Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

LR Redeemer
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=15434		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Hojyn [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
OK, here's a thread to try and do one of two things:

- standardise the LR Redeemer's profile;
OR
- decide that it's OK to have several, different profiles for the Redeemer in different army lists.

Here are the current profiles for the Redeemer:

Land Raider Redeemer Salamanders version

AV - 25 cm
Arm. 4+
CC5+
FF2+

Frag Launchers (contact)/(Assault Weapons)
2 x Flamestorm Cannon (15cm)/(Small Arms), Ignore Cover AND 15cm/AP4+, Ignore Cover
Multi-melta (15cm)/(Small Arms), MW AND 15cm/MW5+
Twin Assault Cannon 30 cm/AP4+/AT4+

Notes: Reinforced Armour, Thick Rear Armour, Transport (may carry 1 Terminator unit OR 2 of the following units: Tactical, Devastator & Scout)
The Multi-melta and Flamestorm Cannon can shoot and be used to confer the Macro-Weapon and Ignore Cover abilities to the unit’s firefight value.


Land Raider Redeemer Blood Angels version

AV - 25 cm
Arm. 4+
CC6+
FF4+

2 x Redeemer Flamers (15cm)/(Small Arms), Extra Attacks (+1) AND 15cm/AP3+, Ignore Cover
Twin Assault Cannon 30 cm/AP4+/AT4+

Notes: Reinforced Armour, Thick Rear Armour, Transport (may carry 1 Terminator unit OR 2 of the following units: Tactical, Devastator & Scout)

----------------

As I said in the BA thread, I much prefer the BA variant and don't really like the FF2+ with MW and IC in the Salamanders variant.

Black Legion said that the Salamanders version could be considered to be a "Sallies-only" variant, which would give a reason for 2 different profiles.

EDIT : Also, if we go for no Multi-melta and 3xFF5+ attacks on the LR Crusader, the BA version would be quite balanced when compared to it: 3xFF4+ attacks and a very short-ranged AP shot but normal transport capacity. In short, slightly superior FF firepower vs. extended transport capacity.

So... any thoughts?  :grin:
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
I don't think that the Flamestorm Cannons should give an Extra Attack. Ignore Cover to the base FF-attack willbe enoug. At least at the formidable FF2+
Giving a unit with 2 flamer weapons an Extra Attack for it would jeopardise other units which are armed with two flamer weapons. Eg Baal Predators and Salamander Terminators.
Yes i know the Baal Predator already has +1 Extra Attack for this.

For Salamanders we wanted to use the Multi-melta rules for Heavy Flamers: bestowing the special ability of the weapon to the base FF-attack of the unit.
Author:  Hojyn [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
Quote: (Hena @ 27 Apr. 2009, 09:22 )

Salamander version looks to be too good. 2*2+ with one being MW?

I think it's only 1xFF2+ MW attack.

Blood Angels version seems to struggle with it's niche. Does it really show useful with comparison to Crusader and regular LR?

Well, compared to the Crusader it's better in FF but has inferior Transport Capacity, so I think it's quite balanced.

The problem I have with the Salamanders version is that the Flamers should grant an extra attack or two, it's only logical. But with the Multi-melta it would end up being too powerful (one "base" attack, one or two EA and one EA with MW). The BA Redeemer seems more balanced, both for its points AND relatively to the other LR variants.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer

I think it's only 1xFF2+ MW attack.

Yep. Only ONE FF-attack in total. But this is a 2+MW-attack.


If the Redemeer is give some Extra Attacks i would opt to downgrade the FF to 3+. But any Extra Attacks would still be without any specialties. Only the single base attack is a MW attack (which comes only from the Multi-melta, the Flamestorm Cannons should bestow Ignore Cover to the base FF-attack).
Author:  zombocom [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
There are no rules for how to apply ignore cover FF hits, which is why no official list has this.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
Yeppers that should go.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
Would be the same procedure as allcoating MW hits. Actually this matter is sheduled for the NetEA Rules Review '09
Author:  zombocom [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
Quote: (BlackLegion @ 27 Apr. 2009, 16:20 )

Would be the same procedure as allcoating MW hits. Actually this matter is sheduled for the NetEA Rules Review '09

Perhaps, but there are currently no rules saying that. Hold off on using it until the rules review comes to a concensus. Neal's current suggestion for IC and Lance is very different from the MW hit allocation rules...
Author:  BlackLegion [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
So we have to wait developing this unit until the rules review is concluded.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
And i have absolutely no problems with this. I even guess most of the time the entire target formation would be in cover if it is in cover at all.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
As with 'defender allocated MW hits' (Which was massively shot down by the community) this is a gamey situation.
Author:  Honda [ Sun May 03, 2009 12:13 am ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
So my vote is:

1. Whatever you decide to do, pick one Redeemer version and support it with both lists

2. The transport capacity between a LRC and the LRR is the same in 40K. No reason to have that be different here

3. If we look to 40K for some guidance, the reason (assuming that you aren't making your choice by taking a poll) you take the Crusader vs. Redeemer, is how you intend to use them. I would offer that in the derivation of the Redeemers stats, have a clear idea of what the vehicle should be used for and steer the stats in that direction.

In other words, start with the end in mind. Also keep in mind that there is no cost difference between the two types, so that may help bracket the Redeemers capabilities.

Cheers,
Author:  BlackLegion [ Sun May 03, 2009 11:07 am ]
Post subject:  LR Redeemer
1. Yes.

2. The LRR has the same transport capacity as the standart LR (12 Models). The LRC can transport 16 models in WH40k.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/