The Redeemer

[The Holy Heretic]

So I built and painted a beautiful grey knight redeemer raider in the days of yore - its an awesome model, and the thought of a tank rolling forwards, vanquishing the empires enemies with burning promethium was just too cool B)

 

Trouble is...

 

I never seem to be able to find the points for this - I usually play 1500-1750 games, and its just such a huge chunk of points :) - so how do you guys use them, and make sure they're worth it? :huh:

[Crynn]

Unfortunately I personally would never take the redeemer I find it the most lacking of all the land raider varients. The fact that is has to get so close to start burning marines an almost never gets to use both flamestorms makes me feel it is the varients least likely to make it's mark on the battlefield, melta weapons will get you before you get them.

I is very difficult to just 'fit a landraider in' to an exsisting army, you really need to in many ways build your army around one. Remember it has uses and features other than drive forward and shoot, that tactic generally nets you a smoking wreckage where your land raider last finished it's move.

 

Regards

Crynn

[*Furyou Miko]

Personally, if I were to field a Land Raider, it would be a Redeemer. I would put an HQ assault unit in it, and march it up a flank behind a pair of Rhinos or Predators.

[Crynn]

Personally, if I were to field a Land Raider, it would be a Redeemer. I would put an HQ assault unit in it, and march it up a flank behind a pair of Rhinos or Predators.

 

That is Land Raider 101 and is pretty much going to get your landraider killed or delayed when the stunned rhinos block it's path. You are paying for a HQ an assault unit a landraider and 2 rhinos most likely with units in them as an escort? It's too much for too little. The Redeemer lack of range is also such a big draw back especially when 'flanking' with it..

 

Regards,

Crynn

[number6]

Put a strike squad inside the redeemer and use it as a massive deep strike defense bubble. And also as a massive scoring unit.

 

Put your uber assault unit somewhere else. You definitely don't want your land raider to be the most expensive basket carrying the most expensive eggs. Distribute your threats so that target priority for your opponent is challenging and confused.

 

With only strikers inside, and it being only a redeemer -- like Crynn, I don't think much of the redeemer -- you might be surprised how long it can survive. Drive it to midfield, use it to sheild other units, then use it as a big flaming threat for when you destroy enemy transports. You can just drive that sucker up and destroy the occupants at will without even bothering to disembark the strikers. They're just a bonus.

[*Furyou Miko]

*shrug* Like I said, I've never actually used one. I just know that's how I get my Pennies into combat.

[Gentlemanloser]

Use Draigo and fill the Redeemer with a single Paladin!

 

Scoring for 55 points! WooT!

[confused_gordy]

To fit it in - pick a unit that you regularly use that's around 250 pts, and isn't part of your "core".

Replace said unit with raider.

 

 

Use raider.

 

One of the big advantages of the Redeemer is its ability to withstand weapon destroyed results, and still be scary as hell (because all of its weapons are great). Unlike the other two, it can act as a battle tank (that can threaten almost anything) on its own (if a very short ranged one).

 

Learn to use it like this, and once you have, put the cheapest scoring unit you can in it, and use it to hold/take outlying objectives.

 

Learn to use it like this, and once you have, put a scarier unit in it, and use it as both a battle tank and a delivery system.

 

Then realise that its lots of fun, and realise that against some people its just handing them 250+ points on a plate, but against some others, its almost a guaranteed win. (which I think is a pretty good exchange).

[thade]

I'm surprised no one has addressed the crux of the OP's question here? Unless I missed it...you all offer good pros and cons for using a Redeemer, but...how does one find the points for them in the first place?

 

I never seem to be able to find the points for this - I usually play 1500-1750 games, and its just such a huge chunk of points ;)

 

When I read this, it implies to me that you have a large number of stand-by units - ones that you very often take - and you're trying to find a way to crowbar a Land Raider in to some mostly pre-existing list. (This is an assumption on my part. I may be wrong, but I myself was guilty of this for a while, so here I am, telling you how I got out of it.)

 

Instead of trying to keep your favorite guys in and find one or two to drop, reverse the order: start a list with the Redeemer in it already, then see what else you can get in there. Don't just stick your stand by's in automatically. Instead, consider what the LR's strengths are and try to build to them.

 

A single Land Raider in a list (especially a Redeemer, due to it's short engagement range) is going to suffer as it's the only real target for your opponent's set of melta weaponry that they brought specifically for Land Raiders. This is okay (if a bit frustrating to know the Raider is going to die) because, really, a Land Raider serves three purposes in this order of priority (highest to lowest):

• It soaks fire, not only for those embarked but for the rest of your army.
  
• It is an effective delivery system for a short-range engagement unit, like a DCA team or some angry Paladins.
  
• It's got some nice fire power. S6 AP3 templates will flambé some marines for you.
  

If it took several melta shots to take it down and never fired a thing, two things are still true: it effectively soaked anti-tank fire for a turn; it's probably got its passengers close enough to get into melee...where they want to be.

 

I very frequently use a LRR with my BA-codex-using marines and there are games where the flamers never fire. Since that's third on its priority table, it's not a massive loss. Really it's the marines inside I want to get somewhere. If I can do that, the Raider was worth it. The Raider dying is one kill point and typically it and its passengers aren't scoring...so it exists to be risked. <3

 

EDIT: Clarification and its vs it's.

[Gentlemanloser]

Without knowing the parent list, there's no real answer to "How do I fit it in?".

 

Easy. Drop around 250 points from your current list.

[number6]

Very nice, Thade! :)

[thade]

TY, sir. :)

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I don't know why people dislike the Redeemer. Phobos are insanely expensive if you want lascannon (and their transport capability is weaker than the other two), and no one uses the heavy bolter turret. Crusader just brings more bolter fire (something Knights don't need), and we waste it's expanded transport capacity, because nothing we want to use as a melee unit fills it.

 

Because all your weapons are short-range, and you're AV14 all-round, and have 'Fortitude' and 'Machine Spirit', the enemy is faced with a difficult decision. They can't knock you out from range, and there are other threats which require melta and lascannon to kill (Dreadknight, our ever-annoying PsyDreads, Razorbacks). If they are trying to get close enough for 2D6 fun, they're well and truly within our dakka range in our previous turn (24"). Also, if they fail, you're going to burninate the entire unit next turn, which might not be a sacrifice your opponent is willing to make (MeQ squads with dual melta are usually not cheap, IG and Eldar/DE will be less affected). The Redeemer meanwhile can happily trundle around 12" a turn, firing a gun (probably pintle multi-melta).

 

In a Henchmen force, a Redeemer is pretty much ideal for your Death-Cult hedge-trimmer unit. It provides frag grenades, there is space for a HQ or Tech-Marine to attach comfortably, and it can burninate enemy supporting squads while your Death-Cult deal with the unit directly ahead (breaking a gun-line for example).

[jeffersonian000]

First off, all MkIII Land Raiders are "Phobos" pattern Land Raiders, be they the original, Crusader, or Redeemer. As an old school 40k player, I prefer the term "Godhammer" as it references the pattern of lascannons used on the original Land Raider. I just hate the term "Phobos" as its not the weapons, but the hull that is shared by all three weapon loadouts, so its not a good "name" to use for the original pattern.

 

To the OP, you should never take a Land Raider without first having a plan for that Land Raider, which should at a minimum include a second Land Raider with the rest of the army built around supporting those two Big Boxes. You will never be able to just "fit" a Land Raider into your army and expect good results. If you run with 'Raiders, you have to build your army with the 'Raiders as your core units.

 

As to the Redeemer itself, I love it, and think its better than the Crusader if not as flexible as the Godhammer. The reason is that hurricane bolters cannot be fired together if the 'Raider moves faster than 6" per turn, yet the flamestorm cannons will almost never be able to hit the same target anyway, so plowing into an enemy unit at 7"+ to clump them for a single template hit is a better use to me than the rattle-tap-tap of bolter rounds from a slow moving Crusader. Both have assault cannons, and both can multi-meltas. Were the Cruasder shines over the Redeemer is in cargo space; I never load my TDA into 'Raiders, as the strength of TDA is its relentless special rule, which is useless with no fire points. My cargo tends to be PA units like Stikers or Grey Hunters or Tactical Marines (or Battle Sisters back in the day).

 

Everyones' mileage varies, which is why you first need a plan, then you build your army around that plan. When it comes to Land Raiders, your plan starts with them first, then goes to the rest of ypur army.

 

SJ

[Inquisitor Fox]

EDIT: Yes, this is similar to Thade's advice, but perhaps another perspective or story as to "How I learned to love my Land Raider" will be useful :lol:

 

My advice, having used a Land Raider for my Inquisitor's ride for a long long time.. is purchase the Land Raider(s) first in your list building. Then purchase your HQs, then work on filling your mandantory troops choices. Now look at your list, and address remaining "needs". The style of Land Raider will fill some roles otherwise taken by other choices, be it anti-infantry, horde defense, anti-tank, etc (There's something to be said for a Land Raider Redeemer with the FW "psycannon" option and a pintle mounted multi-melta paired with a second, Godhammer style Land Raider).

 

So your Land Raider fills some of the gaps of other units, and also acts as transportation. The tricky bit I've found is in deploying your Land Raider so it can perform two or three tasks in the same game. When I was playing with mine, it acted as an anti-tank unit while providing a bunker for my counter-charge task Inquisitor Lord with cc themed Retinue. The first several turns was long range lascannon fire, then on turn three or four was a roll forward and discharge the close combat unit. Paired with two transports, an Exorcist, and using terrain, deployment and 6" movement/POTMS it usually lasted long enough to get that cc unit to where I needed it to go.

 

If you're buying Land Raiders, they and their capabilities must be central to your game plan. Mine addressed the problem of my HQ unit always getting shot up before they could hit the safety of combat, as well as addressed long range anti-tank firepower my WH army sorely needed. Pairing the Land Raider with an Exorcist gave me a lot of long range punch, as well as the two Forgeworld auto-cannon turrets for my Chimeras. Every army has a set of "needs" for a balanced game (anti-tank, addressing anti-infantry and/or hordes, being able to move, etc). Land Raiders fill two or three roles, which is fitting considering their points costs... but mostly it's that they'll remove points you have to spend on other things. Start with them first, then add the things you have to, then fill gaps... don't just add them at the end.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

First off, all MkIII Land Raiders are "Phobos" pattern Land Raiders, be they the original, Crusader, or Redeemer. As an old school 40k player, I prefer the term "Godhammer" as it references the pattern of lascannons used on the original Land Raider. I just hate the term "Phobos" as its not the weapons, but the hull that is shared by all three weapon loadouts, so its not a good "name" to use for the original pattern.

 

I dunno, it works for me man.

 

To the OP, you should never take a Land Raider without first having a plan for that Land Raider, which should at a minimum include a second Land Raider with the rest of the army built around supporting those two Big Boxes. You will never be able to just "fit" a Land Raider into your army and expect good results. If you run with 'Raiders, you have to build your army with the 'Raiders as your core units.

 

Er no, thats completely false. You can make a single Raider work, provided you have other vehicles or similar (in our case Dreadknights). Taking two is a huge investment, which I would hardly ever do (I always found the 'Water Warrior' tactica of antiquity to be pretty silly, because all it advocated was Raider spam essentially). Knights are an expensive army already, just fitting one of any pattern into a typical list is a stretch.

 

Were the Cruasder shines over the Redeemer is in cargo space; I never load my TDA into 'Raiders, as the strength of TDA is its relentless special rule, which is useless with no fire points. My cargo tends to be PA units like Stikers or Grey Hunters or Tactical Marines (or Battle Sisters back in the day).

 

And yet, this is another area where the Redeemer shines. It's cheaper than the Crusader, and you never use the additional cargo space of the Templar jury-rigged pattern. There are no units in our army (or indeed any army except Templars) that exceed 10 man, and you're only likely to need 1-2 characters attached to the unit to make them work. If, as you say, you're not putting TDA inside, there is no need for the extra space. A Strike squads fits inside just fine, as does a Death-Cult/Crusader hedgecutter unit (you're unlikely to max them to 12, as you don't have to, and all you usually attach is Coteaz or Tech-Marine w/grenades).

 

If you're buying Land Raiders, they and their capabilities must be central to your game plan. Mine addressed the problem of my HQ unit always getting shot up before they could hit the safety of combat, as well as addressed long range anti-tank firepower my WH army sorely needed.

 

Your Canoness? The old version (not the gimped White Dwarf version) was pretty durable (2+/2+). Also, anti-tank was much better delivered by inducted Guard platoons. Plus, Sisters weren't (indeed, they still aren't) that bad at killing armour. Exorcists do a pretty good suppression job, and you have meltaguns literally everywhere for cheap.

 

Everyones' mileage varies, which is why you first need a plan, then you build your army around that plan. When it comes to Land Raiders, your plan starts with them first, then goes to the rest of ypur army.

 

I don't think you need to be that focused on keeping it alive. It's ultimately just a tool for moving your dudes from A to B, and being a fire magnet (people have an irrational fear of AV14, in my experience Raiders rarely kill much if you know what you're doing). You put an assault unit inside one, trundle off to kill something, you're done. If the enemy chooses to waste meltaguns and effort taking it down, you can't do a whole lot about it usually. I find the biggest change of plan it forces is re-allocating all those points out of your existing force (meaning typically cutting a unit or two out).

 

My advice, having used a Land Raider for my Inquisitor's ride for a long long time.. is purchase the Land Raider(s) first in your list building. Then purchase your HQs, then work on filling your mandantory troops choices. Now look at your list, and address remaining "needs". The style of Land Raider will fill some roles otherwise taken by other choices, be it anti-infantry, horde defense, anti-tank, etc (There's something to be said for a Land Raider Redeemer with the FW "psycannon" option and a pintle mounted multi-melta paired with a second, Godhammer style Land Raider).

 

Again, I don't think you have to plan that much. Generally, the criteria by which you judge whether a Raider is worth taking is simple. Do you have an assault unit that lacks mobility? If so, a Raider is the most durable transport in the game, and will serve that purpose well. If you don't need assault unit delivery, it's an overly-expensive way of getting durable firepower into your army (heavy bolter/lascannon/assault cannon/multi-melta is all found elsewhere in greater quantities for cheaper).

I think spending 500+ points on two tanks is a bit much TBH. Even in regular Marine lists, thats a huge chunk of points not going into dudes (and Marines never have enough dudes). Knights are even more greedy with points, so you have even less to work with. Henchmen lists aren't immune to this design problem either, as you have to take Razorbacks/Chimeras to keep your paper-mache infantry alive, and in large quantities (because each AV11/AV12 hull is only so durable).

 

So your Land Raider fills some of the gaps of other units, and also acts as transportation. The tricky bit I've found is in deploying your Land Raider so it can perform two or three tasks in the same game. When I was playing with mine, it acted as an anti-tank unit while providing a bunker for my counter-charge task Inquisitor Lord with cc themed Retinue. The first several turns was long range lascannon fire, then on turn three or four was a roll forward and discharge the close combat unit. Paired with two transports, an Exorcist, and using terrain, deployment and 6" movement/POTMS it usually lasted long enough to get that cc unit to where I needed it to go.

 

Except it's a really high price to pay for lascannon fire support, when inducted Guard provided more cheap boots on the ground for holding objectives and more dakka for your buck. Also, Phobos Raiders are the only one to not have frag launchers (not that Inquisitional Retinues were anything special, but it was something they lacked). If you're only moving 6" a turn, you're wasting the transport utility (by definition, transported units need to be more mobile than just normal movement, if you're going to get any use out of their transport). I know it cuts down on your dakka output, but on the other two (Crusader less so, Redeemer definitely) moving 12" and firing one gun is perfectly fine.

 

Every army has a set of "needs" for a balanced game (anti-tank, addressing anti-infantry and/or hordes, being able to move, etc). Land Raiders fill two or three roles, which is fitting considering their points costs... but mostly it's that they'll remove points you have to spend on other things. Start with them first, then add the things you have to, then fill gaps... don't just add them at the end.

 

Landraiders don't really have 'roles' like you'd expect of other units (ie something like a Terminator unit, who can do fire support, objective denial and close-combat). They deliver assault units faster than would otherwise be the case via footslogging it (which they do better than anything else in the game, due to durability and Assault Ramp). Everything on top of that is largely a bonus, often one you won't utilise. Phobos Raiders either waste their transport capacity and Assault Ramp sitting on the backline, firing lascannons, or waste their lascannons moving too fast to use them both (250+pts for a single linked lascannon is not efficient fire support). Crusaders provide bolter firepower which looks impressive on paper, but in practise cover saves and the individual worthlessness of bolter shots (srsly) make the sponsons pretty lacklustre. Redeemers almost never get to use their main guns, but if they do it's very useful for cleaning up infantry. Out of those three, the Redeemer is the cheapest, or rather you can tack on the mandatory multi-melta and bring it into line with the price of the other two.

 

In the case of Knights, I would never take any pattern of Raider. We simply don't need it, it's a relic of our past codex.

Henchmen armies need something to deliver Death-Cult/Crusaders, Chimeras are terrible (AV10 side is way too easy to flank), Rhinos are not suitable either. Stormraven is very fast, but durability is no greater than a Dreadnought. Redeemer provides all-important frags (the only type of grenade the attached Tech-Marine won't be handing out) and can burninate supporting enemy infantry while you unleash the cargo on the primary target.

[jeffersonian000]

Dude, that wall of text makes no sense.

 

SJ

[Crynn]

First off, all MkIII Land Raiders are "Phobos" pattern Land Raiders, be they the original, Crusader, or Redeemer. As an old school 40k player, I prefer the term "Godhammer" as it references the pattern of lascannons used on the original Land Raider. I just hate the term "Phobos" as its not the weapons, but the hull that is shared by all three weapon loadouts, so its not a good "name" to use for the original pattern.

 

I dunno, it works for me man.

 

To the OP, you should never take a Land Raider without first having a plan for that Land Raider, which should at a minimum include a second Land Raider with the rest of the army built around supporting those two Big Boxes. You will never be able to just "fit" a Land Raider into your army and expect good results. If you run with 'Raiders, you have to build your army with the 'Raiders as your core units.

 

Er no, thats completely false. You can make a single Raider work, provided you have other vehicles or similar (in our case Dreadknights). Taking two is a huge investment, which I would hardly ever do (I always found the 'Water Warrior' tactica of antiquity to be pretty silly, because all it advocated was Raider spam essentially). Knights are an expensive army already, just fitting one of any pattern into a typical list is a stretch.

 

Were the Cruasder shines over the Redeemer is in cargo space; I never load my TDA into 'Raiders, as the strength of TDA is its relentless special rule, which is useless with no fire points. My cargo tends to be PA units like Stikers or Grey Hunters or Tactical Marines (or Battle Sisters back in the day).

 

And yet, this is another area where the Redeemer shines. It's cheaper than the Crusader, and you never use the additional cargo space of the Templar jury-rigged pattern. There are no units in our army (or indeed any army except Templars) that exceed 10 man, and you're only likely to need 1-2 characters attached to the unit to make them work. If, as you say, you're not putting TDA inside, there is no need for the extra space. A Strike squads fits inside just fine, as does a Death-Cult/Crusader hedgecutter unit (you're unlikely to max them to 12, as you don't have to, and all you usually attach is Coteaz or Tech-Marine w/grenades).

 

If you're buying Land Raiders, they and their capabilities must be central to your game plan. Mine addressed the problem of my HQ unit always getting shot up before they could hit the safety of combat, as well as addressed long range anti-tank firepower my WH army sorely needed.

 

Your Canoness? The old version (not the gimped White Dwarf version) was pretty durable (2+/2+). Also, anti-tank was much better delivered by inducted Guard platoons. Plus, Sisters weren't (indeed, they still aren't) that bad at killing armour. Exorcists do a pretty good suppression job, and you have meltaguns literally everywhere for cheap.

 

Everyones' mileage varies, which is why you first need a plan, then you build your army around that plan. When it comes to Land Raiders, your plan starts with them first, then goes to the rest of ypur army.

 

I don't think you need to be that focused on keeping it alive. It's ultimately just a tool for moving your dudes from A to B, and being a fire magnet (people have an irrational fear of AV14, in my experience Raiders rarely kill much if you know what you're doing). You put an assault unit inside one, trundle off to kill something, you're done. If the enemy chooses to waste meltaguns and effort taking it down, you can't do a whole lot about it usually. I find the biggest change of plan it forces is re-allocating all those points out of your existing force (meaning typically cutting a unit or two out).

 

My advice, having used a Land Raider for my Inquisitor's ride for a long long time.. is purchase the Land Raider(s) first in your list building. Then purchase your HQs, then work on filling your mandantory troops choices. Now look at your list, and address remaining "needs". The style of Land Raider will fill some roles otherwise taken by other choices, be it anti-infantry, horde defense, anti-tank, etc (There's something to be said for a Land Raider Redeemer with the FW "psycannon" option and a pintle mounted multi-melta paired with a second, Godhammer style Land Raider).

 

Again, I don't think you have to plan that much. Generally, the criteria by which you judge whether a Raider is worth taking is simple. Do you have an assault unit that lacks mobility? If so, a Raider is the most durable transport in the game, and will serve that purpose well. If you don't need assault unit delivery, it's an overly-expensive way of getting durable firepower into your army (heavy bolter/lascannon/assault cannon/multi-melta is all found elsewhere in greater quantities for cheaper).

I think spending 500+ points on two tanks is a bit much TBH. Even in regular Marine lists, thats a huge chunk of points not going into dudes (and Marines never have enough dudes). Knights are even more greedy with points, so you have even less to work with. Henchmen lists aren't immune to this design problem either, as you have to take Razorbacks/Chimeras to keep your paper-mache infantry alive, and in large quantities (because each AV11/AV12 hull is only so durable).

 

So your Land Raider fills some of the gaps of other units, and also acts as transportation. The tricky bit I've found is in deploying your Land Raider so it can perform two or three tasks in the same game. When I was playing with mine, it acted as an anti-tank unit while providing a bunker for my counter-charge task Inquisitor Lord with cc themed Retinue. The first several turns was long range lascannon fire, then on turn three or four was a roll forward and discharge the close combat unit. Paired with two transports, an Exorcist, and using terrain, deployment and 6" movement/POTMS it usually lasted long enough to get that cc unit to where I needed it to go.

 

Except it's a really high price to pay for lascannon fire support, when inducted Guard provided more cheap boots on the ground for holding objectives and more dakka for your buck. Also, Phobos Raiders are the only one to not have frag launchers (not that Inquisitional Retinues were anything special, but it was something they lacked). If you're only moving 6" a turn, you're wasting the transport utility (by definition, transported units need to be more mobile than just normal movement, if you're going to get any use out of their transport). I know it cuts down on your dakka output, but on the other two (Crusader less so, Redeemer definitely) moving 12" and firing one gun is perfectly fine.

 

Every army has a set of "needs" for a balanced game (anti-tank, addressing anti-infantry and/or hordes, being able to move, etc). Land Raiders fill two or three roles, which is fitting considering their points costs... but mostly it's that they'll remove points you have to spend on other things. Start with them first, then add the things you have to, then fill gaps... don't just add them at the end.

 

Landraiders don't really have 'roles' like you'd expect of other units (ie something like a Terminator unit, who can do fire support, objective denial and close-combat). They deliver assault units faster than would otherwise be the case via footslogging it (which they do better than anything else in the game, due to durability and Assault Ramp). Everything on top of that is largely a bonus, often one you won't utilise. Phobos Raiders either waste their transport capacity and Assault Ramp sitting on the backline, firing lascannons, or waste their lascannons moving too fast to use them both (250+pts for a single linked lascannon is not efficient fire support). Crusaders provide bolter firepower which looks impressive on paper, but in practise cover saves and the individual worthlessness of bolter shots (srsly) make the sponsons pretty lacklustre. Redeemers almost never get to use their main guns, but if they do it's very useful for cleaning up infantry. Out of those three, the Redeemer is the cheapest, or rather you can tack on the mandatory multi-melta and bring it into line with the price of the other two.

 

In the case of Knights, I would never take any pattern of Raider. We simply don't need it, it's a relic of our past codex.

Henchmen armies need something to deliver Death-Cult/Crusaders, Chimeras are terrible (AV10 side is way too easy to flank), Rhinos are not suitable either. Stormraven is very fast, but durability is no greater than a Dreadnought. Redeemer provides all-important frags (the only type of grenade the attached Tech-Marine won't be handing out) and can burninate supporting enemy infantry while you unleash the cargo on the primary target.

 

 

You make some good points at the start but I must say you seem to have avery 1 demnsional view and understanding of landraiders and their uses. Let me provide you with a shameless plug, but in all honesty I think you could get a lot from this article. My GK army uses a single raider and has never dropped a game including major tournaments including the Australasian Championship. Now I'm not saying I'm the best player around, what I am saying is that a land raider can be cleverly worked into and army to do more than 'transport an assault unit' as you put it. it is one of those units that can reward a clever player who knows how to utilise it for more than dumping an assault unit out the front of it

 

Please have a read of this link and tell me what you think, you may completely disagree, but I'd be interested to know.

 

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2011/10/...ers-in-5th.html

 

Regards,

Crynn

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Dude, that wall of text makes no sense.

 

SJ

 

Or maybe it makes so much sense, you're still in shock. B)

 

You make some good points at the start but I must say you seem to have avery 1 demnsional view and understanding of landraiders and their uses. Let me provide you with a shameless plug, but in all honesty I think you could get a lot from this article. My GK army uses a single raider and has never dropped a game including major tournaments including the Australasian Championship. Now I'm not saying I'm the best player around, what I am saying is that a land raider can be cleverly worked into and army to do more than 'transport an assault unit' as you put it. it is one of those units that can reward a clever player who knows how to utilise it for more than dumping an assault unit out the front of it

 

It would help if the Landraider was anything but one-dimensional. Nobody buys it for it's guns, or even it's durability (you can buy two tanks in most armies for it's price). The reason you field it is to transport a unit, most likely geared for assault (after all, that Assault Ramp is pretty unique in 40k). If you're trying to use it as fire support or a bunker for Tactical Marines, you're doing it wrong. Agree to disagree I think. :D

 

I'm sure you're a perfectly good player, but to be fair, Australian tourney's are notorious for being stupidly comped (ie retarded restrictions on legal army lists). Kirby has discussed this very issue before. So, if people show up with bad lists (the naive) and others still slip the badly-conceived noose of comp by just re-designing their power list to fit the criteria (the smart players), I'm hardly going to be shocked that Raiders do well. From my personal experience, Aussie gamers aren't anywhere near as competitive (ie they actively design their lists properly). I used to get complaints for fielding my Grey Knights (old DH codex version), because apparently 'Marines aren't supposed to shoot that well'. Mind you, people even complained about my Tau for the same reason. So, needless to say, me and the other local Knight players get even more claims of hax with the new codex.

'Warp Quake' is kinda dirty though, more so than Mystics.

 

I haven't seen you play, so I can't really say whether you're some kind of savant with Landraiders, or you just have bad opponents. I'm charitable so I'll assume the former ;) . Suffice to say though, my mileage with Raiders is usually 'oh look, I moved 12", now it's dead to melta/railgun/lance, now I have to walk'. Not just with Knights either, Chaos Marines, regular Marines etc.

 

Regarding the article;

I agree that Raiders can block LOS (although actual terrain is preferable).

Counter-assault is what I was trying to get at before with the wall o text. No, you don't just bum-rush, you wait for the enemy to try and kill your Knights in close-combat. Then out come the Death-Cult and rip face, while their transport burninates.

The slingshot sounds kinda dubious, and we have no jump pack heroes so not really applicable to Knight or Henchmen armies. Suppression...lascannons aren't bad, but you're relying on a one-shot weapon. It's done better by Dreads TBH.

Aura expansion is valid, but our main source of aura abilities (the Librarian) already has a perfectly good meatshield with Paladins/Terminators and would rather walk. 'Shrouding' is pretty much the only AOE power that benefits, 'Sanctuary' affects units within 12" of the Librarian so it's already got decent enough reach to cover your phalanx just fine.

[thade]

It would help if the Landraider was anything but one-dimensional. Nobody buys it for it's guns, or even it's durability (you can buy two tanks in most armies for it's price). The reason you field it is to transport a unit, most likely geared for assault (after all, that Assault Ramp is pretty unique in 40k). If you're trying to use it as fire support or a bunker for Tactical Marines, you're doing it wrong. Agree to disagree I think. :)

I bullet-listed the values a LR has (in this thread, even) and being a transport was only one of them.

 

Land Raider Crusaders display an impressive amount of fire power; they're the shooting equivalent of a tactical squad (esp. with the MM mounted on top) and can fire on the move. Flamestorm cannons are beautiful things too.

 

And, frankly, asserting that people don't take Land Raiders for their durability is just silly. :)

 

EDIT: Typoz

[number6]

It would help if the Landraider was anything but one-dimensional. Nobody buys it for it's guns, or even it's durability (you can buy two tanks in most armies for it's price). The reason you field it is to transport a unit, most likely geared for assault (after all, that Assault Ramp is pretty unique in 40k). If you're trying to use it as fire support or a bunker for Tactical Marines, you're doing it wrong. Agree to disagree I think. :)

I have to agree with the assessment that you're looking at the various land raiders with tunnel vision.

 

For example, as much as I don't think much of the standard godhammer raider, there is actually one superb use to which it can be put in a GK army in a way that no other army can. Furthermore, please note that you buy it specifically because of it's guns and it's durablility! :)

 

Buy two, or even three godhammer raiders. That's right, you heard me, as much as three standard land raiders! (At least 2000 pts army list, obviously.) But definitely take two. (And truth to be told, two would usually/probably be enough.) Put minimal GK Strike squads inside the raiders. Fill out the list with the shooty units of your choice. (E.g., more strikers with psybacks, psyflemen, techmarines with conversion beamers, psycannon-laden purgators with psybacks, Coteaz and shooty henchman units, etc.) Also have a few servo skulls to hand to prevent infiltrators.

 

I hope you can see where I'm going with this army list build. Warp Quake + Godhammer Raiders + servo skulls = a big "screw you" to armies that depend on infiltration and/or deep striking to deliver death on their enemy's doorstep. They just can't do that to this army. Meanwhile this army is truly a fearsome gunline o' doom that few other armies are going to be capable of tangling with easily. It's a very prickly army list build. Your enemies won't be happy at range, and even without a CC focus, GK armies are not the easiest armies to assault.

 

Just one example.

 

Heck, I acknowledge my near-dismissal of the redeemer earlier ... mostly personal preference. As others have pointed out, it can be put to good use. As with the godhammer raider, you just need the right army list build around it.

 

The land raider -- any loadout -- can be a useful asset in a GK army. But as many have said: the list needs to be designed around it. No raider can be shoehorned randomly into any old army list. It's simply too "massive" -- both in points and specialized abilities -- to do that with.

[thade]

Number6, that list you describe right there (2-3 Land Raider Phobos, embarked Strike Squads, some ability to harass and impede opponent deployment options) is remarkably reminiscent of Silent Requiem's old 3rd/4th Ed list.

 

I admit it. I kind of want to run that list to see what I'm really made of.

[number6]

Number6, that list you describe right there (2-3 Land Raider Phobos, embarked Strike Squads, some ability to harass and impede opponent deployment options) is remarkably reminiscent of Silent Requiem's old 3rd/4th Ed list.

SR was a huge proponent of the godhammer over the crusader (the only two variants available at the time) because he felt the lascannons were essential.

 

The only real similarity between my proposed build and SR's is that the lascannons remain essential. ;) What's changed is the tactical approach.

 

SR wanted an army that he felt was perfectly balanced between offense and defense, as well as between shooting and assaulting. The army I proposed is not "balanced" in the same way. It is "balanced" in that it is intended to fight all comers, but it is definitely a shooting army first. It is not actively seeking out opportunities to mix it up in assault ... though it is at least moderately capable when push comes to shove. (I.e., the army is "balanced" in the same sense that Tau can be a "balanced, all-comers" army despite its almost total inability to do anything useful in the Assault Phase.)

[thade]

I need to stop looking at this thread now, before I seriously consider buying another Land Raider and painting it silver.

[Inquisitor Fox]

Your Canoness? The old version (not the gimped White Dwarf version) was pretty durable (2+/2+). Also, anti-tank was much better delivered by inducted Guard platoons. Plus, Sisters weren't (indeed, they still aren't) that bad at killing armour. Exorcists do a pretty good suppression job, and you have meltaguns literally everywhere for cheap.

No, my Inquisitor Lord, the only way you could get a Land Raider in a WH army list ;) Inducted guard can take lascannons, yes, but they die to a mosquito. I prefered the wall of steel a Land Raider was while giving me long range firepower on the move. You may laugh at 6"... I laugh at stationary guard lines with lascannons when I have a Land Raider with POTMS.

 

I don't think you need to be that focused on keeping it alive. It's ultimately just a tool for moving your dudes from A to B, and being a fire magnet (people have an irrational fear of AV14, in my experience Raiders rarely kill much if you know what you're doing). You put an assault unit inside one, trundle off to kill something, you're done. If the enemy chooses to waste meltaguns and effort taking it down, you can't do a whole lot about it usually. I find the biggest change of plan it forces is re-allocating all those points out of your existing force (meaning typically cutting a unit or two out).

 

For that line of thought, a Rhino works better. A Land Raider adds armor and firepower to a Rhino without taking away cargo capacity, that's why it's expensive. Use those assets, don't discount the firepower.

 

Again, I don't think you have to plan that much. Generally, the criteria by which you judge whether a Raider is worth taking is simple. Do you have an assault unit that lacks mobility? If so, a Raider is the most durable transport in the game, and will serve that purpose well. If you don't need assault unit delivery, it's an overly-expensive way of getting durable firepower into your army (heavy bolter/lascannon/assault cannon/multi-melta is all found elsewhere in greater quantities for cheaper).

I think you underestimated what I was doing with the unit. I moved forward 6" a turn, shooting both lascannons at enemy tanks, advancing behind my front line. I got easily three turns of shooting doing this, dealing quite a bit of destruction. By that point I actually wanted my Inquisitor and CC Retinue (which did far more damage than most folks credit it for) so they then hopped out of the Raider and did their job. Plenty of use for my 250 some odd points.

 

Except it's a really high price to pay for lascannon fire support, when inducted Guard provided more cheap boots on the ground for holding objectives and more dakka for your buck. Also, Phobos Raiders are the only one to not have frag launchers (not that Inquisitional Retinues were anything special, but it was something they lacked). If you're only moving 6" a turn, you're wasting the transport utility (by definition, transported units need to be more mobile than just normal movement, if you're going to get any use out of their transport). I know it cuts down on your dakka output, but on the other two (Crusader less so, Redeemer definitely) moving 12" and firing one gun is perfectly fine.

 

Except a counter-charge assault unit works fundamentally different than a regular assault unit. You have to maintain it's strength by protecting it from incoming fire until there is a unit in your backfield that needs dealt with. Thus, the Land Raider which can provide fire support and armor at once.

 

Landraiders don't really have 'roles' like you'd expect of other units (ie something like a Terminator unit, who can do fire support, objective denial and close-combat). They deliver assault units faster than would otherwise be the case via footslogging it (which they do better than anything else in the game, due to durability and Assault Ramp). Everything on top of that is largely a bonus, often one you won't utilise. Phobos Raiders either waste their transport capacity and Assault Ramp sitting on the backline, firing lascannons, or waste their lascannons moving too fast to use them both (250+pts for a single linked lascannon is not efficient fire support). Crusaders provide bolter firepower which looks impressive on paper, but in practise cover saves and the individual worthlessness of bolter shots (srsly) make the sponsons pretty lacklustre. Redeemers almost never get to use their main guns, but if they do it's very useful for cleaning up infantry. Out of those three, the Redeemer is the cheapest, or rather you can tack on the mandatory multi-melta and bring it into line with the price of the other two.

I simply have to completely disagree here, we have two totally different approaches to them :)

 

I need to stop looking at this thread now, before I seriously consider buying another Land Raider and painting it silver.

I need 3 more... a LR Prometheus in Inquisitorial red and black, a LR (godhammer configuration) with a multimelta and psycannon in GK colors, and a LR Redeemer with multimelta and psycannon in GK colors. Oh, and two Valkyries and a Storm Raven, but that's neither here nor there... and a couple Razorbacks in GK silver with psycannons.. yeah.. my to do list hates me...