The best summary for the game being out of whack was a sentence from the guy with the huge Blood Ravens army in WD: "After Apocalypse 100 Space Marines are still impressive but now they're more of a first step on a road that can stretch as far as you wish" (paraphrased from German).

The whole system is out of whack and the bean counters have won. Look at this thread or any other thread about fixing armies - reducing points (often even FURTHER compared to other editions) is one of the top "fixes" for everything. The game isn't really suited to such large armies and the system isn't that good to begin with, but the FANS recommend to each other to just buy more and field more stuff. How can guard have a niche when SMs are fielding company sized contingents in normal lists and other races have bigger guns. 40k needs a reset, bad.



PS: I'm now tempted to convert the new Sigmarine birdies into Rough Riders. I don't really game anymore, but maybe use them as allied TWC count-as

Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I never have understood the appeal of them.

Much as I'm agreeing with your changes here, scrapping a unit because you don't like it is why we have favouritism and imbalances in many codexes.

Cruddace was an Imperial Guard player, and he got landed with writing the Tyranid Codex. It's no surprise that he disliked Tyranids, and they were rather bad that edition.

Check the author named on both of the most recent Guard books. Cruddace.
I don't think he's a Guard player. The only times I've seen him photographed with a Guard army is the Studio stuff. Kelly and the others like Haines? They all got shown at least once or twice with their personal stuff.

Hell, the only time I think I've seen personal stuff from Cruddace is for WHFB with Tomb Kings.

I may be wrong that he was a Guard player, but he wasn't Tyranid - that may be a reason for Tyranid weakness.

At the same time, Kelly was an Eldar player, and wrote the Eldar codex. I wonder how good Eldar were when he wrote it.

Kelly has basically written/headed every Eldar book in recent memory.

And hasn't every Eldar book been very powerful, in the top echelons of most editions?

Rough Riders are unique. They are cavalry. That is their appeal. No other unit in the Imperial Guard is cavalry. Scrapping Rough Riders is fine. Just replace them with a cavalry unit, but at that point, they're Rough Riders in all but name. So why not just improve Rough Riders?

There is no improving them. They're a dead end.

What, so me giving them 2+/2++/2+++ saves with rerolls and Strength D weapons wouldn't improve them?
Huh.

I'm of the opinion that any unit can be improved. It's just a case of how much you're going to change.
And if you're saying that there's no hope for Cavalry in 40k, which is the main point of Rough Riders, then how do you intend to make your version of cavalry in your own overhaul? I look forward to your portrayal of cavalry if you say that there's no hope for them.

Who cares that they're cavalry? If you want riding beasts, play Space Wolves or Daemons. Or invest in a Death Korps army. Because that's the biggest reason I keep hearing from people to "make Rough Riders better, like the Death Korps version".

Oh, you know, people who like cavalry in their Guard. I mean, I could apply that logic to any aspect of the Guard, or even most armies.

Who cares if Ogryns aren't big and hulking brutes? If you want big hulking brutes, play Tyranids.
Who cares if Chaos Space Marines are bad? If you want power armoured Space Marines, play Space Marines.
Who cares if Dark Eldar are too fragile? If you want space elves, play Eldar.
Who cares if Imperial Guard tanks are bad? If you want tanks, play Space Marines.
Who cares if Terminators are too weak? If you want durable infantry, play Necrons.
Etc etc

Cavalry is part of the Imperial Guard, whether motorized or flesh and blood. It can have a purpose, and aside from your prejudice against them and yourself not seeing a point, I'm sure others would like to see them remain.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
They completely revamped the image of Stormtroopers, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same for Roughriders. Replacing the horses with something bigger and more dangerous might be a good start. Then organize them into platoons and replace their hunting lances with power lances. Let them take lasguns too.

Let's be brutally frank here.

They didn't "revamp" the image of Stormtroopers. They rebranded them. It's still the same background, it's still the same equipment, etc. There's no real way to do that with Rough Riders IMO. It's a dead end, no matter how much time I've spent trying to make them work. There is just no way, shape, or form where I can get them to a point where:
a) They still feel like they "fit" into the army.
b) They don't feel like they belong more in a Cultist heavy Traitor Guard army.

So why can't we "rebrand" Rough Riders? After all, we're just looking for Cavalry. If you say there's no way for mounted units to exist in the Imperial Guard, then why do the Death Korps have them? And again, looking forward to your overhaul of cavalry with no cavalry.

Ratlings however have real potential in my opinion. They just need more equipment (vox casters, camo gear, snare mines etc.). If Ratlings were Troops (part of an infantry platoon?), they could hold your home objectives whilst the other units go on the offensive.

What are we really defining as "go on the offensive"?

The whole spiel/schtick of the Guard is holding ground, then slowly pushing the enemy back.

Not all the time.

Well, unless you want to completely relegate Atttilans, Armageddon Steel Legion, Elysians, Harakoni Warhawks, Tanith First and Only, etc etc. Are they no longer Guardsmen? Or perhaps the Guard aren't all one homogenous entity as you put it. They aren't all Cadians.

This is why Doctrines would be good. So that the Guard aren't a homogenous collective, and there's actual variation in how they go to war. Attillans tend to use cavalry. Steel Legion tend advance in Chimeras. Tanith are horribly unoptimised for holding ground or pushing an enemy back. Elysians and Harakoni can't hold ground if they didn't start on it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I never have understood the appeal of them.

Much as I'm agreeing with your changes here, scrapping a unit because you don't like it is why we have favouritism and imbalances in many codexes.

Cruddace was an Imperial Guard player, and he got landed with writing the Tyranid Codex. It's no surprise that he disliked Tyranids, and they were rather bad that edition.

Check the author named on both of the most recent Guard books. Cruddace.
I don't think he's a Guard player. The only times I've seen him photographed with a Guard army is the Studio stuff. Kelly and the others like Haines? They all got shown at least once or twice with their personal stuff.

Hell, the only time I think I've seen personal stuff from Cruddace is for WHFB with Tomb Kings.

I may be wrong that he was a Guard player, but he wasn't Tyranid - that may be a reason for Tyranid weakness.

At the same time, Kelly was an Eldar player, and wrote the Eldar codex. I wonder how good Eldar were when he wrote it.

Kelly has basically written/headed every Eldar book in recent memory.

And hasn't every Eldar book been very powerful, in the top echelons of most editions?

Rough Riders are unique. They are cavalry. That is their appeal. No other unit in the Imperial Guard is cavalry. Scrapping Rough Riders is fine. Just replace them with a cavalry unit, but at that point, they're Rough Riders in all but name. So why not just improve Rough Riders?

There is no improving them. They're a dead end.

What, so me giving them 2+/2++/2+++ saves with rerolls and Strength D weapons wouldn't improve them?
Huh.

I'm of the opinion that any unit can be improved. It's just a case of how much you're going to change.
And if you're saying that there's no hope for Cavalry in 40k, which is the main point of Rough Riders, then how do you intend to make your version of cavalry in your own overhaul? I look forward to your portrayal of cavalry if you say that there's no hope for them.

Who cares that they're cavalry? If you want riding beasts, play Space Wolves or Daemons. Or invest in a Death Korps army. Because that's the biggest reason I keep hearing from people to "make Rough Riders better, like the Death Korps version".

Oh, you know, people who like cavalry in their Guard. I mean, I could apply that logic to any aspect of the Guard, or even most armies.

Who cares if Ogryns aren't big and hulking brutes? If you want big hulking brutes, play Tyranids.
Who cares if Chaos Space Marines are bad? If you want power armoured Space Marines, play Space Marines.
Who cares if Dark Eldar are too fragile? If you want space elves, play Eldar.
Who cares if Imperial Guard tanks are bad? If you want tanks, play Space Marines.
Who cares if Terminators are too weak? If you want durable infantry, play Necrons.
Etc etc

Cavalry is part of the Imperial Guard, whether motorized or flesh and blood. It can have a purpose, and aside from your prejudice against them and yourself not seeing a point, I'm sure others would like to see them remain.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
They completely revamped the image of Stormtroopers, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same for Roughriders. Replacing the horses with something bigger and more dangerous might be a good start. Then organize them into platoons and replace their hunting lances with power lances. Let them take lasguns too.

Let's be brutally frank here.

They didn't "revamp" the image of Stormtroopers. They rebranded them. It's still the same background, it's still the same equipment, etc. There's no real way to do that with Rough Riders IMO. It's a dead end, no matter how much time I've spent trying to make them work. There is just no way, shape, or form where I can get them to a point where:
a) They still feel like they "fit" into the army.
b) They don't feel like they belong more in a Cultist heavy Traitor Guard army.

So why can't we "rebrand" Rough Riders? After all, we're just looking for Cavalry. If you say there's no way for mounted units to exist in the Imperial Guard, then why do the Death Korps have them? And again, looking forward to your overhaul of cavalry with no cavalry.

Ratlings however have real potential in my opinion. They just need more equipment (vox casters, camo gear, snare mines etc.). If Ratlings were Troops (part of an infantry platoon?), they could hold your home objectives whilst the other units go on the offensive.

What are we really defining as "go on the offensive"?

The whole spiel/schtick of the Guard is holding ground, then slowly pushing the enemy back.

Not all the time.

Well, unless you want to completely relegate Atttilans, Armageddon Steel Legion, Elysians, Harakoni Warhawks, Tanith First and Only, etc etc. Are they no longer Guardsmen? Or perhaps the Guard aren't all one homogenous entity as you put it. They aren't all Cadians.

This is why Doctrines would be good. So that the Guard aren't a homogenous collective, and there's actual variation in how they go to war. Attillans tend to use cavalry. Steel Legion tend advance in Chimeras. Tanith are horribly unoptimised for holding ground or pushing an enemy back. Elysians and Harakoni can't hold ground if they didn't start on it.

It sounds to me like Kanluwen thinks that codex: Astra Militarum should be codex: Cadians. I can't stress enough that all guard regiments do notoperate with the same tactics and wargear. Even the common lasgun is different from planet to planet.

I hope they find a way to make Valkyries more widespread. Look at this pic:



That's what the IG should be like when they go Airborne. Valkyries everywhere. I have 4 of them but in the current game I don't think I could take them all.

How would you do it? Make them cheaper? Again, I think 40k itself needs overhauled first.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I hope they find a way to make Valkyries more widespread. Look at this pic:



That's what the IG should be like when they go Airborne. Valkyries everywhere. I have 4 of them but in the current game I don't think I could take them all.

How would you do it? Make them cheaper? Again, I think 40k itself needs overhauled first.

I've always loved the idea of an airborne Catachan force. Actually, I'm working on one now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I hope they find a way to make Valkyries more widespread. Look at this pic:



That's what the IG should be like when they go Airborne. Valkyries everywhere. I have 4 of them but in the current game I don't think I could take them all.

How would you do it? Make them cheaper? Again, I think 40k itself needs overhauled first.

Making them cheaper wouldn't work if Valkyries were allowed to stay on the table. If 40k introduced a system to buy support powers, then you could make a Valkyrie Flyover power that would drop off a unit you paid for, perhaps fire some of its weapons, then fly off. That would also be useful for people who can't afford to buy multiple Valkyrie models.

That system would also allow for off-table artillery strikes; unless you're playing Apocalypse, having a Basilisk battery on the front line seemed very silly.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I hope they find a way to make Valkyries more widespread. Look at this pic:



That's what the IG should be like when they go Airborne. Valkyries everywhere. I have 4 of them but in the current game I don't think I could take them all.

How would you do it? Make them cheaper? Again, I think 40k itself needs overhauled first.

I am haunted by the desire of doing an IG or Tempestus army like that but see the problem is not the rules or points costs it is the scale of the game pieces. At 28mm scale even one Valkyrie is ridiculous on a 6'x4' table. To do an air cav army properly you need to reduce the scale of game pieces right down, like 6mm tops as with epic 40k. The smaller the game pieces the bigger your battlefield becomes. At 28mm scale a 6' x 4' table is the size of a football (soccar for americans) pitch.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I hope they find a way to make Valkyries more widespread. Look at this pic:



That's what the IG should be like when they go Airborne. Valkyries everywhere. I have 4 of them but in the current game I don't think I could take them all.

How would you do it? Make them cheaper? Again, I think 40k itself needs overhauled first.

Making them cheaper wouldn't work if Valkyries were allowed to stay on the table. If 40k introduced a system to buy support powers, then you could make a Valkyrie Flyover power that would drop off a unit you paid for, perhaps fire some of its weapons, then fly off. That would also be useful for people who can't afford to buy multiple Valkyrie models.

That system would also allow for off-table artillery strikes; unless you're playing Apocalypse, having a Basilisk battery on the front line seemed very silly.

I would really love to see something like that.

One already can get the off-table Artillery through a Master of Ordnance, but support purchases like that would be awesome.

You'd probably want to limit support power purchases to a % of the total points, to avoid a literal rain of artillery/valk flyovers, but yeah.

It's a system already present in concept in my 40k ruleset, to compliment the "deck building" mechanic I've made (a la Wargame/Team Yankee).

I've tied a limit to support powers in the same way a CAD limits the amount of units from a certain category that you can take. Your Warlord also has a Strategy Rating to prevent support power spam in turn 1, with the number of powers available per turn being equal to that rating.

I am aware of the Master of Ordnance, of course, but his "artillery strike" is pretty pathetic, considering only a single Basilisk is firing each time. Is the rest of the battery on tea break or something?

I really like these ideas! Only thing is, since GW is in the business of selling models...is it possible to create these support units and still have a model for them?

This goes beyond the guard but, what if certain units were deemed as 'support assets' and could only be attacked in certain circumstances. Like, artillery support can only be attacked by air support or other artillery units...maybe this is getting too complicated.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I really like these ideas! Only thing is, since GW is in the business of selling models...is it possible to create these support units and still have a model for them?

You'd only have to use one model, but you'd still need it, since we'd also have to allow AA or other aircraft to attack that Valkyrie before it can just fly in/off, and you'd need a model for drawing LOS.

For artillery, well... anything but the Basilisk would have to be on the table anyway

This goes beyond the guard but, what if certain units were deemed as 'support assets' and could only be attacked in certain circumstances. Like, artillery support can only be attacked by air support or other artillery units...maybe this is getting too complicated.

I put a lot of support powers on cooldowns, meaning you either flip the card over for a certain number of turns, or write a number on it that you change till it reaches zero. Most things only have a 1 turn cooldown, so it's not too complicated to keep track. It balances out the fact that they can't be stopped since they're coming from something off the table.

@ General Annoyance

Sounds good to me!

What if 40k was to go down the AoS route of warscrolls and damage charts with everything having wounds and saves? It might be the best way to go...I say at the risk of starting an argument.

Here's a really simple AoS style way to operate a Hydra's autocannons for example: during your opponents turn, pick an enemy flier after it moves (LOS doesn't matter because it's up in the sky and we're being abstract here) and roll 8 dice (4 if it's slightly damaged and 0 if it's heavily damaged). Each time you roll a 5 or 6, the flier suffers a mortal wound. Some fliers can have protection against this. Tau Razorsharks and Sunsharks for example can both have Decoy Launchers, giving them a 4+ save against wounds caused by these attacks. Imperial fliers by contrast can just have more wounds (6?), letting them soak it all up.

While I think 40k could use with some serious Sigmarization, I'm not sure how well a direct translation would work. 40k tends to rely on much more customizable loadouts than WHFB and Sigmar after it did. I'd appreciate a simpler system for just about everything, but it'd probably have to be a different one.

 Fafnir wrote:
While I think 40k could use with some serious Sigmarization, I'm not sure how well a direct translation would work. 40k tends to rely on much more customizable loadouts than WHFB and Sigmar after it did. I'd appreciate a simpler system for just about everything, but it'd probably have to be a different one.

No. Nononononono, you keep AoS and its drug addled writers well away from 40K.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
While I think 40k could use with some serious Sigmarization, I'm not sure how well a direct translation would work. 40k tends to rely on much more customizable loadouts than WHFB and Sigmar after it did. I'd appreciate a simpler system for just about everything, but it'd probably have to be a different one.

No. Nononononono, you keep AoS and its drug addled writers well away from 40K.

You know they are the same ones, don't you?

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
While I think 40k could use with some serious Sigmarization, I'm not sure how well a direct translation would work. 40k tends to rely on much more customizable loadouts than WHFB and Sigmar after it did. I'd appreciate a simpler system for just about everything, but it'd probably have to be a different one.

No. Nononononono, you keep AoS and its drug addled writers well away from 40K.

I'm sorry, but 40k is basically an unplayable and thoroughly unenjoyable mess at this point. AoS at its launch was definitely a miss, but it's gotten a lot better in a very short timeframe, and at this point has a lot more going for it than 40k has in decades. Some serious simplification, downscaling, and general rethinking would do 40k a lot of good.

It can't copy AoS exactly (too much wargear) but it can learn a lot from it.

AoS's damage charts and wounds/saves for tanks would be a big boon for starters.

 master of ordinance wrote:

No. Nononononono, you keep AoS and its drug addled writers well away from 40K.

That is my first reaction to the idea of sigamising 40k but on reflection AoSing 40k isn't quite the same thing as AoSing WFB.

Aside from blowing up WFB's rich fluff and replacing it with a bland paste the issue with AoS (for me at least) is that it threw away rank 'n' flank amongst other changes. This at least made AoS a transition from WFB to something more like 40k. AoS could be seen as 40king WFB.

It is pure guess work what 8th ed 40k will be but if it was change similar to what AoS was to WFB it wouldn't necessarily be so catastrophic a change. Just 40k but simpler.

Hmm, as someone whom has played AoS and WHFB I can honestly say that whilst AoS makes for a great 'beer and pretzels' game, I have nightmares about it leaking out into other games. Not that I am against certain aspects (reduced performance from injured monsters for instance).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic.

Another major weakness that the Imperial Guard suffer from is the lack of mobility. Our transports are inherently expensive and have rather poor armour (yes, the Chimera has AV12 on its bow, but its flanks are only AV10, and the Taurox has less armour than a Rhino). They are also not viable with blobguard (why are you running it anyway) and full sized platoons can cost 270 minimal to mobilise (six Taurox) which leaves you with five sections and a command section mounte up in transports that will invariably not be there by the end of turn two, but hey, at least you have some mobility. This leaves Veterans as the only viable units to mount inside transports as they can have the suitability to be able to survive the inevitable dismounting they will suffer, as well as the Special Weapons allowance to be able to deal some damage when they get there. And you usually have less Veterans than units in a platoon, so....

Mobilising your Infantry also opens up another issue with the Guard, that of support. So, you have paid the ridiculously high cost and mounted your Veterans (why would you ever mount platoons?) within transports and you now have a few fast moving units that you can speed towards your objectives. BUT how are you going to support them? The bog standard support tank available to the guard is the Leman Russ, but this vehicle suffers from being classed as "Heavy" which is essentially nothing more than a nerf to any vehicle which is classified under its ponderous title. Your Veterans need some armoured support, but if you try to take advantage of the mobility you have spent good points on you will swiftly outrun your support units as they cannot move faster than 6" a turn, whilst your Chimera can go anything up to 18" (12" move plus 6" flatout move), meaning that your support is quickly left in the dust.
So, you need a support tank, but the only unit you can turn too is the Hellhound, which is a laughably overpriced junk tank with a short (pathetically so in the case of the Chem variant) range and an amazing armour of 12/12/10. So it costs as much as the far superior Leman Russ Eradicator (which does exactly the same job but better), but hey, at least it can actually keep pace with the Chimeras..... Until the enemy bothers to shoot it that is.

So, what can you do? If you want to run an "effective" army you have to bring foot units with armour support and pray that the enemy does not deepstrike, outflank or outshoot/run you, but you will be unable to move or react fast enough to claim the objectives, especially if you are playing Maelstrom (SchizophreniccommandersonLSDstrom), but if you do choose to pay for the laughably overpriced transports then you will struggle to support your Infantry units as they advance, and you will run the heavy (and very likely) risk of your Infantry being caught unsupported and wiped out.

Your only choice is to turn to the Imperial Armour books and bring Thunderer's and Laser destroyer's which are thankfully not (at least not yet) classified as "Heavy" (read "slow"), and these vehicles are both rather expensive for what they bring, especially the Laser Destroyer which is basically an Ordnance Lascannon mounted on a Leman Russ chassis. The Thunderer is not too bad though.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Hmm, as someone whom has played AoS and WHFB I can honestly say that whilst AoS makes for a great 'beer and pretzels' game, I have nightmares about it leaking out into other games. Not that I am against certain aspects (reduced performance from injured monsters for instance).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic.

Another major weakness that the Imperial Guard suffer from is the lack of mobility. Our transports are inherently expensive and have rather poor armour (yes, the Chimera has AV12 on its bow, but its flanks are only AV10, and the Taurox has less armour than a Rhino). They are also not viable with blobguard (why are you running it anyway) and full sized platoons can cost 270 minimal to mobilise (six Taurox) which leaves you with five sections and a command section mounte up in transports that will invariably not be there by the end of turn two, but hey, at least you have some mobility. This leaves Veterans as the only viable units to mount inside transports as they can have the suitability to be able to survive the inevitable dismounting they will suffer, as well as the Special Weapons allowance to be able to deal some damage when they get there. And you usually have less Veterans than units in a platoon, so....

Mobilising your Infantry also opens up another issue with the Guard, that of support. So, you have paid the ridiculously high cost and mounted your Veterans (why would you ever mount platoons?) within transports and you now have a few fast moving units that you can speed towards your objectives. BUT how are you going to support them? The bog standard support tank available to the guard is the Leman Russ, but this vehicle suffers from being classed as "Heavy" which is essentially nothing more than a nerf to any vehicle which is classified under its ponderous title. Your Veterans need some armoured support, but if you try to take advantage of the mobility you have spent good points on you will swiftly outrun your support units as they cannot move faster than 6" a turn, whilst your Chimera can go anything up to 18" (12" move plus 6" flatout move), meaning that your support is quickly left in the dust.
So, you need a support tank, but the only unit you can turn too is the Hellhound, which is a laughably overpriced junk tank with a short (pathetically so in the case of the Chem variant) range and an amazing armour of 12/12/10. So it costs as much as the far superior Leman Russ Eradicator (which does exactly the same job but better), but hey, at least it can actually keep pace with the Chimeras..... Until the enemy bothers to shoot it that is.

So, what can you do? If you want to run an "effective" army you have to bring foot units with armour support and pray that the enemy does not deepstrike, outflank or outshoot/run you, but you will be unable to move or react fast enough to claim the objectives, especially if you are playing Maelstrom (SchizophreniccommandersonLSDstrom), but if you do choose to pay for the laughably overpriced transports then you will struggle to support your Infantry units as they advance, and you will run the heavy (and very likely) risk of your Infantry being caught unsupported and wiped out.

Your only choice is to turn to the Imperial Armour books and bring Thunderer's and Laser destroyer's which are thankfully not (at least not yet) classified as "Heavy" (read "slow"), and these vehicles are both rather expensive for what they bring, especially the Laser Destroyer which is basically an Ordnance Lascannon mounted on a Leman Russ chassis. The Thunderer is not too bad though.

I find it rather interesting that an Imperial Guard player would complain about support being left in the dust, when you have all the longest range weapons in the game.

Also 12/12/10 is considered OP if you listen to the anti-Eldar crowd.
You should be happy that your tanks at least fit behind cover most of the time, including Aegis and footmen.

Lastly, transports are for elite armies, cheap footsloggers aren't worth the fuel required to bring them to destination safely.
In that sense, meltavets in whatever you transport them are perfectly fine.

But hey, I agree that in general, vehicles are in a horrible place right now, especially with that auto-hit rear armor thing, and that many vehicles should cost a good deal less, including for Astra Militarum.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It can't copy AoS exactly (too much wargear) but it can learn a lot from it.

AoS's damage charts and wounds/saves for tanks would be a big boon for starters.

Wargear is a joke excuse for them being unable to copy AoS. We're seeing a lot of squads with options there now(Liberators, for example).

Here's an AoS version of a Guard Squad:

An Imperial Guard Infantry Squad consists of 10 models. The Sergeant has a Laspistol and Close Combat Weapon, but can replace his Pistol with a different Ranged Weapon from the Ranged Weapon options and his Close Combat Weapon with a different Melee Weapon from the Melee Weapon options.
Two models from the Infantry Squad can be formed into a Heavy Weapons Team, selecting from the Heavy Weapons options.
One model from the Infantry Squad can take a Special Weapon from the Special Weapon options.
One model may be given a Vox-Caster.

Boom. Done, AoS'd. You can go a bit further even and have the Sergeant getting options for Carapace Armor and Refractor Fields, etc.

My Guard overhaul is still underway, with no real ETA as to when it's done. When it's done, it's done and I'll post it.

morgoth wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Hmm, as someone whom has played AoS and WHFB I can honestly say that whilst AoS makes for a great 'beer and pretzels' game, I have nightmares about it leaking out into other games. Not that I am against certain aspects (reduced performance from injured monsters for instance).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic.

Another major weakness that the Imperial Guard suffer from is the lack of mobility. Our transports are inherently expensive and have rather poor armour (yes, the Chimera has AV12 on its bow, but its flanks are only AV10, and the Taurox has less armour than a Rhino). They are also not viable with blobguard (why are you running it anyway) and full sized platoons can cost 270 minimal to mobilise (six Taurox) which leaves you with five sections and a command section mounte up in transports that will invariably not be there by the end of turn two, but hey, at least you have some mobility. This leaves Veterans as the only viable units to mount inside transports as they can have the suitability to be able to survive the inevitable dismounting they will suffer, as well as the Special Weapons allowance to be able to deal some damage when they get there. And you usually have less Veterans than units in a platoon, so....

Mobilising your Infantry also opens up another issue with the Guard, that of support. So, you have paid the ridiculously high cost and mounted your Veterans (why would you ever mount platoons?) within transports and you now have a few fast moving units that you can speed towards your objectives. BUT how are you going to support them? The bog standard support tank available to the guard is the Leman Russ, but this vehicle suffers from being classed as "Heavy" which is essentially nothing more than a nerf to any vehicle which is classified under its ponderous title. Your Veterans need some armoured support, but if you try to take advantage of the mobility you have spent good points on you will swiftly outrun your support units as they cannot move faster than 6" a turn, whilst your Chimera can go anything up to 18" (12" move plus 6" flatout move), meaning that your support is quickly left in the dust.
So, you need a support tank, but the only unit you can turn too is the Hellhound, which is a laughably overpriced junk tank with a short (pathetically so in the case of the Chem variant) range and an amazing armour of 12/12/10. So it costs as much as the far superior Leman Russ Eradicator (which does exactly the same job but better), but hey, at least it can actually keep pace with the Chimeras..... Until the enemy bothers to shoot it that is.

So, what can you do? If you want to run an "effective" army you have to bring foot units with armour support and pray that the enemy does not deepstrike, outflank or outshoot/run you, but you will be unable to move or react fast enough to claim the objectives, especially if you are playing Maelstrom (SchizophreniccommandersonLSDstrom), but if you do choose to pay for the laughably overpriced transports then you will struggle to support your Infantry units as they advance, and you will run the heavy (and very likely) risk of your Infantry being caught unsupported and wiped out.

Your only choice is to turn to the Imperial Armour books and bring Thunderer's and Laser destroyer's which are thankfully not (at least not yet) classified as "Heavy" (read "slow"), and these vehicles are both rather expensive for what they bring, especially the Laser Destroyer which is basically an Ordnance Lascannon mounted on a Leman Russ chassis. The Thunderer is not too bad though.

I find it rather interesting that an Imperial Guard player would complain about support being left in the dust, when you have all the longest range weapons in the game.

Also 12/12/10 is considered OP if you listen to the anti-Eldar crowd.
You should be happy that your tanks at least fit behind cover most of the time, including Aegis and footmen.

Lastly, transports are for elite armies, cheap footsloggers aren't worth the fuel required to bring them to destination safely.
In that sense, meltavets in whatever you transport them are perfectly fine.

But hey, I agree that in general, vehicles are in a horrible place right now, especially with that auto-hit rear armor thing, and that many vehicles should cost a good deal less, including for Astra Militarum.

No, we have ONE of the longest ranged weapons. And our Infantry need the support to be in an available position, not two miles back trying to fine a LoS across the board. in addition many of our support tanks (Eradicator, Demoliter, etc) have a short range, requiring them to waddle (or as close as a Tank can come to waddling) across the board before they can shoot.
Anyway, range is largely useless to us. Sure, our basilisk may be able to shoot 10 feet, but the board is only 6' by 4'.

AV 12/12/10 is OP on Eldar vehicles because they are also fast skimmers with invun saves, transport capacity and amazing levels of firepower on a chassis that is really quite cheap.

Transports are for ALL armies, not just the elite few whom get all the toys. And what if I want to do my Guard as an elite Heavy infantry mechanised platoon? or in a more practical sense, what if I want to grab the objectives for once, instead of inching across the board and trying not to die in vast numbers whilst I do so?

I agree with you on the last part though - hard not too really .

I'd personally use air cav to solve your issue. The Valkyrie is still quite affordable, and has decent firepower for the cost.

If I were building guard, I'd go blob/psyker/artillery/mech vet/air cav. I probably wouldn't have a single heavy tank, despite the history.

Whatever objective you are trying to take gets bombarded by wyverns followed up by the Valkyries before the troops even hit the ground. On a per pt basis, valkyries are far more durable than Stormravens and so are a very good troop mover.

"(why are you running it anyway)"

Because FRFSF is terrifying coming from 50 guardsmen on a target affected by misfortune. Blobs are why divination is literally 5 X better for guard than it is for marines. Actually more than 5X, because 4++ is better than the base guard save.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd personally use air cav to solve your issue. The Valkyrie is still quite affordable, and has decent firepower for the cost.

If I were building guard, I'd go blob/psyker/artillery/mech vet/air cav. I probably wouldn't have a single heavy tank, despite the history.

Whatever objective you are trying to take gets bombarded by wyverns followed up by the Valkyries before the troops even hit the ground. On a per pt basis, valkyries are far more durable than Stormravens and so are a very good troop mover.

"(why are you running it anyway)"

Because FRFSF is terrifying coming from 50 guardsmen on a target affected by misfortune. Blobs are why divination is literally 5 X better for guard than it is for marines. Actually more than 5X, because 4++ is better than the base guard save.

Even back in 5th I would rarely use the russ. I did for the first half of that edition until opponents started spamming broadsides.

Oh and don't forget the aegis line with commlink for your air cav.

CplPunishment wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd personally use air cav to solve your issue. The Valkyrie is still quite affordable, and has decent firepower for the cost.

If I were building guard, I'd go blob/psyker/artillery/mech vet/air cav. I probably wouldn't have a single heavy tank, despite the history.

Whatever objective you are trying to take gets bombarded by wyverns followed up by the Valkyries before the troops even hit the ground. On a per pt basis, valkyries are far more durable than Stormravens and so are a very good troop mover.

"(why are you running it anyway)"

Because FRFSF is terrifying coming from 50 guardsmen on a target affected by misfortune. Blobs are why divination is literally 5 X better for guard than it is for marines. Actually more than 5X, because 4++ is better than the base guard save.

Even back in 5th I would rarely use the russ. I did for the first half of that edition until opponents started spamming broadsides.

My lists tend to share a lot of the elements mentioned by Martel, but I still almost always use my Russes to decent effect. A blob buffed up with psychic and orders support can do a lot more heavy lifting than the opponent would expect, especially if you can keep it alive with that 4++; having 1 to 2 mech vet units and sticking a PCS in that borderline auto-include Vendetta do *enough* for mobility IMO; Wyverns are definitely auto-include and a Manticore might be nice situationally. But do you really want these things to get shot at right away? Artillery and mech vets are very easily killed, and a blob reduced to the size of regular units really loses its teeth, so why not offer a more tempting, yet fairly resilient choice of target to the enemy?

Enter the Russes. Except for D and Tau ignores LoS bull, AV 14 and side 13 is very tough. Given proper bubblewrap to prevent melta pods/melee and a source of improved cover saves, the Leman Russ can tank (APPLAUSE) quite a bit of incoming fire, at least much more than anything else we've got. Even regular battle cannons can be scary, so even without sinking lots of points into upgrades, they are certainly still a threat. They are also the largest non-flyer/non-superheavy models in the army. All of these traits put together, I argue, can make Russes the perfect distraction unit(s).

Pasknisher is another great use of the Russ, though for a very different reason. He is, of course, likely to draw a lot of fire, so I always pay for upgrades and support to up his durability, but that's because he can kill anything within 24", especially if you get the Ignores Cover divination power.

Of course, this is not claiming LRs are god-tier units in 40k, or even within the IG codex, but they are faaar from worthless.

In my experience, people just ignore the Russes in the shooting phase (unless they've got D weapons or some such thing) and kill them with assaults. Russes damage/pt is not that high in 7th ed.

Battle cannons are ignorable by most of the best units in the game now thanks to the magic of T5 and layered saves. The demolisher cannon is hands down better in most situations now. Instajibbing marines is a 5th ed thing.

"But do you really want these things to get shot at right away? "

You can't choose what your opponent shoots at. You can only choose what they assault. Me? I'm still gonna melta your Wyverns and Chimeras first.

Either that or they DS and assault unit or run it up in a landraider (difficult for Guard to pop) and wipe it out in assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Either that or they DS and assault unit or run it up in a landraider (difficult for Guard to pop) and wipe it out in assault.

No one any good uses land raiders.

Still better than a Leman Russ.

No, it's not. Not by a long shot.

 Melissia wrote:
Still better than a Leman Russ.

Man, now THAT'S a good joke.

Can we not derail into the "which unit is worse: Land Raider or Leman Russ" debate? Though it is interesting it seems like something for another thread, and this thread itself is interesting too.

The imperial guard are just far too diverse to adequately represent the many and varied regiments, along with their tactics and strategems. Games workshop is just not willing to put that many resources toward something that is not as important as space marines. Furthermore making the guard varied makes it harder to use them as a plot device for facless cannon fodder (which is all gw wants them to be.)

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The imperial guard are just far too diverse to adequately represent the many and varied regiments, along with their tactics and strategems. Games workshop is just not willing to put that many resources toward something that is not as important as space marines. Furthermore making the guard varied makes it harder to use them as a plot device for facless cannon fodder (which is all gw wants them to be.)

That more or less sums it up. The guard are one of many effective "NPC" factions in 40K that act as the backdrop for space marines to hog the limelight.

Which would have been fine, had GW not built and promoted armies for them, and established them purely as background chaff from the very beginning.

But they didn't, so now they've got to actually deal with it.

Hopefully Fall of Cadia gives them some sort of incentive to try and revamp the IG line, at least infantry wise.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
The imperial guard are just far too diverse to adequately represent the many and varied regiments, along with their tactics and strategems. Games workshop is just not willing to put that many resources toward something that is not as important as space marines. Furthermore making the guard varied makes it harder to use them as a plot device for facless cannon fodder (which is all gw wants them to be.)

I think representing the diversity of the guard, at least in the rules, could be pretty straightforward.

1) Players choose a specialty (mechanized, light infantry, heavy infantry, shock troopers, drop troopers, etc) which determines how available certain units are and what tactics are available.

2) Players choose training to grant special rules, squad specialists (scouts, snipers, medics), and additional orders for officers

3) Players choose specialty wargear (light carapace armor, camo cloaks, specialty lasgun variants, etc)

You could even have a system where you choose the planet of origin (hive world, fortress world, death world, industrial world, etc) which determine what levels of technology and training the regiment has access to.

Less developed worlds field cheap infantry with access to simple weapons like heavy stubbers and flamers, while more developed worlds field infantry with additional specialty wargear and advanced weapons like plasmaguns.

An issue holding the guard back is that GW thinks that only models make them a profit, and that to push the guards diversity they need dozens of new molds. I think this is ridiculous, and that a new infantry release that has enough customization options (a few styles of heads, chests, arms, and misc accessories) that players can make their armies feel even somewhat unique and fluffy would do a lot to help guard players out.

 Rav1rn wrote:
[snip]

... so basically like Only War's regiment creation?

Don't get me wrong, I don't disapprove-- it just ... struck me as VERY similar to how Only War did it.

 Melissia wrote:

 Rav1rn wrote:
[snip]

... so basically like Only War's regiment creation?

Don't get me wrong, I don't disapprove-- it just ... struck me as VERY similar to how Only War did it.

I didn't know Only War was a thing until I read your comment, but I'm glad to hear the people at FFG took a swing at the IG. I liked a lot of the ideas in the Deatwatch RPG, sounds like I need to pick up some of these books too.

 Grimskul wrote:
Hopefully Fall of Cadia gives them some sort of incentive to try and revamp the IG line, at least infantry wise.

Not sure if i understand you correctly, but if you mean with "revamp the IG line" how Guard armies are setup, then i still that IG detachment where you have to take at least 175 infantry models. That detachment gives no free stuff, so including some heavy weapons and you´re easily reaching the 1750 or 1850 points.
Furthermore it gives no boni to vehicle based armies.

So going from that formation Guard will be footslogging around.
IG Tank armies need a formation like the SM tank detachment.

If you mean the look of the models, then at least there are no sign of a redesign.

Firefox1 wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Hopefully Fall of Cadia gives them some sort of incentive to try and revamp the IG line, at least infantry wise.

Not sure if i understand you correctly, but if you mean with "revamp the IG line" how Guard armies are setup, then i still that IG detachment where you have to take at least 175 infantry models. That detachment gives no free stuff, so including some heavy weapons and you´re easily reaching the 1750 or 1850 points.
Furthermore it gives no boni to vehicle based armies.

Which once again basically leaves the IG as footslogging cannon fodder whom have no mobility.

@sledgehammer
Perfect, utterly perfect. you have hit the nail right on the head.

I still think Valkyries are pretty fast.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Actually, you can't. Try running any of the Tempestus formations without Commissars. You can't do it. You are REQUIRED to take Commissars in the flipping Militarum Tempestus formations.
Do you understand how ridiculous that is?!

Or try running the Ogryn Auxilia formation with just Bullgryn. You can't do it, because the designers of the formation apparently decided that they had to make the Guard formations "inclusive" of old stuff. Additionally, I'm actually a fan of the Ogryn/Bullgryn. If you want to design a "counterattack" unit for the Guard, that is where your focus should be. Not on the dead end that is Rough Riders.

Try running formation of IG troopers without sentinels.

Is there formation of just SM assault marines?

Funny thing is formations aren't SUPPOSED to have just what players want. That's the trade off you are supposed to pay for otherwise free bonuses.

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Actually, you can't. Try running any of the Tempestus formations without Commissars. You can't do it. You are REQUIRED to take Commissars in the flipping Militarum Tempestus formations.
Do you understand how ridiculous that is?!

Or try running the Ogryn Auxilia formation with just Bullgryn. You can't do it, because the designers of the formation apparently decided that they had to make the Guard formations "inclusive" of old stuff. Additionally, I'm actually a fan of the Ogryn/Bullgryn. If you want to design a "counterattack" unit for the Guard, that is where your focus should be. Not on the dead end that is Rough Riders.

Try running formation of IG troopers without sentinels.

Emperor's Blade Assault Company.

And honestly? Get over the Sentinel requirement. The thing to get irked about is the mandate of 5 "Infantry Squads" with no allowance for the Infantry, Heavy, or Special squads counting towards that requirement.

They had to pull the bundles down at launch and reword them because of that.

Is there formation of just SM assault marines?

Bladewing Assault Brotherhood.
2-4 Assault Squads, 1-3 Vanguard Veterans, Captain/Chaplain with Jump Packs.

So yeah. There is a formation of "just SM Assault Marines".

Funny thing is formations aren't SUPPOSED to have just what players want. That's the trade off you are supposed to pay for otherwise free bonuses.

The point. You missed it.

Commissars are not and should not have been required in the Tempestus Formations. They should have been an option, but not required. Since there is the whole "Tempestus Command Squad" thing.

CplPunishment wrote:
It sounds to me like Kanluwen thinks that codex: Astra Militarum should be codex: Cadians. I can't stress enough that all guard regiments do notoperate with the same tactics and wargear. Even the common lasgun is different from planet to planet.

It sounds to me like he's figured out that trying to fit dudes on horses into an army that fits with laser guns, artillery, and tanks is an amazing stupid concept that's only survived this long due to sheer inertia. I'm sure there was once a regiment that decided to go fight their battles from horseback. Emphasis on "was", because there is no way those stupid sods lived long enough to realize why that's a bad idea.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:
It sounds to me like Kanluwen thinks that codex: Astra Militarum should be codex: Cadians. I can't stress enough that all guard regiments do notoperate with the same tactics and wargear. Even the common lasgun is different from planet to planet.

It sounds to me like he's figured out that trying to fit dudes on horses into an army that fits with laser guns, artillery, and tanks is an amazing stupid concept that's only survived this long due to sheer inertia. I'm sure there was once a regiment that decided to go fight their battles from horseback. Emphasis on "was", because there is no way those stupid sods lived long enough to realize why that's a bad idea.

I am sorry guys, but I have to agree here. If there where feral/napoleonic/medieval esque regiments then sure, but in the current Guard codex no.
Now, if they actually gave us a diverse codex then that would be something else.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:
It sounds to me like Kanluwen thinks that codex: Astra Militarum should be codex: Cadians. I can't stress enough that all guard regiments do notoperate with the same tactics and wargear. Even the common lasgun is different from planet to planet.

It sounds to me like he's figured out that trying to fit dudes on horses into an army that fits with laser guns, artillery, and tanks is an amazing stupid concept that's only survived this long due to sheer inertia. I'm sure there was once a regiment that decided to go fight their battles from horseback. Emphasis on "was", because there is no way those stupid sods lived long enough to realize why that's a bad idea.

Death Korps of Krieg are still pretty much around, Tallarn Desert Raiders, and several others.

 Rav1rn wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Rav1rn wrote:
[snip]

... so basically like Only War's regiment creation?

Don't get me wrong, I don't disapprove-- it just ... struck me as VERY similar to how Only War did it.

I didn't know Only War was a thing until I read your comment, but I'm glad to hear the people at FFG took a swing at the IG. I liked a lot of the ideas in the Deatwatch RPG, sounds like I need to pick up some of these books too.

Only War did very similarly to what you described, yeah.

Cadia for example would be, copy-pasted from the pdf itself:
Home World: Fortress World
Commanding Officer: Fixed
Regiment Type: Mechanised Infantry
Doctrines: Close Order Drill, Iron Discipline

While Catachan would be
Home World: Death World
Commanding Officer: Maverick
Regiment Type: Light Infantry
Doctrines: Survivalists (Jungle)

And Elysians would be
Home World: Imperial World
Commanding Officer: Sanguine
Regiment Type: Drop Infantry
Doctrines: Iron Discipline, Demolitions

It is a solid system, and could easily be adopted by a codex.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Death Korps of Krieg are still pretty much around, Tallarn Desert Raiders, and several others.

As far as I know on the DKoK actually uses them in combat, and largely to demonstrate exactly why it's a bad idea to do so (it's kind of in the name).

That's not to say the IG as a whole has no use for horses of any kind. Perhaps they'd see use as a means to get people through places vehicles can't go or for a regiment that lacks them. But they'd be mounted infantry, not cavalry, and mounted infantry ditch the horses and fight on foot (which IIRC is how the Tallarn's use them). They simple do not fit the rest of the IG thematically. I only give a pass to the DKoK because I'm not too familiar with them beyond the fact they're tactics tend to lean toward "suicidal" being the good outcome, and even then I think they're still better know for siege warfare and mechanized units than cavalry.

I'm telling you; make sentinels our cavalry!

Doctrines making a return would also be great. I've tinkered with them before, and that system: regimental type (mechanised, air cav etc), special tactics (sharp shooters, jungle fighters etc) and special equipment (camo gear, carapace armour etc) would be the best way to do it.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:
It sounds to me like Kanluwen thinks that codex: Astra Militarum should be codex: Cadians. I can't stress enough that all guard regiments do notoperate with the same tactics and wargear. Even the common lasgun is different from planet to planet.

It sounds to me like he's figured out that trying to fit dudes on horses into an army that fits with laser guns, artillery, and tanks is an amazing stupid concept that's only survived this long due to sheer inertia. I'm sure there was once a regiment that decided to go fight their battles from horseback. Emphasis on "was", because there is no way those stupid sods lived long enough to realize why that's a bad idea.

Since when did the 40k universe make any kind of sense? Close Combat is heavily emphasized in a game taking place 38k+ years in the future. I could just as easily ask why a soldier with a laser pistol is also issued a glorified chainsaw. Why is solid-slug ammo still used? 40k isn't supposed to make sense. It's supposed to be off the wall, brutal and awesome. If you can't handle such oddities, perhaps 40k is not the game for you.

I guess the definition of what is awesome is different to everyone.

And just because there are elements I don't like in 40k (melee, orks, god-marines for me) doesn't mean I can't enjoy the rest of the setting

CplPunishment wrote:
Since when did the 40k universe make any kind of sense? Close Combat is heavily emphasized in a game taking place 38k+ years in the future. I could just as easily ask why a soldier with a laser pistol is also issued a glorified chainsaw. Why is solid-slug ammo still used? 40k isn't supposed to make sense. It's supposed to be off the wall, brutal and awesome. If you can't handle such oddities, perhaps 40k is not the game for you.

It's supposed to make sense since forever/2nd edition. You might notice that all those awesome CC units have at least some kind of (sometimes thin) justification for how they're able to pull that off. Inhuman biology, power armor, teleportation to close the distance, ect. Rough riders....do not have that, nor do they have any thematic or stylistic connection to the rest of their army. "It's supposed to be nonsense" isn't a good defense when the vast majority of 40k is in fact not nonsense. It used to be deliberately over the top and exaggerated, but that hasn't been the case since sometime in the 90s. And even then, rough riders still wouldn't have made sense in that context. They're in the game because 40 used to be WHFB in space, not because they ever made any kind of sense as part of 40k.

And IG officers have chainswords for the same reasons officers have always had swords, they're a symbol of rank and status. That doesn't mean they're supposed to actually use them. "Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword" is supposed to be joke, not SOP. Projectile weapons are still used because not everyone can make lasguns/in some cases they're logistically easier/volkite weapons are lostech and too expensive even when they were available.

 Bobthehero wrote:
I guess the definition of what is awesome is different to everyone.

And just because there are elements I don't like in 40k (melee, orks, god-marines for me) doesn't mean I can't enjoy the rest of the setting

It's not that they're not awesome, it's that they simply don't work on any level. They don't fill any need in the IG codex, they don't fit the theme of the setting very well (if used in the way the tabletop presents them), and 40k needs to be able to ditch legacy elements that simple don't work anymore (or in some cases that never worked).

 Bobthehero wrote:
I guess the definition of what is awesome is different to everyone.

And just because there are elements I don't like in 40k (melee, orks, god-marines for me) doesn't mean I can't enjoy the rest of the setting

Exactly.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

It's not that they're not awesome, it's that they simply don't work on any level. They don't fill any need in the IG codex, they don't fit the theme of the setting very well (if used in the way the tabletop presents them), and 40k needs to be able to ditch legacy elements that simple don't work anymore (or in some cases that never worked).

Well, Roughriders actually did work on at least one level in previous editions. Keep them in Reserves and they made a good one-shot counter-assault unit because back then, we could still assault on the turn we arrived from Reserves. Yeah, they were useless after that one punch or if they came in too early but that's a chance you take.

I wish they would remove horses from 40k. It's really sad that any players at all are against their removal.m and I hope that doesn't give any codex writer second thoughts.

Honestly I don't care much either way about rough riders, I'm never gonna use them and think they're dumb but whatever-- if people want them they can have them.

I would vastly prefer guard bikers to rough riders if they were an option without having to do a lot of converting, though. Especially if they can be attached to a platoon.

 don_mondo wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:

It's not that they're not awesome, it's that they simply don't work on any level. They don't fill any need in the IG codex, they don't fit the theme of the setting very well (if used in the way the tabletop presents them), and 40k needs to be able to ditch legacy elements that simple don't work anymore (or in some cases that never worked).

Well, Roughriders actually did work on at least one level in previous editions. Keep them in Reserves and they made a good one-shot counter-assault unit because back then, we could still assault on the turn we arrived from Reserves. Yeah, they were useless after that one punch or if they came in too early but that's a chance you take.

In fourth edition, it was also a lot easier to screen troops with vehicles or area terrain. Fragile units could be kept hidden, and with Rough Riders long charge range, they could strike where needed.

Another thing to keep in mind is that with the switch to preventing victorious squads from consolidating into a fresh squad (IIRC, this was in 5th) it eliminated the need for counter assault units to, themselves, also be assault units. What I mean is that before, a squad could win in combat, and consolidate into another squad, locking them into combat and precluding shooting. Now, you can use short range shooting units (PCS with four flamers, say?) to hit a unit that just won a combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
I wish they would remove horses from 40k. It's really sad that any players at all are against their removal.m and I hope that doesn't give any codex writer second thoughts.

Horses are dumb in a setting with machine guns, but so are swords.

The fact that an ork mob can charge directly at a devastator squad armed with all heavy bolters, and not be shredded instantly, shows that damage in the 40k universe doesn't work like it does in ours. Virtually everything is tougher than it would be, given the in world description of weapons. A heavy stubber is basically a 20th century heavy machine gun, and when shot by trained human soldiers at other trained human soldiers, it will cause, on average, one casualty per turn. A squad that starts outside of it's range that moves and runs until it's within assault range can reach it in four turns (6" move and 3.5" run for three turns, 6" move and a trivial charge). This means that a squad that moves from outside of range, and runs straight towards a heavy machine gun, will lose four squad members, total. That's obviously ludicrous.

In a setting where you can charge directly at heavy machine guns successfully, horses clearly have a place. It wasn't trucks that put horses out of business, it was the machine gun. They're big dumb targets, but since everything is super tough in 40k, they make sense.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:
Since when did the 40k universe make any kind of sense? Close Combat is heavily emphasized in a game taking place 38k+ years in the future. I could just as easily ask why a soldier with a laser pistol is also issued a glorified chainsaw. Why is solid-slug ammo still used? 40k isn't supposed to make sense. It's supposed to be off the wall, brutal and awesome. If you can't handle such oddities, perhaps 40k is not the game for you.

It's supposed to make sense since forever/2nd edition. You might notice that all those awesome CC units have at least some kind of (sometimes thin) justification for how they're able to pull that off. Inhuman biology, power armor, teleportation to close the distance, ect. Rough riders....do not have that, nor do they have any thematic or stylistic connection to the rest of their army. "It's supposed to be nonsense" isn't a good defense when the vast majority of 40k is in fact not nonsense. It used to be deliberately over the top and exaggerated, but that hasn't been the case since sometime in the 90s. And even then, rough riders still wouldn't have made sense in that context. They're in the game because 40 used to be WHFB in space, not because they ever made any kind of sense as part of 40k.

And IG officers have chainswords for the same reasons officers have always had swords, they're a symbol of rank and status. That doesn't mean they're supposed to actually use them. "Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword" is supposed to be joke, not SOP. Projectile weapons are still used because not everyone can make lasguns/in some cases they're logistically easier/volkite weapons are lostech and too expensive even when they were available.

 Bobthehero wrote:
I guess the definition of what is awesome is different to everyone.

And just because there are elements I don't like in 40k (melee, orks, god-marines for me) doesn't mean I can't enjoy the rest of the setting

It's not that they're not awesome, it's that they simply don't work on any level. They don't fill any need in the IG codex, they don't fit the theme of the setting very well (if used in the way the tabletop presents them), and 40k needs to be able to ditch legacy elements that simple don't work anymore (or in some cases that never worked).

Sorry, 40k still requires A LOT of suspension of disbelief, even with their "rationalizations".

Correction: rough riders don't fit thematically with YOUR preferred guard army (though it may shock you to know that there are people who play the same army as you and disagree), but they would fit nicely with Tallarns, praetorians, death corps, Drookian fen guard and more. You probably like vanilla guard. That's fine, but not an excuse to burn the spice rack so that everybody can be forced to see why vanilla is "so good that any other flavor just takes up space that could be moar vanilla". If you want to "make vanilla great again", go for it. But keep in mind that it isnot codex: cadians. It is Codex "Astra Militarum" or "Imperial Guard", and the most appealing thing about the faction has always been that you can really make it feel like your own. It wasn't until homogenization went rampant in 5th/6th that this notion of "there can only be ONE way yo Imperial Guard!" really became common.

Horses are dumb in a setting with machine guns, but so are swords.

Not arguing for or against Rough Riders.. But people still used horses from WW1, WW2, and today's modern combats despite the invention of the Machine Gun.

And would probably be better used in more varied contexts then bikers.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Horses are dumb in a setting with machine guns, but so are swords.

Not arguing for or against Rough Riders.. But people still used horses from WW1, WW2, and today's modern combats despite the invention of the Machine Gun.

And would probably be better used in more varied contexts then bikers.

Yes, horses are used, but mostly outside of combat, aside from situations where there were minimal rapid fire weapons. The German and Soviet armies were mostly horse drawn in WWII, and both fielded cavalry regiments, but they were used mostly for anti-partisan work or as mobile infantry, much like the famed Polish Cavalry. One reason the UK and USA didn't use horses at all was because of the Universal Carrier and Jeep, which allowed those nations to replace horses as prime movers in rough terrain (and both used mules in the jungle warfare).

The reality is that shock cavalry was still a critical part of warfare deep into the 19th century, but by the US Civil War, cavalry was almost never used in a shock role. The reason was that by the 1860s, infantry had access to reliable, long range, accurate fire power. Even at three shots per minute, a unit of riflemen could destroy a cavalry charge.

So, yes, horses are used in modern combat, in the same way that trucks are, and both are equally unlikely to be represented with models in 40k. Rough Riders, for good or bad, are shock cavalry that are meant to charge with lances. But... as I argued above, the reason that cavalry charges stopped in our universe clearly isn't as big of a deal in the 40k universe.

 Polonius wrote:
Horses are dumb in a setting with machine guns, but so are swords.

And yet the military forces of the past (from which the IG draws a lot of thematic and tactical elements!) used both anyways.

I'm not going to assert that in WW1 cavalry were common, that they were consistently effective or that they remained useful long afterwards, but there they were. And if several major regiments of our army were deliberately designed to resemble military forces of this era, why deny players any kind of opportunity to recreate this on the tabletop? Just because you surely wouldn't put them in your tournament level lists does not mean that all players should never be allowed to use them "because it's dumb." Logic like that doesn't care one bit about diversity in the model range, which is only going to hurt those who enjoy simply painting unique and interesting models or like to put a couple fluffy units in their armies for the cinematic feel of their games. Jeez, it's not like having fluffy if fairly ineffective units in a Codex is preventing new units from being added, like there's some sort of strict page limit. Just tweak them enough that they're not worthless and let them stay, then they'll occasionally see use like the historical era from which our whole army is heavily derived.

I don't really find this argument at all engaging. There's room in the "rough riders" category for both bikes and horses. But as they are right now, "rough riders" suck and take up a fast attack spot that is better used by something else. So they need a revamping. And honestly it'd be really cool if GW produced a guard biker model to go alongside the horse model.

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Horses are dumb in a setting with machine guns, but so are swords.

And yet the military forces of the past (from which the IG draws a lot of thematic and tactical elements!) used both anyways.

I'm not going to assert that in WW1 cavalry were common, that they were consistently effective or that they remained useful long afterwards, but there they were. And if several major regiments of our army were deliberately designed to resemble military forces of this era, why deny players any kind of opportunity to recreate this on the tabletop? Just because you surely wouldn't put them in your tournament level lists does not mean that all players should never be allowed to use them "because it's dumb." Logic like that doesn't care one bit about diversity in the model range, which is only going to hurt those who enjoy simply painting unique and interesting models or like to put a couple fluffy units in their armies for the cinematic feel of their games. Jeez, it's not like having fluffy if fairly ineffective units in a Codex is preventing new units from being added, like there's some sort of strict page limit. Just tweak them enough that they're not worthless and let them stay, then they'll occasionally see use like the historical era from which our whole army is heavily derived.

Oh, I agree. I'm not sure if you read the rest of my post, but 40k follows a pretty clear "rule of cool." I think in most people's head canon, 40k battles are closer to the Western Front of WW1 than anything else, which is famously a conflict where the drawbacks of shock cavalry in modern warfare were very, very clear.

My point was that trying to point to one thing as say "this doesn't make sense in a world where spaceships take the shortcut through hell" is a ridiculous exercise.

 Melissia wrote:
Honestly I don't care much either way about rough riders, I'm never gonna use them and think they're dumb but whatever-- if people want them they can have them.

I would vastly prefer guard bikers to rough riders if they were an option without having to do a lot of converting, though. Especially if they can be attached to a platoon.

*If* they do release new sculpts, I hope they put them on dirtbikes and give them unit type: cavalry. Give them a choice between the traditional wargear or something new snd useful (a la ogryns/bullgryns), give them scout again and viola, everybody is happy. BOOM.

CplPunishment wrote:

Sorry, 40k still requires A LOT of suspension of disbelief, even with their "rationalizations".

Correction: rough riders don't fit thematically with YOUR preferred guard army (though it may shock you to know that there are people who play the same army as you and disagree), but they would fit nicely with Tallarns, praetorians, death corps, Drookian fen guard and more.

Actually, it would not "fit nicely" with Tallarn or Praetorians.

Tallarn, with the Taros Campaign, got a special Rough Riders unit as part of their army list--replacing the "standard" Rough Rider unit. They started with horses and could get upgraded to Mukaali at 5ppm(All of the scenarios required the Mukaali as they are more "thematic" for the Tallarn Desert Raiders). Mukaali gave the Riders +1T.

Those weren't horses. They were xeno mounts that came from a desert environment, shipped in for the Tallarn for long-ranged reconnaissance patrols. And guess what else the Tallarn brought with them?
Sentinels, tanks, and artillery. Hell, there was an entire Tallarn Armoured Regiment that came alongside the stereotypical "raider" regiment.
It's also worth noting that Tallarn Rough Rider Squadrons(and Rough Rider Squadrons in general at the time of the Doctrines book) did not get lances as standard. They had Laspistols and CCW, with lances as a purchased option.

Nothing I have handy regarding Praetorians indicates that they have any real "fit" with Rough Riders, aside from there having been models at one point. Which means diddly since I can't verify if those were in fact a kit or a conversion.

You probably like vanilla guard. That's fine, but not an excuse to burn the spice rack so that everybody can be forced to see why vanilla is "so good that any other flavor just takes up space that could be moar vanilla". If you want to "make vanilla great again", go for it. But keep in mind that it is not codex: cadians. It is Codex "Astra Militarum" or "Imperial Guard", and the most appealing thing about the faction has always been that you can really make it feel like your own. It wasn't until homogenization went rampant in 5th/6th that this notion of "there can only be ONE way yo Imperial Guard!" really became common.

It's not Codex: Tallarn, Praetorian, Death Korps, Drookian Fen Guard, or "more" either.

There is literally nothing stopping you from "making it your own" still with the removal of some of these things. It's just you being bitter about having "lost" money on a few units. It's not like there are, in the book, formations of Ratlings or Rough Riders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CplPunishment wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Honestly I don't care much either way about rough riders, I'm never gonna use them and think they're dumb but whatever-- if people want them they can have them.

I would vastly prefer guard bikers to rough riders if they were an option without having to do a lot of converting, though. Especially if they can be attached to a platoon.

*If* they do release new sculpts, I hope they put them on dirtbikes and give them unit type: cavalry. Give them a choice between the traditional wargear or something new snd useful (a la ogryns/bullgryns), give them scout again and viola, everybody is happy. BOOM.

Let's make Space Marine Bikers Unit Type: Cavalry too.

No. If they release Bikes, they get unit type: Bike. It would be ridiculous to give them Unit Type: Cavalry when it's Bikes.

Polonius wrote:Horses are dumb in a setting with machine guns, but so are swords.

The fact that an ork mob can charge directly at a devastator squad armed with all heavy bolters, and not be shredded instantly, shows that damage in the 40k universe doesn't work like it does in ours. Virtually everything is tougher than it would be, given the in world description of weapons. A heavy stubber is basically a 20th century heavy machine gun, and when shot by trained human soldiers at other trained human soldiers, it will cause, on average, one casualty per turn. A squad that starts outside of it's range that moves and runs until it's within assault range can reach it in four turns (6" move and 3.5" run for three turns, 6" move and a trivial charge). This means that a squad that moves from outside of range, and runs straight towards a heavy machine gun, will lose four squad members, total. That's obviously ludicrous.

In a setting where you can charge directly at heavy machine guns successfully, horses clearly have a place. It wasn't trucks that put horses out of business, it was the machine gun. They're big dumb targets, but since everything is super tough in 40k, they make sense.

Eh....you can charge heavy stubbers and pull it off in game, sure. I doubt that would happen in the fluff (since real machine guns fire more than three shots), or that it would work on any similar weapon, since most of them would have better AP. Or if that stubber had the rest of the squad it was attached to nearby. You in fact can't charge that HMG successfully. Let alone heavy bolter, burst cannon, or Shuriken cannons.

CplPunishment wrote:
Sorry, 40k still requires A LOT of suspension of disbelief, even with their "rationalizations".

Correction: rough riders don't fit thematically with YOUR preferred guard army (though it may shock you to know that there are people who play the same army as you and disagree), but they would fit nicely with Tallarns, praetorians, death corps, Drookian fen guard and more. You probably like vanilla guard. That's fine, but not an excuse to burn the spice rack so that everybody can be forced to see why vanilla is "so good that any other flavor just takes up space that could be moar vanilla". If you want to "make vanilla great again", go for it. But keep in mind that it isnot codex: cadians. It is Codex "Astra Militarum" or "Imperial Guard", and the most appealing thing about the faction has always been that you can really make it feel like your own. It wasn't until homogenization went rampant in 5th/6th that this notion of "there can only be ONE way yo Imperial Guard!" really became common.

The issue isn't that rough riders must go to make everything vanilla (and for reference I'm working on building some warhawks). The issue is they're emblematic of the obsession with fitting legacy units into any codex, no matter the cost. Ask marine players how well that policy worked out for terminators. There needs to be a reason to keep Riders or whatever in, aside from "because personalizing". We might as well just make unbound the default setup if that's the plan, maybe ditch the allies rules and factions entirely. That way everyone can make there very own special snowflake army of their very own.

Or we can be a little more reasonable, and realize that even with some degree of customization (which sure, might come back with 8th edition, but we both know how likely that's going to be), we still have to have some limits, and if a unit isn't worth it, it doesn't get to stick around forever and ever just because. Particularly when it's the odd man out in the codex (at least the Tau have reasons for kroot units still hanging around, even if they're only marginally better than riders). A CC cavalry unit simply does not work with the rest of the IG codex, period. Maybe they could be retooled into something like those WW2 german attack bikes or something, but that's not what rough riders are supposed to be and it's a filling a role the IG already has covered.

ZebioLizard2 wrote: Not arguing for or against Rough Riders.. But people still used horses from WW1, WW2, and today's modern combats despite the invention of the Machine Gun.

And would probably be better used in more varied contexts then bikers.

I would note they were used in the same way I noted, as scouts and with mounted infantry. Not frontline cavalry charging into machine gun nests. Because that's just as suicidal in real life as it is in 40k.

Again, sentinels.

Also, if the IG were to acquire bikes, maybe they should go to the scions? Maybe they don't need to be bikes. They could be something like this:



A smaller cousin to the Taurox?

 Melissia wrote:
I don't really find this argument at all engaging. There's room in the "rough riders" category for both bikes and horses. But as they are right now, "rough riders" suck and take up a fast attack spot that is better used by something else. So they need a revamping. And honestly it'd be really cool if GW produced a guard biker model to go alongside the horse model.

At this point, nearly every unit the IG codex sucks and takes up a slot that could be better used. I've been playing IG since 3rd edition, and I've rarely included any Elites choices in any army. Our current Fast Attacks range from the Vendetta (good but costs full retail) through the hellhound chassis tanks (fun but flawed) through two kinds of underwhelming sentinels, and then bottoms out with Rough Riders. Even heavy support includes a few duds (Hydra, and lets be honest, the LRBT ain't winning us games).

If they drop it in favor of some sort of bike squad, that's fine. I'm not attached or anything, but GW only rarely eliminates long standing units that have models. Squats, famously in 3rd edition, along with Harlequins. The Griffon, Exterminator, and Vanquisher from the 3rd to 4th edition IG codex (which were still playable with FW rules at least). Plenty of characters, and more than few things that never had models, but if a unit was in multiple codices and had a model, being eliminated is a bit rare. The best precedent is probably the Griffon Mortar, which was in the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th edition codices, and had a hybrid plastic/metal kit in 2nd & 3rd, and a FW kit after that. It's still on the outside looking in (although I have zero shame using mine as a Wyvvern).

I have almost 30 Rough Riders, but I have almost 30 of nearly everything IG, and I haven't used them at all since early 5th edition. Squatting them would bum me out, but if they dont' feel like replacing the models (a bad sign) and can't come up with interesting rules... they might get the ax.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Again, sentinels.

Also, if the IG were to acquire bikes, maybe they should go to the scions? Maybe they don't need to be bikes. They could be something like this:



A smaller cousin to the Taurox?

Have you ever seen a Taurox? It's not that big.

Also, that already exists. Hell it existed before the Taurox.

Bonus points, there was a "guntruck" variant.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Again, sentinels.

Also, if the IG were to acquire bikes, maybe they should go to the scions? Maybe they don't need to be bikes. They could be something like this:



A smaller cousin to the Taurox?

The issue is those aren't rough riders, which seems to be what people want. No one's been asking that the IG get some kind of fast moving light vehicle for harassment and scouting (or even an IG version of a SM attack bike). They want dudes with lances and sabers, a tactical style that was suicidal back in WW1. As KommissarKiln said, they were used back then. As he didn't note, they were used for an extremely short time back then because they were not tactically effective. They could scout, they could carry infantry, they could haul supplies around. They could not engage enemy forces effectively and win, and in 40k they still can't.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Actually, it would not "fit nicely" with Tallarn or Praetorians.

Tallarn, with the Taros Campaign, got a special Rough Riders unit as part of their army list--replacing the "standard" Rough Rider unit. They started with horses and could get upgraded to Mukaali at 5ppm(All of the scenarios required the Mukaali as they are more "thematic" for the Tallarn Desert Raiders). Mukaali gave the Riders +1T.

Those weren't horses. They were xeno mounts that came from a desert environment, shipped in for the Tallarn for long-ranged reconnaissance patrols. And guess what else the Tallarn brought with them?
Sentinels, tanks, and artillery. Hell, there was an entire Tallarn Armoured Regiment that came alongside the stereotypical "raider" regiment.
It's also worth noting that Tallarn Rough Rider Squadrons(and Rough Rider Squadrons in general at the time of the Doctrines book) did not get lances as standard. They had Laspistols and CCW, with lances as a purchased option.

Nothing I have handy regarding Praetorians indicates that they have any real "fit" with Rough Riders, aside from there having been models at one point. Which means diddly since I can't verify if those were in fact a kit or a conversion.

Praetorians never had models for cavalry, but there are a variety of conversions and kits available.

They definitely made Tallarn rough Riders with lances. There is no regiment well defined enough, aside from cadian and catachan, to really speak authoritatively about what is, or isn't, a good fit for that regiment. The Tallarn infantry were marketed as desert raiders, but in the fluff they are famous for armoured regiments.

Really, IG get whatever GW thinks is cool when they start making models, which is why we have the Taurox, a piece of kit that nobody asked for or wanted. Space Marines keep finding gear that has never been mentioned, like Centurion armor or Stormravens. So, we probably should not get too vehement about what does, or doesn't, make sense to include in the Imperial Guard, which is defined mostly by it's bewildering diversity.

No. If they release Bikes, they get unit type: Bike. It would be ridiculous to give them Unit Type: Cavalry when it's Bikes.

Is there even that big a different anymore?

I'm still baffled this conversation is taking place when we have Motor Cycle Assault Units, Horses charging into combat is off but people riding Harleys into melee combat with swords and two handed weapons is okay?

Priorities with peoples suspension of belief here.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

Or we can be a little more reasonable, and realize that even with some degree of customization (which sure, might come back with 8th edition, but we both know how likely that's going to be), we still have to have some limits, and if a unit isn't worth it, it doesn't get to stick around forever and ever just because. Particularly when it's the odd man out in the codex (at least the Tau have reasons for kroot units still hanging around, even if they're only marginally better than riders). A CC cavalry unit simply does not work with the rest of the IG codex, period. Maybe they could be retooled into something like those WW2 german attack bikes or something, but that's not what rough riders are supposed to be and it's a filling a role the IG already has covered.

It's worth noting as well that the Kroot units "still hanging around" aren't just filling up all the slots they used to. Krootox used to be Heavy Support, Hounds were Fast Attacks, and Shapers were HQs.

Now they're all in a single unit.

ZebioLizard2 wrote: Not arguing for or against Rough Riders.. But people still used horses from WW1, WW2, and today's modern combats despite the invention of the Machine Gun.

And would probably be better used in more varied contexts then bikers.

I would note they were used in the same way I noted, as scouts and with mounted infantry. Not frontline cavalry charging into machine gun nests. Because that's just as suicidal in real life as it is in 40k.

People see the photos of special forces in Iraq/Afghanistan with horses and immediately assume them to be combat.

There was a cavalry charge in Afghanistan in November of 2001. It happened when Afghani tribesmen from the Northern Alliance misunderstood the American SF call to "stand by for attack" while the B52s called in softened up a Taliban held village with poorly constructed trench lines and a few sandbagged strongpoints with a pair of T55s dug into hulldown positions.

One of the Afghani lieutenants thought it meant to attack then, and the Northern Alliance guys charged right into the teeth of the B52 bombing run. They were firing their AKs, resting them on their arms while holding the reins, the whole time. When the NA charge hit, the defenders were overran.

Not because of the cavalry. Because of the rain of steel from the B52s.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I'm still baffled this conversation is taking place when we have Motor Cycle Assault Units, Horses charging into combat is off but people riding Harleys into melee combat with swords and two handed weapons is okay?

Priorities with peoples suspension of belief here.

That's kind of the exact issue. Marines have superhuman biology (as do orks), powered armor, bikes and not horses....and even so they were iffy up until 6th edition have them grav guns and WS chapter tactics, with every guide I'm aware saying to keep them out of CC and that their best use is as highly mobile skimisher units. And people are wanting guardsman on horses to be a better assault unit than space marines, which is problematic on both a gameplay level and a thematic one.

 Melissia wrote:
I don't really find this argument at all engaging. There's room in the "rough riders" category for both bikes and horses. But as they are right now, "rough riders" suck and take up a fast attack spot that is better used by something else. So they need a revamping. And honestly it'd be really cool if GW produced a guard biker model to go alongside the horse model.

Alternatively, tweek the units to represent non-horsey mounts like cyboars or machines (including motorcycles).

Having been raised on a motorcycle, the concept is pretty stupid though.

How about a new unit-holy warriors (or e better name for such). They have been blessed by the Spazz EMprah akin to nuns with guns and get some of those benefits - +1 to hit against chaos / demons, +1 armor save or similar.

 Polonius wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Actually, it would not "fit nicely" with Tallarn or Praetorians.

Tallarn, with the Taros Campaign, got a special Rough Riders unit as part of their army list--replacing the "standard" Rough Rider unit. They started with horses and could get upgraded to Mukaali at 5ppm(All of the scenarios required the Mukaali as they are more "thematic" for the Tallarn Desert Raiders). Mukaali gave the Riders +1T.

Those weren't horses. They were xeno mounts that came from a desert environment, shipped in for the Tallarn for long-ranged reconnaissance patrols. And guess what else the Tallarn brought with them?
Sentinels, tanks, and artillery. Hell, there was an entire Tallarn Armoured Regiment that came alongside the stereotypical "raider" regiment.
It's also worth noting that Tallarn Rough Rider Squadrons(and Rough Rider Squadrons in general at the time of the Doctrines book) did not get lances as standard. They had Laspistols and CCW, with lances as a purchased option.

Nothing I have handy regarding Praetorians indicates that they have any real "fit" with Rough Riders, aside from there having been models at one point. Which means diddly since I can't verify if those were in fact a kit or a conversion.

Praetorians never had models for cavalry, but there are a variety of conversions and kits available.

They definitely made Tallarn rough Riders with lances. There is no regiment well defined enough, aside from cadian and catachan, to really speak authoritatively about what is, or isn't, a good fit for that regiment. The Tallarn infantry were marketed as desert raiders, but in the fluff they are famous for armoured regiments.

Well yeah, they're famous for Armoured Regiments because of the circumstances of their planet. It's a barren hellscape, where armoured vehicles are a common thing for moving around. Same with the whole "desert raider" bit, as they're noted for being able to eke out survival in that kind of environment.

Really, IG get whatever GW thinks is cool when they start making models, which is why we have the Taurox, a piece of kit that nobody asked for or wanted. Space Marines keep finding gear that has never been mentioned, like Centurion armor or Stormravens. So, we probably should not get too vehement about what does, or doesn't, make sense to include in the Imperial Guard, which is defined mostly by it's bewildering diversity.

Fair enough. But it's worth mentioning that, as it stands right now, there are so many existing options that can be brought over from FW that would be so much better than just carrying along the dead weight that is, in my opinion, Rough Riders.

No. If they release Bikes, they get unit type: Bike. It would be ridiculous to give them Unit Type: Cavalry when it's Bikes.

Is there even that big a different anymore?

It's a pretty big difference, yeah.

Bikes get +1 Toughness(included in the profile of Bike units if it's part of their basic profile). Bikes cannot Go to Ground or be Pinned, and have Hammer of Wrath, Jink, Relentless, and Very Bulky. They can also Turbo-Boost, allowing them to move 12" during the Shooting phase(in addition to their basic 12" Move in the Movement phase). They can't Charge if they do so.

Cavalry get 12" Move, not slowed by Difficult Terrain(even when Charging) but treat all Difficult Terrain as Dangerous. They move 3D6" Falling Back and get Fleet and Hammer of Wrath.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I'm still baffled this conversation is taking place when we have Motor Cycle Assault Units, Horses charging into combat is off but people riding Harleys into melee combat with swords and two handed weapons is okay?

Priorities with peoples suspension of belief here.

That's kind of the exact issue. Marines have superhuman biology (as do orks), powered armor, bikes and not horses....and even so they were iffy up until 6th edition have them grav guns and WS chapter tactics, with every guide I'm aware saying to keep them out of CC and that their best use is as highly mobile skimisher units. And people are wanting guardsman on horses to be a better assault unit than space marines, which is problematic on both a gameplay level and a thematic one.

I play Chaos, Nurgle Bikers want to get stuck in!

Though I wonder how people would feel if Rough Riders were primarily made a scout unit, granting a bonus to units/Vehicles with Vox when they are within X inches of an enemy unit, and maybe being granted Counter-Charge where they can charge a unit that's assaulting IG units when they are equipped with Hunting Lances.

@ Kanluwen

Yes I have seen a Taurox. I own two of them. And while they aren't that big they're still bigger than what I was aiming for. As are the two FW Tauros models.

I also really don't appreciate the attitude by the way.

 Polonius wrote:
Oh, I agree. I'm not sure if you read the rest of my post, but 40k follows a pretty clear "rule of cool." I think in most people's head canon, 40k battles are closer to the Western Front of WW1 than anything else, which is famously a conflict where the drawbacks of shock cavalry in modern warfare were very, very clear.

My point was that trying to point to one thing as say "this doesn't make sense in a world where spaceships take the shortcut through hell" is a ridiculous exercise.

It appears that I had misread or misinterpreted your points, so apologies for that.

I do disagree with Battlegrinder's notion that units don't have a place in a Codex due to not having good rules or statlines. Like you said, the logic being applied to rough riders could just as easily be applied to terminators, so why not axe them, too? Just because units have been consistently poorly performing in game does not mean they should be disqualified from getting improvements that they need. Honestly, if they could at least be mildly adequate, I'd use them, probably a lot, like I do with Sentinels, Bullgryns, or the occasional Deathstrike, units that will rarely, if ever, see high level play as they currently are, but are great units to have available and expand the fluff nonetheless.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:I play Chaos, Nurgle Bikers want to get stuck in!

Though I wonder how people would feel if Rough Riders were primarily made a scout unit, granting a bonus to units/Vehicles with Vox when they are within X inches of an enemy unit, and maybe being granted Counter-Charge where they can charge a unit that's assaulting IG units when they are equipped with Hunting Lances.

I suspect it would involve Tau players calling them a rip-off of pathfinders. So obviously we should do that ASAP

KommissarKiln wrote:It appears that I had misread or misinterpreted your points, so apologies for that.

I do disagree with Battlegrinder's notion that units don't have a place in a Codex due to not having good rules or statlines. Like you said, the logic being applied to rough riders could just as easily be applied to terminators, so why not axe them, too? Just because units have been consistently poorly performing in game does not mean they should be disqualified from getting improvements that they need. Honestly, if they could at least be mildly adequate, I'd use them, probably a lot, like I do with Sentinels, Bullgryns, or the occasional Deathstrike, units that will rarely, if ever, see high level play as they currently are, but are great units to have available and expand the fluff nonetheless.

Ever seen one of Martel's complaints about terminators? I'm inclined to think he's taken the competitive mindset to a bit of an extreme at times, but he's not wrong to point out that issues with terminators are much greater than some issue with having bad rules.

I would again point out that marine bikes, with all their advantages over guardsman and horses, were until recently an iffy choice for FA and specifically for melee, and for a variety of reasons Riders are not going to be able to reach that level of performance.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Kanluwen

Yes I have seen a Taurox. I own two of them. And while they aren't that big they're still bigger than what I was aiming for. As are the two FW Tauros models.

There's literally no getting smaller than either of those two, unless you're going to make some goofy Smart Car sized thing.

The Taurox can be made less tall, but even then...it's still fairly small with all things considered.

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Oh, I agree. I'm not sure if you read the rest of my post, but 40k follows a pretty clear "rule of cool." I think in most people's head canon, 40k battles are closer to the Western Front of WW1 than anything else, which is famously a conflict where the drawbacks of shock cavalry in modern warfare were very, very clear.

My point was that trying to point to one thing as say "this doesn't make sense in a world where spaceships take the shortcut through hell" is a ridiculous exercise.

It appears that I had misread or misinterpreted your points, so apologies for that.

I do disagree with Battlegrinder's notion that units don't have a place in a Codex due to not having good rules or statlines. Like you said, the logic being applied to rough riders could just as easily be applied to terminators, so why not axe them, too? Just because units have been consistently poorly performing in game does not mean they should be disqualified from getting improvements that they need. Honestly, if they could at least be mildly adequate, I'd use them, probably a lot, like I do with Sentinels, Bullgryns, or the occasional Deathstrike, units that will rarely, if ever, see high level play as they currently are, but are great units to have available and expand the fluff nonetheless.

No worries, it's always better to assume you were misunderstood than to immediately argue back!

Terminators would never get the ax because there are still current models for them. The Rough Rider models we had until recently were 2nd edition vintage, and used the decades old plastic horse body which I'm pretty sure isn't used anymore. They really weren't great models even in their prime, and I'm a staunch champion of the old metal regiments. (I looked, and it appears they are from at least 1995: http://www.solegends.com/citcat1995-6/cat19956p020-02.htm)

I think that GW is afraid to really do the easiest thing to try to balance the IG: really, really drop the price. Compare Sentinels hard with Scatbikes: the sentinel has lower BS, one fewer shot, less mobility, no ability to hide after shooting, and costs, what, eight points more? Sure, the sentinel is more durable against small arms, but incredibly vulnerable to mid power shooting. If Sentinels were 20 points a piece, exactly as is, people would use them, right? They're cheap enough to make up for the lack of mobility, firepower, or durability. As it stands though, I think 20ppm sentinels would be a bit silly, but the only other option is to increase the combat value of the sentinel, which as a 2HP walker with only one weapon hard point, is actually kind of tough without piling on additional rules. So, they'll give Scout Sentinels some sort of move/shoot/move ability, or extra attacks in combat, or preferred enemy, or some other bandaid.

The best, but by far the hardest, solution, is to completely nuke the system and rebuild from scratch. Smaller games, more expensive elites and tanks, and then keep IG costed more or less the same. There's a reason 40k was probably most balanced during the early 3rd edition, BBB only army list days.

Rough riders have the potential to preform a niche strategic role. In situations where traditional vehicles have problems navigating the terrain, and where fuel is in short supply, Horses can operate as a fast response, or skirmish unit in locations and areas that strain supply lines. You can more stealithly move via horse than by armored column.

For instance horses could be used in long range reconissance patrols, or a long range penetration group. Merrils marauders used donkeys during their explots in ww2.

 Polonius wrote:

My point was that trying to point to one thing as say "this doesn't make sense in a world where spaceships take the shortcut through hell" is a ridiculous exercise.

I love this. You are my hero. Would it be weird if I named my Ordo Malleus Inquisitor after your Dakka Screen Name, Polonius?

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Rough riders have the potential to preform a niche strategic role. In situations where traditional vehicles have problem navigating the terrain, and where fuel is in short supply.

Fuel isn't a problem for the Tauros or the Blackshadow/Hornet bikes. All of them utilize a battery that self-charges with movement. Nor is terrain necessarily a problem.

Horses can operate as a fast response, or skirmish unit in locations and areas that strain supply lines.

Except you then open up a new strain on the riders themselves, in that your horses have to be:
A) Kept clean. Hooves are a pain to deal with. Ask anyone who has raised horses or worked on a farm.
B) Kept fed. Horses eat quite a bit.
C) Trained for combat beforehand. There's a reason that the term "warhorse" exists.

Also, since you quoted Merrill's Marauders later on...
Just because horses are smaller than trucks does not mean they can go where trucks can't. Horses are still very exposed to the possibility of dangerous terrain being a problem. There's a reason why if you view any of the old combat footage/photographs from the Marauders, there's rarely anyone riding the animals. They're usually just being guided by someone else.

You can more stealithly move via horse than by armored column.

Ehhh...

You can move more quietly compared to "an armored column"...but nobody is suggesting "stealth tanks" or any such nonsense.
Stealthily is a 50/50 shot. You have to take great pains to conceal tracks, grazing patterns and excrement from the mounts. And heat signatures of both the rider and mount.

For instance horses could be used in long range reconissance patrols, or a long range penetration group.

Merrils marauders used donkeys during the explots in ww2.

Merrill's Marauders used those donkeys for hauling their 60 mm mortars, bazookas, ammunition, communications gear, and supplies. Not as battle mounts.

Merrill's Marauders used those donkeys because they were fighting in Burma, where vehicles were basically not present due to the dense jungle foliage. Worth noting that those Marauders were also commonly resupplied via airdrops, which was a new and novel thing at the time.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

No worries, it's always better to assume you were misunderstood than to immediately argue back!

Terminators would never get the ax because there are still current models for them. The Rough Rider models we had until recently were 2nd edition vintage, and used the decades old plastic horse body which I'm pretty sure isn't used anymore. They really weren't great models even in their prime, and I'm a staunch champion of the old metal regiments. (I looked, and it appears they are from at least 1995: http://www.solegends.com/citcat1995-6/cat19956p020-02.htm)

I think that GW is afraid to really do the easiest thing to try to balance the IG: really, really drop the price. Compare Sentinels hard with Scatbikes: the sentinel has lower BS, one fewer shot, less mobility, no ability to hide after shooting, and costs, what, eight points more? Sure, the sentinel is more durable against small arms, but incredibly vulnerable to mid power shooting. If Sentinels were 20 points a piece, exactly as is, people would use them, right? They're cheap enough to make up for the lack of mobility, firepower, or durability. As it stands though, I think 20ppm sentinels would be a bit silly, but the only other option is to increase the combat value of the sentinel, which as a 2HP walker with only one weapon hard point, is actually kind of tough without piling on additional rules. So, they'll give Scout Sentinels some sort of move/shoot/move ability, or extra attacks in combat, or preferred enemy, or some other bandaid.

Personally, I've been thinking that Sentinels of both types should be given an "Auspex" bubble. Friendly units within 6-12" get some kind of bonus. Have the Scout variants with a "Widegain Auspex" that is 12" with -2 to a Cover Save and Armoured Sentinels with a "Lowgain Auspex" that is 6" with -1 to a Cover Save.

Could also port over the thing that Skitarii have where it removes the benefit for charging units.

The best, but by far the hardest, solution, is to completely nuke the system and rebuild from scratch. Smaller games, more expensive elites and tanks, and then keep IG costed more or less the same. There's a reason 40k was probably most balanced during the early 3rd edition, BBB only army list days.

That's not something I'll disagree with, but I just don't think it will happen.

If I had to prioritize things that happen?
1) Overhaul vehicles. Immediately.
2) Remove Jink as a Cover Save, make it its own thing that is unaffected by Ignores Cover. Rework Skyfire and Interceptor to be a mitigating factor to Jink Saves.
3) Strip "Ignores Cover" from many things. Replace it with "Reduce Cover".

That's the top 3 I can think of right now.

 Polonius wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Oh, I agree. I'm not sure if you read the rest of my post, but 40k follows a pretty clear "rule of cool." I think in most people's head canon, 40k battles are closer to the Western Front of WW1 than anything else, which is famously a conflict where the drawbacks of shock cavalry in modern warfare were very, very clear.

My point was that trying to point to one thing as say "this doesn't make sense in a world where spaceships take the shortcut through hell" is a ridiculous exercise.

It appears that I had misread or misinterpreted your points, so apologies for that.

I do disagree with Battlegrinder's notion that units don't have a place in a Codex due to not having good rules or statlines. Like you said, the logic being applied to rough riders could just as easily be applied to terminators, so why not axe them, too? Just because units have been consistently poorly performing in game does not mean they should be disqualified from getting improvements that they need. Honestly, if they could at least be mildly adequate, I'd use them, probably a lot, like I do with Sentinels, Bullgryns, or the occasional Deathstrike, units that will rarely, if ever, see high level play as they currently are, but are great units to have available and expand the fluff nonetheless.

No worries, it's always better to assume you were misunderstood than to immediately argue back!

Terminators would never get the ax because there are still current models for them. The Rough Rider models we had until recently were 2nd edition vintage, and used the decades old plastic horse body which I'm pretty sure isn't used anymore. They really weren't great models even in their prime, and I'm a staunch champion of the old metal regiments. (I looked, and it appears they are from at least 1995: http://www.solegends.com/citcat1995-6/cat19956p020-02.htm)

I think that GW is afraid to really do the easiest thing to try to balance the IG: really, really drop the price. Compare Sentinels hard with Scatbikes: the sentinel has lower BS, one fewer shot, less mobility, no ability to hide after shooting, and costs, what, eight points more? Sure, the sentinel is more durable against small arms, but incredibly vulnerable to mid power shooting. If Sentinels were 20 points a piece, exactly as is, people would use them, right? They're cheap enough to make up for the lack of mobility, firepower, or durability. As it stands though, I think 20ppm sentinels would be a bit silly, but the only other option is to increase the combat value of the sentinel, which as a 2HP walker with only one weapon hard point, is actually kind of tough without piling on additional rules. So, they'll give Scout Sentinels some sort of move/shoot/move ability, or extra attacks in combat, or preferred enemy, or some other bandaid.

The best, but by far the hardest, solution, is to completely nuke the system and rebuild from scratch. Smaller games, more expensive elites and tanks, and then keep IG costed more or less the same. There's a reason 40k was probably most balanced during the early 3rd edition, BBB only army list days.

Alternatively, could the costs of more powerful units be inflated by more accurately including the costs of unit types and USRs? I feel like points costs for units are at least fairly balanced when it comes to statlines alone, but extra bonuses and abilities are really not accounted for, e.g. bikes, jetbikes, and skimmers honestly deserve a price hike due to Jink and/or Turboboost, and Scatbikes need to have their weapons and their JSJ-equivalent incur some sort of cost. Instead of making worse units cheaper (and thus increasing model counts, army sizes, another step towards making every game an Apocalypse game), why not make bigger units more expensive, that way a list at a given point cost could be rescaled to feel more like a skirmish game rather than mini-Apocalypse. That would leave basic rank-and-file like Guardsmen, marines, Orks, and the like basically as they are now, but big stuff should cost more, faster. Try Triptide when each one is 20-25% of your list, or see what a WK at double its current cost is like (I'm unfamiliar with points costs for most units, so there's definitely some hyperbole here, but I hope you get the idea). The point is, though, that players need to have some sort of penalty for bringing too much big, nigh unkillable stuff, and that downside should be a noticeable decrease in the amount of regular troops you can bring... Meanwhile large stuff that's already heavily overcosted like Ordnance Russes and Land Raiders could stay about what they are now, as they typically lack useful USRs and don't bring nearly as much firepower and/or durability per point.

I'm almost certain this would never happen, but I feel like most units could be better balanced and the game's scale reduced without a total overhaul of the game rules.

 Kanluwen wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

Sorry, 40k still requires A LOT of suspension of disbelief, even with their "rationalizations".

Correction: rough riders don't fit thematically with YOUR preferred guard army (though it may shock you to know that there are people who play the same army as you and disagree), but they would fit nicely with Tallarns, praetorians, death corps, Drookian fen guard and more.

Actually, it would not "fit nicely" with Tallarn or Praetorians.

Tallarn, with the Taros Campaign, got a special Rough Riders unit as part of their army list--replacing the "standard" Rough Rider unit. They started with horses and could get upgraded to Mukaali at 5ppm(All of the scenarios required the Mukaali as they are more "thematic" for the Tallarn Desert Raiders). Mukaali gave the Riders +1T.

Those weren't horses. They were xeno mounts that came from a desert environment, shipped in for the Tallarn for long-ranged reconnaissance patrols. And guess what else the Tallarn brought with them?
Sentinels, tanks, and artillery. Hell, there was an entire Tallarn Armoured Regiment that came alongside the stereotypical "raider" regiment.
It's also worth noting that Tallarn Rough Rider Squadrons(and Rough Rider Squadrons in general at the time of the Doctrines book) did not get lances as standard. They had Laspistols and CCW, with lances as a purchased option.

Nothing I have handy regarding Praetorians indicates that they have any real "fit" with Rough Riders, aside from there having been models at one point. Which means diddly since I can't verify if those were in fact a kit or a conversion.

You probably like vanilla guard. That's fine, but not an excuse to burn the spice rack so that everybody can be forced to see why vanilla is "so good that any other flavor just takes up space that could be moar vanilla". If you want to "make vanilla great again", go for it. But keep in mind that it is not codex: cadians. It is Codex "Astra Militarum" or "Imperial Guard", and the most appealing thing about the faction has always been that you can really make it feel like your own. It wasn't until homogenization went rampant in 5th/6th that this notion of "there can only be ONE way yo Imperial Guard!" really became common.

It's not Codex: Tallarn, Praetorian, Death Korps, Drookian Fen Guard, or "more" either.

There is literally nothing stopping you from "making it your own" still with the removal of some of these things. It's just you being bitter about having "lost" money on a few units. It's not like there are, in the book, formations of Ratlings or Rough Riders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CplPunishment wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Honestly I don't care much either way about rough riders, I'm never gonna use them and think they're dumb but whatever-- if people want them they can have them.

I would vastly prefer guard bikers to rough riders if they were an option without having to do a lot of converting, though. Especially if they can be attached to a platoon.

*If* they do release new sculpts, I hope they put them on dirtbikes and give them unit type: cavalry. Give them a choice between the traditional wargear or something new snd useful (a la ogryns/bullgryns), give them scout again and viola, everybody is happy. BOOM.

Let's make Space Marine Bikers Unit Type: Cavalry too.

No. If they release Bikes, they get unit type: Bike. It would be ridiculous to give them Unit Type: Cavalry when it's Bikes.

Au Contraire, I think these praetorians look pretty sharp: http://tabletopstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/preatorian_guard_rough_riders_1.jpg
The praetorians were a limited edition cast that was basically a glorified Mordian Iron Guard headswap.

When I said "fit nicely" in an army, I meant from an aesthetics standpoint. Example: Catachans on horses would look weird, even if Rough Riders had good rules and made perfect logical sense on the battlefields of the 41st millennium. Praetorians look great on horseback, even though the current rules are poor and it wouldn't make logical sense to field them in real life.
Argue about Tallarns "never actually having rough riders" all you want, but the truth is that GW release two official lines of Rough Riders: Atillans and Tallarns.

No, Codex: Astra Millitarum is not codex Tallarn, Fen Guard, etc. but that's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for Codex: Everything Imperial Guard. Not Codex:Cadians. Not Codex:Homogenized Vanilla Guard. Not Codex 1337 Guard. Diversity is the spice of life. If you can't handle that, why did you pick a faction that crams so many diverse armies into one rulebook?

It is EXTREMELY hard to "make something my own" When the work I put into my models becomes null and void with the release of a new codex. Thus far I've lost rules for dozens of models I own. The consolation is that they at least have proxy equivalents. I run Lord Solar Macharius as an inquisitor and Colonel Schaefer as an officer for example. Griffon to Wyvern is a bit of a stretch, but most opponents will give you a break. If rough riders are deleted, I will have nothing equivalent to proxy them as. And no, I'm not interested in your hornets. They are a cool idea, I'll give you that, but I don't want to play the unit that way. Your callous approach to this issue will earn you more opposition than support, let me tell you that. Approach it from a point of compromise and you will get a lot more support.

Finally, What size bikes do you think guardsmen should be on? The whole "bikes make you tougher" mechanic is kind of a stretch that everybody accepts unquestioningly (including myself). It doesn't make sense, however. Why does being on a bike make you tougher? It doesn't. There's a chance the bike will take the hit instead, but it won't make you tougher. The only plausible justification is that the SM bikes are bulky as gak. I imagine IG bikes being more like slim dirtbikes than "sturdy combat bikes". Simply doesn't make sense for a guardsman on a dirtbike to be tougher than the unmounted guy next to him. Does that make sense to you? Guard dirtbikes should be treated as cavalry with scout and *maybe* relentless.

I was thinking about what it is about Guard.
They come from a HUGE number of worlds with raw material that would vary so the STC various equipment could change drastically.
Some units that spring to mind:

The local horse-like mounts cyber-ed up like servitors. I think that was pointed out and only makes sense.

I would like to see a "bulk" transport. Trying to move a ton of men in Chimeras could get unwieldy.
I have seen the other options out there but I mean something cheap and carries some 20 men.
A land-train / crawler springs to mind.
Just add "cars" depending on the conditions being faced.
Heck, the thing can be a mobile factory for laying road (or just to chew through woods or a mountain) to give further mobility.

Just like in the game: Drop-pod-pre-fab structures. No time for messing around.

Exo-suits... nothing at all like the cargo mover in aliens... no-no.

A proper bunker: a tough squat building for housing troops from a hostile world and easy to blast the bad-guys from the comfort of their "home".

You know you want the real Starship Troopers marines.
Not those augmented emperor pansies in a can.
Veterans in a big exo-suit with jump jets and a grenade/flamer combi-weapon.
Back when soldiers were real men and is so much more economical.

I think we need a bit of crazy in all this:

A guy did bad and feels sorry for it, cheer up dude! You can be a living explosive and take out as much of the enemy as you can in the name of the emperor!
They will be happy to fit you with a suitable "loud" suit to your tastes.
Even better, you can go out with other friends of a like mind and see what damage you can do!
I just think that exploding collars is not thinking big enough.

For actual models: please add women into it. I honestly think the dark future is absolutely uncaring enough to stick anyone into the guard with little or no "prejudice".
It just always seemed strange to me.

Can we please get to the stage of full environmental suits with a look for mass-production?
Sometimes war needs to be held in the most hostile environments around: you need the sacks of meat... er, "trained professionals" to operate at peak capability.
Some environments could damage their delicate lungs.

Would it be bad taste to have a "stasis evac" where the vehicle scoops wounded troops up like crops (thinking it looks like a combine) and can leave the board and it comes back with new pickled... er, soilent green... er... new troops fixed and popped out of stasis! Why risk difficult to train personnel on the front lines?

A few ideas, I am sure more will come.

If they decide to create a new line of models, I hope that our future heavy weapon teams can have plasma cannons. If I remember correctly, there was an IG issue tripod mounted plasma cannon in the space marine game. That would be a good base to use.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Fuel isn't a problem for the Tauros or the Blackshadow/Hornet bikes. All of them utilize a battery that self-charges with movement.

Oh FFS no. "GW doesn't understand thermodynamics" should not be the starting point for fluff.

B) Kept fed. Horses eat quite a bit.

The difference is that horses (and similar animals) can be fed with local supplies, even literally eating as they go if the planet has appropriate human-standard plant life. Vehicles require vast amounts of fuel, hauled at extreme costs across interstellar distances, and equally extreme amounts of effort and resources invested into the distribution infrastructure to get the fuel to the vehicles that need it. Just look at the sheer amount of effort that went into supplying WWII armies with fuel, and the crippling problems that happened when the supply was disrupted or inadequate. And then increase those problems significantly to account for the fact that all that tank fuel is coming from another planet instead of an adjacent country. If a shipment of fuel is delayed/destroyed in orbit/etc your tanks are static emplacements until more can arrive, while the cavalry keeps moving.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they decide to create a new line of models, I hope that our future heavy weapon teams can have plasma cannons.

You mean grav cannons, right? Grav is good. Plasma cannons are not.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Death Korps of Krieg are still pretty much around, Tallarn Desert Raiders, and several others.

As far as I know on the DKoK actually uses them in combat, and largely to demonstrate exactly why it's a bad idea to do so (it's kind of in the name).

That's not to say the IG as a whole has no use for horses of any kind. Perhaps they'd see use as a means to get people through places vehicles can't go or for a regiment that lacks them. But they'd be mounted infantry, not cavalry, and mounted infantry ditch the horses and fight on foot (which IIRC is how the Tallarn's use them). They simple do not fit the rest of the IG thematically. I only give a pass to the DKoK because I'm not too familiar with them beyond the fact they're tactics tend to lean toward "suicidal" being the good outcome, and even then I think they're still better know for siege warfare and mechanized units than cavalry.

The Attilan Rough Riders. Equestrian troops are their specialty.


The Tallarn are more of a mechanized force, much like the Steel Legion. But they make some use of equestrian units.


The Kreig Death Riders are used for scouting, screening, and exploiting breakthroughs, especially in the kinds of "moonscapes" created by their style of warfare. Their steeds are specially bred for these kinds of environments.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they decide to create a new line of models, I hope that our future heavy weapon teams can have plasma cannons.

You mean grav cannons, right? Grav is good. Plasma cannons are not.

Why not make plasma cannons the cheap option for infantry squads (where BS3 doesn't hurt as much) and have grav be available for veterans and heavy weapon squads.

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they decide to create a new line of models, I hope that our future heavy weapon teams can have plasma cannons.

You mean grav cannons, right? Grav is good. Plasma cannons are not.

Why not make plasma cannons the cheap option for infantry squads (where BS3 doesn't hurt as much) and have grav be available for veterans and heavy weapon squads.

I'd rather they stop adding grav in general it just defeats the point of every other heavy weapon when one does the job of all of them.

Jbz` wrote:

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they decide to create a new line of models, I hope that our future heavy weapon teams can have plasma cannons.

You mean grav cannons, right? Grav is good. Plasma cannons are not.

Why not make plasma cannons the cheap option for infantry squads (where BS3 doesn't hurt as much) and have grav be available for veterans and heavy weapon squads.

I'd rather they stop adding grav in general it just defeats the point of every other heavy weapon when one does the job of all of them.

That's because all the other heavy weapons don't do anything anymore. It takes 40 BS 4 lascannon shots to kill Riptide.

Jbz` wrote:
I'd rather they stop adding grav in general it just defeats the point of every other heavy weapon when one does the job of all of them.

Not having grav is a nice idea in theory, but it's way too late for that. Grav exists, and the only question left is whether you have a good codex with access to grav (or similarly powerful things), or a bad codex that only has 5th edition heavy weapons. Restricting/removing access to grav is only ok if they get rid of it for everyone.

I would like to point out that during WW1 cavalry was effective on the eastern front where they had room to manoeuvre. Cavalry were used in their tradional role to exploit gaps and in pursuits. Cavalry charging emplaced machine guns was as stupid as infantry charging emplaced machine guns (especially at walking pace).

The famous scene where in WW2 where Polish lancers are depicted charing tanks, well actually the lancers were slaughtering the infantry. Until a couple of armoured cars turned up. The tanks actually arrived afterwards, in time for the photo.

I'm not keen on adding more grav weaponary either on account of how op it is. But they'll probably do it anyway. The future addition of 40k needs to address them.

Grav Cannons just don't fit with HWTs in my eyes. But you could slap them on a Sentinel, that'd work for me.

Honestly, I'd be cool if the only grab we had was the main weapon of a Russ, but typically Russ turrets add a little more, e.g. Executioner is a plasma cannon x 3, Exterminator is an Autocannon x 2 with TL, Vanquisher is lascannon with Armorbane. It'd be cool to see how we could outperform centurions, given the chance.

Yep if they want to encourage a vehicle-based IG then a Leman Russ with the heavy grav cannon of the kataphron is a way. While i can´t see it being dual (12 shots), a twin-linked version would fit.

That said i would prefer a less common (=grav as solution for everything) way.
What ever happened to the lascannon? Once it was THE long-range anti-tank weapon. It seems that with every edition it lost more of that role.
I would like to see a cheaper lascannon for the IG and the option to build a Leman Russ Annihilator (turret = 2 twin-linked shots).

Forge world have the predator annihilator. I wish it was more widespread. And that the annihilatior lascannon was like the exterminator autocannon (x2 shots as well as twin-linked).

If we have to get grav then maybe it should stay low key; armoured sentinel and Leman Russes sponsons only? No matter what way I type it though, I don't like it.

I'm ok with marines getting some gear that we don't get. If they make our existing weapons better we'all be ok. Seriously, if the vanquisher had instant death it would be an MC killer that would put us back in the game.

CplPunishment wrote:

Argue about Tallarns "never actually having rough riders" all you want, but the truth is that GW release two official lines of Rough Riders: Atillans and Tallarns.

Three lines... Before Attilans and Tallarn, there were the RT-era Roughriders, the ones with Australian bush hats and helmets. The helmeted riders were the same as the motorcycle IG. 1989 catalogue,
http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Imperial_Guard_-_1988_to_1994

I'd like to see the option to take a multilaser in HW squads. I also like the idea of a motorcycle and sidecar combo for guard. 

I think one of the biggest issue the guard have is the having to remove  units closet to the enemy. If I run my guys forward 6 inches and then the following shooting phase the first 6 inches of my units is mowed down I'm back to where I started with less men. 

Earlier in the thread there someone mentioned something about a special rule for las guns. Some kind of combined fire. Unfortunately it would probably bog the game down but I'd like to see something where the more hits delivered onto a squad the more effective the gun becomes. Ie for every 10 hits the squad suffers an auto wound? 

I've always consider wounds I've scored against marines with lasguns not them penetrating the armour but the marine tanking so many shots that his armour gradually heats up until it fails or cooks whoever is inside. ‎

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Forge world have the predator annihilator. I wish it was more widespread. And that the annihilatior lascannon was like the exterminator autocannon (x2 shots as well as twin-linked).

If that happen, can the marines get that for our predators if we give you guys grav cannons? I've always hated how TL weapons have half the firepower the model seems to suggest.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Forge world have the predator annihilator. I wish it was more widespread. And that the annihilatior lascannon was like the exterminator autocannon (x2 shots as well as twin-linked).

If that happen, can the marines get that for our predators if we give you guys grav cannons? I've always hated how TL weapons have half the firepower the model seems to suggest.

In general, I feel that TL weapons are just a bad joke... most of the time it would be so much better to just have two guns, I don't mind the points increase either, it's just that TL seems so worthless at times.

morgoth wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Forge world have the predator annihilator. I wish it was more widespread. And that the annihilatior lascannon was like the exterminator autocannon (x2 shots as well as twin-linked).

If that happen, can the marines get that for our predators if we give you guys grav cannons? I've always hated how TL weapons have half the firepower the model seems to suggest.

In general, I feel that TL weapons are just a bad joke... most of the time it would be so much better to just have two guns, I don't mind the points increase either, it's just that TL seems so worthless at times.

Yep, I would love to see them go back to twin-linked being two guns instead of re-roll to hit.

 don_mondo wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

Argue about Tallarns "never actually having rough riders" all you want, but the truth is that GW release two official lines of Rough Riders: Atillans and Tallarns.

Three lines... Before Attilans and Tallarn, there were the RT-era Roughriders, the ones with Australian bush hats and helmets. The helmeted riders were the same as the motorcycle IG. 1989 catalogue,
http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Imperial_Guard_-_1988_to_1994

I stand corrected. I started in 3rd edition so I've never seen those on shelves, the online store or another person's army.

Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Actually, you can't. Try running any of the Tempestus formations without Commissars. You can't do it. You are REQUIRED to take Commissars in the flipping Militarum Tempestus formations.
Do you understand how ridiculous that is?!

Or try running the Ogryn Auxilia formation with just Bullgryn. You can't do it, because the designers of the formation apparently decided that they had to make the Guard formations "inclusive" of old stuff. Additionally, I'm actually a fan of the Ogryn/Bullgryn. If you want to design a "counterattack" unit for the Guard, that is where your focus should be. Not on the dead end that is Rough Riders.

Try running formation of IG troopers without sentinels.

Emperor's Blade Assault Company.

They're Veterans. Not regular Guardsmen.
Could you find me a Formation of Imperial Guardsmen (regular infantry) without vehicles?

And honestly? Get over the Sentinel requirement. The thing to get irked about is the mandate of 5 "Infantry Squads" with no allowance for the Infantry, Heavy, or Special squads counting towards that requirement.

They had to pull the bundles down at launch and reword them because of that.

And I quote "Get over the *insert unwanted unit here*". So, if that's your response, why don't you just "get over" the fact you need to take Commissars in the Tempestus Militarum formations?

Is there formation of just SM assault marines?

Bladewing Assault Brotherhood.
2-4 Assault Squads, 1-3 Vanguard Veterans, Captain/Chaplain with Jump Packs.

So yeah. There is a formation of "just SM Assault Marines".

No. That's a minimum 2 Assault Squads and 1 Vanguard Veteran Squad. Not "just SM Assault Marines". That's Assault Marines and another unit of Space Marines I don't want to field. Or shall I just "get over it"?

Funny thing is formations aren't SUPPOSED to have just what players want. That's the trade off you are supposed to pay for otherwise free bonuses.

The point. You missed it.

Commissars are not and should not have been required in the Tempestus Formations.

Sentinels are not and should not have been required in the Astra Militarum Infantry Company formation.
Or do I have to "get over it"?

They should have been an option, but not required. Since there is the whole "Tempestus Command Squad" thing.

See my previous point.
What makes Militarum Tempestus so special that everyone needs to abide by Formation rules, but they don't?

Battlegrinder wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:
It sounds to me like Kanluwen thinks that codex: Astra Militarum should be codex: Cadians. I can't stress enough that all guard regiments do notoperate with the same tactics and wargear. Even the common lasgun is different from planet to planet.

It sounds to me like he's figured out that trying to fit dudes on horses into an army that fits with laser guns, artillery, and tanks is an amazing stupid concept that's only survived this long due to sheer inertia. I'm sure there was once a regiment that decided to go fight their battles from horseback. Emphasis on "was", because there is no way those stupid sods lived long enough to realize why that's a bad idea.

This is a world where battle tanks immobilise themselves on bushes and move slower than an infantryman, where there's no difference in accuracy between a gene-crafted super-soldier veteran of hundreds of years of warfare and a human who may have survived a few battles, where ICBMs are seen in battlefields the size of football pitches, and the machine gun equivalents of what used to mow down infantry and cavalry in WWI barely injures on infantryman.

Welcome to 40k.
Leave reality and logic at the door.

Battlegrinder wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Death Korps of Krieg are still pretty much around, Tallarn Desert Raiders, and several others.

As far as I know on the DKoK actually uses them in combat, and largely to demonstrate exactly why it's a bad idea to do so (it's kind of in the name).

That's not to say the IG as a whole has no use for horses of any kind. Perhaps they'd see use as a means to get people through places vehicles can't go or for a regiment that lacks them. But they'd be mounted infantry, not cavalry, and mounted infantry ditch the horses and fight on foot (which IIRC is how the Tallarn's use them). They simple do not fit the rest of the IG thematically. I only give a pass to the DKoK because I'm not too familiar with them beyond the fact they're tactics tend to lean toward "suicidal" being the good outcome, and even then I think they're still better know for siege warfare and mechanized units than cavalry.

I beg to differ on it doesn't fit the IG thematically.

It fits the:
Attilan Rough Riders
Death Riders of Krieg
Kashann Xeno Riders
Ezelti Lancers
Krum XVI
Gantor Riders
Praetorian Hussars
Fallonian Rough Riders
Tallarn Desert Raiders

Hmm. Lots of regiments it fits well. Not to mention that Cadians use Rough Riders, albeit in bike form. Hell, Rough Riders are described as being mounted on "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Bikers would fit in the bracket of Rough Rider. If the Rough Rider entry was elaborated to have a baseline, and then the mount could be upgraded to give different buffs, that would fit every version possible.

Kanluwen wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

Sorry, 40k still requires A LOT of suspension of disbelief, even with their "rationalizations".

Correction: rough riders don't fit thematically with YOUR preferred guard army (though it may shock you to know that there are people who play the same army as you and disagree), but they would fit nicely with Tallarns, praetorians, death corps, Drookian fen guard and more.

Actually, it would not "fit nicely" with Tallarn or Praetorians.

Tallarn, with the Taros Campaign, got a special Rough Riders unit as part of their army list--replacing the "standard" Rough Rider unit. They started with horses and could get upgraded to Mukaali at 5ppm(All of the scenarios required the Mukaali as they are more "thematic" for the Tallarn Desert Raiders). Mukaali gave the Riders +1T.

Those weren't horses. They were xeno mounts that came from a desert environment, shipped in for the Tallarn for long-ranged reconnaissance patrols.

Yes. Cavalry. That's exactly what we're asking for. Cavalry.

And guess what else the Tallarn brought with them?
Sentinels, tanks, and artillery. Hell, there was an entire Tallarn Armoured Regiment that came alongside the stereotypical "raider" regiment.
It's also worth noting that Tallarn Rough Rider Squadrons(and Rough Rider Squadrons in general at the time of the Doctrines book) did not get lances as standard. They had Laspistols and CCW, with lances as a purchased option.

Yes. But their key feature, which, in my opinion defines them, was that they were Cavalry. A planet can produce all variety of units in their regiments. Why can't cavalry be a feature?

Nothing I have handy regarding Praetorians indicates that they have any real "fit" with Rough Riders, aside from there having been models at one point. Which means diddly since I can't verify if those were in fact a kit or a conversion.

And what about the other regiments? Attilans, at the very least. You mean to say Rough Riders don't fit with them?

You probably like vanilla guard. That's fine, but not an excuse to burn the spice rack so that everybody can be forced to see why vanilla is "so good that any other flavor just takes up space that could be moar vanilla". If you want to "make vanilla great again", go for it. But keep in mind that it is not codex: cadians. It is Codex "Astra Militarum" or "Imperial Guard", and the most appealing thing about the faction has always been that you can really make it feel like your own. It wasn't until homogenization went rampant in 5th/6th that this notion of "there can only be ONE way yo Imperial Guard!" really became common.

It's not Codex: Tallarn, Praetorian, Death Korps, Drookian Fen Guard, or "more" either.

No. It is Codex: Astra Militarum, which is more than just Cadians and Catachans. It is all forms of Imperial Guard, including Cadians, Catachans, Elysians, Attilans, Praetorians, Tanith, Harakoni, Prosan, Maccabian Janissaries - they should all, in my opinion, be represented in the book.

There is literally nothing stopping you from "making it your own" still with the removal of some of these things. It's just you being bitter about having "lost" money on a few units. It's not like there are, in the book, formations of Ratlings or Rough Riders.

I don't even own any Rough Riders. And if they were removed, then no, I can't take them, because they have no army list entry.

And likewise - Commissars are important in the Tempestus Militarum, because every Formation has them. Is that not your logic?

CplPunishment wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Honestly I don't care much either way about rough riders, I'm never gonna use them and think they're dumb but whatever-- if people want them they can have them.

I would vastly prefer guard bikers to rough riders if they were an option without having to do a lot of converting, though. Especially if they can be attached to a platoon.

*If* they do release new sculpts, I hope they put them on dirtbikes and give them unit type: cavalry. Give them a choice between the traditional wargear or something new snd useful (a la ogryns/bullgryns), give them scout again and viola, everybody is happy. BOOM.

Let's make Space Marine Bikers Unit Type: Cavalry too.

No. If they release Bikes, they get unit type: Bike. It would be ridiculous to give them Unit Type: Cavalry when it's Bikes.

Or, perhaps, in your overhaul (still awaiting that), you could make them a baseline Rough Rider entry, as cavalry, and include upgrades that improve the squad's mounts - X points to upgrade to Xenos Beast, which gives Y, Z points to upgrade to Bikes which changes their type to Bike, etc etc. Everyone is happy. Boom.

Battlegrinder wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I'm still baffled this conversation is taking place when we have Motor Cycle Assault Units, Horses charging into combat is off but people riding Harleys into melee combat with swords and two handed weapons is okay?

Priorities with peoples suspension of belief here.

That's kind of the exact issue. Marines have superhuman biology (as do orks), powered armor, bikes and not horses....and even so they were iffy up until 6th edition have them grav guns and WS chapter tactics, with every guide I'm aware saying to keep them out of CC and that their best use is as highly mobile skimisher units. And people are wanting guardsman on horses to be a better assault unit than space marines, which is problematic on both a gameplay level and a thematic one.

So why does your suspension of disbelief end at horses? Not even genetically bred horses, or alien mounts, or other variants. You think it's more plausible that humanity has perfected genetic engineering on making humans literal demi-gods and that they haven't bred a horse or beast to be as strong? You think that being able to fire on a bike that moves at a speed to destroy walls and not be phased is more believable than humanity finding some cavalry that could be brought to bear in the 41st Millenium. You think that WWI tactics are okay and effective in the 41st Millennium, but horses breaks that immersion?

No-one's asking for guardsmen on cavalry (emphasis cavalry - it doesn't have to be a horse. It could be any sort of cavalry) to be better than Space Marines. They're asking for them to be effective and actually useful in game.

And no, thematically, a charge pureky made up of Attilan Rough Riders destroyed an entire Necron army at the battle of Lumen Valley, and won the war against the Necrons in the effort. Canonically, cavalry can fit in 40k. And I don't think it's a stretch to believe that cavalry could win against Space Marine, considering a Space Marine can be killed by Rippers, Scarabs, Grots and Conscripts.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is a world where battle tanks immobilise themselves on bushes and move slower than an infantryman, where there's no difference in accuracy between a gene-crafted super-soldier veteran of hundreds of years of warfare and a human who may have survived a few battles, where ICBMs are seen in battlefields the size of football pitches, and the machine gun equivalents of what used to mow down infantry and cavalry in WWI barely injures on infantryman.

Welcome to 40k.
Leave reality and logic at the door.

The issue I have with that is that logic is backwards (to me, at least). You're taking how stuff works on the tabletop and applying it the wider setting, I'm doing it the other way round. The 40k setting is not an extrapolation of the tabletop rules, the tabletop rules are an approximation of the 40k setting, and in that setting, infantry do get mowed down by HMGs (or at least any HMG aside from a stubber, and perhaps those too. They haven't shown up in the books I've read).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I beg to differ on it doesn't fit the IG thematically.

It fits the:
Attilan Rough Riders
Death Riders of Krieg
Kashann Xeno Riders
Ezelti Lancers
Krum XVI
Gantor Riders
Praetorian Hussars
Fallonian Rough Riders
Tallarn Desert Raiders

Hmm. Lots of regiments it fits well. Not to mention that Cadians use Rough Riders, albeit in bike form. Hell, Rough Riders are described as being mounted on "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Bikers would fit in the bracket of Rough Rider. If the Rough Rider entry was elaborated to have a baseline, and then the mount could be upgraded to give different buffs, that would fit every version possible.

To my knowledge most of them use those riders as scouts and the like, not frontline cavalry charging stuff with lances. They have them, but I'd guess they don't ride them into battle all that often, and if they do they're more like the riders I recall that showed up in books, like in the Last Ditch. They were dudes on motorcycles fighting it out from range using guns built into their bikes, they weren't charging 'nids headlong with a pointy metal stick.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So why does your suspension of disbelief end at horses? Not even genetically bred horses, or alien mounts, or other variants. You think it's more plausible that humanity has perfected genetic engineering on making humans literal demi-gods and that they haven't bred a horse or beast to be as strong? You think that being able to fire on a bike that moves at a speed to destroy walls and not be phased is more believable than humanity finding some cavalry that could be brought to bear in the 41st Millenium. You think that WWI tactics are okay and effective in the 41st Millennium, but horses breaks that immersion?

No-one's asking for guardsmen on cavalry (emphasis cavalry - it doesn't have to be a horse. It could be any sort of cavalry) to be better than Space Marines. They're asking for them to be effective and actually useful in game.

And no, thematically, a charge pureky made up of Attilan Rough Riders destroyed an entire Necron army at the battle of Lumen Valley, and won the war against the Necrons in the effort. Canonically, cavalry can fit in 40k. And I don't think it's a stretch to believe that cavalry could win against Space Marine, considering a Space Marine can be killed by Rippers, Scarabs, Grots and Conscripts.

I actually don't think WW1 tactics are ok either, and am glad the IG has (mostly) moved away from that being their stereotypical style (I'd appreciate if they moved all the way, but I guess we still gotta pander to people who think "people in the future are stupid" means "grimdark"), though if we stick even with WW1 tactics cavalry are out (they only pulled off the occasional charge in WW1 because rifles of the era were still mostly single shot or bolt action. Trying it on people with full or semi auto weapons like lasguns would end badly). And no, I don't think it's out of the question for a marine to be able to fire from a bike at top speed, he's had a couple centuries to pick up that skill. A regular dude not so much.

And the issue is that yes, they are asking for them to be on SM level effectiveness, because up until they got some new toys, SM bikers were not considered effective and useful.

And I'd point out that "it happened" doesn't mean it makes canonical sense. There's been a lot of nonsensical crap that's cropped up in the codex over the years (let's start with 5th edition grey knights), and people hated it.

Canon at this point is a very futile argument in my view.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Actually, you can't. Try running any of the Tempestus formations without Commissars. You can't do it. You are REQUIRED to take Commissars in the flipping Militarum Tempestus formations.
Do you understand how ridiculous that is?!

Or try running the Ogryn Auxilia formation with just Bullgryn. You can't do it, because the designers of the formation apparently decided that they had to make the Guard formations "inclusive" of old stuff. Additionally, I'm actually a fan of the Ogryn/Bullgryn. If you want to design a "counterattack" unit for the Guard, that is where your focus should be. Not on the dead end that is Rough Riders.

Try running formation of IG troopers without sentinels.

Emperor's Blade Assault Company.

They're Veterans. Not regular Guardsmen.
Could you find me a Formation of Imperial Guardsmen (regular infantry) without vehicles?

Nope, because there's very few Imperial Guard formations that feature Infantry Squads. Two of them that I specifically know of, as I don't have the revised version of Badab which might have some in there.

There's the Armored Shield(Start Collecting) which is an Infantry Squad, Commissar, and Leman Russ and the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon.

And I guess if you really want to get technical I guess there is three, since the Cadian Battle Group Detachment actually has an Auxiliary choice that is just a single Infantry Platoon with no required Sentinel.

But if that's the case, you could realistically just take the standard CAD as an Allied Detachment.

And honestly? Get over the Sentinel requirement. The thing to get irked about is the mandate of 5 "Infantry Squads" with no allowance for the Infantry, Heavy, or Special squads counting towards that requirement.

They had to pull the bundles down at launch and reword them because of that.

And I quote "Get over the *insert unwanted unit here*". So, if that's your response, why don't you just "get over" the fact you need to take Commissars in the Tempestus Militarum formations?

Because the Commissars being forced in there highlights, to me, the severe lack of understanding and effort that was put into the Militarum Tempestus book in general by the design team. The fluff hammers home time and time and time again that they're these super-loyal, super-zealous guys...yet for some reason they need a Commissar babysitting them like they're a bunch of Whiteshields.

There's a huge difference, IMO, to an "unwanted unit here" when the formation just consists of a single Troops choice otherwise(the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon) if you remove the other item versus what we got with the MT formations where you're taking multiple vehicles and Troops choices.

Is there formation of just SM assault marines?

Bladewing Assault Brotherhood.
2-4 Assault Squads, 1-3 Vanguard Veterans, Captain/Chaplain with Jump Packs.

So yeah. There is a formation of "just SM Assault Marines".

No. That's a minimum 2 Assault Squads and 1 Vanguard Veteran Squad. Not "just SM Assault Marines". That's Assault Marines and another unit of Space Marines I don't want to field. Or shall I just "get over it"?

Vanguard Veterans are Veteran Assault Marines.

Funny thing is formations aren't SUPPOSED to have just what players want. That's the trade off you are supposed to pay for otherwise free bonuses.

The point. You missed it.

Commissars are not and should not have been required in the Tempestus Formations.

Sentinels are not and should not have been required in the Astra Militarum Infantry Company formation.

Then run a CAD. There's very few Guard formations as it stands right now, and they wanted to showcase a distinctly Cadian Formation. Cadians are known for having Sentinels operating as part of their Infantry formations.

Or do I have to "get over it"?

They should have been an option, but not required. Since there is the whole "Tempestus Command Squad" thing.

See my previous point.
What makes Militarum Tempestus so special that everyone needs to abide by Formation rules, but they don't?

Well for one thing, read some formations sometime.

There's a thing called "0-1". If the Commissar were 0-1, with the ability for someone to mitigate the presence of it(see: Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon. 1-3 Sentinel Squads, with no required number of Sentinels meaning you can get an ESIC to only contain 3 Sentinels rather than being forced to have a character that has to be jampacked into one of your squads and will remove one of your models if you utilize a required mechanic of the army), or only required in the Start Collecting set?

Wildly different story. But that's not the case. They jammed the Commissar in because the schmucks writing the book wanted a non-squad option for the HQ. Which could have been done in a different way...or just not done at all as we've seen that they have no issue with limitations on the number of slots for things.

Martel732 wrote:
Canon at this point is a very futile argument in my view.

Canon for Guard literally makes us the most versatile army in existence baring Tyranids. We have everything from early blackpowder era troops to napoleonic line regiments to Boaer war era skirmishers and volley blocks to WW1 trenchers to WW2 skirmishers, armoured companies, raiders, airborne, combined arms armies, artillery batteries.....
We dont even scratch the surface. In fact what we have in the codex currently is a mere shadow of the most vanilla of lists we should have.

So yes, with that in line Rough Riders, or cavalry at least, do have a place in some variants of the Guard list. So do pikemen, musqueteers, fusiliers, infantry squares, volley blocks......
We literally have EVERYTHING.

Yeah, and BA can beat Eldar sometimes in the canon, too. Means nothing in the crunch.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, and BA can beat Eldar sometimes in the canon, too. Means nothing in the crunch.

Aye, I hear you there Martel.

I've never had much interest in collecting rough riders or ratlings, but this thread has me desperately wishing that the next Astra Militarum codex is nothing but ratlings mounted on horses.

I would take Rough Riders if we could get actual models for them again.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Someone above mentioned bringing the Guard back to their basic level: The Platoon.

This is, to me at least, a stupid idea. An army composed of platoons of infantry is neither viable nor flexible enough to ever function. What is more, transporting such a huge (660 models for three basic troops choices) is quite frankly virtually impossible without a car....

I can fit 110 models per "large" Chessex figure case, so that would be 2 sport duffel bags. Totally doable.

____

morgoth wrote:
I want to see 660 models, I want to see real fething Imperial Guard.

If I ever get into that army,

Go buy and build the your first 100 before you start making noise about what us existing IG players should do to satisfy your nonsense wishes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

UrsoerTheSquid wrote:
I'd like to see the option to take a multilaser in HW squads. ‎

Yes! Goto-pattern Multi-Lazors for all IG armies! IG would be perfect!!

Battlegrinder wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is a world where battle tanks immobilise themselves on bushes and move slower than an infantryman, where there's no difference in accuracy between a gene-crafted super-soldier veteran of hundreds of years of warfare and a human who may have survived a few battles, where ICBMs are seen in battlefields the size of football pitches, and the machine gun equivalents of what used to mow down infantry and cavalry in WWI barely injures on infantryman.

Welcome to 40k.
Leave reality and logic at the door.

The issue I have with that is that logic is backwards (to me, at least). You're taking how stuff works on the tabletop and applying it the wider setting, I'm doing it the other way round. The 40k setting is not an extrapolation of the tabletop rules, the tabletop rules are an approximation of the 40k setting, and in that setting, infantry do get mowed down by HMGs (or at least any HMG aside from a stubber, and perhaps those too. They haven't shown up in the books I've read).

So explain Terminators then.
Terminators are meant to be unkillable lynchpins of a Space Marine battleline, an impregnable bulwark against which the tides of war crash around them.
In game? Oh lord no.

The tabletop has no bearing on the fluff. Otherwise, I would only need a few Space Marines to win a game against a "normal" sized force. They do not affect eachother, regarding effectiveness.
However, units that exist in fluff can exist on the tabletop. For example - Rough Riders. And seeing as fluff has no bearing on the game, according to you, then Rough Riders should be balanced and brought in line to be effective in game, no? I mean, that's not a horse they're riding. It's just a unit of T3 cavalry. No horses, no sir.

Again, there is a massive disconnect between game and fluff in 40k. The game is meant to be units in fluff balanced in tabletop format. So why should Rough Riders be gunned down when mere infantry aren't?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I beg to differ on it doesn't fit the IG thematically.

It fits the:
Attilan Rough Riders
Death Riders of Krieg
Kashann Xeno Riders
Ezelti Lancers
Krum XVI
Gantor Riders
Praetorian Hussars
Fallonian Rough Riders
Tallarn Desert Raiders

Hmm. Lots of regiments it fits well. Not to mention that Cadians use Rough Riders, albeit in bike form. Hell, Rough Riders are described as being mounted on "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Bikers would fit in the bracket of Rough Rider. If the Rough Rider entry was elaborated to have a baseline, and then the mount could be upgraded to give different buffs, that would fit every version possible.

To my knowledge most of them use those riders as scouts and the like, not frontline cavalry charging stuff with lances. They have them, but I'd guess they don't ride them into battle all that often, and if they do they're more like the riders I recall that showed up in books, like in the Last Ditch. They were dudes on motorcycles fighting it out from range using guns built into their bikes, they weren't charging 'nids headlong with a pointy metal stick.

Attilans disagree. Example - Charge at Lumen Valley which routed a Necron army. And charging headlong into battle is EXACTLY the Death Korps and Attilan doctrine.
The Tallarn still use cavalry, and we can infer that the Praetorian Hussars use similar tactics to British cavalry in the Boer War.

There is no reason these should be ineffective in game, because the fluff has no bearing on the game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So why does your suspension of disbelief end at horses? Not even genetically bred horses, or alien mounts, or other variants. You think it's more plausible that humanity has perfected genetic engineering on making humans literal demi-gods and that they haven't bred a horse or beast to be as strong? You think that being able to fire on a bike that moves at a speed to destroy walls and not be phased is more believable than humanity finding some cavalry that could be brought to bear in the 41st Millenium. You think that WWI tactics are okay and effective in the 41st Millennium, but horses breaks that immersion?

No-one's asking for guardsmen on cavalry (emphasis cavalry - it doesn't have to be a horse. It could be any sort of cavalry) to be better than Space Marines. They're asking for them to be effective and actually useful in game.

And no, thematically, a charge pureky made up of Attilan Rough Riders destroyed an entire Necron army at the battle of Lumen Valley, and won the war against the Necrons in the effort. Canonically, cavalry can fit in 40k. And I don't think it's a stretch to believe that cavalry could win against Space Marine, considering a Space Marine can be killed by Rippers, Scarabs, Grots and Conscripts.

I actually don't think WW1 tactics are ok either, and am glad the IG has (mostly) moved away from that being their stereotypical style (I'd appreciate if they moved all the way, but I guess we still gotta pander to people who think "people in the future are stupid" means "grimdark"), though if we stick even with WW1 tactics cavalry are out (they only pulled off the occasional charge in WW1 because rifles of the era were still mostly single shot or bolt action. Trying it on people with full or semi auto weapons like lasguns would end badly). And no, I don't think it's out of the question for a marine to be able to fire from a bike at top speed, he's had a couple centuries to pick up that skill. A regular dude not so much.

Really? Have you missed all the Death Korps fluff? Or about Commander Chenkov? Imperial Guard doctrine is unchanged. They engage in A VARIETY of types of battle. Skirmish. Artillery. Tanks. Combined arms. Air assault. Infiltration. Trench warfare. And, funnily enough, CAVALRY. It fits Imperial Guard doctrine. They're not all modern warfare, and they're not all WWI. They're the most diverse army in terms of fluff, and that isn't represented.

Yes, those lasguns which kill a human 16.6666666667% of the time (50% to hit, 50% to wound, 66.6666666% chance to penetrate armour). Such effective weapons on tabletop.

And you haven't explained why it's okay that we can have gene-bred superhumans, and not gene-bred superhorses, or alien mounts.

And the issue is that yes, they are asking for them to be on SM level effectiveness, because up until they got some new toys, SM bikers were not considered effective and useful.

Where have I asked for them to be SM level effectiveness? I have asked for them to be useable and balanced in game. If "useable and balanced" is SM level effectiveness, then why can only Space Marines be useable and effective?

And I'd point out that "it happened" doesn't mean it makes canonical sense. There's been a lot of nonsensical crap that's cropped up in the codex over the years (let's start with 5th edition grey knights), and people hated it.

Yes, but this is consistent. You're the one saying "Cavalry can't do this because in the real world XYZ". 40k fluff says "Cavalry CAN do XYZ because I said so". So, the only logic thing to do is ignore both, because this is a wargame. And then we come round to "well, let's ignore all fluff and just make the game balanced". Which is what I'm advocating.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Actually, you can't. Try running any of the Tempestus formations without Commissars. You can't do it. You are REQUIRED to take Commissars in the flipping Militarum Tempestus formations.
Do you understand how ridiculous that is?!

Or try running the Ogryn Auxilia formation with just Bullgryn. You can't do it, because the designers of the formation apparently decided that they had to make the Guard formations "inclusive" of old stuff. Additionally, I'm actually a fan of the Ogryn/Bullgryn. If you want to design a "counterattack" unit for the Guard, that is where your focus should be. Not on the dead end that is Rough Riders.

Try running formation of IG troopers without sentinels.

Emperor's Blade Assault Company.

They're Veterans. Not regular Guardsmen.
Could you find me a Formation of Imperial Guardsmen (regular infantry) without vehicles?

Nope, because there's very few Imperial Guard formations that feature Infantry Squads. Two of them that I specifically know of, as I don't have the revised version of Badab which might have some in there.

Well, there we go. I guess GW doesn't do Formations that cater to my every whim. Much like your Tempestus ones.

There's the Armored Shield(Start Collecting) which is an Infantry Squad, Commissar, and Leman Russ and the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon.

They have vehicles, and thus do not fulfil what I asked for.
See, on your end, you have the Tempestus Formations, but they have Commissars. That's not what you wanted, was it? So why would I want Tanks when I asked not to have them?

And I guess if you really want to get technical I guess there is three, since the Cadian Battle Group Detachment actually has an Auxiliary choice that is just a single Infantry Platoon with no required Sentinel.

Not a Formation though.

But if that's the case, you could realistically just take the standard CAD as an Allied Detachment.

So if that's your response, allow me to give the same one to you:
You could realistically take a standard CAD as an Allied Detachment for your Scions, and not have to take a Commissar.

Does that help? No, because it's not what you asked for.

And honestly? Get over the Sentinel requirement. The thing to get irked about is the mandate of 5 "Infantry Squads" with no allowance for the Infantry, Heavy, or Special squads counting towards that requirement.

They had to pull the bundles down at launch and reword them because of that.

And I quote "Get over the *insert unwanted unit here*". So, if that's your response, why don't you just "get over" the fact you need to take Commissars in the Tempestus Militarum formations?

Because the Commissars being forced in there highlights, to me, the severe lack of understanding and effort that was put into the Militarum Tempestus book in general by the design team. The fluff hammers home time and time and time again that they're these super-loyal, super-zealous guys...yet for some reason they need a Commissar babysitting them like they're a bunch of Whiteshields.

Fluff has no bearing on the game.

There's a huge difference, IMO, to an "unwanted unit here" when the formation just consists of a single Troops choice otherwise(the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon) if you remove the other item versus what we got with the MT formations where you're taking multiple vehicles and Troops choices.

And? I see no difference. You wanted to get rid of a unit in your Formation, I want to get rid of a unit in mine.
It's exactly the same to me.

Is there formation of just SM assault marines?

Bladewing Assault Brotherhood.
2-4 Assault Squads, 1-3 Vanguard Veterans, Captain/Chaplain with Jump Packs.

So yeah. There is a formation of "just SM Assault Marines".

No. That's a minimum 2 Assault Squads and 1 Vanguard Veteran Squad. Not "just SM Assault Marines". That's Assault Marines and another unit of Space Marines I don't want to field. Or shall I just "get over it"?

Vanguard Veterans are Veteran Assault Marines.

No. They're VANGUARD VETERANS.
I asked for Assault Marines. Not VANGUARD VETERANS.
Assault Marines have a different entry in the codex to VANGUARD VETERANS.

Well, unless you mean to tell me that Conscripts and Sternguard Veterans are the same unit because they footslog and have guns.

Funny thing is formations aren't SUPPOSED to have just what players want. That's the trade off you are supposed to pay for otherwise free bonuses.

The point. You missed it.

Commissars are not and should not have been required in the Tempestus Formations.

Sentinels are not and should not have been required in the Astra Militarum Infantry Company formation.

Then run a CAD. There's very few Guard formations as it stands right now, and they wanted to showcase a distinctly Cadian Formation. Cadians are known for having Sentinels operating as part of their Infantry formations.

Well, you know, perhaps you should run a CAD for your Scions then, if you don't want a Commissar babysitting them. As I said, fluff has no bearing on the game. And regardless, "Cadians Scions are known for having Sentinels Commissars operating as part of their Infantry Elite Tempestus formations".

Oh, you don't follow that fluff? Well who says that my guardsmen need to follow the fluff that says that?

Or do I have to "get over it"?

They should have been an option, but not required. Since there is the whole "Tempestus Command Squad" thing.

See my previous point.
What makes Militarum Tempestus so special that everyone needs to abide by Formation rules, but they don't?

Well for one thing, read some formations sometime.

There's a thing called "0-1". If the Commissar were 0-1, with the ability for someone to mitigate the presence of it(see: Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon. 1-3 Sentinel Squads, with no required number of Sentinels meaning you can get an ESIC to only contain 3 Sentinels rather than being forced to have a character that has to be jampacked into one of your squads and will remove one of your models if you utilize a required mechanic of the army), or only required in the Start Collecting set?

So why aren't Sentinels 0-1? Why do Scions get to rewrite their Formation requirements because you don't want to run Commissars? If you don't want to run Commissars, take the advice you gave to me: play a CAD.

Wildly different story. But that's not the case. They jammed the Commissar in because the schmucks writing the book wanted a non-squad option for the HQ. Which could have been done in a different way...or just not done at all as we've seen that they have no issue with limitations on the number of slots for things.

"They jammed the Commissar Sentinels in because the schmucks writing the book wanted a non-squad option for the HQ. to sell Sentinels to Guard players. Which could have been done in a different way...or just not done at all as we've seen that they have no issue with limitations on the number of slots for things selling Sentinels alone, or in the Emperor's Talon Recon Company.

What is special about Scions that doesn't apply to any other army in the game? Disregarding fluff, because, you know, we're talking about tabletop.

Can I have my guard landspeeders back?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So explain Terminators then.
Terminators are meant to be unkillable lynchpins of a Space Marine battleline, an impregnable bulwark against which the tides of war crash around them.
In game? Oh lord no.

The tabletop has no bearing on the fluff. Otherwise, I would only need a few Space Marines to win a game against a "normal" sized force. They do not affect eachother, regarding effectiveness.
However, units that exist in fluff can exist on the tabletop. For example - Rough Riders. And seeing as fluff has no bearing on the game, according to you, then Rough Riders should be balanced and brought in line to be effective in game, no? I mean, that's not a horse they're riding. It's just a unit of T3 cavalry. No horses, no sir.

Again, there is a massive disconnect between game and fluff in 40k. The game is meant to be units in fluff balanced in tabletop format. So why should Rough Riders be gunned down when mere infantry aren't?

There is a disconnect, yes. I fail to see why the correct answer to that should be "let's double down on that" and not "let's fix that". And you keep saying mere infantry don't get gunned down.....yes they do. guardsman die in job lots to anything but the dinkiest heavy weapon in the game (the one you keep bringing up as an example for some reason, even though heavy stubbers are rare in both fluff and tabletop), rough riders included.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Attilans disagree. Example - Charge at Lumen Valley which routed a Necron army. And charging headlong into battle is EXACTLY the Death Korps and Attilan doctrine.
The Tallarn still use cavalry, and we can infer that the Praetorian Hussars use similar tactics to British cavalry in the Boer War.

There is no reason these should be ineffective in game, because the fluff has no bearing on the game.

So...two incidents, since the Tallarn's use theirs as scouts and and the Praetorian things is pure speculation. That sounds like a great reason to keep useless units around.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Really? Have you missed all the Death Korps fluff? Or about Commander Chenkov? Imperial Guard doctrine is unchanged. They engage in A VARIETY of types of battle. Skirmish. Artillery. Tanks. Combined arms. Air assault. Infiltration. Trench warfare. And, funnily enough, CAVALRY. It fits Imperial Guard doctrine. They're not all modern warfare, and they're not all WWI. They're the most diverse army in terms of fluff, and that isn't represented.

The problem with the "diverse army" thing is that at some point you've got to fit all this crap into a book and make models for it, and that will inherently punish bloat. You can have as many rough riders as you want, I'm sure everyone else will accept that as a fair trade for GW molding them instead of making conversion bits for the units everyone uses.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Yes, those lasguns which kill a human 16.6666666667% of the time (50% to hit, 50% to wound, 66.6666666% chance to penetrate armour). Such effective weapons on tabletop.

Your inability to look at the universe through any lens but stat blocks and math doesn't mean the rest of us have too. and hey, whatever happened to justifying tabletop stuff based on the fluff, like you do right before and after this line?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And you haven't explained why it's okay that we can have gene-bred superhumans, and not gene-bred superhorses, or alien mounts.

'Cause the rough riders are some well known for using super tough horses and ultra durable xenos.....oh, wait, no they're not. They in fact had to import specially bred ones for the one time they did so.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, but this is consistent. You're the one saying "Cavalry can't do this because in the real world XYZ". 40k fluff says "Cavalry CAN do XYZ because I said so". So, the only logic thing to do is ignore both, because this is a wargame. And then we come round to "well, let's ignore all fluff and just make the game balanced". Which is what I'm advocating.

40k fluff as says Draigo can carve his boss's name into a daemon primarch's heart. Just because it's in a book somewhere doesn't mean it's holy writ.

And sure, we can dump the fluff and go for pure game mechanics....in which case the riders still get the ax, since they're mechanically the odd man out in a shooty army focused on infantry blobs, tanks, artillery, and air power.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I want to see 660 models, I want to see real fething Imperial Guard.

If I ever get into that army,

Go buy and build the your first 100 before you start making noise about what us existing IG players should do to satisfy your nonsense wishes.

I have more than 300 eldar infantry and I really have mostly vehicles.

You do what you like, I'm just telling you how I would like it if I did start that army.

Smudge: By pure math-hammer, boltguns aren't really that deadly either. Only has a 50% chance to kill an unarmored human per shot that hits them! I could do better than that with modern firearms.

Attempting to claim math-hammer IS fluff is ridiculous, and of COURSE it's ridiculous because the crunch of the game is an abstraction, and you KNOW that it's an abstraction, so honestly you should really already know it is ridiculous, so stop pretending it isn't.

Why can't rough riders be fast moving guardsmen? It seems people are really overthinking this.

... by "fast-moving" do you mean on foot?

Simply put, because guardsmen are humans, and humans don't move that fast on foot. But I think a better solution is simply to not give a damn and lump rough-riders in with bikers and say model it however you want. But then again, my apathy on the topic is well stated.

morgoth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I want to see 660 models, I want to see real fething Imperial Guard.

If I ever get into that army,

Go buy and build the your first 100 before you start making noise about what us existing IG players should do to satisfy your nonsense wishes.

I have more than 300 eldar infantry and I really have mostly vehicles.

You do what you like, I'm just telling you how I would like it if I did start that army.

You know, I think I don't want to interact with you any more.

And for the record, I have more Eldar infantry than you do. On top of the 100s of T3 Imperials that I own.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So explain Terminators then.
Terminators are meant to be unkillable lynchpins of a Space Marine battleline, an impregnable bulwark against which the tides of war crash around them.
In game? Oh lord no.

The tabletop has no bearing on the fluff. Otherwise, I would only need a few Space Marines to win a game against a "normal" sized force. They do not affect eachother, regarding effectiveness.
However, units that exist in fluff can exist on the tabletop. For example - Rough Riders. And seeing as fluff has no bearing on the game, according to you, then Rough Riders should be balanced and brought in line to be effective in game, no? I mean, that's not a horse they're riding. It's just a unit of T3 cavalry. No horses, no sir.

Again, there is a massive disconnect between game and fluff in 40k. The game is meant to be units in fluff balanced in tabletop format. So why should Rough Riders be gunned down when mere infantry aren't?

There is a disconnect, yes. I fail to see why the correct answer to that should be "let's double down on that" and not "let's fix that". And you keep saying mere infantry don't get gunned down.....yes they do. guardsman die in job lots to anything but the dinkiest heavy weapon in the game (the one you keep bringing up as an example for some reason, even though heavy stubbers are rare in both fluff and tabletop), rough riders included.

No, I absolutely agree. Let's fix that. And by that, I mean, let's actually get up and fix Rough Riders and make them viable.

You say mere infantry get gunned down - by what, exactly? Alien tech? But I'm going by what you said about WWI cavalry. Therefore, I'll compare it to the closest thing we have - lasguns and heavy stubbers. Even using them as metrics, Guardsmen survive a hell-of-a-lot. A basic rifle kills a man 16.6666666667% of the time. How are infantry massacred by modern weapons then?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Attilans disagree. Example - Charge at Lumen Valley which routed a Necron army. And charging headlong into battle is EXACTLY the Death Korps and Attilan doctrine.
The Tallarn still use cavalry, and we can infer that the Praetorian Hussars use similar tactics to British cavalry in the Boer War.

There is no reason these should be ineffective in game, because the fluff has no bearing on the game.

So...two incidents, since the Tallarn's use theirs as scouts and and the Praetorian things is pure speculation. That sounds like a great reason to keep useless units around.

Tallarn use cavalry far more than scouting. And given that we know Praetorian battle discipline, and it's remarkable similarity to Colonial British tactics, it's logical to think that their cavalry tactics will be similar.

Yes, they're useless units. Units which exist in the fluff, and should be improved. That wouldn't be too hard, would it? We're asking for a unit to be BALANCED. Is that too much to ask?
Not to mention that if we now delete all useless units, we wouldn't even need to improve any. We'd just delete it. Such as Terminators, Pyrovores, Ratlings, etc etc

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Really? Have you missed all the Death Korps fluff? Or about Commander Chenkov? Imperial Guard doctrine is unchanged. They engage in A VARIETY of types of battle. Skirmish. Artillery. Tanks. Combined arms. Air assault. Infiltration. Trench warfare. And, funnily enough, CAVALRY. It fits Imperial Guard doctrine. They're not all modern warfare, and they're not all WWI. They're the most diverse army in terms of fluff, and that isn't represented.

The problem with the "diverse army" thing is that at some point you've got to fit all this crap into a book and make models for it, and that will inherently punish bloat. You can have as many rough riders as you want, I'm sure everyone else will accept that as a fair trade for GW molding them instead of making conversion bits for the units everyone uses.

No need to swear.
GW didn't have a problem giving Space Marines nine different tactics and specialities. They didn't have a problem making the IG Doctrines way back when.
If you think that adding something at least a-la Chapter Tactics is bloat, then why do SM get it?

And no, no need for guaranteed models - you can sell Cadians on as default, and allow players to convert armies. Or, better yet, possible conversion kits - like Genestealer Cults or Deathwatch.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Yes, those lasguns which kill a human 16.6666666667% of the time (50% to hit, 50% to wound, 66.6666666% chance to penetrate armour). Such effective weapons on tabletop.

Your inability to look at the universe through any lens but stat blocks and math doesn't mean the rest of us have too. and hey, whatever happened to justifying tabletop stuff based on the fluff, like you do right before and after this line?

The universe isn't stat blocks. The tabletop is.

The tabletop and universe are different. Which do you wish to address? The tabletop? Well, why should we remove a unit instead of fixing it? In universe? Why get rid of something that clearly fits in many force aesthetics?

And I don't justify anything by fluff. I I justify it because why should I remove a unit that could be fixed instead?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And you haven't explained why it's okay that we can have gene-bred superhumans, and not gene-bred superhorses, or alien mounts.

'Cause the rough riders are some well known for using super tough horses and ultra durable xenos.....oh, wait, no they're not. They in fact had to import specially bred ones for the one time they did so.

Excuse me? Allow me to quote: "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Huh. And what are Mukaali (which, IIRC, gave a +1 T) then?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yes, but this is consistent. You're the one saying "Cavalry can't do this because in the real world XYZ". 40k fluff says "Cavalry CAN do XYZ because I said so". So, the only logic thing to do is ignore both, because this is a wargame. And then we come round to "well, let's ignore all fluff and just make the game balanced". Which is what I'm advocating.

40k fluff as says Draigo can carve his boss's name into a daemon primarch's heart. Just because it's in a book somewhere doesn't mean it's holy writ.

So, you're advocating we ignore all fluff? Fine. So, in that case, let's get round to making the game balanced. Let's balance Rough Riders.

And sure, we can dump the fluff and go for pure game mechanics....in which case the riders still get the ax, since they're mechanically the odd man out in a shooty army focused on infantry blobs, tanks, artillery, and air power.

So, Ogryns, Bullgryns, Veterans, Wyrdvanes, Ratlings and Sentinels get the cut? I mean, they're none of the things you listed.
And Kroot for Tau, as well as Onager Gauntlets?
And Grotesques in the Dark Eldar?
And Scouts in Space Marines (because they don't have Power Armour and are thus mechanically different)?

Or, perhaps having a bit of everything (including cavalry) is the Imperial Guard's thing. Their variety. The fact that they can be moulded into any army, because the Imperial Guard is just so big? Maybe that's why people like it - because they can make Their Dudes.

Imperial Guard are a TERRIBLE shooting army. They're outclassed by Tau. Does that mean that the Imperial Guard should be entirely scrapped because Tau do their job?

What reason do you have, given that you want to FIX the game, for scrapping a unit entirely instead of actually doing some work and fixing the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Smudge: By pure math-hammer, boltguns aren't really that deadly either. Only has a 50% chance to kill an unarmored human per shot that hits them! I could do better than that with modern firearms.

Exactly. So why Battlegrinder is saying the cavalry would be blown to pieces is beyond me.

Attempting to claim math-hammer IS fluff is ridiculous, and of COURSE it's ridiculous because the crunch of the game is an abstraction, and you KNOW that it's an abstraction, so honestly you should really already know it is ridiculous, so stop pretending it isn't.

I'm not claiming mathhammer is fluff. I'm saying the game ISN'T dictated by fluff - hence why Rough Riders should be given whatever stats it takes to make them actually viable.

I think the entire problem with rough riders is an issue of trying to design the armies first and then the units. We've got guys who fight it out on horseback, so let's put some horses in the codex. This is a problematic design tactic from minute one.

By contrast, look at how the SM codex works. It's got like two dozen units that are all mechanically functional and work in their intended role (more or less), baring a few bugs in the system like over effective grav weapons and less effective terminators. But overall, everything works.
You then take that selection of solidly designed models, stack one special rule and one or two special characters who have a rule our two of their own, and viola! You have a bunch of distinct and separate armies that aren't clogging the codex with units no one else will ever use.
Iron hands, Raven Guard, White Scars and Ultramarines all use the exact same models with the exact same rules (baring chapter tactics and maybe a special character), and yet those few tweaks and the player's choice of how to build that army will mean they play very differently.

This would inevitably homogenize the guard a teeny tiny bit. It would also make them a stronger and more effective army, even if we end up ditching some of their units. Because yeah, there;s going to be some units that just one army uses and no one else does, and trying to write a book that has rules for a dozen plus armies own unique stuff isn't going to work out. However, some kind of chapter-tactics style tweak would mean those armies actually play differantly, instead of having your catachan sqaud and your cadian sqaud and your vallahan sqaud all play exactly the same even though those regiments have totally different themes and styles.

Or we can keep moving heaven and earth to keep the horsies around, because you can't have a guard codex without a bunch of dudes with lances in it, no way.

Martel732 wrote:
Why can't rough riders be fast moving guardsmen? It seems people are really overthinking this.

They can be. The problem is that even fast moving guardsman will be gunned down and hacked apart in short order, no matter what you do with their stats.

If the only problem with IG was that RRs were overcosted ...

RRs are so far down on the list of things that need fixing, it isn't even funny. How about addressing the IG Platoon and Leman Russ, eh? Let's worry about that. If RRs and Ogryns and Ratlings *ALL* jump to 50 ppm, that's fine, I can do without any of them. What I can't do is accept an IG army with ineffective Guardsmen and Leman Russes.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I want to see 660 models, I want to see real fething Imperial Guard.

If I ever get into that army,

Go buy and build the your first 100 before you start making noise about what us existing IG players should do to satisfy your nonsense wishes.

Unfortunately, some of us are in the process of going that far.

This photo doesn't include the other 110 I've painted up since. Or the other ones that need stripping, prepping and painting up.




I'm clocking up in the region of 500+ Praetorians, a labour of love since 1998.

On an unrelated note, I've seen GW's first background reference to Praetorians I can recall since the 3rd ed Codex courtesy of the latest Captain Catachan article from the Regimental Standard:

https://regimental-standard.com/2017/02/22/captain-catachans-guide-to-dangerous-flora/


"Please excuse his colourful language and harsh local colloquialisms: he was raised in less refined surroundings than you, good men of Mordia, Praetoria and Cadia".


Huzzah!

 Battlegrinder wrote:
I think the entire problem with rough riders is an issue of trying to design the armies first and then the units. We've got guys who fight it out on horseback, so let's put some horses in the codex. This is a problematic design tactic from minute one.

Is it? I see it as no different to Space Marines having bikes.

"We have Space Marines who fight on bikes, so let's put bikes in the Codex!" The difference is that bikes are good, and cavalry is not. So, solution? Improve Cavalry.

By contrast, look at how the SM codex works. It's got like two dozen units that are all mechanically functional and work in their intended role (more or less), baring a few bugs in the system like over effective grav weapons and less effective terminators. But overall, everything works.

Only when you ignore Terminators and Tactical Squads taken in ten man units, and plasma cannons, and storm bolters, etc etc...

What someone *could* do is fix them. However, your response seems to be to remove anything that doesn't work, instead of fixing it.

Rough Riders *could* fill their role as fast moving hassle and harry units, giving some speedy punch to the Imperial Guard, if they were fixed. If they were removed, then the Guard lacks that.

You then take that selection of solidly designed models, stack one special rule and one or two special characters who have a rule our two of their own, and viola! You have a bunch of distinct and separate armies that aren't clogging the codex with units no one else will ever use.

Terminators are not solidly designed. They're terrible.

So, what to do? Remove Terminators? They don't fit your criteria.
Do you know what *could* fit your criteria? Rough Riders, if they were actually looked at and improved, instead of being removed.

Iron hands, Raven Guard, White Scars and Ultramarines all use the exact same models with the exact same rules (baring chapter tactics and maybe a special character), and yet those few tweaks and the player's choice of how to build that army will mean they play very differently.

So why is this not done to the Imperial Guard?

This would inevitably homogenize the guard a teeny tiny bit. It would also make them a stronger and more effective army, even if we end up ditching some of their units.

I fail to see how REMOVING choices from the army will make it better. It won't. It'll streamline it, but that doesn't mean the options you're left with are any better. It just means you have less rubbish to look through, instead of actually fixing the rubbish and making everything viable.

Eventually, if you go down that way, we end up with mono-builds, because everything is homogenised.

Because yeah, there;s going to be some units that just one army uses and no one else does, and trying to write a book that has rules for a dozen plus armies own unique stuff isn't going to work out.

This is ONE UNIT. Do you think removing one unit will make all the difference? This isn't like trying to cram every Space Marine chapter in one book. This is one unit, of which variants are in use across a range of aspects of the army.

There isn't a dozen plus armies getting represented. This is one unit, which is represented in a dozen armies alone. What change will removing one single unit do?

However, some kind of chapter-tactics style tweak would mean those armies actually play differantly, instead of having your catachan sqaud and your cadian sqaud and your vallahan sqaud all play exactly the same even though those regiments have totally different themes and styles.

You mean to say that a hypothetical "Attilan" Chapter Tactic would make my guardsmen all cavalry? I mean, because there wouldn't be a unit that could fill that role. How do you propose an Attilan army be played without cavalry?

Or we can keep moving heaven and earth to keep the horsies around, because you can't have a guard codex without a bunch of dudes with lances in it, no way.

Or you can actually do some work and put some effort in and balance a unit instead of giving up and saying "nope, can't handle this, if it's broken, throw it away".

Unless that's what you want to do - in which case, I would ask you to throw away most of the CSM, Tyranid, Imperial Guard, and Ork armies for being sub-par. And Terminators.

Martel732 wrote:
Why can't rough riders be fast moving guardsmen? It seems people are really overthinking this.

They can be. The problem is that even fast moving guardsman will be gunned down and hacked apart in short order, no matter what you do with their stats.

So me giving Guardsmen T10, 2+/2++/2+++ wouldn't make them any more durable?

Anything can be improved. It's a case of how far you're willing to go.

Then they're no longer really Guardsmen.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

No, I absolutely agree. Let's fix that. And by that, I mean, let's actually get up and fix Rough Riders and make them viable.

You say mere infantry get gunned down - by what, exactly? Alien tech? But I'm going by what you said about WWI cavalry. Therefore, I'll compare it to the closest thing we have - lasguns and heavy stubbers. Even using them as metrics, Guardsmen survive a hell-of-a-lot. A basic rifle kills a man 16.6666666667% of the time. How are infantry massacred by modern weapons then?

They can't be made viable because the game mechanically leaves no room for that. They're T3 with a six up save, and mediocre WS and BS. No one would look at that statline and go "yeah, that looks like a great CC charging unit".

And they get gunned down by anything and everything bigger than two weakest ranged weapons in the games. Bolters, heavy bolters, autocannons, pulse weapons, ect. This whole "they can tank stubber fire" started off with some bizzare hypothetical about a lone squad charging a lone stubber emplacement, which in game....will never happen.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Tallarn use cavalry far more than scouting. And given that we know Praetorian battle discipline, and it's remarkable similarity to Colonial British tactics, it's logical to think that their cavalry tactics will be similar.

Yes, they're useless units. Units which exist in the fluff, and should be improved. That wouldn't be too hard, would it? We're asking for a unit to be BALANCED. Is that too much to ask?
Not to mention that if we now delete all useless units, we wouldn't even need to improve any. We'd just delete it. Such as Terminators, Pyrovores, Ratlings, etc etc

You must not be seeing all the threads that have mentioned terminators aren't worth it, and it's not like anyone was taking pyrovores before this, so yeah, dump em.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No need to swear.
GW didn't have a problem giving Space Marines nine different tactics and specialities. They didn't have a problem making the IG Doctrines way back when.
If you think that adding something at least a-la Chapter Tactics is bloat, then why do SM get it?

And no, no need for guaranteed models - you can sell Cadians on as default, and allow players to convert armies. Or, better yet, possible conversion kits - like Genestealer Cults or Deathwatch.

I pointed out that idea, however riders still get ditched under that model, because the SM paradigm needs a solid framework of functional units to build itself around, and riders don't fit that. How many units exclusively useful with one set of chapter tactics are there in the SM codex? You've got crusader squads as a holdover from when the Templars had their own codex....and that's it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The universe isn't stat blocks. The tabletop is.

The tabletop and universe are different. Which do you wish to address? The tabletop? Well, why should we remove a unit instead of fixing it? In universe? Why get rid of something that clearly fits in many force aesthetics?

And I don't justify anything by fluff. I I justify it because why should I remove a unit that could be fixed instead?

The tabletop and setting are different, but they're supposed to be two sides of the same coin, not two totally dissimilar coins.

And we should remove the riders because you can't fix some things. Sure, maybe with a better save and better weapon skill they could be a bit better, and maybe we'll give them tougher mounts to patch that weakness......oh, look. You invented the scout bike squad.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Excuse me? Allow me to quote: "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Huh. And what are Mukaali (which, IIRC, gave a +1 T) then?

I notice a distinct lack of "many of which are incredibly tough and resilient compared to horses" in that line, and bringing up the fact that one specific special upgrade as for a mount that was tougher than a horse doesn't really make the argument that they usually have super horses any stronger.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, you're advocating we ignore all fluff? Fine. So, in that case, let's get round to making the game balanced. Let's balance Rough Riders.

They already did, they're called scout bikes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, Ogryns, Bullgryns, Veterans, Wyrdvanes, Ratlings and Sentinels get the cut? I mean, they're none of the things you listed.
And Kroot for Tau, as well as Onager Gauntlets?
And Grotesques in the Dark Eldar?
And Scouts in Space Marines (because they don't have Power Armour and are thus mechanically different)?

Something being the odd man out mechanically doesn't mean it has some vague difference, they mean it specially doesn't work like anything else in the army on a fundemental level. Most of those things don't fit that bill (save ogryns and kroot, and frankly I could live with a 40k that purged the last couple bits of "it's WHFB in space, because making sense is for squares", or that hacked out supflious bits from the tau like their auxiliaries who don't work with any other part of the army as it stands).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or, perhaps having a bit of everything (including cavalry) is the Imperial Guard's thing. Their variety. The fact that they can be moulded into any army, because the Imperial Guard is just so big? Maybe that's why people like it - because they can make Their Dudes.

Yeah, I love how my stormtroopers play exactly like every single other stormtrooper in the game, that really makes them feel like my own army. You make an army that looks a bit different but still plays the same, or you can get one that looks, feels, and plays differently, all that cost of like two units that didn't work right either way.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Imperial Guard are a TERRIBLE shooting army. They're outclassed by Tau. Does that mean that the Imperial Guard should be entirely scrapped because Tau do their job?

What reason do you have, given that you want to FIX the game, for scrapping a unit entirely instead of actually doing some work and fixing the problem?

By that logic we should ditch every army but eldar, after all they can do anything better than just about anyone else. The guard have a set theme that most everything works around and with, and that theme doesn't fit riders into it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Is it? I see it as no different to Space Marines having bikes.

"We have Space Marines who fight on bikes, so let's put bikes in the Codex!" The difference is that bikes are good, and cavalry is not. So, solution? Improve Cavalry.

By doing....what? I keep hering calls to fix it, I don't see any possible method to do so.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Only when you ignore Terminators and Tactical Squads taken in ten man units, and plasma cannons, and storm bolters, etc etc...

What someone *could* do is fix them. However, your response seems to be to remove anything that doesn't work, instead of fixing it.

Rough Riders *could* fill their role as fast moving hassle and harry units, giving some speedy punch to the Imperial Guard, if they were fixed. If they were removed, then the Guard lacks that.

No, they really can't. They're mechanically not designed or able to do that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators are not solidly designed. They're terrible.

So, what to do? Remove Terminators? They don't fit your criteria.
Do you know what *could* fit your criteria? Rough Riders, if they were actually looked at and improved, instead of being removed.

If you can't fix it (hint, you can't)....sure.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So why is this not done to the Imperial Guard?

Because GW sucks? I dunno.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I fail to see how REMOVING choices from the army will make it better. It won't. It'll streamline it, but that doesn't mean the options you're left with are any better. It just means you have less rubbish to look through, instead of actually fixing the rubbish and making everything viable.

Eventually, if you go down that way, we end up with mono-builds, because everything is homogenised.

Yeah, 'cause that totally happens with marines or tau or all those other army's.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is ONE UNIT. Do you think removing one unit will make all the difference? This isn't like trying to cram every Space Marine chapter in one book. This is one unit, of which variants are in use across a range of aspects of the army.

There isn't a dozen plus armies getting represented. This is one unit, which is represented in a dozen armies alone. What change will removing one single unit do?

Proably wouldn't be just the one, you've brought up more than that yourself.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You mean to say that a hypothetical "Attilan" Chapter Tactic would make my guardsmen all cavalry? I mean, because there wouldn't be a unit that could fill that role. How do you propose an Attilan army be played without cavalry?

Same way you did before, you don't. Only at least this time it's because you can't rather than you get tabled because your army is mechanically infeasible.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or you can actually do some work and put some effort in and balance a unit instead of giving up and saying "nope, can't handle this, if it's broken, throw it away".

Unless that's what you want to do - in which case, I would ask you to throw away most of the CSM, Tyranid, Imperial Guard, and Ork armies for being sub-par. And Terminators.

So, again, where's your magic fix for riders that sticks with thier fluff and doesn't turn them into scout bikers?

Melissia wrote:Then they're no longer really Guardsmen.

What makes a Guardsman a Guardsman?

What matters more in a wargame? Balance, or being consistent? I say that genuinely, because I don't know where I stand on it, and could be persuaded either way.

Battlegrinder wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

No, I absolutely agree. Let's fix that. And by that, I mean, let's actually get up and fix Rough Riders and make them viable.

You say mere infantry get gunned down - by what, exactly? Alien tech? But I'm going by what you said about WWI cavalry. Therefore, I'll compare it to the closest thing we have - lasguns and heavy stubbers. Even using them as metrics, Guardsmen survive a hell-of-a-lot. A basic rifle kills a man 16.6666666667% of the time. How are infantry massacred by modern weapons then?

They can't be made viable because the game mechanically leaves no room for that. They're T3 with a six up save, and mediocre WS and BS. No one would look at that statline and go "yeah, that looks like a great CC charging unit".

And they get gunned down by anything and everything bigger than two weakest ranged weapons in the games. Bolters, heavy bolters, autocannons, pulse weapons, ect. This whole "they can tank stubber fire" started off with some bizzare hypothetical about a lone squad charging a lone stubber emplacement, which in game....will never happen.

So, what you do is make them NOT T3 6+ with a better WS or BS. If you want make them viable as a unit in a wargame.
Unless you want to go by fluff, in which case there should be hundreds of Rough Riders for each Space Marine.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Tallarn use cavalry far more than scouting. And given that we know Praetorian battle discipline, and it's remarkable similarity to Colonial British tactics, it's logical to think that their cavalry tactics will be similar.

Yes, they're useless units. Units which exist in the fluff, and should be improved. That wouldn't be too hard, would it? We're asking for a unit to be BALANCED. Is that too much to ask?
Not to mention that if we now delete all useless units, we wouldn't even need to improve any. We'd just delete it. Such as Terminators, Pyrovores, Ratlings, etc etc

You must not be seeing all the threads that have mentioned terminators aren't worth it, and it's not like anyone was taking pyrovores before this, so yeah, dump em.

So, IOW - don't fix anything, just scrap the unit.

Okay. Would you fancy sharing that belief in every thread where people discuss how to improve an army or unit?

"How do we improve the Lena Russ?" "Scrap it."
"How do we make Terminators not suck?" "Scrap them."
"How to improve the Imperial Guard?" "Scrap them."

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No need to swear.
GW didn't have a problem giving Space Marines nine different tactics and specialities. They didn't have a problem making the IG Doctrines way back when.
If you think that adding something at least a-la Chapter Tactics is bloat, then why do SM get it?

And no, no need for guaranteed models - you can sell Cadians on as default, and allow players to convert armies. Or, better yet, possible conversion kits - like Genestealer Cults or Deathwatch.

I pointed out that idea, however riders still get ditched under that model, because the SM paradigm needs a solid framework of functional units to build itself around, and riders don't fit that.

Nor do Terminators.

How many units exclusively useful with one set of chapter tactics are there in the SM codex? You've got crusader squads as a holdover from when the Templars had their own codex....and that's it.

Who said Rough Riders can only be taken by Attilans? If all my suggestions were taken on, and Rough Riders could upgrade their mounys, Cadians could have motorbike Rough Riders - thereby making them available to EVERYONE.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The universe isn't stat blocks. The tabletop is.

The tabletop and universe are different. Which do you wish to address? The tabletop? Well, why should we remove a unit instead of fixing it? In universe? Why get rid of something that clearly fits in many force aesthetics?

And I don't justify anything by fluff. I I justify it because why should I remove a unit that could be fixed instead?

The tabletop and setting are different, but they're supposed to be two sides of the same coin, not two totally dissimilar coins.

And we should remove the riders because you can't fix some things. Sure, maybe with a better save and better weapon skill they could be a bit better, and maybe we'll give them tougher mounts to patch that weakness......oh, look. You invented the scout bike squad.

No. We have something with the same stats as a Scout Bike Squad. It is not a Scout Bike Squad though. It is Rough Riders.
Unless you mean to say that Chaos Space Marines are actually just loyalist Space Marines, because their statline and warhead are the same.

Would you say giving Rough Riders that statline would be balanced?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Excuse me? Allow me to quote: "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Huh. And what are Mukaali (which, IIRC, gave a +1 T) then?

I notice a distinct lack of "many of which are incredibly tough and resilient compared to horses" in that line, and bringing up the fact that one specific special upgrade as for a mount that was tougher than a horse doesn't really make the argument that they usually have super horses any stronger.

No, but we know the Imperium CAN. With retconning, if you felt that was necessary, it becomes completely feasible to have augmented cavalry. Not to mention the Space Wolves have augmented and tough cava!ry of their own.

Mukaali are enough reason to justify it: they prove the existence of at least one variant of tough mount. And I'm sure there's more.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, you're advocating we ignore all fluff? Fine. So, in that case, let's get round to making the game balanced. Let's balance Rough Riders.

They already did, they're called scout bikes.

Brilliant. No need to scarp them then. They're balanced now, so therefore fit and have a role.

Unless they don't, so they're not balanced, which means that just using a Scout Bike profile isn't enough work.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, Ogryns, Bullgryns, Veterans, Wyrdvanes, Ratlings and Sentinels get the cut? I mean, they're none of the things you listed.
And Kroot for Tau, as well as Onager Gauntlets?
And Grotesques in the Dark Eldar?
And Scouts in Space Marines (because they don't have Power Armour and are thus mechanically different)?

Something being the odd man out mechanically doesn't mean it has some vague difference, they mean it specially doesn't work like anything else in the army on a fundemental level. Most of those things don't fit that bill (save ogryns and kroot, and frankly I could live with a 40k that purged the last couple bits of "it's WHFB in space, because making sense is for squares", or that hacked out supflious bits from the tau like their auxiliaries who don't work with any other part of the army as it stands).

So you're advocating getting rid of units that you yourself think are inappropriate.

I really want to see this one getting proposed:
Yes, let's remove Kroot, Ogryns, Bullgryns, Terminators, Vespid etc etc.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or, perhaps having a bit of everything (including cavalry) is the Imperial Guard's thing. Their variety. The fact that they can be moulded into any army, because the Imperial Guard is just so big? Maybe that's why people like it - because they can make Their Dudes.

Yeah, I love how my stormtroopers play exactly like every single other stormtrooper in the game, that really makes them feel like my own army. You make an army that looks a bit different but still plays the same, or you can get one that looks, feels, and plays differently, all that cost of like two units that didn't work right either way.

I wasn't aware that Rough Riders and Regimental Tactics were mutually exclusive.
Oh, right - they don't have to be, but you seem to be hell bent on enforcing that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Imperial Guard are a TERRIBLE shooting army. They're outclassed by Tau. Does that mean that the Imperial Guard should be entirely scrapped because Tau do their job?

What reason do you have, given that you want to FIX the game, for scrapping a unit entirely instead of actually doing some work and fixing the problem?

By that logic we should ditch every army but eldar, after all they can do anything better than just about anyone else. The guard have a set theme that most everything works around and with, and that theme doesn't fit riders into it.

Well, you heard it here first. Only take Eldar, because everything else is being scrapped, because we shouldn't bother trying to nce underpowered units.

After all, isn't that what you suggest with Rough Riders?

And no, we clearly have different ideas on what the theme of the Imperial Guard is.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Is it? I see it as no different to Space Marines having bikes.

"We have Space Marines who fight on bikes, so let's put bikes in the Codex!" The difference is that bikes are good, and cavalry is not. So, solution? Improve Cavalry.

By doing....what? I keep hering calls to fix it, I don't see any possible method to do so.

You proposed Scout Bikes.

Again, there's always the whole buff to insanity approach. I can guarantee it'll make them good. Too good, however. The key is to make them BALANCED.

Anything can be balanced. Either by points, or by abilities. It's just a case of putting work in.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Only when you ignore Terminators and Tactical Squads taken in ten man units, and plasma cannons, and storm bolters, etc etc...

What someone *could* do is fix them. However, your response seems to be to remove anything that doesn't work, instead of fixing it.

Rough Riders *could* fill their role as fast moving hassle and harry units, giving some speedy punch to the Imperial Guard, if they were fixed. If they were removed, then the Guard lacks that.

No, they really can't. They're mechanically not designed or able to do that.

And yet bikes fill the same role for Space Marines. Why couldn't Rough Riders do thathat same role if they were improved?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators are not solidly designed. They're terrible.

So, what to do? Remove Terminators? They don't fit your criteria.
Do you know what *could* fit your criteria? Rough Riders, if they were actually looked at and improved, instead of being removed.

If you can't fix it (hint, you can't)....sure.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that if something is broken, there's no way it can be fixed?

Best go tell people that in every "Buff XYZ" thread then.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So why is this not done to the Imperial Guard?

Because GW sucks? I dunno.

Exactly.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I fail to see how REMOVING choices from the army will make it better. It won't. It'll streamline it, but that doesn't mean the options you're left with are any better. It just means you have less rubbish to look through, instead of actually fixing the rubbish and making everything viable.

Eventually, if you go down that way, we end up with mono-builds, because everything is homogenised.

Yeah, 'cause that totally happens with marines or tau or all those other army's.

Why? It's along your logic. If all the bad units are removed, we're left with on!y the best units, thus creating homogony. I haven't said that any army has achieved it yet. I'm saying that's your argument, taken to the logical extreme.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is ONE UNIT. Do you think removing one unit will make all the difference? This isn't like trying to cram every Space Marine chapter in one book. This is one unit, of which variants are in use across a range of aspects of the army.

There isn't a dozen plus armies getting represented. This is one unit, which is represented in a dozen armies alone. What change will removing one single unit do?

Proably wouldn't be just the one, you've brought up more than that yourself.

You believe that by getting rid of all the sub-par units, the Codex will become good? Tell me, how will Infantry Squads get better if Ratings, Ogryns, Bullgryns and Rough Riders are removed?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You mean to say that a hypothetical "Attilan" Chapter Tactic would make my guardsmen all cavalry? I mean, because there wouldn't be a unit that could fill that role. How do you propose an Attilan army be played without cavalry?

Same way you did before, you don't. Only at least this time it's because you can't rather than you get tabled because your army is mechanically infeasible.

Again, if my Rough Riders are infeasible, then they haven't been improved. To which I would ask that they ARE fixed.

Also, loving the whole "I disagree with your army as a concept, therefore you can't play it" opinion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or you can actually do some work and put some effort in and balance a unit instead of giving up and saying "nope, can't handle this, if it's broken, throw it away".

Unless that's what you want to do - in which case, I would ask you to throw away most of the CSM, Tyranid, Imperial Guard, and Ork armies for being sub-par. And Terminators.

So, again, where's your magic fix for riders that sticks with thier fluff and doesn't turn them into scout bikers?

What's wrong with having the same statline as Scout Bikers? If it fixes them, so be it.
And with the tabletop, I'm not fussed about fluff. I'd rather see them be actually effective. And besides, with fluff, we'd see all of ten Space Marines fighting against an entire Warband of Orks. Clearly not accurate to tabletop.

And no, I'm leaving the fix for Kanluwen and the overhaul.

 Melissia wrote:
... by "fast-moving" do you mean on foot?

Simply put, because guardsmen are humans, and humans don't move that fast on foot. But I think a better solution is simply to not give a damn and lump rough-riders in with bikers and say model it however you want. But then again, my apathy on the topic is well stated.

No, I mean the actual cavalry models.

Why are we pretending that fixing rough riders is an impossible task? DKoK death riders are already way better, especially in the "death riders as troops" detachment. Simply putting them into codex IG armies as-is would fix most of the problem, and adding a "take rough riders as troops" option would fix the rest.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are we pretending that fixing rough riders is an impossible task? DKoK death riders are already way better, especially in the "death riders as troops" detachment. Simply putting them into codex IG armies as-is would fix most of the problem, and adding a "take rough riders as troops" option would fix the rest.

While I would grant that DKoK Death Riders are way better, I'm not even sure they can be considered particularly functional in 7E. They were "ok" earlier, but mine certainly just get immediately pasted and driven off the board quickly, though I'm not running them in large numbers as Troops.

Ok, I'm not going to keep spending my time on these sprawling mega-posts, it's too much of a time sink and I've got stuff to do. So I'll give a quick summary and move on.

Sure, you can 'balance' riders by turning them into scout bikers, which would be great if not for the minor flaw of them not being rough riders anymore. The fact that was the only suggestion kinda underlines the whole "they're hosed, dump them" point I'm making (and I'm somewhat amused by the constant "well, how about we get rid of termies too, since they don't work" as if you're expecting that to make me change my mind. Sure, scrap 'em).

40k has gotten ride of units before, and will do so again. It's a natural part of the game's development, and sometimes you just have to deal with it. As it stands, rough riders cannot be fixed because their core concept of "dude on a horse" does not work out mechanically, and they really don't have a role (scout bikes do, but scout bikes have a role in an entirely differant army that you can't just swap into the IG). What do you want riders to actually do?

How about you send some to contest an objective? Assuming they're not gunned down the way, sure, they can get there. And then they'll be pushed back off one by the first determined push, because they're still just guardsman, they don't have a commissar or priest for morale and they're proably out of orders range. Whereas a regular infantry squad with a chimera could get there a bit easier, has an APC with heavy weapons to back them up, and can take special characters.

How about as a hit a run harressment unit, like you've suggested....yeah, not gonna work either. They're still to easy to kill, have guard BS and no heavy weapons, and most screening forces can stop them cold. Hit and run harassment requires that you can actually do worthwhile damage to an enemy....something sentinels can do, since they're tough and have more firepower.

Ok, so how about CC.....with S3 and guard weapon skill.....no.

That leaves....what? Really, what are they supposed to do? Scout bikes have more firepower, infiltrate, and locator beacons, so they can get in early, do damage, and then call in the heavy stuff. Riders can't, and even if you buff them up to scout level (I really like the "are chaos marines the same as loyalist, because they have the same statline" bit.....uh, pretty much? Plus or minus a few rules and some wargear, that's kinda thier entire point, is to be loyalist marines but evil. Doesn't mean you can give the guard loyalist marines but just call them something else).

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are we pretending that fixing rough riders is an impossible task? DKoK death riders are already way better, especially in the "death riders as troops" detachment. Simply putting them into codex IG armies as-is would fix most of the problem, and adding a "take rough riders as troops" option would fix the rest.

Maybe because saying "they need to be ditched because they can't be fixed" sounds like a more compelling argument than "they need to be ditched because I don't like horses."

Weapons in the fluff are much more dangerous than they are on the tabletop. Lasguns are supposed to be fairly deadly and bolters are supposed to be devastating. That doesn't work so well on the tabletop as things would get killed way too quickly. Kind of like how Marines and other really elite units don't play on the table like they read in the fluff. If a person had over a hundred Orks or IG with supporting vehicles and their opponent had a single squad of Marines or Aspect Warriors it would make for a weird game. (That could be fun sometimes, but not as the normal game.)

I'm struggling a bit with the difference between making sense and being realistic. I know that things can make sense internally within a non-realistic setting. I just get worried when people start talking about 40k needing to make sense because I sometimes read it as them wanting to make 40k realistic, which would be a big waste of time and ruin all the things that make 40k great in my opinion. I like that 40k is total space opera fantasy where the rule of cool prevails.

A lot of things don't make sense in the game (as opposed to being simply unrealistic) but they are awesome. Does a super human in power armor on an armored motorcycle stand a better chance of getting into close combat than a regular human on a horse? Yes, but it still doesn't make much sense to do so. Even with the superhuman biology and armor, it would make a lot more sense (in my mind at least) to get off the motorcycle, get behind cover and shoot at the enemy. However, superhumans on motorcycles crashing into the enemy is cool. Why would someone want run up try to hack at someone with a sword when they have a gun? Yeah, a superhuman in armor would be more likely to be able to get up close, but even up close most of the time it would make more sense (in my mind) to shoot them. Chainsaw swords don't make any kind of sense, but they're awesome.

If we remove everything that doesn't make sense, is unrealistic and/or doesn't work very well on the tabletop there won't be anything left for us to play with.

I want supermen with chainsaw swords fighting Orcs in Spaaaaaace! I want suicidal cavalry charges into withering plasma fire! I don't want another generic sci-fi setting that tries to be realistic but fails because that usually makes for a boring game.

Keep 40k weird!

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I want supermen with chainsaw swords fighting Orcs in Spaaaaaace! I want suicidal cavalry charges into withering plasma fire! I don't want another generic sci-fi setting that tries to be realistic but fails because that usually makes for a boring game.

Keep 40k weird!

Well, given that the closest thing we got to a 'fix' for riders involved turning them into space marines, it looks like we can combine those two wishes. Now, I mainly play marines so I can kind of appreciate the appeal, but I can't help but thing it kind of clashes with the rest of the IG's theme.

It is my opinion that rough riders shouldn't be an assault unit. They should be a rapid strike unit that shows us unexpectedly, rides through an encampment and rides out. Basically they should ride through the center of camp with rapid firing lasguns, carbines, etc, then uses sabres to mop up the stragglers. I'm not a fan of their current incarnation personally.

you expose yourself to way too much fire if you try to engage an enemy in melee while they have machine guns.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What matters more in a wargame? Balance, or being consistent?

Yes.

Perfect balance with a complete disregard for faction differentiation leads to all factions being the exact same. That makes for a bad wargame for the most part.

 Battlegrinder wrote:
As it stands, rough riders cannot be fixed because their core concept of "dude on a horse" does not work out mechanically

DKoK death riders disagree with you.

Let's say we replace Rough Riders as they currently are with the much, much better DKoK Death Riders. An extra attack and wound per base, 6+ FnP and able to take 4+ armor, and re-rolling dangerous terrain. With all that, I'd absolutely take them at current Rough Rider costs (no idea how many points they are in actuality, as I don't have the DKoK supplement). This makes them noticeably harder to kill than typical guardsmen, and it's actually very safe to use cover, as opposed to how suicidal it is for regular RRs. If that statline was just moved to the regular IG codex, I would absolutely use them. I note that they can also be taken in platoons just like stormtroopers and regular infantry!

 Battlegrinder wrote:
40k has gotten ride of units before, and will do so again. It's a natural part of the game's development, and sometimes you just have to deal with it. As it stands, rough riders cannot be fixed because their core concept of "dude on a horse" does not work out mechanically, and they really don't have a role (scout bikes do, but scout bikes have a role in an entirely differant army that you can't just swap into the IG). What do you want riders to actually do?

See my above paragraph.

How about you send some to contest an objective? Assuming they're not gunned down the way, sure, they can get there. And then they'll be pushed back off one by the first determined push, because they're still just guardsman, they don't have a commissar or priest for morale and they're proably out of orders range.

Mech vets are also just guardsmen, can easily be pushed off objectives if the opponent deems it important, generally far from orders range, and are not worth attaching a commissar or priest, but they are useful, right? Yes they are, you even mention them in the next quote. But there is an awesome looking mounted Commissar model, thought I'd throw that out there too.

Whereas a regular infantry squad with a chimera could get there a bit easier, has an APC with heavy weapons to back them up, and can take special characters.

But wounding a horse extra hard doesn't cause it to sometimes explode and kill half of the unit in the process. Transports can be as dangerous as they are useful, if you're not careful. If mine are still alive after I dump off my vets, I get them at least 6" away as a precaution.

How about as a hit a run harressment unit, like you've suggested....yeah, not gonna work either. They're still to easy to kill, have guard BS and no heavy weapons, and most screening forces can stop them cold. Hit and run harassment requires that you can actually do worthwhile damage to an enemy....something sentinels can do, since they're tough and have more firepower.

Currently, RR squads can take as many special weapons as a stormtrooper squad, and you shouldn't put Heavy Weapons in your fast units like mech vets anyways. A sentinel can put out a couple ranged shots a turn, but are slow and terrible at assault, so the RRs actually fill the "hit and run" niche much better, as DKoK's number of attacks on the charge, I5, S5, and AP3 even once can be quite impactful.

TL;DR Just give Codex IG Rough Riders those Death Rider stats and they'll provide much greater utility over the course of a game, particularly because they can make use of cover. One unit would easily deserve a limited Fast Attack slot over a sentinel or two. And, they are still cavalry units. Boom, exactly what we've been asking for! They don't have to be great, but they would certainly be playable. So, why talk about removing RRs when they could instead be more like their cousins from another supplement?

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I want supermen with chainsaw swords fighting Orcs in Spaaaaaace! I want suicidal cavalry charges into withering plasma fire! I don't want another generic sci-fi setting that tries to be realistic but fails because that usually makes for a boring game.

Keep 40k weird!

Well, given that the closest thing we got to a 'fix' for riders involved turning them into space marines, it looks like we can combine those two wishes. Now, I mainly play marines so I can kind of appreciate the appeal, but I can't help but thing it kind of clashes with the rest of the IG's theme.

I would agree that they shouldn't be as tough as Marines. Is there a place for a fast moving but fragile unit that hits hard?

Most of the blurbs I've read about Rough Riders talk about them being long-range, self-sufficient scouts who sometimes ambush the enemy using hit-and-run tactics. That's pretty different than heavy shock cavalry, although players use them to represent both and the blurb in the current codex briefly mentions both styles. I've read about the hunting lances having explosive tips. I thought that we used to be able to give them different tips that emulated the power of different weapons (krak, plasma, melta) for different amounts of points? Maybe I hallucinated that whole thing. My memory in unreliable.

Maybe give them outflank, the ability to assault the turn they come in from reserves, WS 4 and make the hunting lances have a melta attack that hits at high initiative. They would essentially be a one-use melta missile that can take out a troublesome unit in the opponent's backfield. There would probably be justification for giving them rules like Furious Charge, Hammer of Wrath, and Hit & Run, but that might be too many rules for one unit.

That would be representative of scout cavalry. Heavy cavalry would be trickier.

By clashing with the rest of the IG's theme do you mean how they work on the tabletop, or for aesthetic/fluff reasons?

I'm really curious to see 8th edition. It's hard to talk about small, individual changes when there might be broad, sweeping changes in the near future. If they go to a warscrolls system then keeping legacy units around isn't such a big deal. If they stick with the Codex system I wouldn't be too upset if Rough Riders and ab-humans got removed from the main Codex but had some support in a supplement. It'd be nice to see the Guard getting more support and variety (both in terms of models and rules) in the future.

Peregrine wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:
As it stands, rough riders cannot be fixed because their core concept of "dude on a horse" does not work out mechanically

DKoK death riders disagree with you.

Aren't they like cyborged up stormtroopers pumped to the gills with combat drugs? That's not exactly the same as "dude on a horse".

KommissarKiln wrote:Mech vets are also just guardsmen, can easily be pushed off objectives if the opponent deems it important, generally far from orders range, and are not worth attaching a commissar or priest, but they are useful, right? Yes they are, you even mention them in the next quote. But there is an awesome looking mounted Commissar model, thought I'd throw that out there too.

Yeah, but they can at least make a bit more of a fight of it. and no, I was unaware of a mounted commissar being a thing.

KommissarKiln wrote:But wounding a horse extra hard doesn't cause it to sometimes explode and kill half of the unit in the process. Transports can be as dangerous as they are useful, if you're not careful. If mine are still alive after I dump off my vets, I get them at least 6" away as a precaution.

True, but I don't think a squad of Riders would get there at full strength while under fire either.

KommissarKiln wrote:Currently, RR squads can take as many special weapons as a stormtrooper squad, and you shouldn't put Heavy Weapons in your fast units like mech vets anyways. A sentinel can put out a couple ranged shots a turn, but are slow and terrible at assault, so the RRs actually fill the "hit and run" niche much better, as DKoK's number of attacks on the charge, I5, S5, and AP3 even once can be quite impactful.

I think they could do "hit" well enough, sure. The "and run" bit would be dicier. Sentinels have maginally less punch but greater survivablity, which is good because if RR wind up as a suicide unit you're wasting a lot of extra points on them over regular guard. And greater range, at least if you're going to try and use the special weapons on the riders.

KommissarKiln wrote:TL;DR Just give Codex IG Rough Riders those Death Rider stats and they'll provide much greater utility over the course of a game, particularly because they can make use of cover. One unit would easily deserve a limited Fast Attack slot over a sentinel or two. And, they are still cavalry units. Boom, exactly what we've been asking for! They don't have to be great, but they would certainly be playable. So, why talk about removing RRs when they could instead be more like their cousins from another supplement?

The main issue would be that DKoK riders, while they have some good stuff going for them...are not really the same as RR. It's like replacing a regular tactical squad with sterngaurds, yeah they do the same kind of thing, but they're not the same.

 Battlegrinder wrote:
Aren't they like cyborged up stormtroopers pumped to the gills with combat drugs? That's not exactly the same as "dude on a horse".

No. Their horses are genetically engineered horse-beasts on combat drugs, but the men riding them are just normal humans. And grimdark horse-beasts instead of WHFB horses is entirely in line with the theme of 40k.

and no, I was unaware of a mounted commissar being a thing.

It was a FW event-only limited edition model, but rules-wise DKoK death rider squads can take commissars.

The main issue would be that DKoK riders, while they have some good stuff going for them...are not really the same as RR. It's like replacing a regular tactical squad with sterngaurds, yeah they do the same kind of thing, but they're not the same.

Of course they're the same thing. Just look at the models (which, until fairly recently, were just alternate models for the standard IG rough rider rules):



Guardsmen on horses carrying lances. The only difference (aside from being good sculpts instead of the ancient rough riders) is that they're DKoK guardsmen instead of Cadian guardsmen, there's no reason that the same rules couldn't represent "normal" Cadians too.

I thought that we used to be able to give them different tips that emulated the power of different weapons (krak, plasma, melta) for different amounts of points? Maybe I hallucinated that whole thing. My memory in unreliable.

I believe it was either Forgeworld or 4th edition.

But let's put it bluntly, the only arguments against Rough Riders at this point is pretty much "I don't like them and don't want them to exist" given the constant changing of the goal posts.

Rough riders need free grav-carbines and multi-lasers on everyone to be unique and not just 'worse scoutbikes':

18" S* Ap2 Assault 3, Grav
36" S6 Ap6 Assault 3

 Peregrine wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:
Aren't they like cyborged up stormtroopers pumped to the gills with combat drugs? That's not exactly the same as "dude on a horse".

No. Their horses are genetically engineered horse-beasts on combat drugs, but the men riding them are just normal humans. And grimdark horse-beasts instead of WHFB horses is entirely in line with the theme of 40k.

and no, I was unaware of a mounted commissar being a thing.

It was a FW event-only limited edition model, but rules-wise DKoK death rider squads can take commissars.

Or RT-era models/rules (and maybe 2nd) where you could add a Commissar to Rough Riders and he automatically got a free horse. Got one sitting on my shelf. See my previous post on RT-era RR for GW catalog pics of them.

Reason I keep mentioning these older models/rules is to point out that there is actually a much longer history of some of these units/models/rules than many newer players are aware of. IE someone being unaware that a mounted commissar was a thing, even without special event only limited-release models


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Can I have my guard landspeeders back?

Yes, please. Fast lightly armored heavy plasma cannon and multilaser... Wouldn't it be loverly!

I've always thought of rough riders as a shock unit. You send them in before the enemy even knows you're there and they don't have time to man their guns. They ride up, spear some gunners and run back again.

As for the bike argument, there's probably a reason the guard uses horses instead, Its easier. You need your techpriests to spend more time on bikes, you need to maintain it constantly, you have to make sure the machine spirit doesn't go nuts and you need fuel. Horses are easy in comparison.

Hopefully the lord commander of the Imperial guard as a lord of war choice.

Why has this suddenly turned into a Rough Rider thread? As someone else said, rough Riders are so far down on our priority list right now that they are a moot point.

NivlacSupreme wrote:
As for the bike argument, there's probably a reason the guard uses horses instead, Its easier. You need your techpriests to spend more time on bikes, you need to maintain it constantly, you have to make sure the machine spirit doesn't go nuts and you need fuel. Horses are easy in comparison.

Sounds like somebody has never cared for a horse...

I'll let you in on a secret, though. You can put a bike in a sealed container for a month, and it'll be good to go when you take it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Why has this suddenly turned into a Rough Rider thread? As someone else said, rough Riders are so far down on our priority list right now that they are a moot point.

That was me. I had suggested that Platoons and Russes were a more important issue. But carry on with the RR discussion. Maybe we can fix Ogryns and Ratlings afterward...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

NivlacSupreme wrote:
As for the bike argument, there's probably a reason the guard uses horses instead, Its easier. You need your techpriests to spend more time on bikes, you need to maintain it constantly, you have to make sure the machine spirit doesn't go nuts and you need fuel. Horses are easy in comparison.

Sounds like somebody has never cared for a horse...

I'll let you in on a secret, though. You can put a bike in a sealed container for a month, and it'll be good to go when you take it out.

I'm pretty sure the mechanicus would kill you for even mentioning that.

... unlike the horses, when the Munitorum first tried having Mechanicus care for them.

What does the future hold for IG? Hopefully no more Taurox inspired vehicles...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

NivlacSupreme wrote:
As for the bike argument, there's probably a reason the guard uses horses instead, Its easier. You need your techpriests to spend more time on bikes, you need to maintain it constantly, you have to make sure the machine spirit doesn't go nuts and you need fuel. Horses are easy in comparison.

Sounds like somebody has never cared for a horse...

I'll let you in on a secret, though. You can put a bike in a sealed container for a month, and it'll be good to go when you take it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Why has this suddenly turned into a Rough Rider thread? As someone else said, rough Riders are so far down on our priority list right now that they are a moot point.

That was me. I had suggested that Platoons and Russes were a more important issue. But carry on with the RR discussion. Maybe we can fix Ogryns and Ratlings afterward...

Ooh, ooh! Ratlings next! Same points cost... but camo gear that gives them Shrouded by default!

Also, I'm too lazy to track down the post myself, but someone mentioned 150 pts for Ogryns ironically, but the Bullgryns are literally 145. And that's when their only job is to absorb fire, never getting to shoot or assault, as they are targeted to reduce my tanks' cover saves. If you want to make them scary in melee... Well, 200 pts for 3 guys seems excessive even for useful units like MANZ, Centurions, etc. But I still frequently take them because my opponents actually shoot at them for some reason instead of my other units, and because Bane's face.

Post deleted because I was being pointlessly irritable.

alphaecho wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I want to see 660 models, I want to see real fething Imperial Guard.

If I ever get into that army,

Go buy and build the your first 100 before you start making noise about what us existing IG players should do to satisfy your nonsense wishes.

Unfortunately, some of us are in the process of going that far.

This photo doesn't include the other 110 I've painted up since. Or the other ones that need stripping, prepping and painting up.




I'm clocking up in the region of 500+ Praetorians, a labour of love since 1998.

On an unrelated note, I've seen GW's first background reference to Praetorians I can recall since the 3rd ed Codex courtesy of the latest Captain Catachan article from the Regimental Standard:

https://regimental-standard.com/2017/02/22/captain-catachans-guide-to-dangerous-flora/


"Please excuse his colourful language and harsh local colloquialisms: he was raised in less refined surroundings than you, good men of Mordia, Praetoria and Cadia".


Huzzah!

According to some people on this forum, your Praetorians either:
A. Don't *actually* exist.
Or
B. Are essentially just cadians with fancy hats.

Their justification for rejecting anything that isn't vanilla? *I* don't like it because it doesn't fit with Cadia therefore it shouldn't exist. Arguing with these types feels like telling a brick wall that is about to topple over onto your intricately painted models to stop. It won't and they won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

NivlacSupreme wrote:
As for the bike argument, there's probably a reason the guard uses horses instead, Its easier. You need your techpriests to spend more time on bikes, you need to maintain it constantly, you have to make sure the machine spirit doesn't go nuts and you need fuel. Horses are easy in comparison.

Sounds like somebody has never cared for a horse...

I'll let you in on a secret, though. You can put a bike in a sealed container for a month, and it'll be good to go when you take it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Why has this suddenly turned into a Rough Rider thread? As someone else said, rough Riders are so far down on our priority list right now that they are a moot point.

That was me. I had suggested that Platoons and Russes were a more important issue. But carry on with the RR discussion. Maybe we can fix Ogryns and Ratlings afterward...

Ooh, ooh! Ratlings next! Same points cost... but camo gear that gives them Shrouded by default!

Also, I'm too lazy to track down the post myself, but someone mentioned 150 pts for Ogryns ironically, but the Bullgryns are literally 145. And that's when their only job is to absorb fire, never getting to shoot or assault, as they are targeted to reduce my tanks' cover saves. If you want to make them scary in melee... Well, 200 pts for 3 guys seems excessive even for useful units like MANZ, Centurions, etc. But I still frequently take them because my opponents actually shoot at them for some reason instead of my other units, and because Bane's face.

"So you have a bolter; Do you think that gives you POWER over me?!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Why has this suddenly turned into a Rough Rider thread? As someone else said, rough Riders are so far down on our priority list right now that they are a moot point.

Because there are people who honestly believe that Rough Rider's mere existance is the reason why the IG have problems and that the guard will magically become better after removing rough riders.

I agree with you that there are more pressing issues.

CplPunishment wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

Spoiler:

I'm clocking up in the region of 500+ Praetorians, a labour of love since 1998.

According to some people on this forum, your Praetorians either:
A. Don't *actually* exist.
Or
B. Are essentially just cadians with fancy hats.

Their justification for rejecting anything that isn't vanilla? *I* don't like it because it doesn't fit with Cadia therefore it shouldn't exist. Arguing with these types feels like telling a brick wall that is about to topple over onto your intricately painted models to stop. It won't and they won't.

Indeed. And thanks for calling out the crux of the problem. We have 6(?) flavors of Leman Russ, with basic 2 statlines and each having special rules for the main gun. If we look at the metal GW IG ranges (Cadian, Catachan, Tallarn, Tanith, Atillan, Valhallan, Vostroyan, Mordian, Praetorian), they already outnumber the Russes. Then there are the FW resin IG rangs (Elysian, DKOK) and it's more yet again. But we can't distinguish light infantry Sv-/5++ from medium infantry (Sv5+)? We can't give each Regiment a doctrine? A single fething special rule? That's bullgak.

My suggestions for the abhumans:

Ratlings gain a leader, camo gear, snare mines and a vox caster.

Regular Ogyrns get changed into a shooty unit with ripper guns becoming machine guns (double their range).

Both kinds of Ogyrns get a points decrease. And slab shields increase toughness like that DA ability in addition to their other effects.

But again, since 40k needs rebuilt this might change.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

Spoiler:

I'm clocking up in the region of 500+ Praetorians, a labour of love since 1998.

According to some people on this forum, your Praetorians either:
A. Don't *actually* exist.
Or
B. Are essentially just cadians with fancy hats.

Their justification for rejecting anything that isn't vanilla? *I* don't like it because it doesn't fit with Cadia therefore it shouldn't exist. Arguing with these types feels like telling a brick wall that is about to topple over onto your intricately painted models to stop. It won't and they won't.

Indeed. And thanks for calling out the crux of the problem. We have 6(?) flavors of Leman Russ, with basic 2 statlines and each having special rules for the main gun. If we look at the metal GW IG ranges (Cadian, Catachan, Tallarn, Tanith, Atillan, Valhallan, Vostroyan, Mordian, Praetorian), they already outnumber the Russes. Then there are the FW resin IG rangs (Elysian, DKOK) and it's more yet again. But we can't distinguish light infantry Sv-/5++ from medium infantry (Sv5+)? We can't give each Regiment a doctrine? A single fething special rule? That's bullgak.

The 5th edition codex seems to have been written by a treadhead. I think that a hybrid of 4th's infantry doctrines and 5th's vehicle options is a start.

I change my mind, I no longer want Ratlings on horses. They should be mounted on Ogryns, Master Blaster style.

The horses will be too busy pulling the chariots, which are now the dedicated transports of Wyrdvane force lancers.

(I'm joking, just in case it isn't clear based on my previous comments about liking weird things.)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

Spoiler:

I'm clocking up in the region of 500+ Praetorians, a labour of love since 1998.

According to some people on this forum, your Praetorians either:
A. Don't *actually* exist.
Or
B. Are essentially just cadians with fancy hats.

Their justification for rejecting anything that isn't vanilla? *I* don't like it because it doesn't fit with Cadia therefore it shouldn't exist. Arguing with these types feels like telling a brick wall that is about to topple over onto your intricately painted models to stop. It won't and they won't.

Indeed. And thanks for calling out the crux of the problem. We have 6(?) flavors of Leman Russ, with basic 2 statlines and each having special rules for the main gun. If we look at the metal GW IG ranges (Cadian, Catachan, Tallarn, Tanith, Atillan, Valhallan, Vostroyan, Mordian, Praetorian), they already outnumber the Russes. Then there are the FW resin IG rangs (Elysian, DKOK) and it's more yet again. But we can't distinguish light infantry Sv-/5++ from medium infantry (Sv5+)? We can't give each Regiment a doctrine? A single fething special rule? That's bullgak.

For me, it's the switch to plastics that killed off a varied Imperial Guard as regards special rules or doctrines..

Whereas money could be made from multiple metal regiments as around 2nd Ed time, plastics just cost too much too make a profit especially if one particular regiment was fairly niche (or unpopular).

Hence you end up with the Cadian uniform as a standard template in much the same way as the original IG box from Rogue Trader was.

The lack of extra rules from an IG Codex doesn't particularly bother me as I view those figures as an average across the Guard as a whole.

For example, for every Death World originating regiment where the Guardsman would be S4, T4 there is a Regiment from a light gravity world who would be S2, T2. That results in the average S3,T3 in the Codex.

Now if GW want to produce a Pamphletraetorians with special rules like:

"They're only damn ignorant savages" : This army views every other race as inferior and will be wiped out in large engagements by refusing to take the enemy seriously (unless they are heavily outnumbered but shielded by Munitorum improved mealie bags and biscuit boxes)

I'll buy it.


Learn something new every day. By typing "Pamphlet : Praetorians" but with no space between the colon and upper case P, the raspberry blowing Ork has been inserted. I'm happy now.

I don't need a pamphet. Just give me an army-wide doctrine option to replace all Flak (Sv5+) to Cameoline (Sv5++), and Carapace (Sv4+) to Flak+Camo (Sv5+/5++). One line.

Doctrines would be one of many fixes needed, although I would love to be able to field platoons with a 4+ save, or a 5++. Hell, a series of army wide doctrines that you purchased for X points and which gave your infantry different abilities (+1BS, furious charge, counterattack, stealth, infiltrate, Shrouded, Tankhunters, Meltabombs, Shotguns (with S4 and Shred), Carapace, etc). This would allow you to play many different forms of Guard, from close assault specialists to light infantry to, well, anything.
Likewise there could be doctrines that affected vehicles, such as giving them all +1BS, letting them move faster for a reduction in side armour, giving them the ability to perform an escape move when charged (move back D6") or move in the Assault phase, converting all transports to Assault Transports.....
It could be amazing.

If we're re-implementing Doctrines, for how expensive IG are right now, every army should be able to choose its first army-wide Doctrine for FREE. The 2nd would cost +5pts/unit, and the 3rd would cost +10pts/unit. Easy, peasy.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Doctrines would be one of many fixes needed, although I would love to be able to field platoons with a 4+ save, or a 5++. Hell, a series of army wide doctrines that you purchased for X points and which gave your infantry different abilities (+1BS, furious charge, counterattack, stealth, infiltrate, Shrouded, Tankhunters, Meltabombs, Shotguns (with S4 and Shred), Carapace, etc). This would allow you to play many different forms of Guard, from close assault specialists to light infantry to, well, anything.
Likewise there could be doctrines that affected vehicles, such as giving them all +1BS, letting them move faster for a reduction in side armour, giving them the ability to perform an escape move when charged (move back D6") or move in the Assault phase, converting all transports to Assault Transports.....
It could be amazing.

This sounds like a good way to differentiate Guard armies and add variety. Space Marines both loyal and traitor work that way, and IG probably could too. Just be careful to make each doctrine encourage an army composition and playstyle like that of the sub-army in the fluff.

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
Just be careful to make each doctrine encourage an army composition and playstyle like that of the sub-army in the fluff.

There are untold Regiments, and something like 100 of specific Regiments in the fluff. It almost doesn't matter what they are, or what the composition might be.

I like the doctrine idea. You could split them into three groups; regimental organisation (light infantry, airborne, mechanized etc), skills and drills (sharpshooters, field craft etc) and special equipment (carapace, camo gear etc). You can have one from each group. The first is free, but the second and third are 5pts per unit each (that's OK because going for three will cost 10pts per unit which will get expensive fast).

Or better yet, the regimental organisation is free because it affects the regiments transports. The taurox is universal, but only mechanized get chimeras as DTs and airborne get Valks as DTs. The other transports can still be taken but only as FA choices. And certain skills can't be combined with certain equipment (can't have jungle fighters with carapace). The trick is making them good enough to justify taking but not so good that they become OP.

It might work!

I think it would be neat to be able to pick a Homeworld type, organization type, combat doctrines and wargear
Examples would be:
*Deathworld allows you to reroll dangerous terrain
*Artillery Battery organization gives your artillery a "preliminary bombardment" ability
*FRFSRF combat drill allows Sgts to issue FRFSRF order to their squad
*carapace could be made more accessible.

There are already special rules for one regiment. Admittedly you do have to pay for it.

If 8th edition turns out not to be happening soon, or it makes relatively minor changes and the IG are stuck with their current codex for the foreseeable future, do you think something like the Traitor Legions book could be useful? Instead of specific traitor legions of CSM it would be famous regiments of IG and people could use "plays as" rules for their own armies if they've come up with their own fluff.

I was pretty impressed by Traitor Legions. Even if it didn't fix all the problems for CSM it at least helped and gave the legions their own character. If 8th is far away or doesn't change much I hope that the neglected armies like Astra Militarum and Orks can get their own Traitor Legions treatment. (I'm not sure how well it would work for Tyranids, does each hive fleet have its own distinct flavor?)