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?

There's less room to sell land raider. It's old kit. It has sold like 99.99% of it's lifetime sales by now. It's not of interest to GW anymore.


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.

Thing about that 2nd wound was though pretty much all good terminator killing weapons were dam2 anyway...

It's the 3rd wound that pretty much doubles their durability that's really sick.

tneva82 wrote:


There's less room to sell land raider. It's old kit. It has sold like 99.99% of it's lifetime sales by now. It's not of interest to GW anymore.

The kit is more or less end of life, but the unit still has some value of a sort as the king of the hill in Dawn of War etc.

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.

Thing about that 2nd wound was though pretty much all good terminator killing weapons were dam2 anyway...

It's the 3rd wound that pretty much doubles their durability that's really sick.

Weapons designed for killing Terminators wasn't the problem, They're supposed to kill Terminators. it was the lasguns. Succeeding a 5++ didn't create difference from failing the 2+, and you had a lot more ways to make them fail the 2+. Adding the second wound did more for that problem. 3W probably goes too far unless there's more changes in store like all the D1 weapons becoming D2D which would actually be pretty cool. Put all or almost all the 1W models onto 2W, and all the basic bolters/lasguns/etc on D2D damage - al the infantry/anti-infantry slows down a little and you get a little more story out of "Private Johnson took a round to the gut, but still kept hammering away with his Autocannon.".

I don't think they'll be good this edtion... Though would really like them to be seen more, they are such an iconic fixture of 40k.

Whilst they have many things to offer, so are 'good' they just always seem to not be good enough to warrant the 300+ points for them...

Want some vehicles for antitanks, dreads, predators, repulsors etc... offer more dakka for the points. As others has said can pretty much get 3 razorbacks for the price of a LR. Which is far more durable, and offers transport of PA units.

One of the few niches they have had is the ability to transport terminators. Not that many people are looking at transporting termies (or big things)

For loyalists who do want to transport termies (or other biggish things) the availability of Stormraven/ Stormwolf/ Corvus Blackstars has eroded that niche.

With the changing of editions you can no longer surge the LR forward, disembark the contents and then charge. This was something that nothing else could offer, and made investing 1/3 -1/4 of your points in it seem more worthwhile..

3 Wound termies could make Assault Termies, and thus related transport options more appealing, however the fliers are just quicker at moving them into position.

Chaos termies without access to the TH & SS niche of loyalists tend to run with a mix of power weapons and combis whose positioning and general mobility requirements can be served fine through teleporting...

What about non termies/wulfen etc.. With marines of all kinds moving to 2W base many of the various flavours of marines assault orientated units (Bezerkers, Vanguard or Wolfguard (w/o packs) etc..) will (price depending) look a lot tastier.

However the humble rhino will be able to transport such units to the front line almost as well, and for the savings compared to a LR you can get both a second rhino, and likely at least half a 2nd squad to boot.

Breton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

 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.

You did, and you still are. Point to the place in that paragraph where I say I do 6 wounds with a single lascannon.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You did, and you still are. Point to the place in that paragraph where I say I do 6 wounds with a single lascannon.

Sure, just because a lascannon was the only thing you were talking about shooting....

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You did, and you still are. Point to the place in that paragraph where I say I do 6 wounds with a single lascannon.

Sure, just because a lascannon was the only thing you were talking about shooting....

Did you notice the s on the end of Lascannon in every instance of the word?

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You did, and you still are. Point to the place in that paragraph where I say I do 6 wounds with a single lascannon.

Sure, just because a lascannon was the only thing you were talking about shooting....

No, he said "lascannons", as in: plural, multiple, more than one.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You did, and you still are. Point to the place in that paragraph where I say I do 6 wounds with a single lascannon.

Sure, just because a lascannon was the only thing you were talking about shooting....

Did you notice the s on the end of Lascannon in every instance of the word?

Yep, I also noticed your first attempt to move the goalposts ended something like this:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

The first time I pointed out this flaw, you didn't care about losing the wounds, the next time suddenly you were talking collectively about the sum total of wounds, not rolling a 6. Jidsmah was right, continuing this thread will serve little purpose. Even less so if it's not going to be continued honestly.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You did, and you still are. Point to the place in that paragraph where I say I do 6 wounds with a single lascannon.

Sure, just because a lascannon was the only thing you were talking about shooting....

Did you notice the s on the end of Lascannon in every instance of the word?

Yep, I also noticed your first attempt to move the goalposts ended something like this:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

The first time I pointed out this flaw, you didn't care about losing the wounds, the next time suddenly you were talking collectively about the sum total of wounds, not rolling a 6. Jidsmah was right, continuing this thread will serve little purpose. Even less so if it's not going to be continued honestly.

Goalposts are unmoved, the information was right there in the original post that you quoted. You are just a special type of thick to continue doubling down on a misunderstanding even though it's been clarified for you multiple times now.

 Insectum7 wrote:

The first time I pointed out this flaw, you didn't care about losing the wounds, the next time suddenly you were talking collectively about the sum total of wounds, not rolling a 6. Jidsmah was right, continuing this thread will serve little purpose. Even less so if it's not going to be continued honestly.

Goalposts are unmoved, the information was right there in the original post that you quoted. You are just a special type of thick to continue doubling down on a misunderstanding even though it's been clarified for you multiple times now.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The first time I pointed out this flaw, you didn't care about losing the wounds, the next time suddenly you were talking collectively about the sum total of wounds, not rolling a 6. Jidsmah was right, continuing this thread will serve little purpose. Even less so if it's not going to be continued honestly.

Goalposts are unmoved, the information was right there in the original post that you quoted. You are just a special type of thick to continue doubling down on a misunderstanding even though it's been clarified for you multiple times now.

"I dont care if I lose wounds" and "I'm not losing wounds because it's multiple lascannons totalling 6 wounds" are not the same goalpost in the same place. Like I said, little point without honesty. But you have fun.

^The statements are not connected in the disingenuous manner you suggest. The original scenario is using 6 as an aggregate amount of damage form multiple lascannons. You can glean that information because english.

You're response was essentially "What if you roll a 6 on one Lascannon and lose potential damage?" To which my response is "I don't care." When I plan out my shooting phase, I don't count on rolling a 6 with a single lascannon, I look at "likely outcome of damage" from the weapons at my disposal, or in other words, aggregate damage averages.

 Insectum7 wrote:

You're response was essentially "What if you roll a 6 on one Lascannon and lose potential damage?" To which my response is "I don't care." When I plan out my shooting phase, I don't count on rolling a 6 with a single lascannon, I look at "likely outcome of damage" from the weapons at my disposal, or in other words, aggregate damage averages.

Yes, your different responses to the same issue about the same quote are... not connected. But you didn't move the goalposts. And we're still getting nowhere.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

You're response was essentially "What if you roll a 6 on one Lascannon and lose potential damage?" To which my response is "I don't care." When I plan out my shooting phase, I don't count on rolling a 6 with a single lascannon, I look at "likely outcome of damage" from the weapons at my disposal, or in other words, aggregate damage averages.

Yes, your different responses to the same issue about the same quote are... not connected.

It's been explained to you like four times now. At this point I am not shocked that you can't follow it. I won't bother anymore.

Giving the Crusader back its Assault Launchers/Ramp rule, so units could disembark and assault (if they hadn't embarked that turn) would give that variant a bit of a niche, at least.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

You're response was essentially "What if you roll a 6 on one Lascannon and lose potential damage?" To which my response is "I don't care." When I plan out my shooting phase, I don't count on rolling a 6 with a single lascannon, I look at "likely outcome of damage" from the weapons at my disposal, or in other words, aggregate damage averages.

Yes, your different responses to the same issue about the same quote are... not connected.

It's been explained to you like four times now. At this point I am not shocked that you can't follow it. I won't bother anymore.

And I've explained as many times why those "explanations" don't fit your original TWO different responses to the same point that are somehow unconnected and not moving the goalposts. But I'm glad to hear you're not going to bother trying it anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Giving the Crusader back its Assault Launchers/Ramp rule, so units could disembark and assault (if they hadn't embarked that turn) would give that variant a bit of a niche, at least.

It would be a nice boost, but I'm not sure it's the answer - Nor should it be limited to just Land Raiders, or necessarily Space Marines. If you bring it back for LRs and/or give it to Repulsors you should also bring it back for open topped.. Loading the kind of troops that require taking a LR/Repulsor to assault from (i.e. Terminators, gravis/Aggressors, potentially but unlikely jumpy marines) just raises the target priority - both for points and disruption values - so they die before you want to unload.

Its quite a catch-22 the main reason to take them (other tanks are more efficient, other transports are more efficient UNLESS you need to transport Gravis/Terminators) is to transport units that just make it even more likely they'll die before they can fully transport the unit.

leerm02 wrote:

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 :-)

In the Dawn of War RTS, POTM gave the Land Raider a 30 second or so invulnerable shield. I'd love to see POTM brought back as a once-per-battle activated ability that functioned like TransHuman Physiology and let the LR always make an armor save on 4+. Feels like that would give you at least one good round where it either soaks all the enemy shooting or survives to put a unit where you want it.

Or gw could just make Land Raiders T9. Make them as tough as they were when they were AV 14 all around. It's a possibility, we still haven't seen a Land Raider build sheet. Gw has been increasing the S of some weapons already. I'm still wondering what they expect those S10 HK missiles to be shot at.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or gw could just make Land Raiders T9. Make them as tough as they were when they were AV 14 all around. It's a possibility, we still haven't seen a Land Raider build sheet. Gw has been increasing the S of some weapons already. I'm still wondering what they expect those S10 HK missiles to be shot at.

Is T9 equivalent to AV14? I've never seen anyone try and do the math on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save

S9 No Special Rules vs T9 wounds on 4+ S9 vs AV14 glances on 5's, Pen's on 6's.
S8 No Special Rules wounds T9 on 5's, glances AV14 on 6's, doesn't Pen.
S7 No Special Rules or less couldn't even Glance.
Assuming I remember AV/Glance/Pen right.

Breton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Giving the Crusader back its Assault Launchers/Ramp rule, so units could disembark and assault (if they hadn't embarked that turn) would give that variant a bit of a niche, at least.

It would be a nice boost, but I'm not sure it's the answer - Nor should it be limited to just Land Raiders, or necessarily Space Marines. If you bring it back for LRs and/or give it to Repulsors you should also bring it back for open topped.. Loading the kind of troops that require taking a LR/Repulsor to assault from (i.e. Terminators, gravis/Aggressors, potentially but unlikely jumpy marines) just raises the target priority - both for points and disruption values - so they die before you want to unload.

Its quite a catch-22 the main reason to take them (other tanks are more efficient, other transports are more efficient UNLESS you need to transport Gravis/Terminators) is to transport units that just make it even more likely they'll die before they can fully transport the unit.

At no point was I suggesting that the Repulsive (or variants) should get such a rule - the only thing those monstrosities should get is some form of built-in -1 to hit, to reflect the sheer ugliness of the design putting off enemy gunners.

I agree that such a thing should be part of a wider review, as I don't think being able to disembark & charge out of some vehicles is a bad option - I bring it up for the Crusader as that sort of line-breaker role is explicitly what it was created for.

To get the LR to be suitably durable, I think you need a wholesale review of the T & Sv of Monsters and Vehicles, combined with a review of the S/Dam/AP of AT weaponry. If the top of the scale for S and T is no longer 10, we really should be making use of that more. Hell, adjust the wounding chart to allow for a 7+ to wound, if you don't want to block off a lasgun killing a LR, but it need looking at across the game, not just in one 'dex.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or gw could just make Land Raiders T9. Make them as tough as they were when they were AV 14 all around. It's a possibility, we still haven't seen a Land Raider build sheet. Gw has been increasing the S of some weapons already. I'm still wondering what they expect those S10 HK missiles to be shot at.

Is T9 equivalent to AV14? I've never seen anyone try and do the math on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save

S9 No Special Rules vs T9 wounds on 4+ S9 vs AV14 glances on 5's, Pen's on 6's.
S8 No Special Rules wounds T9 on 5's, glances AV14 on 6's, doesn't Pen.
S7 No Special Rules or less couldn't even Glance.
Assuming I remember AV/Glance/Pen right.

Gw isn't going to let anything do the equivalent of "not being able to glance". They expect every weapon to have some chance of wounding every target. But T9 2+ is damned tough. I know, I run Hellforged Super Heavys, lascannons wounding on 4s instead of 3s and melta wounding on 5s instead of 4s makes a big difference.

Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Giving the Crusader back its Assault Launchers/Ramp rule, so units could disembark and assault (if they hadn't embarked that turn) would give that variant a bit of a niche, at least.

It would be a nice boost, but I'm not sure it's the answer - Nor should it be limited to just Land Raiders, or necessarily Space Marines. If you bring it back for LRs and/or give it to Repulsors you should also bring it back for open topped.. Loading the kind of troops that require taking a LR/Repulsor to assault from (i.e. Terminators, gravis/Aggressors, potentially but unlikely jumpy marines) just raises the target priority - both for points and disruption values - so they die before you want to unload.

Its quite a catch-22 the main reason to take them (other tanks are more efficient, other transports are more efficient UNLESS you need to transport Gravis/Terminators) is to transport units that just make it even more likely they'll die before they can fully transport the unit.

At no point was I suggesting that the Repulsive (or variants) should get such a rule - the only thing those monstrosities should get is some form of built-in -1 to hit, to reflect the sheer ugliness of the design putting off enemy gunners.

I agree that such a thing should be part of a wider review, as I don't think being able to disembark & charge out of some vehicles is a bad option - I bring it up for the Crusader as that sort of line-breaker role is explicitly what it was created for.

To get the LR to be suitably durable, I think you need a wholesale review of the T & Sv of Monsters and Vehicles, combined with a review of the S/Dam/AP of AT weaponry. If the top of the scale for S and T is no longer 10, we really should be making use of that more. Hell, adjust the wounding chart to allow for a 7+ to wound, if you don't want to block off a lasgun killing a LR, but it need looking at across the game, not just in one 'dex.

Well said. Especially the comment on "Repulives".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or gw could just make Land Raiders T9. Make them as tough as they were when they were AV 14 all around. It's a possibility, we still haven't seen a Land Raider build sheet. Gw has been increasing the S of some weapons already. I'm still wondering what they expect those S10 HK missiles to be shot at.

Is T9 equivalent to AV14? I've never seen anyone try and do the math on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save

S9 No Special Rules vs T9 wounds on 4+ S9 vs AV14 glances on 5's, Pen's on 6's.
S8 No Special Rules wounds T9 on 5's, glances AV14 on 6's, doesn't Pen.
S7 No Special Rules or less couldn't even Glance.
Assuming I remember AV/Glance/Pen right.

Gw isn't going to let anything do the equivalent of "not being able to glance". They expect every weapon to have some chance of wounding every target. But T9 2+ is damned tough. I know, I run Hellforged Super Heavys, lascannons wounding on 4s instead of 3s and melta wounding on 5s instead of 4s makes a big difference.

Oh I wasn't expecting them to revert. I mentioned S7 because far fewer guns touch AV14 than T9.
I was honestly wondering if anyone had done the math. I think the chart was 1 in 6 to Pen, 1 in 6 to immediately explode. There was also 1 in 6 and a 1 in 6 for a couple of catastrophic functionality losses. The other 3 in 6 resulted in less severe functionality losses more pertinent to other vehicles and offset by POTMS

Dysartes wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Giving the Crusader back its Assault Launchers/Ramp rule, so units could disembark and assault (if they hadn't embarked that turn) would give that variant a bit of a niche, at least.

It would be a nice boost, but I'm not sure it's the answer - Nor should it be limited to just Land Raiders, or necessarily Space Marines. If you bring it back for LRs and/or give it to Repulsors you should also bring it back for open topped.. Loading the kind of troops that require taking a LR/Repulsor to assault from (i.e. Terminators, gravis/Aggressors, potentially but unlikely jumpy marines) just raises the target priority - both for points and disruption values - so they die before you want to unload.

Its quite a catch-22 the main reason to take them (other tanks are more efficient, other transports are more efficient UNLESS you need to transport Gravis/Terminators) is to transport units that just make it even more likely they'll die before they can fully transport the unit.

At no point was I suggesting that the Repulsive (or variants) should get such a rule - the only thing those monstrosities should get is some form of built-in -1 to hit, to reflect the sheer ugliness of the design putting off enemy gunners.

I agree that such a thing should be part of a wider review, as I don't think being able to disembark & charge out of some vehicles is a bad option - I bring it up for the Crusader as that sort of line-breaker role is explicitly what it was created for.

To get the LR to be suitably durable, I think you need a wholesale review of the T & Sv of Monsters and Vehicles, combined with a review of the S/Dam/AP of AT weaponry. If the top of the scale for S and T is no longer 10, we really should be making use of that more. Hell, adjust the wounding chart to allow for a 7+ to wound, if you don't want to block off a lasgun killing a LR, but it need looking at across the game, not just in one 'dex.

Well said. Especially the comment on "Repulives".

All the Land Raiders had the rule. I don't see giving it to them and not to the Primaris corollary Repulsors. Again if I remember right - at a certain point all the older editions start to meld together - the rule was BRB for Open Topped, and Special for Land Raiders and maybe a few others. You'd be giving it to some wagons, to LR's/Repulsors (assuming in this fantasy GW keeps Seperate But Equal), I think those DE Return of the Jedi Jaba's skiff things, (potentially) Land Speeder Storms which were but arent anymore. Potentially Impulsors. I'm not sure Super Heavy Transports were a thing that far back for the Guard. I feel like Eldar had something but I don't remember what it was. Maybe they just wanted something at the time. When an ability like this is given to almost everyone, you've got to be careful about which factions don't get it.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or gw could just make Land Raiders T9. Make them as tough as they were when they were AV 14 all around. It's a possibility, we still haven't seen a Land Raider build sheet. Gw has been increasing the S of some weapons already. I'm still wondering what they expect those S10 HK missiles to be shot at.

Is T9 equivalent to AV14? I've never seen anyone try and do the math on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save

S9 No Special Rules vs T9 wounds on 4+ S9 vs AV14 glances on 5's, Pen's on 6's.
S8 No Special Rules wounds T9 on 5's, glances AV14 on 6's, doesn't Pen.
S7 No Special Rules or less couldn't even Glance.
Assuming I remember AV/Glance/Pen right.

Gw isn't going to let anything do the equivalent of "not being able to glance". They expect every weapon to have some chance of wounding every target. But T9 2+ is damned tough. I know, I run Hellforged Super Heavys, lascannons wounding on 4s instead of 3s and melta wounding on 5s instead of 4s makes a big difference.

Oh I wasn't expecting them to revert. I mentioned S7 because far fewer guns touch AV14 than T9.
I was honestly wondering if anyone had done the math. I think the chart was 1 in 6 to Pen, 1 in 6 to immediately explode. There was also 1 in 6 and a 1 in 6 for a couple of catastrophic functionality losses. The other 3 in 6 resulted in less severe functionality losses more pertinent to other vehicles and offset by POTMS

You also didn't get a save against those pens, unless you were obscured by cover or had an invul, and we don't have vehicle damage tables anymore. Most vehicles also have about 4× as many wounds as they had hull points. T9 on a 16W 2+ Land Raider would be pretty tough.

Oh, and:

All the Land Raiders had the rule.

Sorry, wrong answer. All Land Raiders didn't have assault vehicle rules.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You also didn't get a save against those pens, unless you were obscured by cover or had an invul, and we don't have vehicle damage tables anymore. Most vehicles also have about 4× as many wounds as they had hull points. T9 on a 16W 2+ Land Raider would be pretty tough.

Thus why I included Armor Save

on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save

on one side of the equation:

Oh, and:

All the Land Raiders had the rule.

Sorry, wrong answer. All Land Raiders didn't have assault vehicle rules.

I checked the codex first The Land Raider, Crusader, and Redeemer all had the Assault Vehicle rule being referenced - able to charge on the same turn they disembark - are you thinking of the Frag Assault Launchers giving units (Terminators) Frag Grenades to fight at Initiative thing?

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You also didn't get a save against those pens, unless you were obscured by cover or had an invul, and we don't have vehicle damage tables anymore. Most vehicles also have about 4× as many wounds as they had hull points. T9 on a 16W 2+ Land Raider would be pretty tough.

Thus why I included Armor Save

on Glance/Pen Explodes, and Hull Points averages vs wounds and armor save

on one side of the equation:

Cool, then you can see how buffing Land Raider to T9 (or more) could bring their resiliency closer to where they were at in previous editions.

I checked the codex first The Land Raider, Crusader, and Redeemer all had the Assault Vehicle rule being referenced - able to charge on the same turn they disembark - are you thinking of the Frag Assault Launchers giving units (Terminators) Frag Grenades to fight at Initiative thing?

No. I'm thinking about the Land Raider Achilles and Proteus, neither of which were assault vehicles, because they lacked assault ramps and weren't open topped, just like Repulsives. Every transport doesn't need that rule, just like Dysartes said.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Cool, then you can see how buffing Land Raider to T9 (or more) could bring their resiliency closer to where they were at in previous editions.

In the AV14 comparison: It'll bring it closer, but I don't know it will bring it close. S5, S6, and S 7 can still hurt it now and still on 5's when they couldn't at AV14. S8 Krak/Melta/lance/etc move to 5's and S9 Lascannon to 4's That's still more damage rolls than vs Av14 when you needed 6's and 5's. After that you have to start comparing 1/36 explodes and 4 HP vs X number of D6(3.5) wounds making/failing Y(somewhere around 4-5) number of 2+ modified saves. I mean quick comparison suggests Y number of 2+ wounds being whacked off at D6(3.5) wounds a pop is more than 4HP but it was harder to slice off each of the 4HP even before Hull Down/Obscured.
You'd need to figure out what to do with Thunderhammers, chainfists, and equivalents too so they don't fall too far behind on tank busting.

I checked the codex first The Land Raider, Crusader, and Redeemer all had the Assault Vehicle rule being referenced - able to charge on the same turn they disembark - are you thinking of the Frag Assault Launchers giving units (Terminators) Frag Grenades to fight at Initiative thing?

No. I'm thinking about the Land Raider Achilles and Proteus, neither of which were assault vehicles, because they lacked assault ramps and weren't open topped, just like Repulsives. Every transport doesn't need that rule, just like Dysartes said.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:
I checked the codex first The Land Raider, Crusader, and Redeemer all had the Assault Vehicle rule being referenced - able to charge on the same turn they disembark - are you thinking of the Frag Assault Launchers giving units (Terminators) Frag Grenades to fight at Initiative thing?

No. I'm thinking about the Land Raider Achilles and Proteus, neither of which were assault vehicles, because they lacked assault ramps and weren't open topped, just like Repulsives. Every transport doesn't need that rule, just like Dysartes said.

The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.

Now we've fixed the quotes, with suitable attribution.

Breton, look at the models - the three core Land Raider variants could get an Assault Ramp rule (though I'd limit it to Crusader and maybe Redeemer, to factor in the Assault Launchers as well) because they've actually got Assault Ramps. You can make a similar argument for the Stormraven (as it seems to have one under the chin), and the LS Storm makes a bit of sense for having some form of rule allowing Scouts to assault from it due to being open-topped.

The Repulsive shouldn't get it for the same reason the Rhino doesn't - you're not piling out the front of the vehicle into the midst of the enemy while diversionary charges go off around you, you're carefully disembarking from the sides and rear of the tank; and in the case of the Repulsive, probably approaching with caution while you figure out how the silly grav array is affecting your footing because Cawl didn't design your transport with proper tracks.

Breton wrote:
The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.

If you had specified the base game, you'd be wrong anyways. The Forge World ones exist in the base game.

What you meant was your own houseruled 40k.

Breton wrote:
In the AV14 comparison: It'll bring it closer, but I don't know it will bring it close. S5, S6, and S 7 can still hurt it now and still on 5's when they couldn't at AV14. S8 Krak/Melta/lance/etc move to 5's and S9 Lascannon to 4's That's still more damage rolls than vs Av14 when you needed 6's and 5's. After that you have to start comparing 1/36 explodes and 4 HP vs X number of D6(3.5) wounds making/failing Y(somewhere around 4-5) number of 2+ modified saves. I mean quick comparison suggests Y number of 2+ wounds being whacked off at D6(3.5) wounds a pop is more than 4HP but it was harder to slice off each of the 4HP even before Hull Down/Obscured.
You'd need to figure out what to do with Thunderhammers, chainfists, and equivalents too so they don't fall too far behind on tank busting.

Which is an issue with the current wounding table which has already been argued to death in this thread and probably doesn't need any more arguing at this point. Thunderhammers and chainfists would already be covered by their high AP.

The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.

Granted, but it shows that everything with stat line similar to a Land Raider shouldn't just be given assault vehicle rules. The rules could be applied were they make sense, both in the case of the models design and rules balance.

 Dysartes wrote:


Breton, look at the models - the three core Land Raider variants could get an Assault Ramp rule (though I'd limit it to Crusader and maybe Redeemer, to factor in the Assault Launchers as well) because they've actually got Assault Ramps. You can make a similar argument for the Stormraven (as it seems to have one under the chin), and the LS Storm makes a bit of sense for having some form of rule allowing Scouts to assault from it due to being open-topped.

The Repulsive shouldn't get it for the same reason the Rhino doesn't - you're not piling out the front of the vehicle into the midst of the enemy while diversionary charges go off around you, you're carefully disembarking from the sides and rear of the tank; and in the case of the Repulsive, probably approaching with caution while you figure out how the silly grav array is affecting your footing because Cawl didn't design your transport with proper tracks.

The Models don't represent it you're absolutely right. I didn't base the idea that IF GW did this, they would probably give it to Repulsors too on the looks but on rules/customer satisfaction. I think IF GW did this, then between Open Topped or this Assault Vehicle rule, they'd give it in some way to each faction or nearly so. Maybe not Tau, Necrons or Nids. Tau don't fight a lot, and Necrons/Nids have different "transport" mechanics. Primaris Only and Old Marine only might as well be considered a faction at this point in the GW fence sitting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breton wrote:
The Forgeworld ones? You got me, I didn't specify in the base game. My Bad. I meant all the Land Raiders you'd find in the base materials you need to play the game like your codex.

If you had specified the base game, you'd be wrong anyways. The Forge World ones exist in the base game.

What you meant was your own houseruled 40k.

Why aren't they in the codex then? Oh yeah...they should be but aren't because their rules are written by other groups that want to sell models at 3x the price as plastic ones. Got it. It's okay to like forge world but don't claim they are base game. If all you did was shop at FLGS you'd never know forge world existed.