Land Raider Sucks

[elciedery]

They need dozer blade and ceramite plate.

I can't understand why people use this :cusss.

[Lysere]

Land Raider Crusaders, that is why people use them. But yes they do at least need Dozer Blades again, they used to have them too.

[Golden Aegis]

Crusaders are like fat land bound stormravens that Mephiston doesn't mind exploding as much. I love em.

[redmapa]

Crusaders do need dozer blades back, mine always roll a one and its becoming so painful that Im legit scared of craters ruining my 500pt unit..

[Quixus]

The way the rules are right now, Land raiders should have dozer blades or ignore difficult/dangerous terrain altogether. They're big ing tanks.

However I think GW should make terrain have different effects on different units. Tank traps should be difficult or even impassable terrain for tanks, but normal terrain for infantry (maybe even provide cover).

Razorwire should be dangerous terrain for infantry but normal terrain for tanks (maybe the tanks should even destroy the razorwire)

Minefields would depend on the mines.

[Lysere]

Crusaders are like fat land bound stormravens that Mephiston doesn't mind exploding as much. I love em.

 

Mephiston is welcome to approach my Land Raider Crusaders, the boys inside will have be sure to welcome him with blades raised.

 

I've actually modeled one of mine with dozers, and since I've been playing 30k rules lately having the options for dozers is great. Spartan assault tanks with armored ceramite are even better.

[Golden Aegis]

Oh, I meant as in him rather wanting to ride in a raider then a raven because crash and burn makes him sad. I love my raiders.

[Karhedron]

The basic Land Raider armament was designed back in 1st edition and has never been changed (although variants have been introduced). This has left the old Phobos pattern tank distinctly underpowered in a meta where melta guns rule, most vehicles have at least 3 hull-points and lascannons can only explode on a 6.

 

The Crusdader has a clear role as an assault tank and has the load-out to support that role. The Redeemer fills a niche although I feel the Flamestorm cannons should have the Torrent rule.

 

The basic LR is hamstrung by having long-ranged weapons but also a transport capacity of 10. Is it supposed to sit back and shoot or roll forward to deliver cargo? Whichever it does, it compromises the other. The heavy bolter also does not mesh well with the lascannons although POTMS mitigates this somewhat. The new Excelsior variant with a Grav cannon is nice but takes up an HQ slot (along with the Rhino Primaris) and is more expensive.

 

My suggestion would be to change the stats of the lascannons. The are regularly mentioned in the fluff as being "Godhammer pattern lascannnons" so lets give the Godhammer variants S10 AP1 twin-linked. That would put the Phobos-pattern firmly in a fire-support role with the job of cracking vehicles in support of the carried troops. This woud give it a boost without being game-breaking.

[Quixus]

The Crusdader has a clear role as an assault tank and has the load-out to support that role. The Redeemer fills a niche although I feel the Flamestorm cannons should have the Torrent rule.

Yeah with torrent the smaller transport capacity would be justified.

 

My suggestion would be to change the stats of the lascannons. The are regularly mentioned in the fluff as being "Godhammer pattern lascannnons" so lets give the Godhammer variants S10 AP1 twin-linked. That would put the Phobos-pattern firmly in a fire-support role with the job of cracking vehicles in support of the carried troops. This woud give it a boost without being game-breaking.

Or unlink them. Four lascannon shots are better then two twin-linked ones. It would also give the enemy a lot more weapons to destroy.

[knife&fork]

The dual twinlinked lascannons are great for one thing at least, forcing jinks. With PotMs you can shut down two vehicles every turn while having a very solid scoring box if you screen it.

 

Making two falcons, barges or even flyers snapshot every turn can be worth a lot more than one might think. Preventing damage to your own units can be just as effective in the long run as stripping hull points.

 

The phobos LR might be overpriced but it sure isn't useless. In fact I would rate it way above the crusader and redeemer since they have to get really close (and thus go into melta and assault range) to be effective.

 

As pointed out earlier these really need the dozerblade upgrade as well. Phobos might not see much use a pure assault vehicles, but that's not something we should spend +240 pts on in this edition anyway. Waste of pts IMHO.

[Closet Skeleton]

The whole way twin-linked weapons have worked since 3rd edition is nothing but a big nerf to vehicle mounted weapons. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

The problem with making the Land Raider work ruleswise is that its supposed to be a very tough tank with anti-tank guns. If tanks are too tough in the rules its offensive abilities aren't worth it and if its too easy to destroy its defences aren't enough.

 

Ceramite plating as a standard option on Land Raiders is a terrible idea. Melta guns are the counter to super tough units like land raiders, making Land Raiders immune to their counter would just lead to a stupid arms race where some new anti-land raider weapon gets introduced and takes the place of the melta gun. The Land Raider's problem isn't that its weak to one kind of anti-tank weapon, its that its weak to the most common type of anti-tank weapon. If most vehicles were armour 11 and people relied on missile launchers to kill them and only took the odd melta gun in case a land raider showed up then Land Raiders would be a lot safer. AP1 weapons being so good in general is more of the problem, otherwise melta would be over-kill in most cases (but what do I know, I like hunting tanks on their rear armour with assault marine plasma pistols).

 

I've played against enough 3rd ed Eldar to know that unkillable vehicles aren't a good thing for the game, the Land Raider doesn't need to be invincible. It needs to be priced like the transport and support unit it is rather than like its some kind of godly murder-machine. Cheaper Land Raiders would help out their transport role a lot more than tougher ones would.

[knife&fork]

Ceramite plating standard wouldn't be at all OP in 7th. Strpping HPs from it or using S8+ guns would still be a viable strategy.

 

As it is though a 100 pt price reduction wouldn't be out of place.

[Closet Skeleton]

It wouldn't be OP it all, it would just make people complain about haywire and lance instead.

 

-100 points would be too much, it has to be more than a pittance above a predator at least.

[knife&fork]

The only thing needed to fix most vehicles is to do away with the HP system. Terrible idea to begin with. At a minimum glancing hits shouldn't remove HPs and instead roll at the table with a negative modifier like in 5th.

 

100 pts wouldn't be too much, even with a reduction like that I doubt they would be that commonplace in SM lists. The fact that every single marine vehicle is also overpriced is another matter entirely.

[Quixus]

Compared to the Spartan all non-FW Land Raiders are overpriced. 45pts for twice the lascannon shots, 2.5 times the transport capacity and one extra hull point is quite a bargain.

 

I don't understand why glancing hits would remove hull points either. The shot does not penetrate but bounce off of the armour, so why would there be permanent damage?

[Closet Skeleton]

A glance bounces off but still transfers force. It does damage, just not as much as a proper hit. On a person in armour a glancing hit causes bruises and leaves dents but doesn't transfer as much force as a flat on blow would. A hit that bounces off completely is one that rolls under the armour value.

 

Are glancing hits that relevant to why Land Raiders are bad?

 

How do Land Raiders do against Tyranids these days?

[TotalInsomnia]

To me Land Raiders should stay the same points or increase a little (maybe 50pts) and become a superheavy (maybe with another HP and the pts increase that would come with that). Honestly the biggest problem with Land Raiders to me is grav (especially in the form of cents). Their job is to bring my 300pt+ unit across the table and let them assault. This cant happen if the thing can be so easily immobilized by grav. Honestly I laugh when I see someone bring a land raider. All I do is splitfire with my cents and immobilize the thing first turn. I dont even need to kill it. Its weapons do not pose enough of a threat and my next volley of shots are better spent on the unit that now has to get out and footslog around the table. 

[Quixus]

A glance bounces off but still transfers force. It does damage, just not as much as a proper hit. On a person in armour a glancing hit causes bruises and leaves dents but doesn't transfer as much force as a flat on blow would. A hit that bounces off completely is one that rolls under the armour value.

 

Are glancing hits that relevant to why Land Raiders are bad?

I get that damage can be caused without the projectile going through the armour, but the names glancing and penetrating hits are bit weird in my opinion. Thunder hammers for example should have a very hard time actually going through the armour (because they are blunt objects) but should have a better chance of causing significant damage. That they are not that bad at causing penetrating hits just sounds wrong. I would prefer it if they called them minor and major or normal and critical hits instead.

 

That the glancing hits are bad has nothing to do with land raiders specifically.

[Frater Cornelius]

To me Land Raiders should stay the same points or increase a little (maybe 50pts) and become a superheavy (maybe with another HP and the pts increase that would come with that). Honestly the biggest problem with Land Raiders to me is grav (especially in the form of cents). Their job is to bring my 300pt+ unit across the table and let them assault. This cant happen if the thing can be so easily immobilized by grav. Honestly I laugh when I see someone bring a land raider. All I do is splitfire with my cents and immobilize the thing first turn. I dont even need to kill it. Its weapons do not pose enough of a threat and my next volley of shots are better spent on the unit that now has to get out and footslog around the table. 

 

Super-Heavy, huh? Well, we have seen the Wraith Knight becoming a Gargantuan Creature. Who knows that the SM codex will bring.

[Vel'Cona]

Right, I'm with Immersturm on this one.  With all of the FW advances and the down-pricing/buffing of large vehicles, I can see the LR experiencing a "rebirth" of sorts in the new SM codex.  For your perusal:

 

-Price drop

-Improved Power of the Machine Spirit

-More HP

-Super-heavy abilities/reclassification

-Difficult terrain adjustments

-Built in repair abilities

-Possible AV 15 buff (hey, it's on the Warlord Titan!)

 

Which of these do you think would have the BIGGEST impact, if they came to pass?

[Closet Skeleton]

My aversion to the idea of a Land Raider as a sort of 'pocket Super-heavy' probably comes from playing Black Templars and being used to fielding two of the things.

 

Wraith Knights got moved to Lord of War. Some players might see a Land Raider that way but I don't. A Land Raider might have similar exterior volume to a Wraith Knight but it doesn't tower over a normal tank the way a Wraith Knight towers over a Wraithlord.

 

To be a Pocket Super-heavy those Godhammer Lascannons would need a serious upgrade, but I suppose if a Predator Destructor can be Strength D in an apocalypse formation then a Phobos might be able to.

[Xenith]

The way the rules are right now, Land raiders should have dozer blades or ignore difficult/dangerous terrain altogether. They're big ing tanks.

However I think GW should make terrain have different effects on different units. Tank traps should be difficult or even impassable terrain for tanks, but normal terrain for infantry (maybe even provide cover).

Razorwire should be dangerous terrain for infantry but normal terrain for tanks (maybe the tanks should even destroy the razorwire)

Minefields would depend on the mines.

Erm. This is already in the rulebook. Apart from the tanks destroying the razrowire.

[Quixus]

What am I missing? I can't find such rules in the battlefield terrain section.

[Xenith]

I can't remember off the top of my head. I think it's in the 'discussing terrain with your opponent' section.

It specifically says 'you may choose to have tank traps to be impassible for tank,s, however open ground or difficult terrain for infantry. Similarly, razorwire might be difficult/dangerous terrain for infantry, but open terrain for tanks'.

I'll dig out the actual line and page ref later tonight.

EDIT:

It's in the forging a narrative part of the vehicle section

When discussing terrain at the beginning of the game, it’s perfectly fine for players to agree that some terrain has a different effect on vehicles than it does

on other units. For example, players might agree that tank traps are dangerous or even impassable to vehicles, but clear terrain for other units. Similarly, you

could agree that vehicles (or just certain vehicle types) treat barbed wire as clear terrain, and so on.

Been there for years

They're optional, yes, however you generally have to go through terrain at the start of the game and details it's effects anyway.

[elciedery]

Oh...

Guys, I just want to show you mine. I didn't expect this