# LAND RAIDER ARMOURED PROTEUS Released



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

New Pre-heresy Protues Land Raider Variant ready to buy, looks good

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/LAND-RAIDER-ARMOURED-PROTEUS.html

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/downloads/product/pdf/p/Proteus.pdf Experimental Rules

The ancient and venerable Land Raider has served the Adeptus Astartes since its earliest beginnings, and many variants and patterns are recorded in the data-stacks of Mars. Adepts of the hallowed Adeptus Mechanicus collectively refer to the oldest of these as the ‘Proteus’ patterns, and examples of these mighty armoured vehicles that survive into the dark days of the 41st Millennium are held in the highest regard, war-relics beyond compare to the Chapters that possess them.

Believed by certain war-savants to be an example of sacred machine-evolution, the Land Raider Armoured Proteus displays early features of the MkIIb Land Raider, enclosing its twin-linked lascannons in bulky armoured sponsons and adding to this formidable anti-armour firepower with a limited traverse twin-linked heavy bolter recessed into the forward hull armour.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Darnit.. litterally just beat me to it... lol.

Have to say, I really like this variant.


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

I'm not too fond of it tbh. It really does remind me too much of an old (not soo pretty imo) model. I think the job they did on the preheresy rhino blows this one away... 

It's just... putting your tracks on like that is probably the DUMBEST tank design option you can make. Tracks are the most vulnerable thing on a tank and to expose them like this... I just refuse to think mankind wouldn't have been able to figure out what we already know in the far future... :dunno:


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

I am with elmir. I am not a huge fan of this variant, but I concede that it would look good with a pre-heresy army.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Got to love that old rhomboidal design


----------



## rurik (Jun 22, 2011)

Personally, i dont like this model. i prefeer 100 times the actual model. i think Elmir has right. Those tracks cannot be exposed. is a little stupid to leave them without any kind of armor. I think some Scratchbuild modiffication would be made. maybe it sees better.

anyway. i don't like this land raider.

greets


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I hate it. I hate the pre-Heresy tanks. The SM armour variants, I can deal with. I may even use some for my Chosen. But these tanks are just scaled up versions of the Epic and RT models. It boggles my mind - there's a perfectly good reason that 40k moved away from those models: better models came out!

And when there's amazingly sculpted pre-Heresy models like the Contemptor and the previously-mentioned armour, I have to wonder why these pieces are so lacking in the quality I'm used to with Forge World.

Midnight


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

I too have never liked the old designs, be it land raiders or boltguns. However, for those retro fans I'm sure this will be a massive hit, though it isn't any different to a normal land raider at heart.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

On the plus side its reserve effects means it will see use in apocalypse at least.


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

I think its atrocious, thats pretty much all I got.

I'm just not too fond of much of the pre-heresy stuff, The contemper I can't even think of buying just because it looks too much like another unoriginal robotic thing from any other random sci-fy universe. The current dreads we have now IMO have a lil unique flavor of there own to them.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

TheSpore said:


> I think its atrocious, thats pretty much all I got.
> 
> I'm just not too fond of much of the pre-heresy stuff, The contemper I can't even think of buying just because it looks too much like another unoriginal robotic thing from any other random sci-fy universe. The current dreads we have now IMO have a lil unique flavor of there own to them.


What madness is this! Lumping the all mighty contemptor with this rabble may you burn in a pool of flaming squids my good sir.


----------



## Count_the_Seven (May 19, 2010)

I want one. Very much.

CtS


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

MidnightSun said:


> I hate it. I hate the pre-Heresy tanks... It boggles my mind - there's a perfectly good reason that 40k moved away from those models: better models came out!
> 
> And when there's amazingly sculpted pre-Heresy models like the Contemptor and the previously-mentioned armour, I have to wonder why these pieces are so lacking in the quality I'm used to with Forge World.
> 
> Midnight


:goodpost: Whole heartedly agree. They were shit the first time around, nostalgia doesn't make them look any better. And the fact that it's £85 as opposed to £62 for the Achilles means they're trying to rip people off by playing on that nostalgia and the preHeresy fascination that the Horus Heresy series has inspired..


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Well let me say the older GW/FW Armoured kits were actually based on World War One tank designs, this is where we get the rhomboidal design and having the tracks exposed like this.

Anyone wanting to learn more of the old pattern designs should study WW1 Armour, effectively the GW/FW crew stole the idea, so in retrospect that looking at the Land Raider design, i can come to the conclusion that the Imperial Armour has not changed in 40,000 years.

Now that is over as its actual value, it will please those who like the retro feel to it.

But at 85.00GBP, methinks i'll pass on it.

But i love the model. Would make a great model for WW1 battlefields with a modern feel to it (sarcasm alert).


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

looks terrible to me...I don't know what you guys that say it looks good are thinking.


----------



## deathwatch27 (Dec 30, 2009)

Looks awesome  I dont care i've got the original and would buy this if it wasn't a million billion pounds! Considering the old one was a tenner (at the end of the 80s) I wont be buying it.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

I have one of the old land raiders and i will agree is is a strangely shaped model. However is is now in the fluff as the original design. This model takes that original design style and improves on it. There will allways be detractors but for those who want an old style landraider without the strange shape of the original will find this appealing. The best part is this is only a couple of bucks more than a normal land raider for us aussies so i will probably end up getting one.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I like it, its exactly how it should be, its the same scale as the current land raider, its got all the right things in the right places and its god send for preheresy nuts, you dont have to like it or buy it, but it is what it is , FW have kept faithful to the original design and still managed to bring it up to date with the current range, granted that may not to be everyones taste but i cant see what else anyone would expect it to be like? as for the exposed track argument...the current land raiders tracks are very exposed as are many of the imperial tanks like the leman russ?? alot of modern tanks dont automatically armour the tracks and wheels either, they get skirts and plates if required (they add weight ) 

anyway its a nice addition to the range of nice to have models if you want one, would make a good pre-heresy/40k command tank.
will i buy one? no, phantom is next on my list since the release of the power glaive.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

I thin with a bit of chaosing up this will look great in a traitor marine army, although persoannly I already have 3 land raiders and wont be buying anymore!


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> What madness is this! Lumping the all mighty contemptor with this rabble may you burn in a pool of flaming squids my good sir.


Sorry just never really liked that model.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Seeing it painted, I actually like it now. I'd definitely find some Track Guards to put on it - my own sensibilities don't stretch that far.

I didn't normally like the look of them, but I'm getting to like them more and more these days. I hope they do a manned Razorback turret - always have liked them, even if speaking from a manpower perspective the CROWS system-esque turret allows them to half the required number of marine crew. The Rhino hulls I was never really a fan of - but attaching the Manned Turret to a current Rhino would look awesome.

The Phobos Land Raider - on the other hand - aside from exposed tracks, the tank itself looks awesome. I love the Pillbox Heavy Bolters.


----------



## cragnes417 (Jul 22, 2010)

I like it and want it but sadly the price is to high for my taste . I wouldnt mind having a relic tank like that in my army


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

It is incredibly ugly. Looks like the land raider on the old TBS game Rites of War (man I love that game).

Forgeworld let themselves down on this one in my eyes, but I concur that people with pre-heresy/chaos armies may have a place for it.


----------



## fatgai (Dec 1, 2011)

not as good as the current land raider,
it looks like one of the old Mk1 tanks


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

fatgai said:


> not as good as the current land raider,
> it looks like one of the old Mk1 tanks


thats because it is one of those old MK1 tanks


----------



## AngelofHope (Mar 14, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> alot of modern tanks dont automatically armour the tracks and wheels either, they get skirts and plates if required (they add weight)


Sir, the only modern military that expose their tracks are certain kinds of light APCs (amphibious mostly). ALL modern battle tanks have armour fully covering the top side of the tracks, and many bear armoured skirts covering at least 50% of the side of their tracks. Even those who don't have a skirt definitely have the top of their tracks covered anyway.

Being an officer of the Greek military specializing in Anti-tank warfare, I will also explain why 40K imperial tanks are obsolete in design anyway:

The LR (even the MkII is based ona WW1 british tank) and the Leman Russ, have a huge bulk and lack of angles (angles make AT projectiles bounce off the tank) making them more vulnerable to AT fire. The other thing GW has not included in their tank design is reactive armour, which is applied to almost all modern battle tanks (cubes filled with explosive material, which detonate when an AT shot makes contact with them, destroying the projectile so that it doesn't penetrate the armour).


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

But we also haven't really used trench warfare since the WW1, we very rarely use swords, axes, hammers or shields and we don't tend to engage in global conflict with green mushroom men. 
40K tanks are wrong, it doesn't really matter as they still look cool.

Maybe the tracks are now made out of super strong strong stuff that means they're not a weakness anymore?


----------



## AngelofHope (Mar 14, 2009)

The sword fighting can be explained as adapting to the doctrine of aliens (Nids, Orks) and Daemons, who will inevitably come to close quarters. Add the "reverse technology" theory from "Dune" (since energy fields were invented and could absorb laser fire, people switched back to crossbows), and it can be explained quite as much.

Trench warfare doesn't exist anymore indeed, but even so, it's not full-on urban fighting either. If tracks were so strong in Mk1, why cover them in Mk2 and Rhinos (even older ones)?


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

AngelofHope said:


> If tracks were so strong in Mk1, why cover them in Mk2 and Rhinos (even older ones)?


Because in a universe where bricks can fly it really doesn't matter.


----------



## AngelofHope (Mar 14, 2009)

normtheunsavoury said:


> Because in a universe where bricks can fly it really doesn't matter.


With strong enough anti-grav engines, I guess Stormravens can fly, just not that fast


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

In that case I guess whether the tracks are covered or not is irrelevant as they could be made of anything, maybe superdupastrongmetaltypestuffthatisreallygoodformakingtanktracksoutofium? And maybe after they made the MK1 tanks they ran out of it?

Now, of course superdupastrongmetaltypestuffthatisreallygoodformakingtanktracksoutofium doesn't really exist but then again neither do green mushroom men or anti-grav engines.

So my original point stands, they work because GW says they work and arguing about whether or not it's a sound technical design is as stupid as a flying brick.


----------



## AngelofHope (Mar 14, 2009)

All Land Raiders are made of plasteel, ceramite & adamantium, superdupastrongmetaltypestuffthatisreallygoodforma kingtanktracksoutofium is not mentioned anywhere 

"Sci-Fi" (Science Fiction) is based mostly on things that "could work, but we don't have the technology yet", it's what "fuels" scientists to keep inventing things, and definitely it's the reason we now have jetpacks 



, and on most cases, there *are* explanations on how most things work, although in modern times, technology is not yet as advanced (or it's too expensive) to make them a reality.

A good example is laser technology. Since there are laser cutters, of course there could be portable laser weapons. However, the amount of energy needed by such a weapon is tremendous, and there isn't such a battery of reasonable size to make it viable and efficient yet. Experimental weapons such as microwave weapons, tesla weapons and railguns are also similar cases.

I'd agree with your standpoint if GW was like "Space Marines are magical superhumans, and yadayada there is no logic behind it". But it's GW themselves who put "the dark age of technology" into the setting, and all the STC-stuff and justifications on how Space Marines are made, and generally how stuff works. Most of it is not impossible, and some of it is "old" technology, older than todays (Missle launchers with no guidance systems? All modern armies only use recoiless rifles and rocket launchers only as a "last-resort" AT method, a force's AT power is mostly guided 2nd generation AT missle launchers, with the exception of USA's "Javelin" AT missles -3rd generation, "fire-and-forget").

Anyways, flying bricks can happen, since helicopters are not aerodynamically designed either, they use a different way of flight than aeroplanes. Hovering, once the technology of gravity manipulation for vehicles is invented will be possible in a few decades I guess (I don't mean publicly, but still, I mean ok, jetpacks are available nowdays, but who can pay 50000 GBP to get one? )



I think I needlessly over-analyzed the subject. Anyways, don't mind me, carry on


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

Seriously its Sci-fi fantasy no need to go into so much detail, so what if its slab sided its the 41st millenium they obviously dont need fancy angles with how thick and advanced the armour is, so really comparing modern day tanks to 40k doesnt work, as much as i love armour myself anyway back to the landraider i really like it myself regardless of how obsolete the design is thats what makes 40k un, i would get it myself if i had the money as i would really like to start a pre-heresy army.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

normtheunsavoury said:


> arguing about whether or not it's a sound technical design is as stupid as a flying brick.


and we're onto stormravens now


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Comparing the backwards science of 40k to common sense is like trying to compare twilight to Bram stokers Dracula. As such no amount of critique will hamper peoples opinions as they will just ignore you or make up shit to support the ass backwards nature of 40k logic.

However I for one loves the aesthetic of 40k with everything being so clunky and visceral looking. I mean realistically half their shit would not work going by even a fundamental applications of scientific knowledge and common sense, but damned if I care as I am too busy stomping guardsmen into paste under the foot of my 9 foot tall space mutants wearing refrigerators for armor. Its call suspension of disbelief and if your aren't capable of it then why are you playing a game were space monks in space armor fight space mushrooms?

At this point 40k has its own unique if awkward design esthetic and even if gw wanted to update stuff for more modern tastes they can't as then it would no longer be 40k.


----------



## davespil (Apr 28, 2008)

Yeah, if your playing this game you have to suspend all logical as it applies to... just about everything in this game. The designers have a lot of imagination and not the least bit of military experience or understanding of engineering.

The moment I saw that the space Marines with the SNiper rifles had a BS of 3 I realized this game was written by idiots so I just decided to build the models and play the game (and not use scouts) and not care at all about the fluff and lack of common sense.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

AngelofHope said:


> Sir, the only modern military that expose their tracks are certain kinds of light APCs (amphibious mostly). ALL modern battle tanks have armour fully covering the top side of the tracks, and many bear armoured skirts covering at least 50% of the side of their tracks. Even those who don't have a skirt definitely have the top of their tracks covered anyway.
> 
> Being an officer of the Greek military specializing in Anti-tank warfare, I will also explain why 40K imperial tanks are obsolete in design anyway:
> 
> The LR (even the MkII is based ona WW1 british tank) and the Leman Russ, have a huge bulk and lack of angles (angles make AT projectiles bounce off the tank) making them more vulnerable to AT fire. The other thing GW has not included in their tank design is reactive armour, which is applied to almost all modern battle tanks (cubes filled with explosive material, which detonate when an AT shot makes contact with them, destroying the projectile so that it doesn't penetrate the armour).


Except you forget that reactive armour is useless against a sabot round, as the explosion is not going to stop it. nor will it protect against many modern atgm, as they approach from the top and fire a secondary munition downward. as for tragk skirts, they are not that impressive, as a relatively fragile pin holds them in place, and usually, an armor crew isn't aiming at that part of an enemy tank in the first place, since a mobility kill does not guarantee a vehicle kill. If you want a legitimate complaint about their vehicle design, how about the proportion of the turret ring to the hull, as that makes for a non functional turret, since only one crewmember could fit in the space provided.


----------



## IanC (Sep 3, 2010)

davespil said:


> The moment I saw that the space Marines with the SNiper rifles had a BS of 3 I realized this game was written by idiots so I just decided to build the models and play the game (and not use scouts) and not care at all about the fluff and lack of common sense.


You just answered your own point there... they are scouts. Space Marines in training. Hence why they are BS3, with the expect ion of the sergeant which is the "teacher" of sorts.


----------



## davespil (Apr 28, 2008)

IanC said:


> You just answered your own point there... they are scouts. Space Marines in training. Hence why they are BS3, with the expect ion of the sergeant which is the "teacher" of sorts.


1. What military gives their newest members the hardest tasks? Why would I sent new recruits behind enemy lines to scout ahead of the army and operate behind enemy lines? No one does that, your scouts are very experienced and highly trained. Hey, welcome to the Space Marines! We're gonna drop you off behind enemy lines and if you survive long enough. We also hope you don't mess up and alert the enemy to our presence and you will provide accurate information in a timely matter pertinent to the situation. Also, we'll ask you to complete objectives in a small team of other new recruits without any support! But hey, that’s the best way to learn. You do all that and we'll throw you in with an infantry platoon where all you gotta do is follow your Sergeant around and shoot at what he shoots at. Using trainees as scouts then promoting them to rank and file infantrymen is like starting a guy out as an engineer then promoting him to a mechanic!

2. What military would give the WORST shots in the whole army a sniper rifle? That’s what I thought, written by people without even the slightest military knowledge or common sense.

Scouting is a very tough job suited for a few highly motivated and well trained individuals. Not for people that just joined the military! I thought that this was common sense! The GW morons just thought cause they were wearing lighter armor thy must be inferior in every way. Such a shame scouts should be treated more like a special ops unit, lightly armored but able to do some real damage.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

The point is the trainee marines cannot wear the armor so they are useless on the front line, so give them a weapon that keeps them away from the front line.
Admittedly the name scout is a misnomer. There should be full blown scout marines. Normal marines who forgo their armor for stealth, and training squads, which is what the SM dex entry really is.
Besides, if this irks you so much why play? There are plenty of bullshit things in this game but if you realise it is a fantastical universe full of weird shit it can still be fun. Demonettes with 6 breasts. They don't exist for real but they are still cool.


----------



## davespil (Apr 28, 2008)

Because everything has to be rooted in common sense. In science fiction they may change a law of the universe. Say travel to other planets is possible because be build a ship that can fly really fast. But that doesn't change anything else. We don't start shitting from our ears and breathing water, do we? No. So when you say ok, we got these Marines who (operate no where near water despite the name Marine) fly around in space and kill shit. That makes sense. But now you start messing with common sense for no reason it loses its validity. Giving sniper rifles to the worst shots in the army is just a lack of common sense and thats where you start losing people. You go from an interesting idea hed by inteligent people to one held by idiots. And a lot of us have military backgrounds and see this crap.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

A minor point but a valid one all the same, 40K is not, nor has it ever been, a science fiction setting, it is science fantasy.
Science fiction is based on possible and often plausible futures, the laws of science still exist. Science or futuristic fantasy is a fantasy future, things don't need to make 100% logical sense.

In a setting where a man can kill a yak, from 200 yards away.... With mind bullets! (that's telekinesis Kyle!) 
Is it really necessary to argue about whether or not a scout gets a sniper rifle. Or, whether a Tank designed to conquer the galaxy in the name of a near God who was created by the mass suicide of loads of magic men thousands of years ago has track guards?


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

This is Warhammer 40k as been pointed out is Sci-fi Fantasy, This is a game where sorcery/psychic powers exist, where there's Daemons and whats is virtually hell, common sense has no place in this game, and that's what makes it fun and enjoyable, if you want common sense Im sure theres other TT games out there. 

At the end of the day this game is more about what looks cool more then plausible functionality hence why LR tanks have turrets to small to actually work for example. So why is there a need to over analyze a game where commen sense doesnt apply.

When i posted this thread i didnt expect it to turn into a heated discussion on whats plausible and why it doesnt work, take it for what it is, a model, a nice one at that but damn expensive, I for one really like it and cant wait to get my hands on it.


----------

