Feelings towards the new Land Raider Points costs

[Captain Idaho]

Land Raiders, alongside Dreadnoughts and Terminators, are some really iconic and thematic units for Marines that myself, alongside many other players have enjoyed for years.

 

Unfortunately, in recent years they've taken a bit of a beating on the tabletop. They are quite vulnerable to being nuked by Melta units now, which for an expensive unit is a negative. Also, why transport something that can just teleport in anyway?

 

The points drop in comparison to the rest of 40K has put Land Raiders in a cheaper perspective position. But are they worthwhile?

 

I'm struggling to want to include them since they are an investment, but the firepower of them as well is immense.

 

I'm wanting to see more data on them and their performance before I make a decision. In the meantime, how do people feel about them now?

 

My gut is telling me they might not see much tabletop still.

[Kallas]

but the firepower of them as well is immense.

 

That's the problem: their firepower isn't immense. Their resilience is subpar, and they're apparently paying a premium (like many transports) for their transport capacity.

 

A 20pt drop is welcome, but not enough. Land Raiders need either a decent overhaul (eg, a better degradation chart, -1 Damage, Lascannons to suck less, etc) or a further points drop to be reasonable.

 

Still gonna try to field my three, but they're still subpar.

[Ishagu]

A 50 point drop would have been more compelling.

 

These units shouldn't just be usable, they should be competitive. The same applies to Repulsors and Gladiators.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Ishagu

[Captain Idaho]

4 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters is very good, with the same going for 24 Bolter Shots and 12 Assault Cannons.

 

The problem with Land Raiders is simply being 1 turned really. 230pts for them might have worked but wouldn't stop them being taken down in 1 turn which is a worry.

 

Regardless, they need something. Duty Eternal would help a tad I guess.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Captain Idaho

[Kallas]

4 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters is very good, with the same going for 24 Bolter Shots and 12 Assault Cannons.

 

It's not though. It sounds like a lot, but for the price you're paying it doesn't get much work done. 40k has left Land Raiders behind, in terms of design, and they've shed important rules (Assault Vehicle, Power of the Machine Spirit) while keeping a mediocre set of weapons.

 

Lascannons are pretty poor performers (kind of have been since the beginning of 8th), and while the Twin Heavy Bolter is fine, it's not actually putting out very much damage. As for the Crusader, while it can put out a decent amount of shots, with the Assault Cannons being decently powerful it's again a problem when you're paying over 250pts for that, particularly when anti-infantry is in pretty high supply for Marines in general.

 

And yeah, they're easy to shut down, due to their resilience not being worthwhile (T8/Sv2+ and 16W sounded good at the start of 8th, but that's really degraded over 8th/9th), and then their movement degrades so hard that due to their size they get punished really hard. Power of the Machine Spirit as a 2CP Stratagem is a real kick in the teeth: a good effect, but it's expensive on already expensive models, so it's kind of double tax...even assuming they survive a damn turn.

[Captain Idaho]

It's a little off subject but I consider degrading profiles unnecessary and too abstract for what they provide to the game.

 

Of course, 20 wounds for a Land Raider could be a way of solving an issue.

 

Moving onto more positive discussion for the topic, I wonder what sort of lists Land Raiders might end up in right now?

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think they show up in the same lists they do now. They needed a bigger change to be more than a unit that you run cause you love it. I do think that like the repulsor they can mess games between newer players, but in this meta where multi-melta is the best heavy weapon choice land raiders, repulsors, gladiators, and predators really needed a substantial drop.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I'd say the Stormraven is a better choice all around.

 

You can get 4 AT guns, a missile launcher, and a butt load of bolter shots, with comparable if not better transport capacity, better speed, and slightly more survivable

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

This also just goes back to my point that a points drop isn't a buff. To make a LR viable its point cost would have to be ridiculously low, meaning there needs to be actual rules changes.

[ADragonuFear]

What are you talking about? The stormraven is objectivly less durable. It has a worse Savin throw, wound count, and most importantly is only toughness 7, meaning melta wounds it on 3s. It also is an aircraft which means it can't benefit from obscuring terrain. It's only benefit is -1 to hit and speed, but the hit penalty won't do enough to truly protect it. At least it's fast but its really going to struggle

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Crusaders struggle because of their effective range. They want to be within 12" because of rapid fire, but being there is an invitation for them to be tagged, even in 9th, your opponent is better off tagging the tank with something, just to limit what it can shoot at. If it at least had assault ramp, or assault vehicle you could unload your own troops to act as a screen.

 

I took one in a 9th game against sisters. It took out an immolator in my turn one, which was nice. (Pre-melta update too). But then got ripped apart by three penitent engines which yeeted across the board in my oppo's turn one.

[Ishagu]

Auspex Tactics pointed out that Landraiders received a 7% drop, the Repulsors a 6% drop and the Gladiators a 9% drop.

 

That's not enough. Not even close. I would happily say that all of these vehicles need a reduction in the 20-25% margin.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Ishagu

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

What are you talking about? The stormraven is objectivly less durable. It has a worse Savin throw, wound count, and most importantly is only toughness 7, meaning melta wounds it on 3s. It also is an aircraft which means it can't benefit from obscuring terrain. It's only benefit is -1 to hit and speed, but the hit penalty won't do enough to truly protect it. At least it's fast but its really going to struggle

i mean -1 to hit is a pretty big deal unless there a melta AAA platform in game I'm unaware of

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Auspex Tactics pointed out that Landraiders received a 7% drop, the Repulsors a 6% drop and the Gladiators a 9% drop.

 

That's not enough. Not even close. I would happily say that all of these vehicles need a reduction in the 20-25% margin.

i was planning to use my Stormraven first chance I got any way so I don't mind lol

[lansalt]

What do you think of FW's LR Proteus or Achilles?

 

I think the real question is what to carry inside, but one with 5++ seems to be useful to bring special units to the middle board.

[Karhedron]

I think the real question is what to carry inside, but one with 5++ seems to be useful to bring special units to the middle board.

I am not sure a 5++ is that significant on a unit that already has a 2+ save. Up to AP-3, you get no benefit from it. It will save on a 5+ vs lascannon shots either way. Even going up to melta weapons only improves your save from a 6+ to a 5+. Not saying it is worthless but it is only useful against the heaviest of weapons.

[Xenith]

I took one in a 9th game against sisters. It took out an immolator in my turn one, which was nice. (Pre-melta update too). But then got ripped apart by three penitent engines which yeeted across the board in my oppo's turn one.

 

How did that happen, unless you put it int Hover mode? The penitents shouldn't be able to charge as its AIRCRAFT and Airborne. 

 

Prot, I think dreads and terms, which you mention in the OP are in an ok place now. Dreads have -1D which is good, and terms have 3W and the potential 1+/4++ from storm shields.

 

LR's are still bad. Their guns are outdated and they pay too much for transport.

 

What GW are doing is making different rules for different scales of weapons on different platforms. Look at the size difference between a centurian lascannon and land raider lascannon for example. If they made LR lascannons into 'Heacy Lascannons' for S10 AP4 D2d3/D3d3 we might be talking. 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I was talking about a Crusader? 

[Captain Idaho]

Land Raiders with Toughness 9 or 10 would work for me. Then we don't need Invulnerable saves again.

 

Yes it looks like most people feel the same about Land Raiders - just not survivable enough for what they bring to the table.

[Karhedron]

T9 would make a big difference and seems simple to implement. I wonder why GW are reluctant to break the T8 ceiling?

 

It might help Guard Super-heavies too and differentiate them from the more sophisticated ion shields on Knights.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Karhedron

[Mandragola]

I think right now the rules for tanks are miles away from what they ought to be. They just don't feel like tanks. Partly this is due to how easily they die, another part is due to infantry carrying equally powerful weapons so their firepower is nothing special, and also there's the way they interact with the battlefield. The whole point of tanks after all is that they can go anywhere, so it's really frustrating that in 9th they get blocked so easily by terrain and enemy models.

[Ishagu]

When they took all the fly rules away from the hover tanks they really crippled them, and for no reason.

 

The silly Iron Hands gun line from 8th edition doesn't even function in 9th. There was no need to hurt these units further.

 

As for the stats - they are fine. The tanks are just far too expensive.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

T9 would make a big difference and seems simple to implement. I wonder why GW are reluctant to break the T8 ceiling?

 

It might help Guard Super-heavies too and differentiate them from the more sophisticated ion shields on Knights.

I can think of a few reasons why they may not want to break that barrier.

 

1) I think GW is focused more on new players, and increasing the durability of tanks may imbalance the smaller games more.

 

2) They also want the different weapon options to feel pushed.

 

3) in addition they really seem to be giving some armies discounts on certain vehicles/units.

 

I'm not saying that these are great reasons but there what I can come up with. I'm honestly more disappointed because we asked for point changes in the survey so they could address stuff like this and for the most part they haven't been impactful enough.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The heavy doctrine can wreck 2+ armor save.

[XeonDragon]

I feel they need a bit "more" to match up the lore and tabletop experience. If it were me, I'd consider some kind of duty eternal buff, t9, or a 6+++ or maybe a 5++ (not all of them, but maybe a couple of those combined. I'd go t9 and duty eternal or duty eternal and 5++). That said, I think providing an assault vehicle type rule that allows them to move, advance and then disembark units inside would make them very competitive even as is. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by XeonDragon