Costly but Effective?

[Eisenhorn31388]

So I was thinking about running an extremely expensive unit and wanted some input as to its effectiveness for assaulting.

 

I want to run 15 Death Company and Corbulo in a Crusader. It comes in at 670 points before upgrades. Thats a huge chunk of my list right there, but it seems like it is a durable and face smacking unit that can charge out of the LR.

 

Thoughts?

[Daddywarcrimes]

You're extremely vulnerable to 3 jerks on bikes with 2 gravguns, since immobilizing the Land Raider will leave you eating mountains of small arms fire as you run across the board.

[knife&fork]

So I was thinking about running an extremely expensive unit and wanted some input as to its effectiveness for assaulting.

 

I want to run 15 Death Company and Corbulo in a Crusader. It comes in at 670 points before upgrades. Thats a huge chunk of my list right there, but it seems like it is a durable and face smacking unit that can charge out of the LR.

 

Thoughts?

 

I don't think they are good enough without rerolls, at least to hit. 

[ElectricPaladin]

There are some ways you can make that less expensive. Specifically, I recommend a chaplain rather than the Corbulator. Even though we don't get Liturgies of Blood, Zealot still works nicely with the insane number of attacks that many Death Company marines are going to have on the charge (60, assuming no bolters or Specialist Weapons). And I (personally) hate the thought of putting a guy who gives FNP to a squad that already has FNP. It annoys me to pay points for something I'm not going to use.

 

I don't think it's a bad idea. Sometimes you can make it work to put all your eggs in one basket and then beat the hell out of your opponent with that basket. However, I agree that your land raider is going to be vulnerable, and it might be a good idea to think about what kind of flanking forces you can use to intercept jerks with grav guns.

[mustardParty]

Seems like overkill.  That unit will kill anything it comes into contact with, but can only deal with one threat at a time, and the same job can be done by a smaller/other unit.  Dante and some sang guard with a priest can be every bit as killy but will clock in 200ish points cheaper.

 

Edited because I forgot how to math.

[Gaweda]

So I was thinking about running an extremely expensive unit and wanted some input as to its effectiveness for assaulting.

I want to run 15 Death Company and Corbulo in a Crusader. It comes in at 670 points before upgrades. Thats a huge chunk of my list right there, but it seems like it is a durable and face smacking unit that can charge out of the LR.

Thoughts?

Lance weapons I rarely run a land raider anymore because of those buggers.

[Shaezus]

^ this.

 

Besides, using DS JP is way more attractive now thanks to Dante and another character with Angel's wing. Even starting on the board and jumping across has more lure now, as 250 points extra of DC or SG may well mean more bodies making it into assault than if you take a raider.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Lance weapons I rarely run a land raider anymore because of those buggers.

Oh so much this! Dark Eldar just make mincemeat of Raiders, and that ain't right.

I so wish Lance gave a different bonus. Something more universal like +1 bonus when rolling on the damage chart.

[21stPrimarch]

Yeah not a fan of land raiders with all the lance weapons running around. I am still not sure why land raiders are the b points they are. All the other tanks dropped, why are they not somewhere around 180? I think that is fair, because when they were concieved, they were a terrifying unstoppable juggernaut, now we see lance melta and grav in abundance, i dont see the value

[Emperors Immortals]

You could run them in a Spartan, apart from lances mine has been a monster of war.

 

Of course, I'd recommend dropping the raider (its a shame to say that about such an iconic unit), and spending those points on SG.

[Morticon]

I think id rather have corbs nearby and have the squad led by a chaplain! Corbs' bubble will work even when hes not in the squad, and they already have FNP - so its not ideal.  If not a chaplain, then a libby? 
It is a sizeble chunk though, and quite risky as some have said!

[Drunken Angel]

Land Raiders still can't take Dozer Blades, unless you avoid terrain you have

 

A 1/6 chance of immobilising in terrain

Abundant melta now means your raider is vulnerable a 110-150 pt unit like

Sternguard

Fire Dragons

Haywire Scourges

Melta/Grav Bikes

Lance anything

 

or 

 

S10 Wraith Knights

Mephiston

Anything else with Grav ........    will destroy your plans

 

I have 5 Land Raiders and will never run them unless I want to give someone a chance of winning they are just so bad in my meta because of above reasons

[Tabgoi]

With this edition lances still need a six on the pen to pop a land raider in one shot.  That is not terrible odds, and with vehicles being able to get cover saves Land Raiders can withstand a lot of punishment.  But on melta you are still just hosed, or BA with power fists or thunder hammers on the charge.  I do think they should come down in cost a bit though, maybe not 180, but definitely closer to 200.  For how many editions was a monolith not only harder to kill but had better shooting and at 50 points cheaper?  Then again, I think terminators should be closer to 30 points considering how much rending, and AP2 stuff is out there.  And why does it make sense that plasma cannons should bypass the armor that was originally made to allow people to work in the heart of a plasma reactor?  Sorry, I brought in logic, I will report to the Chaplains for penance.

[knife&fork]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

This is actually another one of those random fluff vs rules things that happened in the transition to 3rd edition.

Until then plasma had never been spectacularly good at penetrating armor, not in the fluff and not on the table top. Plasma pistols for example had the same save modifier as bolt pistols.

 

  And why does it make sense that plasma cannons should bypass the armor that was originally made to allow people to work in the heart of a plasma reactor?   .

 

 

I've said it before and I've said it again, we need 1+ saves similar to fantasy. 

 

Still fail on a 1 but immune to AP2.

[ElectricPaladin]

And why does it make sense that plasma cannons should bypass the armor that was originally made to allow people to work in the heart of a plasma reactor?  Sorry, I brought in logic, I will report to the Chaplains for penance.

 

I really wish people would stop bringing up this old complaint. Weaponized plasma ≠ engine plasma, just like napalm ≠ gasoline. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not saying that terminators aren't overcosted or underpowered, but I don't think your argument actually holds any water.

[veneratedaniel]

i think for the past 2 years now my auto include has been at least 1 pod with 5 sternguard with 5 combi metlas, this on a decent amount of rolling pops land raiders 60% of the time all of the time. and they have only been bumped up by 10 points in the edition so i will continue to run them if not buff them and beef them up

[Eisenhorn31388]

I think the DC idea has been put to bed. However, I still bought a raider and I want to use it. Maybe some TH/SS and LC termies with a priest. Still expensive but Slightly more sustainable I think. And possibly put a Libby warlord in there too. I just love raiders. Most of the people I play are orks, IG or marines, with a bit of DE mixed in. Lance can be a problem but not to the extent of some metas.

[Remtek]

I lik the termie priest combo, great synergi at a somewhat fair price.

 

10 tacticals + priest and Mephiston should also keep you at 600 points with the LRC. Not amazing, but with new spells could be fun. Similar to DC, but more IC power.

[LutherMax]

Isn't a Land Raider's capacity 12 models? You're talking 16..?

[Bat33.1]

Isn't a Land Raider's capacity 12 models? You're talking 16..?

 

Land Raider Crusader is 16 models capacity so I think he's talking about one of those...

[LutherMax]

Huh. I thought it was the same as the Redeemer. We live and learn!

[Tabgoi]

 

And why does it make sense that plasma cannons should bypass the armor that was originally made to allow people to work in the heart of a plasma reactor?  Sorry, I brought in logic, I will report to the Chaplains for penance.

 

I really wish people would stop bringing up this old complaint. Weaponized plasma ≠ engine plasma, just like napalm ≠ gasoline. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not saying that terminators aren't overcosted or underpowered, but I don't think your argument actually holds any water.

 

Not to break down your apples to oranges comparison there, but you do realize napalm and gasoline are two different things right?  In order to make the napallm the military uses they use a chemical called benzene, which while a petroleum product, is by no means the same thing as gasoline.  They react in different ways and when combined with different chemicals have vastly different outcomes.  Plasma however is a physical state of matter.  While there are varying tempuratures associated with this state, outside of a contained environment with regular injections of source matter and energy it would lose temperature pretty rapidly as far as I understand it.  Therefor plasma shot out of a gun would probably be quite a bit cooler than the stuff you are using to keep your ship going, what with the ship's reactor being insulated and the plasma discharge not having the same advantage.  Also you would have a lot less room for containment in a pistol, riffle, or cannon than on a starship so it would likely have a lower starting temperature.  But then again I am not a physicist so I could not break down the equations for you.

 

And a one up save that ignores AP2 but you still have to roll a 2+ would make perfect sense.  It would bring a lot more balance to them without throwing everything out the window.

[ElectricPaladin]

 

 

And why does it make sense that plasma cannons should bypass the armor that was originally made to allow people to work in the heart of a plasma reactor?  Sorry, I brought in logic, I will report to the Chaplains for penance.

 

I really wish people would stop bringing up this old complaint. Weaponized plasma ≠ engine plasma, just like napalm ≠ gasoline. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not saying that terminators aren't overcosted or underpowered, but I don't think your argument actually holds any water.

 

Not to break down your apples to oranges comparison there, but you do realize napalm and gasoline are two different things right?  In order to make the napallm the military uses they use a chemical called benzene, which while a petroleum product, is by no means the same thing as gasoline.  They react in different ways and when combined with different chemicals have vastly different outcomes.  Plasma however is a physical state of matter.  While there are varying tempuratures associated with this state, outside of a contained environment with regular injections of source matter and energy it would lose temperature pretty rapidly as far as I understand it.  Therefor plasma shot out of a gun would probably be quite a bit cooler than the stuff you are using to keep your ship going, what with the ship's reactor being insulated and the plasma discharge not having the same advantage.  Also you would have a lot less room for containment in a pistol, riffle, or cannon than on a starship so it would likely have a lower starting temperature.  But then again I am not a physicist so I could not break down the equations for you.

 

And a one up save that ignores AP2 but you still have to roll a 2+ would make perfect sense.  It would bring a lot more balance to them without throwing everything out the window.

 

 

That's the thing about the Bolter and Chainsword. It's not just a web forum. It's a place where we learn.

 

But seriously, I think that we are having a lot of arguments about imaginary laser guns. All I was saying is that the "because plasma" argument is just as arbitrary as the alternative. I agree that terminators are underpowered and/or undercosted. I agree that increasing their durability even more would be a decent way to fix that. Heck, I generally think that changing the way AP works so it's more like fantasy - where a durable unit's durability is lessened by powerful weapons, not ignored altogether - would be superior to 40k's current system. I just think that the "because plasma" argument fails. It's just as arbitrary as any other argument about imaginary fantasy laser guns.

[Deschenus Maximus]

I've been thinking that a system whereas you fail your armour save if you roll below your save (as we do currently) AND if you roll above a weapon's AP (so you would fail on a roll of 6 when taking saves against bolters) would alleviate a lot of issues with the current all-or-nothing AP system without bogging down the game with armour save modifiers and having to rewrite every single weapon profile in the game.

[Morticon]

Isnt that just a 2++ then? Since you can take it vs. anything? Unless AP1 ?