Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey everyone, it's time to talk about Land Raiders again:

So, I love Land Raiders. To me, they just look so dang cool. It doesn't help that I have wanted to paint/own/play with them since I first got into the hobby as a kid. These days I actually own two (a standard and a crusader) and that is rad from a collector/fanboy perspective... but what ISN'T so rad: land raiders themselves are just not that great. Don't get me wrong: there are worse units out there (especially with the recent points drop to LR's) but they still just aren't that great for what they do.

So, I was looking over Battlescribe recently and I started to compare them to the new rules for Sicaran Battle Tanks. Then I started to look at the similarities in model size, armament, ect... Then I got to thinking.

Would my land raiders make really good proxies for Sicaran Battle Tanks?

I know, I know: the LR model is a bit bigger (and, I think, a little shorter too) so it's certainly not perfect. I also know that you have to give up precious command points to use the Sicarans and that Sicaran's are not in any way transports and so fill a different battlefield role. But let's talk about that last one a second: does anyone reliably use LR's as transports anymore? I mean, at least in 8th, they were big ol fire magnets anyway, and by putting even MORE points into them you essentially just made them an even more irresistible target. They are durable, sure, but so is the Sicaran (at least: comparably so. Both tend to die pretty quick to focused fire). But what about the similarities?

If we compare the LR Crusader (with no Multi-Melta,) to the Sicaran Punisher with heavy-bolter sponsons: both have a large chain-gun style infantry killer, and both have a weight of bolter fire (x3 heavy bolters on the Sicaran, x2 hurricane bolters on the crusader). Obviously, that's not a perfect match or anything, but it's pretty dang close and 65 points cheaper! (and, honestly: the x3 heavy bolters seem to me to be better than the x2 hurricane bolters in a lot of situations.)

The bog-standard LR is a bit harder to match up, but I think that the Sicaran Venator with heavy bolter sponsons probably fits the best. Both have a dedicated AT gun (x2 double las-canon on the LR, and the neutron laser on the venator,) and both have some heavy bolter backup (x2 on the LR, and x3 on the Venator). Again, it's not perfect or anything, but it is pretty close and 50 points cheaper. Weirdly, even the command point cost thing seems to make sense with the idea that LR's are supposed to be somewhat rare and valuable pieces of tech.

I think some compelling arguments could also be made for other variants of LR and Sicaran's as well... but I think you get the idea. Essentially, this is just a re-imagining of the LR as a sort of marine main-battle-tank, something I always kind of wanted the LR to be.

I'm a bit of a psyker and so I can already hear people preparing to respond to this with things like: "If your group is cool with it, proxy whatever you want!" or: "proxies make the emperor cry, you are a heretic and a mutant and must be purged immediately!" But beyond those sorts of knee jerk reactions, what do you all think? Is this something you could see catching on for those of us who are LR enthusiasts but have been consistently disappointed by the battlefield performance of the space-marine's biggest, manliest, metal box? Would this get you to use YOUR Land Raiders again?

Thanks for reading! :-)

No because a Sicaran is smaller, thinner and has a different hull shape to a LR. It's not the same as proxying a Redeemer as a Crusader where only the sponsons are different.

Here is a link to the size comparison I found online:

http://mordian7th.blogspot.com/2013/11/heresy-era-iron-hands-sicaran-size.html

Obviously, they ARE different, no question... but they really don't seem that different to me. I mean, clearly some opponents are more strict about proxies than others in that regard, and that is fine (hey: everyone wants to game a little different! ) but at least in these pics it doesn't appear to be as big a deal as some proxies I've seen before. That being said: I've never actually SEEN a Sicaran in real life, so maybe these pics aren't very good at demonstrating its real size!

I have seen and played against multiple Sicarans while using LR's, trust me they're different enough that a LR isn't a good proxy for a Sicaran.
In the end, the only thing that matters is your opponent's permission to use your proxy.

It's not a perfect proxy and sicarans themselves are bit obscure so it's not going to ever be a commonplace substitute, but it's close enough in footprint that I wouldn't have an issue with it. I don't think you are gaining any material advantage with the size difference.

I have two questions OP.
1 - Are you proxying multiple LR's as different types of Sicaran?
2 - Do you intend to get the actual Sicaran model at any point?

If 1 is yes, then I'd say that's a bad idea and it's going to get very confusing very quickly.

If 2 is no, then you need to consider if your opponent is going to be OK with you proxying a LR as a Sicaran until you feel LR's get better rules which could be any time between next week and the next edition of the game.

Whatever thier limitations, i'm not afraid to use my LRs as LRs.
So no, I'd not be proxying them as Sicarans.

I use a LR crusader regularly to be honest.

LRs are expensive models in elite armies, where nothing is cheap. To get value out of those tanks you need to exploit all their qualities: saturation for other vehicles or hight T models, their transport capacity and firepower.

In my lists the crusader is nice because it provides saturation as I typically also have 3 razorbacks (or 2 razorbacks and a rhino) and the TWC, I need additional anti infantry firepower with the models I have (and the opponents I face) and I like blood claws, which can make good use of a turn of extra movement and protection from firepower.

A sicaran is a gun boat if I remember correctly, like a predator, not a heavy transport with some firepower. Two very different units.

Oh I *use* my LRs as well :-) I mean, honestly, it's always just been one of my favorite 40k units so obviously I would use them! ...My problem is that most of the time I just baaaarely use the transport part of their function, as whenever I put anything really killy in it, my opponent pretty much just focus fires it to death right quick.

Using them empty tends to work better, as they still draw fire but not as much (as they are awfully over-costed as pretty much just another "gun boat" as you called it). Still, I pretty much never get my points back with them :-(

Regarding the question asked above: I would most likely just use the one as a proxy, as I almost exclusively play 1k-1.5k games and it's tough to fit 2 really expensive units in those points brackets. I'd love to buy a Sicaran, but I gotta be realistic about my ability to afford such pricey models for awhile :-(

(Unrelated: but I was literally just informed that my pre-covid job was already filled and so now I'm officially unemployed. Ugh.)

Regarding new rules for LR's? At this point I'm worried that rather than get any shiny new rules my beloved big-metal-boxes are going to be replaced with some new primaris version instead. I could be wrong of course, but it does rather seem to be the trend.

Why not play it as a Land Raider with some repairs necessary thereby altering the effective profile for that game? If anything, the size difference plays in favor of your opponent

Have you considered proxieing your standard Land Raider as a Land Raider Achilles? You give up some transport capacity (which you say you don't generally use), but trade the twin lascannons for twin multi-meltas, and the twin heavy bolter for a quad launcher, and you get a 5++ to boot. A bit more expensive at 340 PPM, but with 8 S8, AP-4, Dd6/Dd6+2 within 12 and 4 S8, AP-2 D3 shots and a 5++ it's much more of the "Astartes MBT" that you want, and you wouldn't have any problems with the size of the model.

In prior editions the Terminus Ultra (extra single-las sponsons and twin-las hull weapon), Ares (front mounted demolisher cannon, heavy flamer sponsons, but it was a one-off conversion for 4e Apoc and hasn't had rules since), and Helios (Whirlwind launcher top, lascannon sponsons) have all been LR variants built to use the guns more and the transport capacity less, but I don't know if any of them have rules anymore, and if you're worried other players won't be happy with you using a non-WYSIWYG model I wouldn't like to think what they'd do if you tried to come to the table with a homebrew datasheet.

If I read you right, you'd have two land raiders on the table, but one would be a sicaran. I'd rather they were both proxies, or you cobbled a predator or other turret on the proxy.

stroller wrote:
If I read you right, you'd have two land raiders on the table, but one would be a sicaran. I'd rather they were both proxies, or you cobbled a predator or other turret on the proxy.

Sorry, that's probably on me!

No, I *own* two Land Raiders, but I honestly don't think I've ever used more than one in a single game. Plus, yeah, if I wanted one to a proxy and one not that WOULD totally get confusing real quick. I could conceivably do both as proxies for the two different sicarans (or the same sicaran type even,) but I doubt I would have call to throw down both land raiders on the same table unless I got used to playing much larger games (I typically play 1.5k points or less, usually only 1,000pt games really.)

Edit: Actually your idea of putting a new turret on one could be super cool. I LOVE converting, and I know a few good places for 3rd party turrets that would fit nicely... might end up doing that eventually (assuming the folks at my LGS are cool with the whole proxy concept to begin with, but luckily: my group is usually SUPER down for that sort of thing!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Have you considered proxieing your standard Land Raider as a Land Raider Achilles? You give up some transport capacity (which you say you don't generally use), but trade the twin lascannons for twin multi-meltas, and the twin heavy bolter for a quad launcher, and you get a 5++ to boot. A bit more expensive at 340 PPM, but with 8 S8, AP-4, Dd6/Dd6+2 within 12 and 4 S8, AP-2 D3 shots and a 5++ it's much more of the "Astartes MBT" that you want, and you wouldn't have any problems with the size of the model.

Woah! I didn't look at the Achilles before! That is some CRAZY firepower! And a 5+ invuln save should arguably be on all versions of the Land Raider IMO (Actually, didn't earlier additions already do that? Maybe I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall something like that a million years ago...) For the time being, this might be my go-to proxy if I don't want to make my whole "Sicaran is pretty much the Land Raider already" case like I did here :-)

Thanks mate!