the same can be said of BL books or of illustrations in books. And they can show huge discrepancy in the fluff, who uses what, etc. Even older rulebook and codexes are canonical, and there are a lot of internal contradiction, specially as you take all generations of content into account.

I'm not for an Ares implementation, but I think strict adherence to the cannon, or to the last breed of 40K ruleset, is not a criteria that should be considered the end of all debate and arguments.

We all have our own opinions about what constitutes canon. On one end of the spectrum is the POV that if it isn't in a 40k codex, then it isn't canon. On the other end is the belief that if it was produced by any of the various GW subsidiaries (SG, BL, FW, etc) then it counts as canon. Personally, I lean toward the former. Here are my opinions on the matter.

It's similar to the situation with Star Trek canon, with 40k being equivalent to the TV show (Rogue Trader = TOS, 40kV3+ = TNG, etc). All the novels, with their various contradictions, are generally accepted as canon by the people that like them, and viewed at the same level as fan fiction by the people who don't; this is done on a case-by-case basis.

I lean towards the other end myself (my favourite is the FW background for the depth and detail) but fair enough.

Canon really is subjective and relative, some people argue about it but without being able to change the opinion of someone else who holds different things to be canon. Star Trek sounds like a very similar situation with Doctor Who cannon, only that's even more complicated with the old and new series, five different ranges of novels and novellas, hundreds of audio adventures, comics, animated adventures, at least several major spin-offs, etc.

Anyway getting back on topic perhaps the Ares could be used in the Dark Angels list? I'd be fine with it in there, but I'm not especially bothered either way.

Currently Land Raiders still do not figure prominently in the E-UK tournaments, nor in any of the recent bat reps, despite the drop in points values for both the formation and the upgrades. While I appreciate the effort here to provide a little more diversity and options, IMHO the only real contender for tournament rules is the Crusader.

I have set up a poll to present several alternatives, briefly outlined below:l

1. Allowing Land Raiders to be taken as an unrestricted formation upgrade (so in addition to formation transport)
2. Allowing Land Raiders to be taken as a restricted formation upgrade (in addition to formation transport)
3. Making the 'transport' capability of Land Raiders optional. So players could choose to treat Land Raiders as a 'Tank' upgrade, or as a 'Transport' upgrade (thus avoiding the concern about the provision of extra transport)

I use Land Raiders regularly with my Marines, for what it's worth.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Could you expand futher on that comment please. So In what capacity are you regularly using LRs - as an upgrade or as a separate formation, and what types?

Also are you taking them to test the alternative variants (or their stats), or out of preference to other formations?

And finally, when was the last time you took them to a competition?

I almost always use them as an upgrade for my Devastators, when playing Codex Marines.

I've never taken them to a tournament, I think. I'd happily do so, though.

I've also been testing the Land Raider Redeemers lately, with the Blood Angels list.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Sorry to muddy the water but FWIW (not playing in Epic UK circles) I've taken the Crusaders a couple of times with the Space Wolves. They work ok in assaults but they're not anything major. Their best aspect is the ability to carry more troops and that just makes them assault carriers in truth.

Personally I don't think they're worth the same as standard LR as their shooting has nowhere near the same impact in a game as a 4x LR fm each with 2x twin las cannons and FF4+ has done when I've used standard patterns previously.

I used 4-5 Tactical formations each with an added Land Raider Crusaders at this years Winter Warmer tournament.

Due to the core list currently not allowing Tacticals I was forced to used the Black Templars list and forgo Scouts. I'd probably have taken a mix of normal Land Raiders and Crusaders, but I only had the one type of borrowed models, so counted them all as Crusaders.

I regularly use Land Raiders in my Salamanders army.

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

I must say I use Land Raiders in every list I build. Love their survivability and the amount of shots they put out, even at the official list price.

As I am playing orks now, I must say I do not like to face any type of LRs. I have faced normal ones, Ares, Prometheus...

Now my enemy marine player would like to field Land Raider Terminus Ultras

AV
speed: 25cm
armour: 4+
CC: 6+
FF: 4+

3× twin lascannon 45cm AT4+
2× lascannon 45cm AT5+
hunter-killer missile 60cm AT4+/AA5+ one shot
reinforced armour, thick rear armour

he is thinking about 175 points each.

Any ideas on this? This would make my gunwagons scrap very fast.

Perhaps only a limided number could be fielded. (e.g. 1 for each 4 LRs)

When I included the Terminus in the Apocrypha of Skaros, I gave it those stats but with no HK missile.

Price was 100 points (IIRC), and they could be added to Land Raider, Predator, Devastator, and Terminator formations. They've been 125 in the past. I lowered them since the list was experimental and the worst-case scenario was that they would have to be increased.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

the hunter killer missile seems excessive, but wow, dunno if I'd pay 175 points for any non war engine.