PDA

View Full Version : Should Land Raiders have Structure Points?



Ironmonger
08-03-2009, 04:51
I was just wondering why one of the toughest, most intimidating tanks in the game doesn't have at least 2 Structure Points. Yes, yes, I know it's not considered a super-heavy, but even a Malcador has 2 SP's, and the Land Raider has some decent bulk and thickness over it.

Should the basic rules be changed to reflect the fact that the Raider is one serious piece of machinery?

IrishDelinquent
08-03-2009, 05:01
Short answer: no.

The Land Raider is amongst the most durable tanks in the game (only the Monolith can claim to be more resilient). Armor 14 all around is hard for anything but concentrated anti-tank fire to penetrate. Up to 4 weapons means that even if you start having weapons destroyed, you still can keep firing/prevent being destroyed longer.

Structure points would unbalance it. It can only be damaged by S8 or higher weapons off the bat, and then to make it so that S8 is useless anyways is a waste.

Nym
08-03-2009, 05:11
Considering some armies can't even deal with it in its current state, that's a pretty fun idea.:rolleyes:

MrBims
08-03-2009, 05:13
Land Raiders can have structure points when they get a 0-1 restriction.

carldooley
08-03-2009, 05:20
when I first looked at this I thought you would ask after void shields. The Land Raider is fine as is, and to make it more resilient would cause people to ignore it, which defeats its purpose: as a fire magnet.

zoodog
08-03-2009, 05:34
while it might work for some of the Apoc variants (or at least superheavy targeting for the sillyness that is the terminus) it ends up not being warranted for normal games of 40k. As is the structure point rules arnt in the main book and thus should not be applied to something common in normal games.

Vaktathi
08-03-2009, 05:44
I was just wondering why one of the toughest, most intimidating tanks in the game doesn't have at least 2 Structure Points. Yes, yes, I know it's not considered a super-heavy, but even a Malcador has 2 SP's, and the Land Raider has some decent bulk and thickness over it.

Should the basic rules be changed to reflect the fact that the Raider is one serious piece of machinery?

No. It's not *that* big a vehicle that it's a "heavy/superheavy". It's got extremely thick armor all around, but it's not a superheavy vehicle. Now if people wanted it to use the SH rules with 1 structure point, I think that would be reasonable after some changes(rules for shooting, etc to represent PotMS) but as is, it's not a big enough tank to warrant structure points.

It's an assault tank, not a land battleship.

Miggidy Mack
08-03-2009, 05:46
It's already tough enough. You start giving them structure points and it's just silly.

vladsimpaler
08-03-2009, 05:51
If Land Raiders get structure points, Leman Russes should sure as heck get structure points.

They're pretty serious pieces of Machinery.

And as long as we're on the topic of serious pieces of machinery, Monoliths should get structure points.


Slippery slope.

mr.kislev
08-03-2009, 05:58
If Land Raiders get structure points, Leman Russes should sure as heck get structure points.

They're pretty serious pieces of Machinery.

Slippery slope.
yes if land raider get structure points then a russ should have them.
the russ in back round compared to other tanks(old traiter tanks and the such) are the best mass produced tank in the galaxy

Grand Master Raziel
08-03-2009, 06:25
If you'd asked back in 3rd or 4th editions, I'd have probably said yes. This edition, I think GW got the vehicle durability issue just about right. Vehicle mobility, on the other hand...but that's another story.

Filthy O'Bedlam
08-03-2009, 08:00
Fluff-Wise? Yes, probably. But rules-wise it would be a mistake. Even with just two structure points it would become basically a mobile Fortress, something that should only capable by Super-Heavies, IMO.

Cheers, Filthy

havoc626
08-03-2009, 08:04
Also, just to put it into a bit of perspective, a Baneblade has 2 SP, and look how much larger that monster is compared to the LR.

Gorbad Ironclaw
08-03-2009, 08:09
Your Land Raider can have structure points the moment it becomes a 0-0 choice in normal games.

Of course, my Orks approach to dealing with Land Raiders is already to just ignore it as I have no real effective way of killing it in a reasonable amount of time anyway so it wouldn't effect me that much, but super-heavies does not belong in a game of 40k, period.
If you want to play around with super-heavies go and play Apocalypse or even better Epic.

Just like flyers it's something that doesn't fit in or balance at all well with your standard game.

Demonrich
08-03-2009, 12:33
Also, just to put it into a bit of perspective, a Baneblade has 2 SP, and look how much larger that monster is compared to the LR.

A baneblade has 3 structure points :)

I think 2 is too many for a normal 40k game, but you could try giving it just one in an apocalypse setting.

Laser guided fanatic
08-03-2009, 12:47
I think it's a bit silly that a LR has better armour than vehicles with SPs but it's easier to blow up!

McMullet
08-03-2009, 12:50
When you look at how it's been talked up in the background, and how it behaves in games like Epic (where a Land Raider is tougher than a Stompa...), there's a "Rule of Cool" argument for a single SP. However, the tank is as survivable as needs to be, game wise. Changing the rules in this way would make the Land Raider either hideously unbalanced, or, if it was balanced, so expensive that one could not really take one in a normal-sized game, which would be a shame.

Kamenwati
08-03-2009, 13:32
The only 40k vehicle that maybe (and I do mean maybe) should have 2 structure points is the Necron Monolith simply for the fact is more mobile fortress then vehicle anyway. But has been commented structure points probably don't belong in a regular 40k game.

The Land Raider is an old and venerable design but doesn't really have the mass behind it to have structure points.

susu.exp
08-03-2009, 15:10
While I donīt think the LR should have structure points, I do think they should be in the main rules. For Tau Piranhas mainly, though I could see Vypers and Ork Trukks with 1 or 3 SPs as well...

Grand Master Raziel
08-03-2009, 15:13
While I donīt think the LR should have structure points, I do think they should be in the main rules. For Tau Piranhas mainly, though I could see Vypers and Ork Trukks with 1 or 3 SPs as well...

Are you pulling our collective leg? Why do you think such dinky little vehicles rate SPs?

Mannimarco
08-03-2009, 15:14
1 or 3 stucture points for an ork trukk? yeah i supposse so, i mean the battle fortresss has 2 so...............

Hicks
08-03-2009, 15:14
Considering some armies can't even deal with it in its current state, that's a pretty fun idea.:rolleyes:

My opinion too. With some armies I can kill it, but with other I can do almost nothing to them if they move. A moving crusader with PotMS is almost impossible to kill with my nids and it still kills anything from my army with ease, not to mention it can unload a ton of infantry where I don't want them.

susu.exp
08-03-2009, 15:28
Are you pulling our collective leg?

I absolutely am, sir.:) Though I only intended to pull your collective chain.


Why do you think such dinky little vehicles rate SPs?

Because at heart I am a pacifist. The best kind of war, would be one in which nobody dies. And thatīs why piranhas should have 2SP and grots should get a 2+ invulnerable safe.

Laser guided fanatic
08-03-2009, 15:49
Because at heart I am a pacifist. The best kind of war, would be one in which nobody dies. And thatīs why piranhas should have 2SP and grots should get a 2+ invulnerable safe.


Or even better you win the game through non-violent protest and dialogue with the enemy commander.

Mannimarco
08-03-2009, 15:56
works for the tau.........look a giant multi limbed alien monster! send for the water caste

MrGiggles
08-03-2009, 18:40
In 4th, my friends and I often discussed giving most vehicles some form of structure points. Vehicles just seemed pretty fragile in 4th. I know part of that was due to the 'how many laser cannons can I fit into my army' philosophy, but the fact of the matter was, most games I saw and played in basically consisted of shooting at vehicles for two turns after which the infantry slugged it out.

With 5th, vehicles seem reasonably survivable with the changes to the vehicle damage tables and the cover saves. I suppose you could give vehicles some structure points in normal games, but to balance it out, you'd also have to bump up the SP's on the super heavies and make it easier to damage vehicles again.

Xenobane
09-03-2009, 00:06
I think it's a bit silly that a LR has better armour than vehicles with SPs but it's easier to blow up!

Really? What's wrong with that? The Land Raider has literally thicker armour round the side and back, but the Baneblade can sustain more internal damage without becoming wrecked. It makes perfect sense to me.

Illiterate Scribe
09-03-2009, 02:32
I think it's a bit silly that a LR has better armour than vehicles with SPs but it's easier to blow up!

It makes perfect sense. A land raider has a very hard shell, but once something has penetrated that hull, it's not got much time left. Structure points signify hugeness and redundant systems more than anything else, where you can blaze away at something, tearing chunks out of it, without killing it.

Vepr
09-03-2009, 19:16
While we are at it can nids get strength D on the barbed strangler? ;)

Blinder
09-03-2009, 20:09
Sarcasm aside I can almost see SPs for light vehicles as a variant on the movement distances affecting their survivability thing- Currently, something like a skimmer moving flat-out gets a "hard to hit" bonus, but to me it would make a lot more sense that the more energy it *didn't* expend would make it harder to hit (max distance = straight line = just lead more, moving less gives more time for dodging around randomly. Neither *REALLY* should be enough to tremendously throw off someone's aim without also turning even marines into jelly, still...), so instead you give 'em a couple structure points and something to make them more likely to lose them than your average baneblade (including being more likely to just *explode*). Might not work, but interesting for something that was really a joke ;)

Land Raiders, on the other hand... only if they get *one* SP and "Huge Explosion" also kills anything inside. For double the points.

Frontier
09-03-2009, 20:11
My vote is on giving the armies of the Imperium the ability to call down an exterminatus if they lose their game. The Imperium of Man always wins in the end....