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.

I will still never understand why they kept rough riders but got rid of marbo....

They should have kept him too.

Nobody knows why they made any of the changes with the last codex, aside from the Russ recostings and some cheaper Vet doctrines, pretty much all of them were pointless, a wrong fix, or a direct nerf, while they left most of the crap units to remain crap.

 tau tse tung wrote:
I will still never understand why they kept rough riders but got rid of marbo....

Because everything GW produces is entirely their own creation, and they never borrow IP elements from anyone else. They said it in court, so it must be true, even if it means getting rid of anything that might contradict it and pretending those things never existed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 tau tse tung wrote:
I will still never understand why they kept rough riders but got rid of marbo....

Because everything GW produces is entirely their own creation, and they never borrow IP elements from anyone else. They said it in court, so it must be true, even if it means getting rid of anything that might contradict it and pretending those things never existed.

Guess they better cut the Space Marine and Necron lines then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Tyranids...

And IG...

 Selym wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 tau tse tung wrote:
I will still never understand why they kept rough riders but got rid of marbo....

Because everything GW produces is entirely their own creation, and they never borrow IP elements from anyone else. They said it in court, so it must be true, even if it means getting rid of anything that might contradict it and pretending those things never existed.

Guess they better cut the Space Marine and Necron lines then.

a

And i'm sure Tolken would have a few works to say about the Eldar...

But really they could just put him back in with a different name if IP means that much to them.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

Unit wise, Rough Riders need to get better and if they don't some other unit needs to come along to fill their niche. M have Sterngard and Vanguard, and in the same vein we should have Storm Troopers and Roughriders. They should be elite horsemen as removed and elevated from the average guardsmen as Veterans or Storm troopers, instead of just being guardsmen with a spear on a horse.

The majority of Rough Riders literally are just Guardsmen with a Spear on a Horses.

First concepts can evolve and for several editions they were described as elite riders and elite warriors from their respective home worlds. That atleast warrants being on par with Veterans and getting an option for carapace armour. Second like I said even if they aren't updated, or simply get removed, IG need something to fill the this niche. It's a call to action in an either or sorta way.

Two of the three Guard books that I own say nothing about them exclusively as being "elite warriors" or "elite riders". It talks about them being from primitive worlds.
Here's from Doctrines book:

p46 wrote:Many primitive cultures retain the use of mounted infantry, and Imperial Guard Infantry Platoons have often benefited from the deployment of their brand of fast-moving support. Rough Riders can carry a variety of weapons, but the most famous is without doubt the explosive-tipped hunting lance.

The Cruddace book is the first mention of "elite" in there("On some planets the honour of riding a steed to war is reserved for the elite classes, formalised horse-warrior aristocracies that have accumulated generations of cavalry experience."), and they scrapped that entire half page of fluff they had to instead write something else entirely(which fits in a single paragraph) for C: AM.

Some people want IG to be an analog for a modern military force, but conceptually they are bigger than that. You can ignore the units that don't fit that vision.

No, you really can't. The stuff that would allow you to ignore that(Special Weapon Squads, Heavy Weapon Squads) are locked away within the Platoon structure or set up so that it can't be taken by anyone aside from that specific unit.

Sure you can make the argument that "you can just take that instead of the other options. Special Weapons with Sniper Rifles aren't different to Ratlings except for X, Y, or Z"--but they are different, and Ratlings do have X, Y, or Z, and you're being pigeonholed into running Platoons.

The Imperium doesn't waste and it takes any and all types of forces from planets as tithes. So while it may have modern elements just like a WWI or Inter-war army, where the IG draw influences, there are strong colonial force presence mixed in that takes a variety of forms. There are presently only 5 units in the codex that convey this Imperium wide draw of forces; storm troopers, Ratlings, Ogryns, engineers and rough riders.

Not true. Literally any unit you can take on the field can be used to "convey this Imperium wide draw of forces", since mixed Regiments are a thing.
It's effectively a cosmetic thing under the current rules, but still it's a thing.

To drop any of those would be one of the greatest fundamental shifts in an armies character short of CSM losing daemons. It maybe what you want but you have to atleast acknowledge the shift.

Which is why I keep saying we need to drop the charade of Codex: Imperial Guard being Codex: Imperial Guard. It hasn't been that since they removed Doctrines, it won't ever be that again until they bring Doctrines back or they go flying rodent gak crazy and do something even more radical like allowing for 'mixed Doctrine' armies(i.e. Cadians in command with a Catachan Jungle Fighter contingent).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

Unit wise, Rough Riders need to get better and if they don't some other unit needs to come along to fill their niche. M have Sterngard and Vanguard, and in the same vein we should have Storm Troopers and Roughriders. They should be elite horsemen as removed and elevated from the average guardsmen as Veterans or Storm troopers, instead of just being guardsmen with a spear on a horse.

The majority of Rough Riders literally are just Guardsmen with a Spear on a Horses.

First concepts can evolve and for several editions they were described as elite riders and elite warriors from their respective home worlds. That atleast warrants being on par with Veterans and getting an option for carapace armour. Second like I said even if they aren't updated, or simply get removed, IG need something to fill the this niche. It's a call to action in an either or sorta way.

Two of the three Guard books that I own say nothing about them exclusively as being "elite warriors" or "elite riders". It talks about them being from primitive worlds.

You're fixating. Being described as elites doesn't mean they're literally called elite. You want to talk about this instead of the fact as a tabletop unit they're currently in need of something more and that quite simply the concept of Cavalry hasn't been thoroughly explored and they have both a fictional basis and a historical influence that indicates they could be treated as a more elite force. That's quite frankly the "in" for updating them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Some people want IG to be an analog for a modern military force, but conceptually they are bigger than that. You can ignore the units that don't fit that vision.

No, you really can't. The stuff that would allow you to ignore that(Special Weapon Squads, Heavy Weapon Squads) are locked away within the Platoon structure or set up so that it can't be taken by anyone aside from that specific unit.

Sure you can make the argument that "you can just take that instead of the other options. Special Weapons with Sniper Rifles aren't different to Ratlings except for X, Y, or Z"--but they are different, and Ratlings do have X, Y, or Z, and you're being pigeonholed into running Platoons.

I think GW should get rid of platoons. I think all the elements of the platoon should be split up allowing a more decentralized playstyle and I think platoons should be replaced with a variety of Platoon formations.

Why do Ratlings and Ogryn exist? -One part fantasy carry over, one part GW wanted a justifiable way to give IG units better than "human" stat lines. Its in that same vein that Rough Riders should be treated.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The Imperium doesn't waste and it takes any and all types of forces from planets as tithes. So while it may have modern elements just like a WWI or Inter-war army, where the IG draw influences, there are strong colonial force presence mixed in that takes a variety of forms. There are presently only 5 units in the codex that convey this Imperium wide draw of forces; storm troopers, Ratlings, Ogryns, engineers and rough riders.

Not true. Literally any unit you can take on the field can be used to "convey this Imperium wide draw of forces", since mixed Regiments are a thing.
It's effectively a cosmetic thing under the current rules, but still it's a thing.

To drop any of those would be one of the greatest fundamental shifts in an armies character short of CSM losing daemons. It maybe what you want but you have to atleast acknowledge the shift.

Which is why I keep saying we need to drop the charade of Codex: Imperial Guard being Codex: Imperial Guard. It hasn't been that since they removed Doctrines, it won't ever be that again until they bring Doctrines back or they go flying rodent gak crazy and do something even more radical like allowing for 'mixed Doctrine' armies(i.e. Cadians in command with a Catachan Jungle Fighter contingent).

Conceptual GW's really gone astray on the "Imperial" aspect of this army. I think it is fictionally one of the most distinctive elements of the Imperial Guard, that distinguishes it from other more generic representations of a human space army in other fictional settings. It works because its grim dark.

Mixed regiment aren't really a thing. GW wants to keep pretending the IG are all Cadian all the time I think we should have doctrines of some sort. Cadians in a jungle or Cadians on a desert are going to adapt and that should be reflected. The thing is even when doctrines were a thing, hardly anyone mixed regiments. and I think it's because the scale of a 40k game being about the size of military companies fighting each other doesn't really lend itself to mixing Regiments. On the tabletop armies tend to feel like armies because of a certain degree of repetition, so visually mixed regiments I think bring some dissonance in that regard. Ogryns, ratlings, and rough riders are by design standout units and almost inescapably represent detached units from a larger Imperial reservoir of forces. You're right that any unit could be used to convey a visual representation of this, but when GW only represents the most generic Cadians its hard for anything that isn't an Ogryn, Ratling, or Rough Rider to look foreign to the rest of the army.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

Unit wise, Rough Riders need to get better and if they don't some other unit needs to come along to fill their niche. M have Sterngard and Vanguard, and in the same vein we should have Storm Troopers and Roughriders. They should be elite horsemen as removed and elevated from the average guardsmen as Veterans or Storm troopers, instead of just being guardsmen with a spear on a horse.

The majority of Rough Riders literally are just Guardsmen with a Spear on a Horses.

First concepts can evolve and for several editions they were described as elite riders and elite warriors from their respective home worlds. That atleast warrants being on par with Veterans and getting an option for carapace armour. Second like I said even if they aren't updated, or simply get removed, IG need something to fill the this niche. It's a call to action in an either or sorta way.

Two of the three Guard books that I own say nothing about them exclusively as being "elite warriors" or "elite riders". It talks about them being from primitive worlds.

You're fixating. Being described as elites doesn't mean they're literally called elite. You want to talk about this instead of the fact as a tabletop unit they're currently in need of something more and that quite simply the concept of Cavalry hasn't been thoroughly explored and they have both a fictional basis and a historical influence that indicates they could be treated as a more elite force. That's quite frankly the "in" for updating them.

I keep talking about this instead of the fact that they're a tabletop unit because Rough Riders effectively aren't a tabletop unit anymore. They're a holdover from the days of yore, where Conscripts could be given bomb collars and Imperial Beastmen were a thing.

Rough Riders have a codex option, and that's a damn sight more than that piece of crap unit deserves. Boot them to the curb and damn the consequences.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Some people want IG to be an analog for a modern military force, but conceptually they are bigger than that. You can ignore the units that don't fit that vision.

No, you really can't. The stuff that would allow you to ignore that(Special Weapon Squads, Heavy Weapon Squads) are locked away within the Platoon structure or set up so that it can't be taken by anyone aside from that specific unit.

Sure you can make the argument that "you can just take that instead of the other options. Special Weapons with Sniper Rifles aren't different to Ratlings except for X, Y, or Z"--but they are different, and Ratlings do have X, Y, or Z, and you're being pigeonholed into running Platoons.

I think GW should get rid of platoons. I think all the elements of the platoon should be split up allowing a more decentralized playstyle and I think platoons should be replaced with a variety of Platoon formations.

Platoons, as an organizational bit, are a good thing. The issue is that it's pre-Decurion/formation stuff. If we made Platoons as a "Core" Formation, with the composing elements turned into parts? It suddenly becomes a lot more interesting and viable as an organizational item for Guard.

Why do Ratlings and Ogryn exist? -One part fantasy carry over, one part GW wanted a justifiable way to give IG units better than "human" stat lines. Its in that same vein that Rough Riders should be treated.

Ratlings could be deleted and nobody barring the grognards would give a crap.

And unless Rough Riders become Centaurs, nah.

Conceptual GW's really gone astray on the "Imperial" aspect of this army. I think it is fictionally one of the most distinctive elements of the Imperial Guard, that distinguishes it from other more generic representations of a human space army in other fictional settings. It works because its grim dark.

Mixed regiment aren't really a thing. GW wants to keep pretending the IG are all Cadian all the time I think we should have doctrines of some sort. Cadians in a jungle or Cadians on a desert are going to adapt and that should be reflected. The thing is even when doctrines were a thing, hardly anyone mixed regiments. and I think it's because the scale of a 40k game being about the size of military companies fighting each other doesn't really lend itself to mixing Regiments. On the tabletop armies tend to feel like armies because of a certain degree of repetition, so visually mixed regiments I think bring some dissonance in that regard. Ogryns, ratlings, and rough riders are by design standout units and almost inescapably represent detached units from a larger Imperial reservoir of forces. You're right that any unit could be used to convey a visual representation of this, but when GW only represents the most generic Cadians its hard for anything that isn't an Ogryn, Ratling, or Rough Rider to look foreign to the rest of the army.

Ogryn/Bullgryns actually look acceptable within the Cadian organization. They really do.

Provided they don't paint them in the Militarum Tempestus colors like they did for the showcase army.

Give rough riders T4 2 wounds to represent the horse. Options to buy carapace and lance ccw laspistol. Or lasrifle 2 special weapons per five to represent seek and destroy cav. scouts. Tactical use of horse would be that it has no energy signature other than body heat. We all know GW can do some nice cavalry and a kit builds the two variants I just outlined would sell like hot cakes if the rules were tweaked a wee bit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ratlings could be deleted and nobody barring the grognards would give a crap.

Well, I mean, I would. Space hobbit snipers are awesome.

Question - how would the players and codex benefit from axing Ratling and Rough Riders? They're interesting and characterful units that are established parts of the background and let people make more specialized armies. Not so great in the rules department, but that can be fixed. Why get rid of them entirely, and why do Ogryn get a pass? Even if you're trying to make Codex: Cadians, I'd think there would be plenty of room for Rough Riders, at least.

I think a lot of the reason that many of the more "fantasy-ish" units (like Ratlings, Ogryn, Rough Riders) get ignored is because their rules have been garbage...forever.

Granted there is the obvious temptation by a lot of players to ignore them as being somewhat out of place in many IG armies, but when their rules have been awful in literally every edition the game has ever had, nobody is ever going to get very attached to them in the first place, much like Vespids. At least coming from the post 2E era, I don't think Ratlings, Ogryns or Rough Riders have ever had particularly functional rules and stats, so it's no surprise that nobody cares about them.

Also their models have largely either been garbage (RR's barring DKoK Death Riders, current & 2E Ogryns), or absurdly expensive (DKoK Death Riders, metal Ogryns).

 Spinner wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ratlings could be deleted and nobody barring the grognards would give a crap.

Well, I mean, I would. Space hobbit snipers are awesome.

Question - how would the players and codex benefit from axing Ratling and Rough Riders? They're interesting and characterful units that are established parts of the background and let people make more specialized armies.

They're not interesting and they're not characterful.
"oh look, cowardly space hobbits that are cooks and somehow amazing marksmen too!"
"oh look, guys riding horses. they're from the backwards planets and they wear grisly trophies--like Chaos, but we let them because reasons."

And really? "Let people make more specialized armies"?
You would have a point if Ratlings or Rough Riders were able to be taken in large numbers or if they could replace Veteran or Infantry Squads.

But they can't be taken in large numbers or replace Veteran or Infantry Squads. Saying that they let people make more specialized armies is like claiming that the ability to take Terminators as Elite choices in C: SM lets you "make more specialized armies".

Simply being able to say "Hey I can take X" doesn't mean you can make a more specialized army. The ability to take that unit as a defining unit does. Running a Deathwing list or running a Strike Force Ultra with a First Company Veteran Strike Force composed solely of Terminators though makes a specialized army.

Not so great in the rules department, but that can be fixed. Why get rid of them entirely, and why do Ogryn get a pass?

Ogryn and Bullgryn get a pass because their plastic kits were actually designed to fit in with the Cadian aesthetic. They also get a pass because, unlike the Ratlings, they're combat units.

If you wanted to make something 'work' with Ratlings, it should be a purchaseable thing called "Ratling Sniper Support" and be something like a Strategic Asset you put into play where every enemy unit within a certain range of a designated unit has to take a number of Wounds or potentially have their leaders/attached characters blown away.

That's the only way that Ratlings could and should ever work.

Even if you're trying to make Codex: Cadians, I'd think there would be plenty of room for Rough Riders, at least.

There is not, nor ever should be room for Rough Riders again. They're a garbage unit that belong in the wastebins. Sorry for people who like them, but hey--I want them to stop cluttering up my Fast Attack.

I would rather they add some kind of Imperium bred hunting beasts or 'hunting servitor beasts' than keep the dumpsterfire that is Rough Riders around.

Ah. 'Cause you don't like the concepts. Gotcha.

What about an elite stealth infantry themed regiment with lots of camo-cloak veterans, Storm Troopers, and ratling snipers? Or a Feudal world regiment with troops mounted in Chimeras supported by Rough Riders (bonus points for using models in plate armor to represent them!) Both of these ideas seem specialized and characterful to me, just as, I don't know...a Space Marine void-boarding-party list with the elite slots full of terminators seems specialized and characterful.

Why should Ratlings not have models on the tabletop? Because they're supposed to stay out of sight and snipe the enemy? So are Vindicares. So are Space Marine Scouts with sniper rifles. I like the idea of the sniper strategic asset thing, but I don't know how well it would work with the kind of game 40k wants to be. Neat, though.

There is not, nor ever should be room for Rough Riders again. They're a garbage unit that belong in the wastebins. Sorry for people who like them, but hey--I want them to stop cluttering up my Fast Attack.

Then, er...don't take them.

I don't usually.

 Spinner wrote:
Ah. 'Cause you don't like the concepts. Gotcha.

Because I don't like the concept, the concept has never done well, and there's a reason that Ratlings are still metal sculpts.

And also because THE CONCEPT WAS STUPID TO BEGIN WITH BUT AT LEAST FIT IN WHEN YOU HAD BEASTMEN STILL AS PART OF THE GUARD BECAUSE GUARD WERE LITERALLY JUST THE EMPIRE FROM WHFB IN SPACE.

What about an elite stealth infantry themed regiment with lots of camo-cloak veterans, Storm Troopers, and ratling snipers? Or a Feudal world regiment with troops mounted in Chimeras supported by Rough Riders (bonus points for using models in plate armor to represent them!) Both of these ideas seem specialized and characterful to me, just as, I don't know...a Space Marine void-boarding-party list with the elite slots full of terminators seems specialized and characterful.

Theme != Army Composition.

Your statement was that:

They're interesting and characterful units that are established parts of the background and let people make more specialized armies.

Specialized armies != Themed armies.

Why should Ratlings not have models on the tabletop? Because they're supposed to stay out of sight and snipe the enemy? So are Vindicares. So are Space Marine Scouts with sniper rifles. I like the idea of the sniper strategic asset thing, but I don't know how well it would work with the kind of game 40k wants to be. Neat, though.

Vindicares, unlike Ratlings, aren't cowards and will use their pistols to great effect. Mont'ka actually has this going on in the fluff book where the Vindicare has to gun his way through a cordon to get at his target.
Space Marine Scouts outfitted with Sniper Rifles tend to serve as the 'advance element', and that's actually reflected what with the fact that they can purchase Teleport Homers on their Sergeants. They're also not a dedicated unit called "Space Marine Scout Snipers" in anything but the usage of the

There is not, nor ever should be room for Rough Riders again. They're a garbage unit that belong in the wastebins. Sorry for people who like them, but hey--I want them to stop cluttering up my Fast Attack.

Then, er...don't take them.

I don't usually.

You do understand that "not taking them" doesn't mean that it still isn't a slot wasted on a dumpster fire of a unit that could be replaced by something that isn't just "Lolz look--it's just like the Empire in WHFB was!"?
With both Ratlings and Rough Riders just continually being copy/pasted from edition to edition to edition GW won't ever sit their designers down and say "Come up with something to replace this".

At the very least though, it looks like under Roundtree that might happen with the addition of the "Last Chance to Buy" thing.

If the Guard were the Empire in space, they would have had those beastmen's heads up on spikes. The Empire and Beastmen didn't get along all that well.

Theme != Army Composition.

All right, then, perhaps we've misunderstood each other as to what was meant by 'specialized'. How would you define it? Either way, they allow people to make 'themed' armies, then, which is hardly a bad thing.

Vindicares, unlike Ratlings, aren't cowards and will use their pistols to great effect. Mont'ka actually has this going on in the fluff book where the Vindicare has to gun his way through a cordon to get at his target.
Space Marine Scouts outfitted with Sniper Rifles tend to serve as the 'advance element', and that's actually reflected what with the fact that they can purchase Teleport Homers on their Sergeants.

So cowardly models shouldn't be on the tabletop at all, then? Guess we can axe grots and conscripts, too, and just do away with the whole leadership stat. Just because they're a bit twitchy in the face of enemy fire doesn't mean that they'd never be on the battlefield. Perhaps they know they're defending a vital area, or are fighting past the panic to support their friends...or, you know. The Commissar cornered them in the barracks and dumped them in a transport on the way to the front.

Ratlings also make excellent scouts, according to the fluff - reflected by their ability to Infiltrate. So there's another reason for them to be there.

Ironically, keeping them as off-board support would make Ratlings the best stealth/sniping troopers in the game.

You do understand that "not taking them" doesn't mean that it still isn't a slot wasted on a dumpster fire of a unit that could be replaced by something that isn't just "Lolz look--it's just like the Empire in WHFB was!"?
With both Ratlings and Rough Riders just continually being copy/pasted from edition to edition to edition GW won't ever sit their designers down and say "Come up with something to replace this".

Why would they ever do that? GW is all about the easy way forward, and it would be easier to switch a few values to make Rough Riders workable than to come up with something entirely new. Admittedly, it would be even easier just to have them be the exact same thing as before...but both of those are more likely than cutting them out and coming up with something new to 'fill the slot'. Even if they would. A whole suite of artillery disappeared last time, replaced with one new model...why would they have anything to replace just one unit if they cut it?

And what's with the 'it's just like the Empire'? Lots of armies throughout history have had cavalry. Rough Riders aren't even particularly Empire-ish; they have explosive spears instead of pistols as their main weapons (Outriders) and are lightly armored (Imperial Knights).

 Kanluwen wrote:

You do understand that "not taking them" doesn't mean that it still isn't a slot wasted on a dumpster fire of a unit that could be replaced by something that isn't just "Lolz look--it's just like the Empire in WHFB was!"?

Their existence isn't wasting anything nor preventing anything else from being added. Rough Riders certainly didn't prevent the inclusion of the Valkyrie, Vendettta, Devil Dog, or Bane Wolf to the FA slots for example.

With both Ratlings and Rough Riders just continually being copy/pasted from edition to edition to edition GW won't ever sit their designers down and say "Come up with something to replace this".

You're assuming this is how GW works, we've clearly seen they largely don't really care what currently exists and just toss in whatever Marketing tells them to. That's how we got Centurions over Terminators, and Wraithknights over Wraithlords. If they want something similar but "better", they'll just add it on top

They've also re-worked units in their entirety before without replacing them entirely. DE Mandrakes, Talos, and Grotesques for example, they didn't need to go away for GW to rework their entire concept (even if they still ended up being garbage afterwards )

 Spinner wrote:
If the Guard were the Empire in space, they would have had those beastmen's heads up on spikes. The Empire and Beastmen didn't get along all that well.

The Empire in WHFB didn't get along all that well--but the idea behind the initial Imperial Army was that they made use of conscripted abhumans to serve as meatshields--aka Beastmen.

Theme != Army Composition.

All right, then, perhaps we've misunderstood each other as to what was meant by 'specialized'. How would you define it? Either way, they allow people to make 'themed' armies, then, which is hardly a bad thing.

Specialized means that an army can perform a unique role or function. Elysians are a specialized army in that they're a Deep Strike/airborne army.

Vindicares, unlike Ratlings, aren't cowards and will use their pistols to great effect. Mont'ka actually has this going on in the fluff book where the Vindicare has to gun his way through a cordon to get at his target.
Space Marine Scouts outfitted with Sniper Rifles tend to serve as the 'advance element', and that's actually reflected what with the fact that they can purchase Teleport Homers on their Sergeants.

So cowardly models shouldn't be on the tabletop at all, then? Guess we can axe grots and conscripts, too, and just do away with the whole leadership stat. Just because they're a bit twitchy in the face of enemy fire doesn't mean that they'd never be on the battlefield. Perhaps they know they're defending a vital area, or are fighting past the panic to support their friends...or, you know. The Commissar cornered them in the barracks and dumped them in a transport on the way to the front.

Have you actually read the fluff on Ratlings?
Or the rules?

Ratlings also make excellent scouts, according to the fluff - reflected by their ability to Infiltrate. So there's another reason for them to be there.

Yeah...and so do Guard Veterans specializing in Recon. Or Sentinel Squadrons. Or literally anything but cowardly Halflings.

Ironically, keeping them as off-board support would make Ratlings the best stealth/sniping troopers in the game.

Sure it would...until you realize that like any off-board support asset it would be a one time thing.

You do understand that "not taking them" doesn't mean that it still isn't a slot wasted on a dumpster fire of a unit that could be replaced by something that isn't just "Lolz look--it's just like the Empire in WHFB was!"?
With both Ratlings and Rough Riders just continually being copy/pasted from edition to edition to edition GW won't ever sit their designers down and say "Come up with something to replace this".

Why would they ever do that? GW is all about the easy way forward, and it would be easier to switch a few values to make Rough Riders workable than to come up with something entirely new. Admittedly, it would be even easier just to have them be the exact same thing as before...but both of those are more likely than cutting them out and coming up with something new to 'fill the slot'. Even if they would. A whole suite of artillery disappeared last time, replaced with one new model...why would they have anything to replace just one unit if they cut it?

"A whole suite of artillery" being four unit entries, of which only one had a GW model(the Basilisk) and the remaining three(Griffon, Colossus, Medusa) being FW items.

Remember that the Cruddace book had a decent number of items(Colossus, Medusa, Manticore, Griffon, Hydra, the Vanquisher, Executioner, Exterminator, and the Vendetta) which weren't GW items proper at their launch.

The Cruddace book is best summed up as a mixture of Imperial Armour v1 and C: IG from before. Are you really that surprised that when the next book came out they removed the Griffon, Colossus, and Medusa from the GW Codex?

And what's with the 'it's just like the Empire'? Lots of armies throughout history have had cavalry. Rough Riders aren't even particularly Empire-ish; they have explosive spears instead of pistols as their main weapons (Outriders) and are lightly armored (Imperial Knights).

If you can't figure out what's meant by "Just like the Empire":
The Empire was known for the fact that they would field armies not just consisting of one province when they would go to war. You might have Huntsmen from the province of Stirland(a backwater) serving as scouts and skirmishers for an artillery train from Nuln(the manufacturing capital of the Empire) which was further supported by a Knightly Order(Space Marines).

The Empire in WHFB didn't get along all that well--but the idea behind the initial Imperial Army was that they made use of conscripted abhumans to serve as meatshields--aka Beastmen.

Right, which is why Beastmen used to be a thing in 40k, just like Squats and all the stuff that didn't disappear. I understand that, but the way you worded your last post made it sound like you were arguing the Empire used beastman conscripts as expendable troops.

Specialized means that an army can perform a unique role or function. Elysians are a specialized army in that they're a Deep Strike/airborne army.

Okay. Well, for starters, the Chimera/Rough Rider army would make a fairly plausible aggressive force in a way you don't usually see the Guard do. The Riders could use the Chimeras for cover while they moved up and protect their flanks from enemy infantry, and then they could pop out from behind and charge soft targets. Would it do well in the current game environment? Probably not, but that's not the fault of the concept of Rough Riders.

Have you actually read the fluff on Ratlings?
Or the rules?

...yes?

Not sure what you're arguing here. That Ratlings are too cowardly to ever deploy? That clearly isn't the case. That they die if the enemy so much as looks at them on the tabletop? I don't think anyone's going to argue otherwise.

Yeah...and so do Guard Veterans specializing in Recon. Or Sentinel Squadrons. Or literally anything but cowardly Halflings.

Well, not clumsy Ogryn or giant tanks. Why shouldn't cowardly halflings ever show up to a fight? Simply because they're cowardly? That's why Commissars exist, to put some backbone into abhuman shirkers! And...human shirkers. And people who look a little shifty in general.

Sure it would...until you realize that like any off-board support asset it would be a one time thing.

Well, it wouldn't have to be, since we're spitballing concepts here. But even if it was, so what? They clearly got in, took their shots, and got out - exactly what a sniper is supposed to do. Meanwhile, that supposedly elite Vindicare is stuck within small-arms-range of the enemy, trying to keep his head down while they aim every Ignores Cover gun they have his way.

Go, Kilbo Fraggins, go!

"A whole suite of artillery" being four unit entries, of which only one had a GW model(the Basilisk) and the remaining three(Griffon, Colossus, Medusa) being FW items.

Remember that the Cruddace book had a decent number of items(Colossus, Medusa, Manticore, Griffon, Hydra, the Vanquisher, Executioner, Exterminator, and the Vendetta) which weren't GW items proper at their launch.

The Cruddace book is best summed up as a mixture of Imperial Armour v1 and C: IG from before. Are you really that surprised that when the next book came out they removed the Griffon, Colossus, and Medusa from the GW Codex?

I think most of us were, yes, judging from the reaction at the time. Not what I was arguing, though. There's no set number of slots. Dropping one unit doesn't mean they add another.

If you can't figure out what's meant by "Just like the Empire":
The Empire was known for the fact that they would field armies not just consisting of one province when they would go to war. You might have Huntsmen from the province of Stirland(a backwater) serving as scouts and skirmishers for an artillery train from Nuln(the manufacturing capital of the Empire) which was further supported by a Knightly Order(Space Marines).

Yes, again, I'm familiar with the fluff, and, again, what you said sounded a bit like something else. Apologies for any confusion, but the way you worded it made it seem like Rough Riders were only there to be Empire Cavalry in Spehss, when their typical role, fluff, and appearance really doesn't resemble any of the Empire's cavalry all that well.

Whatever man.

Rough Riders suck. They need to go. Ratlings need to get out too. You might be happy with them, but I want literally anything to replace them.

I also want them to scrap every single other Regiment from the 'main' GW line and just make Cadians the Codex.

Well, fair enough.

I want exactly the opposite. Doctrines galore, more fluff about regiments from planets that don't start with the letter C, and a rework of problematic units rather than shuffling them off.

GW, of course, will listen to neither of us.

I actually agree Rough Riders are stupid. They work with Krieg, but not elsewhere. It honestly would be for the best if they just removed them from the parent codex.

Doctrines are never, ever, ever, ever coming back in the way people want them to. If they come back it's going to be like Space Marines, where Doctrines are nothing but a "once per game" thing that does something for you--and which you basically have to either play a Battle Demi-Company or Ultramarines in order to utilize the damn things.

Problematic units(read: Ratlings, Rough Riders, and Scions) need to be cut from the book. Ratlings and Rough Riders have not and never will actually contribute anything useful to the primary Guard book--beyond being a good way to spot a newbie to the game or someone who had the models from back in 'the old days'. DKoK have their version, which FW was smart enough to even change the name of to "Death Riders" just to avoid the connotation of suckery that comes from the Rough Riders label.


Scions as their own book works a lot better than people think, especially if GW changes the title to be "Astra Militarum: Tempestus Scions" and makes it so that Orders affect "all units with the Astra Militarum faction"(spoiler: Scions would fall under that in this version) but Tempestus Orders don't affect anyone but Scions and they put the Orders for both factions combined into both books.

I run my rough riders with my knights much the way described by spinner. Keeping just behind my knights to dart out and feth up grav bikers or other bum rush types. Results are mixed but fun and fluffy. The knight houses have men at arms so I use guard codex to represent that.

This thread has so far served to remind me that Ratlings and Rough Riders still exist in my codex. To be honest I was having trouble remembering that I had an Elites section, never mind remembering units like Ratlings and RR's existed.

Very true. The Elites section is full of the least elite units that exist.

I thought the IG only had three selections: HQ, Troops and Heavy Support...

Yes the am elite choises are a joke as well as the fast attack options.

 vostroyan second born wrote:
Yes the am elite choises are a joke as well as the fast attack options.

It's unfortunately the GW rule that Marine must always be better, that limits IG. Where IG elites end up being about a single extreme which makes them so narrowly beneficial they're mostly overpriced. I like Ratlings and I think they're fairly priced. They've never won me any games but what IG unit consistently does?

Honestly I see IG and their tanks as the orks or tyranids of humanity. All this talk about making them tougher and more savable... most of their stuff is over costed for what they get, but an "elite" IG makes very little sense to me, they should have a high model count and take large amounts of casualties to get the job done. some of the stuff floated here like making heavy weapons teams t7 with a 3+ cover... seriously for the points that is absurd. What makes HWT good is that you can take a gak ton of them, they should be about 1/2 the points cost so you get a ton of shots and a ton of models. The exemptions are leman russ tanks which should be pretty beefy per the fluff and are the oen thing that is not just thrown away in droves to get something done.