Feelings towards the new Land Raider Points costs

[Schlitzaf]

If you look st the math. Vehicle are almost double as durable as they were 6th-7th. Several times more durable than in 5th. And before anyone says “But x is cheaper”.

 

Well if you look at the points that also false. Also for the Attack Bikes? You are so we are claiming that:

180 Point (155 pre approved) + 95 Point (naked) or 275/250 Points is doing

4.66 hits. 3 Wounds. Averaging 10.5 Damage or 16.5 damage. (Literally just killing a LRC on average).

 

Why is that problem or to quote “too cheap?” When that same 270 point land raider would. Die to 200 Point Suicide Stern Squad. You could not zone out.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Yeah no wonder raiders are so popular I’m sure we will see more now right .

[Schlitzaf]

I mean raiders have always been garbage sense time began. Its not a 9th rdition issue

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I mean raiders have always been garbage sense time began. Its not a 9th rdition issue

 

Yeah I can't really think of a time when this wasn't the case. 

 

3rd edition was rhino rush

4th edition transports were death traps

5th was razor spam, with melta

6th & 7th were really deathstar focused, along with some solid biker armies, and they never factored into a formation of worth

8th was storm ravens at the start, and then forgeworld after the supplements (though I'm sure they were good in Iron hands lists)

 

That said I think most of us played with or against one early in our playing days and they seemed really powerful. 

[Schlitzaf]

Eh that was never case for me. I had same response I had after it one shot melta in 4th. And same response I had after my first geme of 40k saw Helbrecht get crunched. Never touched my 3 LRCrusadeds ourside meme games

[Djangomatic82]

The rules writer should just grow a pair and double vehicles wound count. Leave the degradation profiles as they are. Eradicators, Ballistarii and Ravagers will still be able to take one out, just maybe not in 1 round of shooting, unless they stack buffs.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Djangomatic82

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Horus Heresy has rules that correctly represent the land raider it’s grand pappy the Spartan so it can be done.

[Mandragola]

It's true that Land Raiders have never been very good. It's not really relevant though, is it? They ought to be worth taking, just like all units should.

 

Anyway, the issues with vehicles aren't limited to Land Raiders. You can easily get more firepower on more durable platforms than most tanks provide. On release, eradicators gave you twice the firepower for your points than gladiator valiants, for example - even before factoring in that eradicators are core. They've changed that a bit since, but clearly not enough. It's not really possible to argue that the valiant, with comparable firepower and durability (and arguably less), should cost so much more than eradicators and attack bikes. 

 

There's also the issue of the edition we're playing, which puts a lot of emphasis on bringing infantry to score primaries. Bringing tanks makes no sense when they can't contribute to secondaries and they lose fights to infantry anyway.

[Ishagu]

I think the issue is with the unit itself. There have been many other vehicles over the last few years that have performed well. An example would be a Redemptor Dreadnought, a Dark Eldar Raider, or the various Custodes Tanks prior to their nerfs. They are still solid now, it must be said.

 

The unit is simply too expensive, and always has been, edition after edition.

[Mandragola]

I think the issue is with the unit itself. There have been many other vehicles over the last few years that have performed well. An example would be a Redemptor Dreadnought, a Dark Eldar Raider, or the various Custodes Tanks prior to their nerfs. They are still solid now, it must be said.

 

The unit is simply too expensive, and always has been, edition after edition.

That's right, I think. A Land Raider, and actually most marine vehicles, have enough firepower to potentially be useful. They aren't because they cost too much (and can't transport Primaris, which is a whole other thing). You look at the balance of firepower, toughness, utility and cost and it just doesn't add up.

 

There are other vehicles where that's not really the case. It's hard to see any scenario where a hammerhead with its one-shot railgun could be useful in 9th, for example. But Land Raiders probably aren't fundamentally broken - just overcosted.

[Kallas]

There are always two paths to functionality:

1. Points - a unit can always be priced to a point where it is viable, and can be done incrementally and reverted/tweaked readily; but point tweaks can lead to units with extremely similar functions to directly compete.
2. Buffs - making the weak parts of a unit better to make it more useful. Harder to do, but is less likely to cause units to overlap and can make them more distinct - and therefore more attractive.

Honestly, as much as I agree that points are the simplest and easiest method to making the Land Raiders viable, I think we need some buffs to make them attractive. Things like Duty Eternal, Assault Vehicle (and stat adjustments) to make it have a unique (or at least uncommon) capability that can't be replicated through another unit.

[Schlitzaf]

The rules writer should just grow a pair and double vehicles wound count. Leave the degradation profiles as they are. Eradicators, Ballistarii and Ravagers will still be able to take one out, just maybe not in 1 round of shooting, unless they stack buffs.

To be clear you are complaining about 300 point unit.....killing a 270 point unit? How is this broken or unbalanced? 

[Kallas]

 

The rules writer should just grow a pair and double vehicles wound count. Leave the degradation profiles as they are. Eradicators, Ballistarii and Ravagers will still be able to take one out, just maybe not in 1 round of shooting, unless they stack buffs.

To be clear you are complaining about 300 point unit.....killing a 270 point unit? How is this broken or unbalanced? 

 

Should a Knight kill 600pts per round?

 

By the logic of 300pts-kills-270pts, any given 2000pt army should kill 1800pts of the enemy army per turn.

 

Edit: To add more to the point, a standard Land Raider doesn't even kill a single Drukhari Raider (or the more expensive Ravager) in a given turn (statistically, it does 5.7 damage, including the Heavy Bolter). In return, a Raider and a Ravager combined (which cost less than the freshly reduced LR) deal 5.5 damage; so about the same damage, but cost less, are far more mobile (higher movement and Fly), are tougher (two separate platforms, with more wounds between them, etc).

 

Edit 2: And the above edit shows that the 265pt Land Raider clearly doesn't kill an equal amount of points in a single turn. That kind of killing power is generally considered to be overtuned.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Kallas

[Schlitzaf]

I mean that because most units if you look at the math kill 33% of their value in points a turn. Anti-Armour is a notable exception to this however sense atleast 4th edition for example:

5 Intercessor (100 Points): (assuming Rapid)-
10 Shots > 6.66 > 4.44 > 3.7 Dead Gaurdsman 

Depending how you round that is 28 Points of Dead Gaurdsman (a charge would skew this to around 50 points).

10 Gaurdsman: (assuming rapid)
20 Shots > 10 Hit > 3.33 Wound > 2.8 Dead Orks (30 Points) 

I could go on. Now for vehicles take this same comparison:
3 Eradicators shooting a Rhino Chassis (11 wounds, 3+ SV, T7) will do around 12-13 if double shooting assault + 1 MultMelta. So about 90 Points worth (just over 50%).

IG HVT W/ Lascannons (Points might be off in which case preempetively apologize, assuming 70 points): 
3 Shots 1.5 Hit > 1 Wound > 3.5 Damage On Average or roughly speaking 30 points 

If they could take MMeltas 
6 Shots > 3 Hit > 2 wounds > 7 Damage. Or 80 points worth. 

The difference here is because a wound on a vehicle is worth more than that same wound on a infantry. And in case of MMeltas which were reference you need danger close. (12) and even at 24 drawing a sightline isn't easy and often requirements movement and can be zoned out. 

----
Long story short: 
The issue is not the LRaider is not Durable Enough (well actually I'd argue but not for reason others are. It should be T9 or T10. T7 = Transport. T8 = MBT. T9-T10 = Bunker Style Units)

An Anti-Tank Unit should if danger close 12-18 or require movement to be effective (i.e. -1 to hit) should have 50% efficiency when shooting Armour 
An Anti-Infantry general has around 33%. When shooting their preferred targets with their weapon. 

Suicide units in general which are 90% of the time tank busters through anti-elite infantry will generally have 75-100% efficiency ratios (Scions etc). And importantly zonable

Eradicators are weird in this because they are easily zoned out. So they get one shot and dead so they need to be 75% or higher efficiency bracket or they are garbage. Attack Bikers break this dymnaic because they are part of category 3. But aren't suicide necessarily and can rapidly redeploy. 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Schlitzaf

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Eh that was never case for me. I had same response I had after it one shot melta in 4th. And same response I had after my first geme of 40k saw Helbrecht get crunched. Never touched my 3 LRCrusadeds ourside meme games

 

I'm impressed you stuck with the hobby at this point. I tend to talk about things from a competitive viewpoint but my "bad" units have had plenty of good games.

 

There are always two paths to functionality:

1. Points - a unit can always be priced to a point where it is viable, and can be done incrementally and reverted/tweaked readily; but point tweaks can lead to units with extremely similar functions to directly compete.
2. Buffs - making the weak parts of a unit better to make it more useful. Harder to do, but is less likely to cause units to overlap and can make them more distinct - and therefore more attractive.

Honestly, as much as I agree that points are the simplest and easiest method to making the Land Raiders viable, I think we need some buffs to make them attractive. Things like Duty Eternal, Assault Vehicle (and stat adjustments) to make it have a unique (or at least uncommon) capability that can't be replicated through another unit.

 

I think fixing units is really subjective, personally I see point drops as buffs but not the only way to buff things, or even the best way. That said if land raiders get buffs by your definition, it is going to be through an edition change, a new codex, or a new supplement. GW has an existing product that's advertised to adjust points, to fix units like land raiders and they came up short based on our responses in this thread.

[Schlitzaf]

There is a story behind why (you can look it up on the forums, Its My(Your/Our) Hobby is thread title). I mean I enjoy what I enjoy, and play what I play. And if playing my Cool SC, and my LRCrusaders are a donkey behind. As I was shown early on, eh. Its partly why I black tide now and forever, regardless how bad or good it is. Its my list, I know, I know what it can and cannot do it. I know its weakness, I knows it strength and I will play to it. I could tell you point by point how my list is absolutely garbage and its woefully weak and a turd. 

I simply don't care. Because that what I play and what I enjoy playing. Like I should play Helbrecht nowadays, in my list. I just don't. And its partly why these topics draw me to discuss and talk in them so much. Precisely because people like these rose tinted eyeware, and make grandiose claims. Those same people who make the grandiose claims, are those in my explains tend to be same people "Helbrecht died in your first game ever, too bad thats 40k!". And it bothers me greatly, sense they want to appeal to competitive but that is not why. They want to play these units Land Raiders, not in a competitive sense but in their '40k'. Which can mean from "No SC, 1k only, no Primaris, Kill Em All" to just being another pick up player who see his CoolUnit get Suicided Sterned every week and gets angry its not an unkillable box with understanding the context for what happened. 

You play 40k your way, but its important to understand WHY something is way it is. It not the LRs are weak in fact for what they are, perfectly pointed and units that kill them are also perfectly in line with the perceived outcome or desire for these units. If I couldn't one round a land raider with a unit that needs danger close to 24" in first turn, or anything with LR style stat. It means hiding SuperStar style units inside far too powerful so on and so forth. By design a Land Raider is just not a good unit. Its a bunker, that a transport and infinite killy. As a result its get overcosted jack of all trades. The exceptions traditionally Redeemer and lesser extent Crusader. Are delivery platforms that have useful weapons on delivery. And have no reason to not go max 12" a turn in contrast to the Titanhammer. 

For a Vanilla Land Raider to be viable, you'd need to invalidate Predators Battle Tanks. Or give them so much defense, you cannot possibly hope to kill one and can hide superstar units inside. And that is resultant in additional bad gameplay. /shrug 

As I said, I play what I play. If folks want to make a point or appeal to a game balancing. It should be understood WHY the balance works the way it does for these units. (The points comparison was not me saying "this is a fair amount of pew pew" but me saying that 'the unit that instant gibs a Land Raider costs about the same not less'. And that is such an equivalence not an acceptable exchange to you? Because there are 100 reasons it might or might not be its all context).

[GenerationTerrorist]

Land Raiders would be far more viable if they had a slightly better version of the the 8th Edition rules that the Repulsor had in terms of firing twice, and bringing back the old Assault Vehicle rule. Such as:

 

"<Land Raider> can fire twice with all weapons, with no penalty to hit rolls, if they do not Advance. <Land Raider> can fire Heavy weapons, with no penalty to hit rolls, if they Advance. <Infantry> units embarked on a <Land Raider> can Advance and Charge on a turn they Disembark, so long as the <Land Raider> itself did not Advance. <Infantry> units can Advance and Embark on a <Land Raider>, so long as the <Land Raider> itself did not Advance."

 

As it is, the Land Raider (like most big Transports) is little more than an expensive Tin Can with some guns. I miss having 3 Redeemer's full of Deathwing unleashing hell on a mad linebreaking charge into the enemy.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Seems people are forgetting fifth was often referred to as parking lot edition.

[Karhedron]

The problem Land Raiders always seem to have suffered from is that they are multi-role and GW seems to price them on the basis that they can leverage all their abilities all the time.

 

Of course this isn't the case as a shooty unit that gets close to the enemy while transporting units is just asking to be bogged down in combat. A mono-tasked unit may only be able to do one job well but that also makes it easy to use.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Seems people are forgetting fifth was often referred to as parking lot edition.

Fifth was a parking lot edition but I remember alot of Razorbacks not Land Raiders. That said they didn't have sites where you look at the entire fields lists at that point so its kinda hard to say anything with certainty.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Not really I ran a land raider with several of my Marine armies and overall it was worth taking.

[Ishagu]

In 5th you could only remove a vehicle if you got an explode result upon a penetrating hit, so it was viable to flood the board with various tanks - hence the parking lot.

 

It was pretty awful.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Ishagu

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It was awful but there’s always awful things every edition.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I'll say it again, dropping points isn't a buff.

 

If rules don't change the 270pt LR will die just as quickly as the 100pt LR.

If rules don't change the 270pt LR will put out the same firepower as the 100pt LR.

The only thing that changes in regard to the LR, is the 'Oooff' size when it gets killed turn 1.

 

A devastator squad might not be as durable, but you can get 4 lascannons and some bolters for 96pts meaning even at 100pts a LR is barely worth it imho, so a rules change will be necessary to make them worth it.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Ishagu]

I'll say it again, dropping points isn't a buff.

 

If rules don't change the 270pt LR will die just as quickly as the 100pt LR.

If rules don't change the 270pt LR will put out the same firepower as the 100pt LR.

The only thing that changes in regard to the LR, is the 'Oooff' size when it gets killed turn 1.

It is a significant buff, actually. It means you can have two tanks for the price of one. That's double the wounds, firepower, etc.

 

The less of an investment a unit is, the less in return it requires to output before it has become a viable asset to an army.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Ishagu