Land Raiders need that "Assault vehicle" back

[Phaeton]

Hello, brothers. Are you still using your Land Raiders as transports? I am not.

What is the point of loading my assault units (terminators, for example) in Land Raider, if I gain little to no benefit of using LR as transport? I can deep strike terminators and instantly have a chance to charge with them. In Land Raider, however, I have to withstand enemy fire for one or two turns (and often passengers were left in wreckage of destroyed LR in my deployment zone) to finally gain 3 additional inches of disembarking. Underwhelming.

In fact, now I use Land Raiders more often as fire platform, as their transport possibilities underperforming. They are seriosly lack of "Assault vehicle" rule, which gives them an edge over other transports in previous editions. In 8 ed, however, LR in not so different of Rhino in transport functions. Same problem goes for Orks Trukks and Battlewagons.

I think that addition of "Assault vehicle" - like rule in next Chapter Approved, allowing transported units to disembark after LR movement, will bring LRs back to glory and justify their high cost. It will be perfect. What do you think about this?

Edited January 16, 2018 by Phaeton

[Deschenus Maximus]

I just don't use my Land Raider at all anymore. Sad.

[Saxxon the Dragoon]

Hello, brothers. Are you still using your Land Raiders as transports? I am not.

What is the point of loading my assault units (terminators, for example) in Land Raider, if I gain little to no benefit of using LR as transport? I can deep strike terminators and instantly have a chance to charge with them. In Land Raider, however, I have to withstand enemy fire for one or two turns (and often passengers were left in wreckage of destroyed LR in my deployment zone) to finally gain 3 additional inches of disembarking. Underwhelming.

In fact, now I use Land Raiders more often as fire platform, as their transport possibilities underperforming. They are seriosly lack of "Assault vehicle" rule, which gives them an edge over other transports in previous editions. In 8 ed, however, LR in not so different of Rhino in transport functions. Same problem goes for Orks Trukks and Battlewagons.

I think that addition of "Assault vehicle" - like rule in next Chapter Approved, allowing transported units to disembark after LR movement, will bring LRs back to glory and justify their high cost. It will be perfect. What do you think about this?

As transports, no. Land Raiders are now the heavy tanks they were meant to be. In the lore, Land Raiders were more heavy assault vehicles (sub baneblades) and assault transports secondary. Its just on the tabletop you were forced to use land raiders as troop transports because of how dangerous deep striking/teleporting in was. depending on the variant, you couldn't even transport a full squad of 10 terminators.

 

The fact that they have so many wounds, 2+ save, can split fire without issue and has enough fire power to make most armies wither makes it a target priority. You would be MUCH better off tactics wise just running your land raider up the field, drawing fire and unloading on priority targets and just deep strike your terminators where you need them. I think the land raider is in a good place now, especially with how easy it is to blow up predators and razorbacks are just more cost effective in the long run.

 

I personally dont think it would be great for the game overall to put an 'assault vehicle' rule back into the game right now. Maybe add a command point ability where you could burn 1 or 2 command points to allow a unit to assault after disembarking from a transport similar to the blood angels command ability. But giving it out to all assault vehicles (especially to the likes of orks or DE) is not going to be good overall for the game. The high cost for land raiders is because of the weapon systems and the survivability of the tank, not because it can be a troop transport. Try using a Terminus Ultra (2 lascannons, 3 twin link lascannons), and then tell me its not worth it.

 

You are still in the mindset of the land raider as a troop transport for a problem that doesnt exist anymore. You dont have to worry about deep striking and rolling a unit off the table. If you want to protect your terminators or get troops across the table, the safest way is to deep strike them, or put them in something like a storm raven or a rhino.

[Kristoff]

 

Hello, brothers. Are you still using your Land Raiders as transports? I am not.

What is the point of loading my assault units (terminators, for example) in Land Raider, if I gain little to no benefit of using LR as transport? I can deep strike terminators and instantly have a chance to charge with them. In Land Raider, however, I have to withstand enemy fire for one or two turns (and often passengers were left in wreckage of destroyed LR in my deployment zone) to finally gain 3 additional inches of disembarking. Underwhelming.

In fact, now I use Land Raiders more often as fire platform, as their transport possibilities underperforming. They are seriosly lack of "Assault vehicle" rule, which gives them an edge over other transports in previous editions. In 8 ed, however, LR in not so different of Rhino in transport functions. Same problem goes for Orks Trukks and Battlewagons.

I think that addition of "Assault vehicle" - like rule in next Chapter Approved, allowing transported units to disembark after LR movement, will bring LRs back to glory and justify their high cost. It will be perfect. What do you think about this?

As transports, no. Land Raiders are now the heavy tanks they were meant to be. In the lore, Land Raiders were more heavy assault vehicles (sub baneblades) and assault transports secondary. Its just on the tabletop you were forced to use land raiders as troop transports because of how dangerous deep striking/teleporting in was. depending on the variant, you couldn't even transport a full squad of 10 terminators.

 

The fact that they have so many wounds, 2+ save, can split fire without issue and has enough fire power to make most armies wither makes it a target priority. You would be MUCH better off tactics wise just running your land raider up the field, drawing fire and unloading on priority targets and just deep strike your terminators where you need them. I think the land raider is in a good place now, especially with how easy it is to blow up predators and razorbacks are just more cost effective in the long run.

 

I personally dont think it would be great for the game overall to put an 'assault vehicle' rule back into the game right now. Maybe add a command point ability where you could burn 1 or 2 command points to allow a unit to assault after disembarking from a transport similar to the blood angels command ability. But giving it out to all assault vehicles (especially to the likes of orks or DE) is not going to be good overall for the game. The high cost for land raiders is because of the weapon systems and the survivability of the tank, not because it can be a troop transport. Try using a Terminus Ultra (2 lascannons, 3 twin link lascannons), and then tell me its not worth it.

 

You are still in the mindset of the land raider as a troop transport for a problem that doesnt exist anymore. You dont have to worry about deep striking and rolling a unit off the table. If you want to protect your terminators or get troops across the table, the safest way is to deep strike them, or put them in something like a storm raven or a rhino.

 

 

Maybe for the classic Land Raider, but not for the Crusader.  The Crusader is designed (in the fluff) with the Assault Vehicle in mind, and a Drop Pod does not carry the capacity of the Crusader (or even the Redeemer).

[Saxxon the Dragoon]

Considering the crusader cant even carry a full squad of 10 terminators, and only 16 marines. For that kind of price point you are MUCH better off taking 3 razorbacks with twin lascannons. while you dont get a 2+ save, it does force your opponent to spread 30 wounds over 3 vehicles instead of dumping everything into a single 16 wound vehicle that doesnt even have an invul save. if you are looking for troop transports, use rhino's or razorbacks. they are much more cost effective than taking a land raider.

[Kristoff]

Considering the crusader cant even carry a full squad of 10 terminators, and only 16 marines. For that kind of price point you are MUCH better off taking 3 razorbacks with twin lascannons. while you dont get a 2+ save, it does force your opponent to spread 30 wounds over 3 vehicles instead of dumping everything into a single 16 wound vehicle that doesnt even have an invul save. if you are looking for troop transports, use rhino's or razorbacks. they are much more cost effective than taking a land raider.

 

But you cannot use a Rhinos or Razorbacks with a 15-man squad, no matter how many of them you have.  Capacity is the point.  And while they cannot carry the full 10 Terminators, they can carry 3 more than a Drop Pod.  Of course, if capacity isn't a concern, then yeah, Rhinos and Razorbacks do tend to work better than a Crusader.

[Saxxon the Dragoon]

If your entire concern is being able to carry 15 (or 16) then I can see why the crusader is so important to you, since stormravens can carry 12 and even thats not enough for you. But the point still stands that the Land Raider (particularly in this edition) has been a better heavy tank than it has been a troop transport. Especially since in 40k we havent had the medium battle tank chassis (Sicaran) until recently, your only option has been either the rhino chassis or a land raider chassis. But if you look at ALL the different variants of land raider, its pretty clear that the land raider has always been designed as a heavy tank first, troop transport second. Even the Crusader was still carrying a lot of weapons for a troop transport and if you were to have an land raider variant that could carry 20 troops and completely abandon everything but the assault cannon/heavy bolter above the forward ramp (lets call the variant the warthog) then you could say the land raider is a troop transport. But from every variant we currently have (from the standard pattern all the way up to the excelsior) the land raider has always been designed as a weapons platform first.

[Trevak Dal]

Its kind of got me in a rough spot. I super recognize the heavy tank appeal, I got two and intended them for my world eaters I was making in 7th with the legions book, to be the shooting along with a pred and backed by maulerfiends.

 

But where they are so expensive...and how I kinda need to put my zerkers some place, getting so much heavy in my wannabe close combat army is sort of bringing me out of what I want again.

[The Unseen]

If their just supposed to be a heavy battle tank, their paying way to much for that transport capacity.

So I don't buy it.

They've been heavy assault vehicles for a long time.

[Bulwyf]

I have to say that I agree with those saying the LR was intended as more than a MBT. The way it should be used according to fluff is exactly as an assault vehicle: get in close, dump out the payload while supporting them with heavy weaponry. It is a unique mix of MBT and APC.  The fact the transport part can do with far fewer points and better with Rhino, razorback and flyers is something that should be looked at. The LR isn't really worth its points value right now. It costs too much to be either a true MBT or a true APC.

[Saxxon the Dragoon]

I have to say that I agree with those saying the LR was intended as more than a MBT. The way it should be used according to fluff is exactly as an assault vehicle: get in close, dump out the payload while supporting them with heavy weaponry. It is a unique mix of MBT and APC.  The fact the transport part can do with far fewer points and better with Rhino, razorback and flyers is something that should be looked at. The LR isn't really worth its points value right now. It costs too much to be either a true MBT or a true APC.

If you look at the forgeworld land raiders, you see the 30k era tanks hold damn near unthinkable firepower considering what we have in 40k. While the Mastadon is a dedicated troop transport. The reason why Land Raiders nowadays in 40k  are used more as troop transports instead of Heavy Tanks is because forgeworlds lost the STC's for the weapons that were housed in the body of the Land Raider, and when they put in more conventional and readily available weapons and used the empty space to be a troop transport.

 

The Sicaran is definitely the MBT, its just that we havent had access to them until late (thanks to forgeworld), and the Rhino chassis was pushed into the battletank role when it was originally designed to be an APC. So we currently have APC's that are converted into battle tanks, we heave heavy battle tanks converted into APC's that can also act as a weapons platform.

 

The Spartan assault vehicle was designed as a heavy troop transport, it could carry 25 marines and still had 2 sets of quad-lascannons.

The Land Raider Achilles houses a thunderfire cannon and additional armor with its usual sponson weapons.

The Land Raider Ares housed a demolisher cannon in addition to its weapons.

The Prometheus and Excelsior are command and control vehicles.

The Terminus Ultra has 8 lascannons on it (3 twin linked lascannons, 2 single lascannons). Definitely a tank hunter.

The Helios is a heavily armored fire support vehicle with a Whirlwind launcher and 2 twin linked lascannons.

The Crusader and Redeemer takes out most of the heavy weapons in order to increase troop capacity,

 

Notice a common theme here? Weapon platform first, Troop capacity second. The Land Raider is the Bradley of the WH40K universe. It cant decide whether it wants to be a heavy battle tank or a heavy troop transport. If its difficult for you to understand, watch this:

 

 

Its not a Super Heavy tank like a Fellblade, Its not a Super Heavy Transport like the Mastadon. Its not even a Main Battle Tank like the Sicaran. Its the bastard love child of someone who thought you could get it all in 1 chassis, and where it's almost proficient in one field, if fails in the other 2 fields. If you make it a tank hunter it cant carry any troops. If you make it a troop transport it cant carry much of anything for weapons. If you try to make it a main battle tank, it can barely transport anything and it cant fight other tanks that are specialized in a tank hunting role (like say a predator annihilator).

[chapter master 454]

Speaking as a land raider lover whose biggest dream is to one day have each of the variants in his collection, land raiders have always struggled not just in points but in other aspects.

 

Of the variants, a big problem with them is identity. Speaking of the big three that all players have easy access to, there are points of interest.

 

 The Land Raider Phobos (the oldest and what is considered standard. Fun fact: sometime known as Land Raider GodHammer due to the sponsons) is a rather confused tank with even more confusing transport ability. This tank sports a twin-linked heavy bolter which now spits out respectable rates of fire and is not a bad tool for slamming infantry units here and there now thanks to split fire being standard issue. The meat of the tank however (and by meat, I mean nearly a third of its cost) is in the pair of "Godhammer" Lascannons. More commonly known as Twin-linked lascannons (sorry but Godhammer sounds awesome) these sponsons even in past editions meant that any tank facing off against the Phobos was done for as even mighty leman russes would struggle to keep up against these weapons. Now in 8th these have just become even more powerful and drop tanks like flys no matter what and even allow the Phobos to box arguably above its weight class against super heavies. Paired with Toughness 8, 16 wounds and a 2+ armour save the phobos is a straight up tank-killing monster that can even put down the hardiest of targets. No debates about it, it mounts the most devastating anti-tank load out available to marines (quad lascannon fire) with incredible staying power. However it has always had one questionable trait for having some of the longest ranged weapons for space marines: its transport ability.

 10 Marines, 5 Terminators or 3 centurions + 1 Marine is its capacity and one must ponder why? This thing mounts terrifying long range weapons and yet wants to carry troops around and drop them off at the local heretic shooting arcades? Granted it can still use its weapons to full effect due to the machine spirit rule however it is a questionable choice for a shock tank. It could be argued however this transport ability could be considered more of a 'bunker' function than any real transport as if you are going to have it hang back, why not beside an objective your troops may also be securing and thus why not have them huddle up inside the tank and act as a counter charge unit. Sadly not effective but is an option and it could be say it would benefit from just losing the transport ability for a much needed point reduction. Of all the land raiders, this one needs this done the most.

 

 The next two are largely similar and can be discussed together. The Land Raider Crusader and Land Raider Redeemer. The Land Raider Crusader was brought to us by our rather over zealous brothers of the Black Templar Chapter and has ever since been introduced to standard issue in codex approved armies a favourite of many and considered by most to be the best land raider variant on offer bar none (personally I reserve that for the Excelsior but that's neither here nor there). Mounting an altered loadout of guns making it a completely different tank from the Phobos variant, the Crusader is an infantry mulching machine that not even orks have the numbers for as the Twin-Linked assault cannon and both sponson mounted hurricane boltgun arrays give the tank a terrifying rate of fire when at effective range of 12 inchs (totaling in at 36 shots by default loadout, going up to 40 with a storm bolter). This volume of fire shreds most targets to bits be them marines, plague marines or the mass of guardsman we often complain about. Pairing with the highest transport ability of the variants at a total of 16 marines, 8 terminators or 5 centurions + 1 marine makes this tank not only scary up close but once close enough to disgorge its payload will without question mean whatever point it has arrived at will be cleared of resistance.

 The youngest of the trio is the Redeemer, introduced I believe in 5th edition this happy little land raider is similar to the crusader however instead of hurricane Boltgun Arrays it has a pair of Flamestorm Cannons. These weapons were introduced alongside the Redeemer and were back then a great weapon. Toting strength 6, AP 3 and the ignore cover benefit of templates back then meant it would incinerate any infantry in cover no matter who you were unless it were terminators. However in 8th they have lost some of their appeal while gaining others, their AP still brings most units to their knees, even terminators now and beyond that their damage stat makes short work of even tougher units, even putting primaris in the ground with a single failed save. While not great, they still hold a great deal of power in terms of dealing with heavier infantry. This tank however does cut it's transport ability down by a factor of 4 marines but still maintains a respectable 12 marines, 6 terminators or 4 Centurions.

 

Of these 3 tanks, all of them have their role and to some extent need only minor adjustments. The Redeemer would really just need random hit weapons being buffed. The Crusader needs nothing and wants for nothing however the Phobos is the biggest issue.

While some may argue land raiders need "Assault Ramp" however I contest they don't. While it does take to turn 2 to disgorge, that isn't a bad thing. Just to note: a land raider can have a standard marine squad cover 19" by turn 2 and for terminators anywhere from 17-18" depending on your variant of terminators. That leaves a 7" at worst and 5" at best. Those are easily covered charge distances. Only thing the "Assault Ramp" rule would achieve is giving marines a lesser version of drop pod or deep striking allows us.

My thoughts are that the only issue land raiders have is their terrible points cost. Lower those and we may see them become a little more effective.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

You've forgotten the biggest weakness of the Crusader. It has to be within charge range for you to get the best out of its weapons. My LRC has been next to useless in 8th as it has to get up close and personal. You may get a single shooting phase out of it, (and what a phase!) but in the next, it will get charged. And once it's charged, you lose at least one turn of shooting, likely more. Then it's just a really expensive paperweight.

[chapter master 454]

You've forgotten the biggest weakness of the Crusader. It has to be within charge range for you to get the best out of its weapons. My LRC has been next to useless in 8th as it has to get up close and personal. You may get a single shooting phase out of it, (and what a phase!) but in the next, it will get charged. And once it's charged, you lose at least one turn of shooting, likely more. Then it's just a really expensive paperweight.

 

Clearly didn't shoot the enemy enough ;P

 

I get that however to be fair if you are bringing land raider crusader you expect it to get charged at some point. To be honest, I am surprised there is much left to charge when it's done unloading both guns and passengers

[ERJAK]

I just don't use my Land Raider at all anymore. Sad.

No, what's sad is using them before, when they paralyzed themselves or exploded on bushes.

[wildweasel]

I'd rather see them get some ability to Fall Back and shoot and/or shoot out of combat, as they are basically pocket super-heavies.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Just imagine reversing the Crusader out of combat and unleashing hell! Easily worth a CP or two. Edited January 19, 2018 by Brother Adelard

[Tyriks]

I think a stratagem to fall back and shoot would be awesome for them. Having them able to do it all the time might be a bit much considering how much firepower they have.

[chapter master 454]

That could be considered the biggest issue with tanks in general this edition, at least initially.

 

In terms of design however I can understand GW being somewhat easy on the dials for tanks in those regards and quite easily missing the issue with horde armies in a similar vain.

If you think about tanks now vs. previous editions they really weren't durable enough or could be trivialised by simply blowing their guns off or in the case of some walkers, shoot their legs off. They were incredibly weak and easy to deal with despite having 'immunity' to certain weapons. In the current edition tanks have become strong and are only considered weak by comparison to other units. Tanks now are potent, durable and quite credible gun platforms despite certain details we may not like (such as not having rules for heavy weapons which is a hinderance for all tanks, both skimmers and battle) but they are very servicable units to field now a days in terms of stats. However a lot of what contributes to their current state I would believe is balancing factors. Tanks got straight buffs, only nerf being the toughness vs. strength system however that can be largely dismissed as only anti-tank weapons still do damage (who was it who kept telling us how many boltguns it would take to drop certain heavy armour units? it was something silly like 300+ boltgun rounds I believe for even light armour targets with T6 and 7). I as a game designer may of been wary of making tanks too good and thus their points and weakness to being charged were left just to be fail safes for them. However it is now apparent after launch that tanks do still need help, mainly medium and heavy tanks need buffs in regards to being charged and firing weapons where as maybe lighter tanks do not need a heavy weapon buff but can have the fall back and fire rule.

 

It is worth noting that for interest, randomised damage works well and while it can be somewhat disappointing in some regards it has good ups and downs as rolling a 1 is a relief for me where as rolling a 6 destroys me but when determining random shots however even a 6 isn't scary as even if a marine is aiming it, you will lose 2 of them to statistics and more beyond that to about 2 successful strikes. This is an interesting point I want to bring up just as it shows what works on one aspect doesn't work so well in the other.

[Ishagu]

This might be controversial.

 

I actually think the Landraider is pretty good as is!

It suffers from typically being only one in a detachment and thus being targeted early. The same thing happens when I see a solitary Imperial Knight when I'm playing competitively. I'll fire 14 Las Cannons into it and it's gone.

 

I think Raiders are fine as long as you present an opponent with multiple threats or get into their face early to divert fire away from it.

[Captain Idaho]

Land Raiders should be in an army with multiple transports and maybe a Contemptor or 2. Force the player to choose what to fire at. I bet that most players will choose the transports they can more easily eliminate to ensure actual success.

 

Regardless, I do think Land Raiders are a little expensive but they are actually a tank that you can save 72pts on a Rhino and use as a transport also.

 

However, I don't use it since it is so expensive. I can see other people getting use out of it though, perhaps like a Dragon Rider High Elf build in the past edition of Fantasy - building a list for it.

[Claws and Effect]

The only variant I'm interested in is the Achilles.

 

T8, 19 wounds, a 4++ save, and it's packing a freaking thunderfire cannon that can also shoot krak missiles and 4 Emperor damned multimeltas. It's annoying from across the board and downright deadly within 24".

 

With that much firepower who cares that it can only carry 6 models?

Edited January 22, 2018 by Claws and Effect

[Ishagu]

6 isn't an issue at all. Put 5 plasma veterans inside lol

[Bulwyf]

I second the idea of giving them the Fall Back and Shoot ability. They need either a buff to their use on the table or a significant cost discount. This applies to both loyal and traitor land raiders.

[Beams]

Personally, I'd like them to be better on the first turn of combat, like a Repressor's dozer ram, Str+1 ap-1 when charging roll three dice for each attack. But since it's bigger, make it's ws 3+ on the charge.