As I've said before the mm is an optional upgrade for all land raiders now, but is traditionally associated with the crusader. That means we would be justified either way. Neither is "more correct" or true to 40k mechanics.

That said:
- Traditionally the normal lr does not have a mm and the crusader does
- The redeemer is new and no precedent  exists.

- - - So it looks like you can argue the point either way on either the LRC or the LRR. Fair enough, so why not leave the MM off the LRC and add it to the LRR to allow a greater distinction between the two units?

So the stats for all variants look something like the following

Standard LR

AV,         Move 25cm,      Arm 4+,          FF5+,        CC6+,
1x Heavy Bolter,              AP4+      (30cm)
2x Twin Lascannon           AT4+      (45cm),
Notes :- Reinforced Armour, Thick rear armour, Transport 1x Termie or 2x others

Crusader LR

AV,         Move 25cm,      Arm 4+,          FF5+,        CC6+,
1x twin Assault cannon,     AP4+/AT4+ (30cm)
2x Hurricane Bolters,                          (small arms) EA+1
Notes :- Reinforced Armour, Thick rear armour, Transport 2x Termie or 3x others

Redeemer LR

AV,         Move 25cm,      Arm 4+,          FF5+,        CC6+,
1x twin Assault cannon,         AP4+/AT4+ (30cm)
Flamestorm cannons,             AP3+          (30cm) Ignore Cover
Multi Melta                          MW5+         (15cm)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and (small arms) MW, EA+1
Notes :- Reinforced Armour, Thick rear armour, Transport 1x Termie or 2x others

Helios LR

AV,         Move 25cm,      Arm 4+,          FF5+,        CC6+,
1x Whirlwind Missile,         BP1         (45cm)  Indirect
2x Twin Lascannon           AT4+      (45cm),
Notes :- Reinforced Armour, Thick rear armour, Transport 1x others

Prometheus LR

AV,         Move 25cm,      Arm 4+,          FF4+,        CC6+,
1x Storm bolter,                           (Small arms)
4x Twin Heavy Bolter        AP4+      (30cm)
Notes :- Reinforced Armour, Thick rear armour, Transport 1x Termie or 2x others, Enhanced Command (a commander added to this tank can control other formations at extended distances. These formations must end their move in coherency with the command formation)  

Terminus LR

Rare -
AV,         Move 25cm,      Arm 4+,          FF5+,        CC6+,
2x Lascannon,                 AT5+      (45cm)
3x Twin Lascannon           AT4+      (45cm)
Notes :- Reinforced Armour, Thick rear armour,
Limited to one per formation.
If four '1's are rolled, the power plant overloads blowing up the tank.

Ares LR

Rare – Dark Angels only?
AV,         Move 25cm,      Arm 4+,          FF4+,        CC6+,
1x Assault cannon,           AP5+/AT5+ (30cm),
2x Twin Heavy Flamer,       AP3+        (15cm) Ignore Cover
1x Demolisher cannon        AP3+/AT4+ (30cm) Ignore Cover
Notes :- Reinforced Armour, Thick rear armour, Transport 1x Termie or 2x others,
Invulnerable Save

Costs
Formation cost :- 350 for 4x LR in any configuration, +50 if they include Ares or Terminus.
Upgrade costs :- 85 points per Land Raider, 100 points for Ares or Terminus


Relevant links for the variants can be found below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....40,000)

Crusader LR

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider_Crusader

Redeemer LR

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider_Redeemer

Helios LR

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider_Helios

Prometheus LR

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider_Prometheus

Terminus LR

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Ra ... inus_Ultra
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_C....der.pdf

Ares LR

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Land_Raider_Ares
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_C....res.pdf

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

- Flamestorm Cannons are agreed to be either 2 x 15cm or 1 x 30 cm.
- The Helios can't transport Terminators and only 1 stand of regular infantry.
- The C&C ability of the Prometheus has no range restriction only that the formations of the combined assault have to be within 5cm of each other after the engage move.

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

Ok, corrected. IMHO the LRR needs the range to be a meaningfull anti-infantry tank, hence the 30cm.

On the costs, I must admit a leaning towards the 75 per 'standard' variant as an upgrade because adding these does reduce activations fairly dramatically, while 350 for  a 'formation' seems about right. Note, this also follows the two tier approach for Rhino variants already adopted.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Slight correction: Not Twin Flamestorm Cannon just write Flamestorm Cannons

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

I'd rather stick with the stats for the Redeemer and Crusader arrived at after much debate and as agreed by Hena - the army champion for the marines - earlier in this thread (page 4), which he asked to be tried out and playtested.

I am interested in your others stats Ginger, but repeatedly posting your own preferred stats for these tanks just seems to me to be muddying the waters and adding confusion to an already confusing issue.

GlynG I do understand your point. On the LRR and LRC, I suppose the question I am raising is whether those stats 'proposed after much debate' are reasonable, especially those of the LRC. Note TRC response to them (and indeed his views elsewhere on overpowering the LRC as an air-assault monster)

The proposed LRC has 3x FF5+ attacks (one of which is MW) and carries lots of troops, while the LRR gets a single FF3+ attack and limited firepower. IMHO there seems to be no reason to take the LRR (or indeed any other configuration) given these stats. Just add them to some Devastators and assault away from the dreaded THT (or even a Landing Craft).

The alternative question is whether Hena's proposed stats are indeed appropriate, and the other LR stats slightly underpowered as a whole . . . . hence the presentation of the entire range of variants for comparative purposes.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

The proposed LRC has 3x FF5+ attacks (one of which is MW)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

An average of one firefight hit is "too good"?  Wouldn't the "too good" have to be tempered by its point value?  Could it be that they're "too cheap"?

I don't think these Land Raider variants should be designed to be interchangable for the "same" point values.  Their "true" stats should be worked out, and *then* points assigned to them, appropriate to the list they're showing up in.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Could it be that they're "too cheap"?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Why?

They'll have different "values" to different Marine army variants.  A "siege Marine" army variant with no Landing Craft would have a different use for Land Raiders than a "planetstrike" variant that always drops... and the points should reflect this.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Stastistically it's the same number of hits, but for the Melta Crusader one third of the hits ignore armour saves...

... so it's empirically 'better' at firefight, by a pretty decent margin.


There is also the not-insignificant chance that the Melta Crusader can score a full three hits, which the two shot Crusader of course cannot do.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Too good - Relative to what?
Too cheap / expensive - How measured?

We are really back to comparitives here, and the different roles of each variant. On costs, I think it was generally agreed that 100 points per LR was too much. They generally underperformed when compared with other Marine formations etc, while 75 points per LR seems possibly slightly cheap though generally 'about right'. I am not sure varying the costs further is such a good idea because you then introduce different point breaks which people seem to dislike (I know I do). The only place that would warrant it IMHO is where something is both rare and significantly different (eg the Ares / Terminus). Though quite appealing, the idea of fielding a formation of 4x LR Terminii air-dropped against some big WE by Landing Craft is a bit OTT even at 400 points (14x AT4+, 8x AT5+ is going to hurt ), hence the putative suggestion that these are upgrades only which will automatically make them rarer.

Given that the variance in costs is going to be limited at best, IMHO we have to fall back on keeping the stats generally comparable otherwise (as now) we will find one variant being 'too good' and hence being selected in preference to the others.

And a final question - is CC5+ 'too good', or should it be applied generally?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I fail to see on the two tanks that expect to be CC'ed that 5+ is a massive boost over 6+

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x