Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Fixing land raiders - not costing

 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Hena, the MW on the Crusader is really OTT. We need to make one of the other LRs an assault specialist while the Crusader is the Transport specialist. As such the Crusader should really only have a single FF attack, two at the very most.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
If all Land Raiders are assumed to be equal in value. At some point we may need to accept that they aren't. After all, rhinos and razorbacks are clearly not equal in value. There is nothing "overpowered" that can't be fixed with a points increase.

Something like: "any LR can be upgraded to a LRC for +Xpts".

And I'm not entirely convinced that the higher transport capacity of the Crusader is necessarily something worth a great deal of points. With my Grey Knights, unless I'm strapped for points, I prefer the regular LRs as they beef out my formations more. Of course, this may again be an artefact of the small formation sizes in my list, but the point still stands.

My concern if the multi-melta is removed, the crusader and the redeemer become virtually indistinguishable, except for the oddity that the redeemer has more ranged fire than the crusader - which makes no sense as the crusader should have superior range to the redeemer.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
While I accept your example of keeping the same prices, IMHO it would be preferable to use standard costings where possible.

OK, I have done a little research, and here are some details (and possible stats) for the variants I could find (note I have ignored the Spartan and Hellfire which seem to be from a previous era). I have left off the common stats (AV, armour 4+RA, TRA, 25cm move etc). Enjoy:-

Standard LR        FF5+, CC6+,
1x Heavy Bolter,        AP4+ (30cm)
2x Twin Lascannon       AT4+ (45cm),
Transport 2/1


Crusader LR         FF5+, CC6+
1x twin Assault cannon,     AP4+/AT4+ (30cm)
2x Hurricane Bolters,      (small arms) (EA+1)
Transport 3/2
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider_Crusader

Redeemer LR         FF5+, CC6+
1x twin Assault cannon,     AP4+/AT4+ (30cm)
2x Flamestorm cannon,       AP3+      (30cm) IC
Multi Melta                 MW5+      (15cm)
. . . . and small arms MW (EA+1)
Transport 2/1
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider_Redeemer

Helios LR           FF5+, CC6+,
1x Whirlwind Missile,       BP1
2x Twin Lascannon           AT4+ (45cm),
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider_Helios

Prometheus LR       FF4+, CC5+,
1x Storm bolter,            (Small arms)
4x Twin Heavy Bolter        AP4+ (30cm)
Transport 2/1, Enhanced Command (a commander added to the tank can control other formations up to 30cm away)
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider_Prometheus

The following two variants probably need to be higher costs due to their additional firepower. They are also rare, and the Ares is aparently limited to Dark Angels

Terminus LR         FF5+, CC6+
2x Lascannon,               AT5+ (45cm)
3x Twin Lascannon           AT4+ (45cm)
If four '1's are rolled, the power plant overloads blowing up the tank.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Ra ... inus_Ultra
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_C....der.pdf

Ares LR           FF4+, CC6+,
1x Assault cannon,          AP5+/AT5+ (30cm),
2x Twin Heavy Flamer,       AP3+      (15cm) IC
1x Demolisher cannon        AP3+/AT4+ (30cm) IC
Invulnerable Save
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider_Ares
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_C....res.pdf

Also the Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....40,000)




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:38 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Errr what?

Redeemer LR         FF4+, CC6+
1x Assault cannon,      AP5+/AT4+ (45cm),
2x Flamestorm cannon,   AP4+/AT5+ (30cm),

Big stats fubar?

Prometheus LR       FF4+, CC5+,
1x Storm bolter,            AP5+ (30cm)
2x Twin Heavy Bolter        AP4+ (30cm)

Since when have StormBolters a shooting attack?
And the Prometheus has 4 Twin heavy Bolters.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 553
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
Ares has TL Heavy Flamer sponsons, not lascannons. And why on Earth would it have an Invulnerable Save?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
OOps, put those down to tiredness - fixed.

So I got a bit carried away last night mulling over the stats, and trying to find appropriate compromises for the various 'Raiders that were sufficiently different from a game perspective while staying in the ~85 points per tank area.

One question on the "Assault cannon"; would it be appropriate to make that FXF because of where it is mounted on the hull? The same would be true of the Ares Demolisher and one twin Lascannon of the Terminus.  

Regarding the Ares Invulnerable save, this seemed appropriate as it has significant additional armour (a dozer blade). Note the Crusader and Redeemer do have better armour than the normal LR, but not perhaps sufficient to warrant distinction in E:A.

Finally, on the Ares and Terminus, I did wonder whether all the additional weapons and bits might also make them slower - say 20cm (so really only air dropped) thereby bringing them back into line from a cost perspective




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Note that the Ares Land Raider isn't actally in any official publication, it's a conversion that one of the GW staff made that ended up on the website as an example of making up your own rules for a custom built model for Apocaylpse.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
:laugh:

Ok, so this is a 'bit of fun' - but having the equivalent of an upgunned Vindicator could make sense in particular circumstances. It certainly makes a lot more sense than putting a Wirlwind rocket pod on top of a LR and naming it after the Greek Sun god :smile:

Is the Terminus the result of a similar fit of 'boyish exuberance'?




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
Your Reedemer stats are way out of whack with what had been decided too, see the previous page of the thread - it's 2 x Flamestorm cannon; Range 15cm; AP3+; Ignore Cover


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:32 am
Posts: 799
Location: Belfast Northern Ireland
We are playing with giving them an extra RA roll, whether it be 4+ or higher IDK but for the universe's ultimate tank needs some more protection...

D.

_________________
Epic:Armageddon... Like Apocalypse but for grown-ups.

[b]Bearded Dice[/b]: [url]http://bearded-dice.co.uk[/url]


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Hmm, well I understand the Flamestorm is more than just a 'heavy flamer' and so can hurt vehicles as well as infantry, but is less effective against cover. Consequently I reduced the AP stats while increasing the range and adding the AT capability (though AT5+ might be a bit too good).

It also makes the LRR a bit more generalist than the Crusader, while distinguishing it from either the Prometheus or the Ares

As a final thought, IMHO no LR should get CC5+ as well as good FF stats. Also as a general point, there should only be three shooting attacks unless there is a significant reason otherwise, and up to 1.0-1.3 FF hits. If one of the weapons is MW, then the number of attacks / shots ought to be reduced slightly for balance purposes (but I chose to make the 'MM' an extra FF attack for balance and simplicity). In essence these variants ought to get a small but significant edge over other races in their assaults to make up for their deficiencies elsewhere.




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 553
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
Quote: (Ginger @ 15 Jun. 2009, 14:40 )

:laugh:

Ok, so this is a 'bit of fun' - but having the equivalent of an upgunned Vindicator could make sense in particular circumstances. It certainly makes a lot more sense than putting a Wirlwind rocket pod on top of a LR and naming it after the Greek Sun god :smile:

Is the Terminus the result of a similar fit of 'boyish exuberance'?

Terminus actually has (had?) a conversion sprue and even a box set. It looks pretty damn fugly, as incidentally does Ares (could it be that gluing a box of unrelated stuff on a Land Raider hull doesn't work? I think I might be onto something here!). Some people have repositioned the lascannons to make it a lot better but it's still mostly putting lipstick on a pig.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
HaHa, I totally agree, quite apart from the actual mechanics involved in having the breeches of all those weapons intruding into the cramped interior (which is apparently full of 'power plant') :whistle:

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 553
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
Some guy almost made Terminus Ultra look good. Almost. That's already a titanic achievement.

Not even the entire crew of Cosmopolitan could do that with Ares. Gah. The whole idea of putting a dozer blade and that huge cannon on a Land Raider is revolting.





Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Fixing land raiders - not costing
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Quote: (Ginger @ 15 Jun. 2009, 14:22 )

Hmm, well I understand the Flamestorm is more than just a 'heavy flamer' and so can hurt vehicles as well as infantry, but is less effective against cover. Consequently I reduced the AP stats while increasing the range and adding the AT capability (though AT5+ might be a bit too good).

It also makes the LRR a bit more generalist than the Crusader, while distinguishing it from either the Prometheus or the Ares

No. It's a Hellhounds Inferno Cannon with shorter range but more effective against heavy armoured Infantry.




_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net