks from incoming firepower and wulfen can't deepstrike, they can only ouflank for 1 CP so a transport and protection from some firepower are actually quite handy for them. I also have lots of ranged anti tank options available and basically only razorbacks as ranged anti infantry units; while the SW codex has certainly other options for that purpose, models availability kicks in and those 40 shots in rapid fire range are very useful to me. Other types of LR I don't know, they don't serve the purpose I need for my big tank.

To make LRs shine a player must find a purpose for them, I did for my army and never regret using it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It honestly has little to do with Eradicators specifically and more to do with the amount of "capability removal" even a single AT shot can provide against infantry. I have no qualms about firing Lascannons at Devastators or Dark Reapers if each kill is removing a heavy weapon from my opponents next firing phase. (Or, potentially helping achieve secondaries through unit kills in 9th).

Careful with that

You can look up my mathhammer on shooting land raiders vs eradicators in the eradicator thread.

I am convinced that, if a vehicle is appropriately priced (unlike the land rider) wrt eradicators, then shooting AT at the vehicle is likely to accrue more value. Although, to be fair, the new t5 3W profiles are very weird to shot at, considering they are infantry.

4 Lascannons deal an average of 5 damage to either a gravis unit or a vehicle, with a high chance of killing two gravis models instead of just one. That's 40-80 points of shooting gone from your opponent's list. You'll struggle to kill that many points worth of vehicles with them, so why not shoot lascannons at gravis models?

 Insectum7 wrote:


You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.

Except your example was -the way I followed it -1 Lascanon shot doing 6 damage and removing 6 wounds worth of models which isn't exactly the case for shooting 3W models.

You're also saying:

I did say there's generally only the one T8 LR/etc on the board for the Anti-tank meaning they're going to generally shoot it at the tank first the elites second.
. . .
I did say several armies had some way of taking multiple T8 Tanks/Units to force more decision making than "It's there"

Statements which are contradictory, but also imo arbitrarily focused on the "band" of T8. Hard target is hard target, be it T8 Land Raider T7 Predator, T6, Carnifex. All of which are fine targets for high power weapons, Grav, Plasma, Melta or Las. There are minor fluctuations in weapon efficiency, but the decisions to use weapons has more to do with target priority and the available firepower one can bring to bear.

Yep, if you look back a few posts I checked several different army lists and their T8 options. If you'll scroll back the "LR/etc" refers to the High Priced LR Variants, Repulsor, and Monolith - maybe one more I can't remember but it's nagging me like feeling like you left the stove on at home, while "multiple T8's" refers to Pure Knights were almost everything is T8, or the Ork wagons, Leman Russ, etc. low to moderate priced options especially if they can squadron

There is little reason for orks to bring more than two wagons, and it's not like SM don't have vindicators.

 Blackie wrote:

nekooni wrote:


I didn't expect for Terminators of all things to be called OP.

Terminators are very similar to LRs in this matter: they've always been good since 8th but they suffered from being part of a codex with thousand of overpowered stuff and lack of synergy with many common builds.

Terminators did get a huge boost going to 2W. I wouldn't say they're OP, especially not the shooty ones, but needing two flashlights to get lucky per Termie gave them a huge boost. Moving to 3 will be as huge if not moreso as they'd survive plasma - their more traditional achilles heel - now too.. The issue with a Termie was never getting hammered by a lascannon, the issue was 10 lasguns rapid firing into it. 20 shots 10 hit, 6-7 wound, 1 armor save rolls a 1, dead Termie. Light your Black Library bookshelf on fire in protest.

Breton wrote:


Terminators did get a huge boost going to 2W. I wouldn't say they're OP, especially not the shooty ones, but needing two flashlights to get lucky per Termie gave them a huge boost. Moving to 3 will be as huge if not moreso as they'd survive plasma - their more traditional achilles heel - now too.. The issue with a Termie was never getting hammered by a lascannon, the issue was 10 lasguns rapid firing into it. 20 shots 10 hit, 6-7 wound, 1 armor save rolls a 1, dead Termie. Light your Black Library bookshelf on fire in protest.

I agree. And yet even in 8th, when termis got their 2nd wound, on this site threads about "how to make terminators good" in the proposed rules section were common. My personal take is that many SM players, especially those ones that started in 7th or 8th, are so used to field OP units that can't find value in stuff that is actually good but requires some strategy/synergy around it or isn't simply OP and "forgiving" as other units.

 Jidmah wrote:
There is little reason for orks to bring more than two wagons, and it's not like SM don't have vindicators.

How many lists do you see with 2 300 point land raider variants? That's 30% of a 2,000 point list. 1 of each Repulsor is closer to 35%

I have mentioned the vindicator before up above, and I've been playing with it in my head, the end of both Move Or Fire Ordnance and Moving Heavy Penalties for Vindicators is something I'm kicking around. D6 to replace the Pie Plate of Doom is a little uninspiring, but que será, será.

The land raider used to be not only cheaper than some Terminators but MUCH cheaper. 70% of 5 Terminators. Terminators took a nose dive in price. Off a giant cliff. They're now 55% of what they used to be - Most SM infantry did this by about the same ratio.
The Land Raider itself used to be 77% of it's current price
The AC/HB Predator used to be 75% of the AC/HB Pred's current cost, 58% of the old LR and it's now 56% of the new one.
The Leman Russ used to cost 93% of a Land Raider its now 57% of today's LR and 80% of what it was.


Now none of this really means a whole lot with how vastly different the game is today from then. I've got a datacard for the Russ, and I'm hoping in the back of a closet I can find the datacard for the Land Raider and it's front side/rear Armor Values. I'm curious how survivability has changed. I'd guess not that much. The Transport Tax is painful.

Land Raiders were AV 14 all around, everyone knows that.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There is little reason for orks to bring more than two wagons, and it's not like SM don't have vindicators.

How many lists do you see with 2 300 point land raider variants? That's 30% of a 2,000 point list. 1 of each Repulsor is closer to 35%

So you agree that you are comparing apples to oranges then, right?
Land raider = naut
Vindicator = battlewagon

Nauts are decent choices while land raiders are not. Being able to "spam" T8 has nothing to do with it, no matter how much you insist on it.

 Blackie wrote:

nekooni wrote:


I didn't expect for Terminators of all things to be called OP.

Terminators are very similar to LRs in this matter: they've always been good since 8th but they suffered from being part of a codex with thousand of overpowered stuff and lack of synergy with many common builds.

No,terminators weren't good throughout 8th.they were shut for most of it.i would know,I own every kid there is for vanilla and I played all of them, and they were gak. They are way more useful now that 9th edition changed a lot of things and they're pretty much the only thing that didn't increase in points in the SM codex.

I've played salamanders frequently all throughout 8th, I strongly prefer firstborn and while I managed to make my Redeemer and Achilles work, managed to make tacsquads work, there's two things I never managed to work :any kind of terminator that isn't hammer and shield (and even then they weren't reliable at all),and the veteran squads (stern and vanguard). They were garbage, and that's from someone also playing tyranids,sisters and guard,so it's not like I only know marines.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Land Raiders were AV 14 all around, everyone knows that.

I'm looking further back then that.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Land Raiders were AV 14 all around, everyone knows that.

I'm looking further back then that.

Farther back than 3rd edition? Why?

 Jidmah wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
There is little reason for orks to bring more than two wagons, and it's not like SM don't have vindicators.

How many lists do you see with 2 300 point land raider variants? That's 30% of a 2,000 point list. 1 of each Repulsor is closer to 35%

So you agree that you are comparing apples to oranges then, right?
Land raider = naut
Vindicator = battlewagon

Nauts are decent choices while land raiders are not. Being able to "spam" T8 has nothing to do with it, no matter how much you insist on it.

Comparing a LR and a LRC is apples and oranges. Unless its the same two models its all apples and oranges. Vindicators aren't transporting Termies or Aggressors/Gravis. Nauts arent the only way to transport MANz. Naughts (normal Repulsor) aren't the only option to transport 10(more than 6, a full unit) Nobs(non-gravis Primaris). With that said a Gorkanaut and a Repulsor Executioner are very very similar almost down to the point. in an other transport options vacuum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Billagio wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Land Raiders were AV 14 all around, everyone knows that.

I'm looking further back then that.

Farther back than 3rd edition? Why?

The books were on top of the pile. Its always fun to look at the changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Breton wrote:


Terminators did get a huge boost going to 2W. I wouldn't say they're OP, especially not the shooty ones, but needing two flashlights to get lucky per Termie gave them a huge boost. Moving to 3 will be as huge if not moreso as they'd survive plasma - their more traditional achilles heel - now too.. The issue with a Termie was never getting hammered by a lascannon, the issue was 10 lasguns rapid firing into it. 20 shots 10 hit, 6-7 wound, 1 armor save rolls a 1, dead Termie. Light your Black Library bookshelf on fire in protest.

I agree. And yet even in 8th, when termis got their 2nd wound, on this site threads about "how to make terminators good" in the proposed rules section were common. My personal take is that many SM players, especially those ones that started in 7th or 8th, are so used to field OP units that can't find value in stuff that is actually good but requires some strategy/synergy around it or isn't simply OP and "forgiving" as other units.

I'd say less of that, and more "out of sight, out of mind". I just did the same thing. For so long you could be CP starved if you didn't run the Loyal 32 as a farm. Now they fixed that by having everyone start with X and go down from there, (generally) not up. They weren't using them, like I wasn't using list building strats, so you forget about them and what's changed on them.

 Blackie wrote:

Breton wrote:


Terminators did get a huge boost going to 2W. I wouldn't say they're OP, especially not the shooty ones, but needing two flashlights to get lucky per Termie gave them a huge boost. Moving to 3 will be as huge if not moreso as they'd survive plasma - their more traditional achilles heel - now too.. The issue with a Termie was never getting hammered by a lascannon, the issue was 10 lasguns rapid firing into it. 20 shots 10 hit, 6-7 wound, 1 armor save rolls a 1, dead Termie. Light your Black Library bookshelf on fire in protest.

I agree. And yet even in 8th, when termis got their 2nd wound, on this site threads about "how to make terminators good" in the proposed rules section were common. My personal take is that many SM players, especially those ones that started in 7th or 8th, are so used to field OP units that can't find value in stuff that is actually good but requires some strategy/synergy around it or isn't simply OP and "forgiving" as other units.

I think you are confusing marines with eldar or tau or something...Literally anytime a marine unit is used with any kind of frequency it gets insta nerfed. Yet Shinning spears and riptides are pretty much untouchable.

Grey40k wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It honestly has little to do with Eradicators specifically and more to do with the amount of "capability removal" even a single AT shot can provide against infantry. I have no qualms about firing Lascannons at Devastators or Dark Reapers if each kill is removing a heavy weapon from my opponents next firing phase. (Or, potentially helping achieve secondaries through unit kills in 9th).

Careful with that

You can look up my mathhammer on shooting land raiders vs eradicators in the eradicator thread.

I am convinced that, if a vehicle is appropriately priced (unlike the land rider) wrt eradicators, then shooting AT at the vehicle is likely to accrue more value. Although, to be fair, the new t5 3W profiles are very weird to shot at, considering they are infantry.

Ok, but on the table the point value of something doesn't matter to me. Only capability (and often just capability for the following turn) matters. So despite shooting at a Land Raider might return a better "point value", that's not my priority. My priority is to remove options from my opponent. If that means firing Lascannons at Infantry, so be it.

I could shoot at a Land Raider, do 6 wounds, and make back 130 points or whatever, but not effect it's capability at all.
Or, I could shoot at Eradicators, kill two of them for only an 80 point return. But my opponent has four fewer Melta shots against me next turn. Imo, a better decision.

Breton wrote:
Comparing a LR and a LRC is apples and oranges. Unless its the same two models its all apples and oranges. Vindicators aren't transporting Termies or Aggressors/Gravis. Nauts arent the only way to transport MANz. Naughts (normal Repulsor) aren't the only option to transport 10(more than 6, a full unit) Nobs(non-gravis Primaris). With that said a Gorkanaut and a Repulsor Executioner are very very similar almost down to the point. in an other transport options vacuum.

Are you aware that you are randomly fracturing the game into a huge amount of arbitrary categories and drawing weird conclusions based on those? You are literally not seeing the forest for the trees. Try taking a step back and try to see the problem with a more open-minded approach.

On a high level, a land raider is a gunboat transport for ~300 points that is supposed to be reasonably hard to kill. Currently, it doesn't do a particularly great job at delivering terminators (or anything else), nor does it do a particularly good job at killing things, nor is it durable enough to warrant the high points costs. When you improve enough on those four problems it will be a good unit again.
Literally nothing else matters, especially not the number of units that have exactly T8 in your army.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.

Except your example was -the way I followed it -1 Lascanon shot doing 6 damage and removing 6 wounds worth of models which isn't exactly the case for shooting 3W models.

I'm not assuming I'm firing a single Lascannon, since Lascannons only average a single wound against a Land Raider to begin with, anyways. I'm just using a potential average net effect of weapons fire.

Breton wrote:

You're also saying:

I did say there's generally only the one T8 LR/etc on the board for the Anti-tank meaning they're going to generally shoot it at the tank first the elites second.
. . .
I did say several armies had some way of taking multiple T8 Tanks/Units to force more decision making than "It's there"

Statements which are contradictory, but also imo arbitrarily focused on the "band" of T8. Hard target is hard target, be it T8 Land Raider T7 Predator, T6, Carnifex. All of which are fine targets for high power weapons, Grav, Plasma, Melta or Las. There are minor fluctuations in weapon efficiency, but the decisions to use weapons has more to do with target priority and the available firepower one can bring to bear.

Yep, if you look back a few posts I checked several different army lists and their T8 options. If you'll scroll back the "LR/etc" refers to the High Priced LR Variants, Repulsor, and Monolith - maybe one more I can't remember but it's nagging me like feeling like you left the stove on at home, while "multiple T8's" refers to Pure Knights were almost everything is T8, or the Ork wagons, Leman Russ, etc. low to moderate priced options especially if they can squadron

Irrelevant. My point it Lascannons or other AT weapons aren't only valuable against T8 and above, so focusing on T8 is erroneous.

Insist a squad of any marine infantry effectively T8 against meltas and las with trans-human strat anyway?

I think that by now the consensus is that land raiders (as much as some of us love them) just aren't amazing in this edition.

BUT: who knows what crazy nonsense is going to come out with the codex! New rules? An invulnerable save? The ability to let units disembark/move/shoot/charge after the box moves?

At this point pretty much anything is on the table :-)

 Jidmah wrote:

Breton wrote:
Comparing a LR and a LRC is apples and oranges. Unless its the same two models its all apples and oranges. Vindicators aren't transporting Termies or Aggressors/Gravis. Nauts arent the only way to transport MANz. Naughts (normal Repulsor) aren't the only option to transport 10(more than 6, a full unit) Nobs(non-gravis Primaris). With that said a Gorkanaut and a Repulsor Executioner are very very similar almost down to the point. in an other transport options vacuum.

Are you aware that you are randomly fracturing the game into a huge amount of arbitrary categories and drawing weird conclusions based on those? You are literally not seeing the forest for the trees. Try taking a step back and try to see the problem with a more open-minded approach.

I'm sorry who was it tried to say Nauts not wagons were Land Raiders for their own arbitrary purposes? Right after an apples and oranges complaint?

On a high level, a land raider is a gunboat transport for ~300 points that is supposed to be reasonably hard to kill. Currently, it doesn't do a particularly great job at delivering terminators (or anything else), nor does it do a particularly good job at killing things, nor is it durable enough to warrant the high points costs. When you improve enough on those four problems it will be a good unit again.
Literally nothing else matters, especially not the number of units that have exactly T8 in your army.

Those are the same things I've been saying, I've just been saying it with more detail. "hard to kill" is pretty generic. And by far the biggest of those four issues is durability. There are a number of reasons most/many players will aim at the LR/Rep/Mono first. The 50/50 roll effect I've been talking about and think makes up the plurality of the reason, the value of the contents which would make up the majority of the reason if people were using them as transports, memories of previous editions, Dawn of War, physical/point size of model, and so on.

If the model was durable and/or cheaper people could/would use it for transport. Well, maybe not the Land Raider The Land Raider would have to be both.. The Land Raider is fairly redundant. 3 Razorbacks can replace the LR firepower, carry 15 guys instead of 10, have far more (double) slightly less durable wounds, be three targets instead of 1 and cost 350 instead of 300. The only "reason" for the Land Raider is Terminators which will be deepstriking for free then waiting a long time for the smoking crater to rapidly redeploy them on the other side of the board. Now I'm definitely not saying the solution is to remove free Deep Strike from Terminators. Does anyone think Razorbacks are broken in either direction? Over/under powered?

A Repulsor Executioner is even more expensive. And it's pretty much an up armored Impulsor with two Redemptor Gun arms. The bare bones Impulsor plus the cost of both Redemptor gun arms is 167 points. There's 10 points of other weapons I won't name but you can look up if you want to avoid breaking any rules. You're at 177. That means you're getting charged roughly 180 points for +1T, 5 wounds, Aquilon Optics, and for some incredibly weird reason +1LD(is Psychology coming back? Its been so long were vehicles even affected by it?). Oh and the ability transport 3 Gravis instead of 6 primaris as one of only two choices able to transport Gravis.

The normal Repulsor is a little tougher as it isn't as similar to the Impulsor as the Executioner. All the weapons on both the Repulsor and the Executioner have points values. None are the 0, built into the hull cost options. A stripped down hull only Repulsor is 20 points cheaper than a hull only Executioner. -4 Transport + 1Gun Shoot Twice = 20 points.

The Monolith is in a similar but less dire position as Nightscythes are a cheaper "transport" - in the unique way necrons do transport - option for the same units, and the Monolith itself can deep strike avoiding some of the the early round going second alpha strike shooting that kills the LR/Repulsor value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.

Except your example was -the way I followed it -1 Lascanon shot doing 6 damage and removing 6 wounds worth of models which isn't exactly the case for shooting 3W models.

I'm not assuming I'm firing a single Lascannon, since Lascannons only average a single wound against a Land Raider to begin with, anyways. I'm just using a potential average net effect of weapons fire.

That was literally your example.

 Insectum7 wrote:


And Lascannons fired at things like Eradicators, Obliterators, etc. will reduce the opponents return fire faster than firing Lascannons at Land Raiders, which need to take 8 wounds before degrading it's ability. Eradicators can take only 3 wounds before losing 2 Melta shots from their unit.

If the choice is, deal 6 wounds to a Land Raider or 6 wounds to an Eradicator Squad, shooting the Eradicators can make a ton of sense since that's removing 4 melta shots against you next turn, while shooting the Land Raider will change nothing about the opponents capability. Being snooty about firing Lascannons at "infantry" isn't really going to come into it.

And I pointed out that rolling the same 6 damage on the land raider does not remove 6 wounds if you targeted two eradicators.

Breton wrote:

You're also saying:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I did say there's generally only the one T8 LR/etc on the board for the Anti-tank meaning they're going to generally shoot it at the tank first the elites second.
. . .
I did say several armies had some way of taking multiple T8 Tanks/Units to force more decision making than "It's there"

Statements which are contradictory, but also imo arbitrarily focused on the "band" of T8. Hard target is hard target, be it T8 Land Raider T7 Predator, T6, Carnifex. All of which are fine targets for high power weapons, Grav, Plasma, Melta or Las. There are minor fluctuations in weapon efficiency, but the decisions to use weapons has more to do with target priority and the available firepower one can bring to bear.

Yep, if you look back a few posts I checked several different army lists and their T8 options. If you'll scroll back the "LR/etc" refers to the High Priced LR Variants, Repulsor, and Monolith - maybe one more I can't remember but it's nagging me like feeling like you left the stove on at home, while "multiple T8's" refers to Pure Knights were almost everything is T8, or the Ork wagons, Leman Russ, etc. low to moderate priced options especially if they can squadron

Irrelevant. My point it Lascannons or other AT weapons aren't only valuable against T8 and above, so focusing on T8 is erroneous.

Explaining the context important to the points you called contradictory because you took them out of that context is irrelevant?

^You can just reserve the Land Raider these days to avoid being caught out in the first turn. It doesn't need to Deep Strike like a Monolith.

You misunderstood my example. I just explained it to you, but I'll explain it again. When I say six wounds dealt, I'm not assuming it's one Lascannon doing six wounds, but the aggregate fire of several weapons of any type. The fact that one Lascannon can't kill two Eradicators doesn't concern me when I'm aiming to remove capability from the opponent. Even so, just one dead Eradicator is still two fewer Melta shots my opponent can take.

Explaining the context important to the points you called contradictory because you took them out of that context is irrelevant?

No. The entire focus on T8 is irrelevant regardless of your points which may or may not have been contradictory. T8 is not nearly as important to the deployment of anti armor weapons as you seem to be making it out to be.

Ugh. There isn't even a point in going into your argumentation in detail, because you base almost all of it on assumptions that simply aren't a given. You deflect all arguments that don't match your views instead of considering or answering to them, and keep repeating that land raiders need be able to survive any amount of shooting and still be cheap enough to be considered as transports.

Face it, that is not going to happen. With all the weird assumptions you consider to be facts, the land raider is doomed to be terrible forever. /thread

 Jidmah wrote:
t land raiders need be able to survive any amount of shooting

I did? Where? Why do I keep wondering why people arguing something I didn't say is wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
the land raider is doomed to be terrible forever.

This is also one of the assumptions I believe to be fact. Except for the terrible part. Its not terrible, it's just not "good".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You can just reserve the Land Raider these days to avoid being caught out in the first turn. It doesn't need to Deep Strike like a Monolith.

You misunderstood my example. I just explained it to you, but I'll explain it again. When I say six wounds dealt, I'm not assuming it's one Lascannon doing six wounds, but the aggregate fire of several weapons of any type. The fact that one Lascannon can't kill two Eradicators doesn't concern me when I'm aiming to remove capability from the opponent. Even so, just one dead Eradicator is still two fewer Melta shots my opponent can take.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


You're telling me that I'm using different criteria for engaging targets than I actually do. You're splitting weapons into categories that I rarely think about. I'm more concerned about what I can bring to bear against a priority target, and if that means firing Lascannons at elite infantry, so be it. I care much less about "losing 3 wounds" if I roll a 6 for damage against Eradicators, and much more about removing capability from my opponent.

Except your example was -the way I followed it -1 Lascanon shot doing 6 damage and removing 6 wounds worth of models which isn't exactly the case for shooting 3W models.

I'm not assuming I'm firing a single Lascannon, since Lascannons only average a single wound against a Land Raider to begin with, anyways. I'm just using a potential average net effect of weapons fire.

That was literally your example.

 Insectum7 wrote:


And Lascannons fired at things like Eradicators, Obliterators, etc. will reduce the opponents return fire faster than firing Lascannons at Land Raiders, which need to take 8 wounds before degrading it's ability. Eradicators can take only 3 wounds before losing 2 Melta shots from their unit.

If the choice is, deal 6 wounds to a Land Raider or 6 wounds to an Eradicator Squad, shooting the Eradicators can make a ton of sense since that's removing 4 melta shots against you next turn, while shooting the Land Raider will change nothing about the opponents capability. Being snooty about firing Lascannons at "infantry" isn't really going to come into it.

It starts with "Lascannons fired at" a list of infantry, continues on to "Lascannons at Land Raiders" mentions Melta but from the Eradicators you're shooting at not with, repeats a mention of Melta from Eradicators being shot at not by, and finishes with "firing Lascannons at "infantry". But sure, I misunderstood your example.