So what model if you could only get one made, would you ask for the Imperial guard, for GW to make, so it could be a plastic version of a FW model. If it is a completely new model what would rough stats be.
Mine would be Lord Solar Macharius made again, but actually looking good.
He would issue 4 orders, then a 3+ save as he effectively wore artificer armour, and a FNP of 6+ to represent the fact he survived a bolter to the chest, 75.cal at that, and it was the first bolter round ever to not explode. He would cost 150-200 PTS
Rough riders. More specifically I'd like to see them expanded into their own organization (similar to scions) with a couple units
Example:
- Lancers: armed with boom lances, hot-shot laspistols and chainswords (sarge can take power sword)
- Dragoons: armed with hotshot lasguns and laspistols (or something similar)
- Mounted commander and command squad: gives orders and has a sweet flag (all have power swords and hot shot laspistols)
- Mounted commissar
The rough rider regiments would essentially be elite regiments with BS 3+ and WS 3+.
Rules-wise they can fit into any guard detachment, but get a bonus if taken as their own detachment (like scions).
Dandelion wrote: Rough riders. More specifically I'd like to see them expanded into their own organization (similar to scions) with a couple units
Example:
- Lancers: armed with boom lances, hot-shot laspistols and chainswords (sarge can take power sword)
- Dragoons: armed with hotshot lasguns and laspistols (or something similar)
- Mounted commander and command squad: gives orders and has a sweet flag (all have power swords and hot shot laspistols)
- Mounted commissar
The rough rider regiments would essentially be elite regiments with BS 3+ and WS 3+.
Rules-wise they can fit into any guard detachment, but get a bonus if taken as their own detachment (like scions).
I agree with Rough Riders but would be completely open to bikers now that the GSC have them.
I've never been a huge fan of the Militarum Tempestus aesthetic but I really like Kasrkin and the old Storm troopers. I would like to add them as an elite choice (also move veterans back to troops). These guys would be like scions with the <Regiment> keyword. They would be cheaper (6-7 ppm) but would NOT have deepstrike.
I would love for there the be storm trooper models for different regiments, even if they had the same datasheet.
I've never been a huge fan of the Militarum Tempestus aesthetic but I really like Kasrkin and the old Storm troopers. I would like to add them as an elite choice (also move veterans back to troops). These guys would be like scions with the <Regiment> keyword. They would be cheaper (6-7 ppm) but would NOT have deepstrike.
I would love for there the be storm trooper models for different regiments, even if they had the same datasheet.
I second this, or at least a Cadian carapace veteran kit that could be easily converted to Kasrkin.
I've never been a huge fan of the Militarum Tempestus aesthetic but I really like Kasrkin and the old Storm troopers. I would like to add them as an elite choice (also move veterans back to troops). These guys would be like scions with the <Regiment> keyword. They would be cheaper (6-7 ppm) but would NOT have deepstrike.
I would love for there the be storm trooper models for different regiments, even if they had the same datasheet.
Same here, don't like the way the scions armour looks more like a medieval knight than a soldier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carnikang wrote: A pile of dead bodies made into a wall of dead. As a terrain piece. For Cadians or Valhallans.
Gives cover if you're behind it like a barricade, but much bigger/longer.
A fast attack light tank with a longer ranged gun than a hellhound. Same armor profile as the hellhound, but give it twin assault cannons, twin lascannons, and twin multimelta options for weapons. Try to keep the pts cost for the tank to 100-120 pts as well.
Any kind of tank that can take down Knights / Titans, because the Shadowsword sucks at that job when they've all got 3+ invulnerable saves.
A Drop Pod or something to deploy Infantry from. I want a way to play veterans.
More plastic aircraft, maybe some anti-air fighters, or a vulture.
Any kind of tank that can take down Knights / Titans, because the Shadowsword sucks at that job when they've all got 3+ invulnerable saves.
More plastic aircraft, maybe some anti-air fighters, or a vulture.
Agreed with the anti knight thing, but its because of the way GW made knight and shadow sword rules. The knight shields should make it immune to any damage to the hull, but once overloaded, it won't work at all, and the shadow sword being an anti- titan tank lore wise can 1 shot any knight, as it is so powerful, of a gun.
Basically nothing reliably beats knights except for a few deathstrikes 3d6 mortal wounds per shot, or one f**ktonne of phsycers with smite for mortal wounds, until they remember how knight shields actually work.
Any also agreed with the vulture. Its an amazing model, and with twin linkd punisher cannons, in the words of 1d4chan, IT WILL GET YOU OPENLY ASSAULTED ON THE STREET.
Horst wrote: A fast attack light tank with a longer ranged gun than a hellhound. Same armor profile as the hellhound, but give it twin assault cannons, twin lascannons, and twin multimelta options for weapons. Try to keep the pts cost for the tank to 100-120 pts as well.
Any kind of tank that can take down Knights / Titans, because the Shadowsword sucks at that job when they've all got 3+ invulnerable saves.
A Drop Pod or something to deploy Infantry from. I want a way to play veterans.
More plastic aircraft, maybe some anti-air fighters, or a vulture.
Not sure about the twin multi melta variant of the hellhound you're mentioning since you already have that basically with the devil dog. If anything it sounds you're more after the Tauros venator gun platform, only with assault cannons rather than multi lasers. I think it'd be better if they made the other two options in the hellhound kit more viable, with the chem cannon doing 2 damage base so that it solidifies itself as an anti elite weapon and maybe 2d3 shots rather than d6.
I’d like to see them make a kit that let you make a Valkyrie, Vendetta, or Vulture. This making them all codex stuff, so I would never have to worry about no FW allowed.
As for a fully new thing, some kind of large amoured fighting vehicle, not a tank, but bigger than the MRAPs that’s Taurox Primes are based on. Something rather rectangular. This would be for Militarum Tempestus.
With this change, Taurox Primes would go back to being able to be taken as fast attacks as well, so they could be transport or fast attack.
I think what the Guard needs most is new plastic basic infantry. The Cadians are pretty bad by modern standards and less is said about the Catachans the better. When you compare them to the newer human sized infantry such as GSC Neophytes, Necromunda gangers or the BSF Traitor Guard their proportions just do not hold up.
A lord General- Kind of like a generic Creed, 3 orders but with the full range of War gear. He would be a one per army deal. Though I'm not sure he would need his own kit.
Another one that I've wanted was an expansion of the Hellhound chassis. I think a few of the Russ weapons would be nice up there. They wouldn't have grinding advance, but they would have Assault profiles.
So
Punisher Cannon- Assault 20
Battle Cannon- Assault D6 Auto Cannon- Assault 4 (lets ignore that it really shouldn't be 4)
Of course I also wouldn't say no to new rough riders, be they horses or bikes.
Then there would be the small matter of having plastic Cadian Catachan, Mordian, Vostroyan, Valhallan, Tallarn, Steel Legion, DKoK, and Elysian versions of Infantry, HWS, Command Squads, Storm troopers, and Rough riders with both male and female versions.
A complete rewrite of the basic Infantry Squad, with a more organic light support weapon list and the loss of Heavy Weapon Teams in favor of bounding fireteams.
It'd need a new basic troop kit, it counts!
I'd use Cadians as the basis, with some techier/gothic bits to make some of the Regiments shown off in the book(Truskans, Vresh, etc) that look similar to the Cadians.
To those behind the dropship- what about Forgeworld's Valkyrie Sky Talon? It looks like it could lift one of the munitorum armoured container scenery pieces, which could be loaded with troops. I don't know if it could carry a Russ or a Chimera. You'd want it in plastic, and you'd want the claw mechanism to be moveable and be designed in such a way that it could be magnetized.
These are the kinds of models I'm interested in- utility pieces as opposed to more conventional battle pieces. Another example is the Arvus Lighter. They also used to make a sentinel/ loader.
The reason I dig these types of models so much is that I don't really play guard, so I need guard based models that support campaign play for other Imperial Factions and round out the world beyond the battlefield. GW's regimental advisors were another guard unit that I really liked.
Really though? I just wish that most of the stuff Forgeworld makes was just GW instead. That gives you dozens more models for all armies. I'm not a fan of resin when I can avoid it. Unfortunately, even with GW, some kits are only available in resin.Also, Forgeworld prices are even worse than GW prices.
Dandelion wrote: Rough riders. More specifically I'd like to see them expanded into their own organization (similar to scions) with a couple units
Example:
- Lancers: armed with boom lances, hot-shot laspistols and chainswords (sarge can take power sword)
- Dragoons: armed with hotshot lasguns and laspistols (or something similar)
- Mounted commander and command squad: gives orders and has a sweet flag (all have power swords and hot shot laspistols)
- Mounted commissar
The rough rider regiments would essentially be elite regiments with BS 3+ and WS 3+.
Rules-wise they can fit into any guard detachment, but get a bonus if taken as their own detachment (like scions).
This, but expand it! Heavy cavalry rough riders, like knights or cataphracts! 2+ or 3+ armor, some type of power maul type weapon or something?
Give them 2 attacks on the charge. All kinds of neat ideas they could do.
I would, without hesitation, buy at minimum 2000 points of guard cavalry if they released it.
If they aren't going to give us horse cavalry, then make air cav! Give me some type of of Huey-like transport and fun rules!
A new and better tank upgrade sprue. Importantly, it needs to have lots of spare tracks links, plus tow cables, tools, jerry cans, bedrolls, mess sets, maybe even an un-ditching log. Skirts for the tanks would be nice to have on it too. The current tank upgrade sprue is disappointing, because it is deficient in track links.
Personal opinion is that there should be plastic bodies for Cadians/Armageddon/Catachan, with resin upgrade kits for other regiments. Or maybe go all-out and do it like anvil industries, where you can order a few dozen guardsmen with the specific bits you want.
Pretty much imposisble for it to ever happen, but it's a fun idea.
A stub gun stug 3 (I believe that's the B variant) We need an assault gun in 40k. We just need one. It looks cool and with a little 40kifying it would fit in very well.
New grunts. Just an uptdated basic (cadian) guardsmen kit, preferably one for 20 models instead of 10. At the very least it should be on par with the GSC grunts.
Failing that a kit tha allows you to build various regiments. Steel legion, Tallarn, Mordian and so on...
Give him the Commissar statline, add a wound or two (and definitely up his WS and BS). Plus some kind of extraordinary luck ability (deny enemy stratagems on a random die roll? Some kind of FNP that only works on Mortal Wounds?). That'd be awesome.
I would kinda like to see an alternate Guardsmen kit. It wouldn't invalid the current Cadian one just add additional sculpt options. The guard just need so many troop models that I think it would really help the variation of their basic troops.
I honestly don't think GW would do that as it would probably cut into the sales of the current kit, though; I do think it would still be profitable. Just maybe not as profitable. Not to mention, I don't know if a more modern kit would blend in with the current one too well either.
I'd like to see GW doing a new regiment fully decked out with all the existing units, like a crusading AM force and new special characters, the old ones should really die off or retire or explained how they are still effective in the new setting.
Lord Solar Macharius(have official model) died off by assassination,
Comm. Cain(have a official BL model, and couple 3rd party ones) retired and died,
old man Yarrick(have 2 models) should really be dead by the current date,
Colonel Straken(have 2 models) should be older but still serviceable, maybe send him off in glory soon,
Marbo(have 2 models) should still be effective, but maybe have a pupil to take up his place in the fluff,
Sgt. Harker(have a model) should still be serviceable,
Creed(have a model) has been captured by the necron collector and put in a snow globe, he can come back in the future fluff,
Sgt. Kell(have a model) was killed by Abbadon recently,
Pask(have a model) should still be serviceable,
Col-Comm Gaunt(have a BL model and a regular one) should be close to death, in the same position as Straken, primed to be send off in glory,
Col. Schaeffer(have a model) should be close to dead in age,
Cpt. Al'rahem(have a model) should be close to death as well,
Commander Chenkov(have a model) should be dead if not already,
Nork Deddog(have 2 models) should be serviceable,
Sgt. Bastonne(no model) had official rules but was discontinued,
Capt. Mogul Kamir(no model) had official rules but was discontinued,
There are a couple characters from FW with models but were discontinued, perhaps died off as well,
Comm. Raine(have a model) is a new female Comm. with rules, more new characters like this please.
Lord Solar Macharius(have official model) died off by assassination,
Comm. Cain(have a official BL model, and couple 3rd party ones) retired and died,
old man Yarrick(have 2 models) should really be dead by the current date,
Unless I’m mistaken Cain is dead, or at the very least retired.
I was pretty sure Macharius was dead as well?
Yarrick is the only guardsmen that should never die. Simply because I love the theory that he’s either a perpetual, an orc warp avatar or both.
Whilst I agree that more 40k characters should die I believe they should not do it due to old age. A lifespan of a few centuries is not uncommon due to rejuvenation treatment. Age is not really something that gets nobility/heroes killed in 40k.
Give him the Commissar statline, add a wound or two (and definitely up his WS and BS). Plus some kind of extraordinary luck ability (deny enemy stratagems on a random die roll? Some kind of FNP that only works on Mortal Wounds?). That'd be awesome.
Cain and Jurgen would be sweet. Cain has chainsword and laspistol, jurgen with meltagun.
They are a unit with the character keyword.
Special Rules:
Jurgen is of course a blank, so no psychic powers may target or be cast by units within X"
Cain is a master swordsman and crack shot. Any rolls to hit of 6+ automatically wound and have an AP value of -3.
Close range fire support: Jurgen may fire his meltagun in the shooting phase even if engaged in close combat and may target individual models if they are in base contact with Cain.
In order to keep up his appearance of an imperial hero, if Cain is within his movement distance of a friendly unit engaged with an enemy character, he must attempt a charge against the enemy character.
Cain will not summarily execute models from units which fail morale tests, his presence is enough to embolden the guard nearby.
And finally, if Cain is slain then Jurgen is removed from play alongside his Commissar. Roll a dice at the beginning of each of your movement phases, on a 4+ Cain and Jurgen have once again managed to cheat death and may be placed on the table within 3" of a friendly infantry unit or basilisk artillery.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Just remake all the DKoK into plastic. Would make my life so much easier...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, an all-female Guard set would be nice...
Haha that would save a lot of people a lot of money! It might make the Death Korps a little less special though.
I like the idea of a female guard box, mixing them into existing boxes would just make getting the models you want more difficult and expensive.
What they need is a strong theme to go with (like the cooler guard regiments), rather than the bland Cadian style.
As far as female models go, while it would be nice for me to make up the gender-balance, segregated boxes would make both perform less individually well. Having 2 regimental aesthetics for sale in plastic already effectively halves the profit on Infantry boxes [though both are so old, they've probably paid their mold cost like 20 times], but making a hypothetical 6 kits [Catachan, Cadian, Valhallan/Armageddon in M and F variants] would really split things up.
Really, I think there should only be 1 infantry box/regimental aesthetic with 5 of each gender in it [and ideally a male and female sergeant head, because to be honest, the Sergeant are like the only ones who are remotely distinct]. Even having 3 regimental aesthetic boxes might push it, if all were re-done.
Also, the greater relevance of including female guardsmen would be defeated by having separate kits.
new unit, of guardsman on bikes, could just be alternate rough riders, but if so those need better rules or points drops anyway
buggie size vehicles like the new ork ones or the genesteeler cults one 4 wheeler model. to be honest i don't play guard but i do collect and paint my guard army and would love to see what the studio can come up with there. #i'dbuythat
A more modern battle tank. I like the Russ, but something at least ww2 looking would be awesome.
And rules to effectively play mechanised light infantry or light infantry in general >_>
Why are some people (or maybe just one?) of the oppinion to get rid of the HWTs? There effective and realistic (enough).
Regarding the female guard bodies: Forcing people to buy mixed boxes is the same as not providing the opportunity for mixed regiments. Both ways you force someone to play and pay for something they don't want.
It just seems better, because if someone is complaining about being forced to play female toysoldiers you can call him a bigot and mysoginist.
A male box and a female box would be swell.
You don't even need female boxes for all regiments. There is enough lore (and enough reality) to justify all male or all female armies.
Or something like the DKoK. Just because you can't see the breasts, doesn't mean there are no female soldiers under the uniform and greatcoat.
Haha sorry I guess I'm just sick of seeing them everywhere. They aren't that bad.
I can see the point about spitting sales between boxes, although it seems to work OK for marines. But more boxes means more sculpts, more granularity, more choice... that's the agenda i'm pushing .
Another thing that occurred to me is that since the 'Armageddon pattern' stuff we haven't seen kits for the sensible variations in standard equipment across the galaxy. Imagine an 'aqua pattern' chimera that is a hovercraft or a 'speed pattern' sentinel that is on three wheels!
Seeing as almost 70% of the regiments are no longer available or out of production, no single character is going to solve anything. Severina Raine is proof of that. I'm all for adding new characters to the guard since the vast majority of them are dead but what good are characters if we don't even have regiments anymore? It would be like axing 70% of the space marine chapters, adding a new character that can be used in any chapter & tell space marine players to be happy. The imperial guard does not need a single model. It needs new infantry kits for all of the old regiments, new infantry kits for new regiments, & half a dozen characters to replace the ones they have killed.
Cyprien wrote: A more modern battle tank. I like the Russ, but something at least ww2 looking would be awesome.
And rules to effectively play mechanised light infantry or light infantry in general >_>
Why are some people (or maybe just one?) of the oppinion to get rid of the HWTs? There effective and realistic (enough).
Regarding the female guard bodies: Forcing people to buy mixed boxes is the same as not providing the opportunity for mixed regiments. Both ways you force someone to play and pay for something they don't want.
It just seems better, because if someone is complaining about being forced to play female toysoldiers you can call him a bigot and mysoginist.
A male box and a female box would be swell.
You don't even need female boxes for all regiments. There is enough lore (and enough reality) to justify all male or all female armies.
Or something like the DKoK. Just because you can't see the breasts, doesn't mean there are no female soldiers under the uniform and greatcoat.
It's the same with all Guard armies... the only one where you'd be able to tell if a soldier is male or female from their body would be catachan. For everything else, just include some extra female heads on sprue, and boom you're done.
A new Veterans kit (along with rules that makes them even worth to consider taking), ideally a remake of Kasrkins, with various weapons, like special weapons and hellguns, and wargear like camo cloaks and carapace armor.
Otherwise... I think we have all we need.
Maybe better Infantry models, maybe some proper rough raiders, a Leman Russ redesign to make it look less like a bad child'S toy...
Maybe some light, flying transport, like Landspeerder Storm ot Avrus lander that doesn't suck.
Dandelion wrote: Rough riders. More specifically I'd like to see them expanded into their own organization (similar to scions) with a couple units
Example:
- Lancers: armed with boom lances, hot-shot laspistols and chainswords (sarge can take power sword)
- Dragoons: armed with hotshot lasguns and laspistols (or something similar)
- Mounted commander and command squad: gives orders and has a sweet flag (all have power swords and hot shot laspistols)
- Mounted commissar
The rough rider regiments would essentially be elite regiments with BS 3+ and WS 3+.
Rules-wise they can fit into any guard detachment, but get a bonus if taken as their own detachment (like scions).
I agree with Rough Riders but would be completely open to bikers now that the GSC have them.
Rough Rider fluff states they ride indigenous animals , be they horse, big cat, wolf or giant lizard. On a hive world, with no indigenous species, bikes from the manufacturum is reasonable. I'm up for them being their own organization.
Cyprien wrote:A more modern battle tank. I like the Russ, but something at least ww2 looking would be awesome.
And rules to effectively play mechanised light infantry or light infantry in general >_>
Why are some people (or maybe just one?) of the oppinion to get rid of the HWTs? There effective and realistic (enough).
Regarding the female guard bodies: Forcing people to buy mixed boxes is the same as not providing the opportunity for mixed regiments. Both ways you force someone to play and pay for something they don't want.
It just seems better, because if someone is complaining about being forced to play female toysoldiers you can call him a bigot and mysoginist.
A male box and a female box would be swell.
You don't even need female boxes for all regiments. There is enough lore (and enough reality) to justify all male or all female armies.
Or something like the DKoK. Just because you can't see the breasts, doesn't mean there are no female soldiers under the uniform and greatcoat.
Well, going 5 and 5 is important on a higher level to normalize the appearance of woman soldiers as "ordinary". I would expect them to not b amazonian or have breast-shaped FlaK armor, and fundamentally just come down to a little dimension changes that the little dudes need anyway and a sergeant head. The dress-coated officers and tank commanders would be more visibly different, but we need more tank commander dolls anyway, my tanks are starting to look samey since I'm out of extra tat to give them to make them look unique.
Kroem wrote:
I like the Cadians!
Haha sorry I guess I'm just sick of seeing them everywhere. They aren't that bad.
I can see the point about spitting sales between boxes, although it seems to work OK for marines. But more boxes means more sculpts, more granularity, more choice... that's the agenda i'm pushing .
Another thing that occurred to me is that since the 'Armageddon pattern' stuff we haven't seen kits for the sensible variations in standard equipment across the galaxy. Imagine an 'aqua pattern' chimera that is a hovercraft or a 'speed pattern' sentinel that is on three wheels!
More choice doesn't equal more profit. If we want female guardsmen at all, it can only be in a mixed box.
Look at it this way: a fixed number of Infantry boxes will be sold a year. Most of the cost of a miniature, as I understand it, is upfront in the development cost of making the sculpt and cutting the die. Hence, having a male and a female box halves the total infantry-based profit. Having multiple regiment aesthetic boxes does so as well, but you can theoretically get additional people to pick up guard or something, and splitting it a little isn't too bad, but splitting it 6 ways would be pretty undesirable.
I already suspect that a new IG Cadian or Catachan box wouldn't actually be profitable, since I frequently get the impression from both me and my fellows that we're pretty saturated on infantry, and IG is a demanding army to start.
I would like to see more decorations for my tanks and commanders, and I would like to see more vehicles. A Stug/SU option like the Destroyer Tank Hunter would have my buying a squadron right away, so would a Medusa Siege Gun. Another cool thing I could see myself buying are split-trail medium divisional guns [heavier than a Lascannon, lighter than a Earthshaker]
Well, going 5 and 5 is important on a higher level to normalize the appearance of woman soldiers as "ordinary". I would expect them to not b amazonian or have breast-shaped FlaK armor, and fundamentally just come down to a little dimension changes that the little dudes need anyway and a sergeant head. The dress-coated officers and tank commanders would be more visibly different, but we need more tank commander dolls anyway, my tanks are starting to look samey since I'm out of extra tat to give them to make them look unique.
Ya know Black stone has a fem guardsmen (the traitor type already) or at least a more feminine guardsmen
Gitdakka da Sly, Deffskull Supreme Loota (warboss statline). Can be taken as an HQ choice, allows you to take Ork detachments as if they have the <Imperium> keyword. At the start of the battle replace all <Imperium> keywords in units, equipment and stratagems with <Orks>. Looted soup!
shortymcnostrill wrote: Gitdakka da Sly, Deffskull Supreme Loota (warboss statline). Can be taken as an HQ choice, allows you to take Ork detachments as if they have the <Imperium> keyword. At the start of the battle replace all <Imperium> keywords in units, equipment and stratagems with <Orks>. Looted soup!
Better option, gives them all keyword <freebooter>. Can't remember the edition, but it used to be that Freebooters could take anyone, any race or species. My Catachan still have the green tattoos
Cyprien wrote:A more modern battle tank. I like the Russ, but something at least ww2 looking would be awesome.
And rules to effectively play mechanised light infantry or light infantry in general >_>
Why are some people (or maybe just one?) of the oppinion to get rid of the HWTs? There effective and realistic (enough).
Regarding the female guard bodies: Forcing people to buy mixed boxes is the same as not providing the opportunity for mixed regiments. Both ways you force someone to play and pay for something they don't want.
It just seems better, because if someone is complaining about being forced to play female toysoldiers you can call him a bigot and mysoginist.
A male box and a female box would be swell.
You don't even need female boxes for all regiments. There is enough lore (and enough reality) to justify all male or all female armies.
Or something like the DKoK. Just because you can't see the breasts, doesn't mean there are no female soldiers under the uniform and greatcoat.
Well, going 5 and 5 is important on a higher level to normalize the appearance of woman soldiers as "ordinary". I would expect them to not b amazonian or have breast-shaped FlaK armor, and fundamentally just come down to a little dimension changes that the little dudes need anyway and a sergeant head. The dress-coated officers and tank commanders would be more visibly different, but we need more tank commander dolls anyway, my tanks are starting to look samey since I'm out of extra tat to give them to make them look unique.
Kroem wrote:
I like the Cadians!
Haha sorry I guess I'm just sick of seeing them everywhere. They aren't that bad.
I can see the point about spitting sales between boxes, although it seems to work OK for marines. But more boxes means more sculpts, more granularity, more choice... that's the agenda i'm pushing .
Another thing that occurred to me is that since the 'Armageddon pattern' stuff we haven't seen kits for the sensible variations in standard equipment across the galaxy. Imagine an 'aqua pattern' chimera that is a hovercraft or a 'speed pattern' sentinel that is on three wheels!
More choice doesn't equal more profit. If we want female guardsmen at all, it can only be in a mixed box.
Look at it this way: a fixed number of Infantry boxes will be sold a year. Most of the cost of a miniature, as I understand it, is upfront in the development cost of making the sculpt and cutting the die. Hence, having a male and a female box halves the total infantry-based profit. Having multiple regiment aesthetic boxes does so as well, but you can theoretically get additional people to pick up guard or something, and splitting it a little isn't too bad, but splitting it 6 ways would be pretty undesirable.
I already suspect that a new IG Cadian or Catachan box wouldn't actually be profitable, since I frequently get the impression from both me and my fellows that we're pretty saturated on infantry, and IG is a demanding army to start.
I would like to see more decorations for my tanks and commanders, and I would like to see more vehicles. A Stug/SU option like the Destroyer Tank Hunter would have my buying a squadron right away, so would a Medusa Siege Gun. Another cool thing I could see myself buying are split-trail medium divisional guns [heavier than a Lascannon, lighter than a Earthshaker]
With improved tooling and what not, I can't imagine GW not being able to shove an ungodly amount of male, female, helmeted male and female, and face masked heads onto a sprue, in a similar vein to the Tempestus Scions Box. That came with more than enough heads.
Beastmen Guardsmen. I know it sounds strange, but back around 30K, they were fully integrated members of the Army. If the Guard can tolerate the semi-sapient Ogryns and the unbearable Ratlings, I don't see why some guys with horns and fur couldn't be used as well.
More choice doesn't equal more profit. If we want female guardsmen at all, it can only be in a mixed box.
Look at it this way: a fixed number of Infantry boxes will be sold a year. Most of the cost of a miniature, as I understand it, is upfront in the development cost of making the sculpt and cutting the die. Hence, having a male and a female box halves the total infantry-based profit. Having multiple regiment aesthetic boxes does so as well, but you can theoretically get additional people to pick up guard or something, and splitting it a little isn't too bad, but splitting it 6 ways would be pretty undesirable.
I already suspect that a new IG Cadian or Catachan box wouldn't actually be profitable, since I frequently get the impression from both me and my fellows that we're pretty saturated on infantry, and IG is a demanding army to start.
I would like to see more decorations for my tanks and commanders, and I would like to see more vehicles. A Stug/SU option like the Destroyer Tank Hunter would have my buying a squadron right away, so would a Medusa Siege Gun. Another cool thing I could see myself buying are split-trail medium divisional guns [heavier than a Lascannon, lighter than a Earthshaker]
How about a pair of guard boxes, set at five each. They can be made as one spreu and sold at half the price of the normal squad. You'd have to buy twice as many, but at half the price each it works out the same, and it gives a person the option of only buying the one they want.
Having said that, I'm fine with the mixed box personally, and have no issue ebaying the half I don't want.
ArcaneHorror wrote: Beastmen Guardsmen. I know it sounds strange, but back around 30K, they were fully integrated members of the Army. If the Guard can tolerate the semi-sapient Ogryns and the unbearable Ratlings, I don't see why some guys with horns and fur couldn't be used as well.
That would be amazing, Victoria miniatures does a very cool beastman model but it would be even better to have an official effort with some special rules!
Having said that, I'm fine with the mixed box personally, and have no issue ebaying the half I don't want.
I really need to give Ebay a go, I have some stuff lying around that I don't need but it seems a bit scary setting up an Ebay shop...
Rough Riders are and always have been a garbage concept.
The Jackal Alphus is something that the Guard should have gotten first: a scout unit with access to a sniper rifle and a way to reposition quickly while also allowing for nearby units to get a ballistic skill boost.
They aren't Guard, so why the hell should we get them in our book?
That's for Agents of the Imperium or Kill Team not40k proper.
Ok, calm down. I am sorry if I offended you with my opinion about what I wanted. Also, my second answer would be nothing. The IG codex is as bloated as two codex, with 75% of book never seeing the light of day.
deotrims 16th wrote: So what model if you could only get one made, would you ask for the Imperial guard, for GW to make, so it could be a plastic version of a FW model. If it is a completely new model what would rough stats be.
Towed/manhandled guns would be nice -something like the old rapier of tarantula gun platforms.
I’d also like to see a Taurus-style buggie/FAV. We could then have armed races between orks, GSC and IG (ala Speed Freaks).
I like the idea of bikes, but I also would,’t be opposed to Rough riders on native beasts. Killer ostriches, giant lizards, mutant giant rats, giant bats or anything other than bog-standard Earth horses. If they did horses, give them some fantastic element - bionic, six-legged, Fire-breathing, winged, autocannon in the forehead - something.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Well, going 5 and 5 is important on a higher level to normalize the appearance of woman soldiers as "ordinary". I would expect them to not b amazonian or have breast-shaped FlaK armor (...)
I agree. Thats more or less what CB has done over the years (the odd ridiculous pose notwithstanding) and indeed gender parity is simply assumed in their universe.
I think anatomically correct armor would be appropriate though. In fact, just the other day I read a story about how female cops and soldiers are having issues precisely because they have to wear protective gear which, literally, doesn't fit them.
I believe one challenge with developing new models (and consequently new rules and background) for the IG/AM is that any real innovation can easily be seen as infringing on the territory of other factions.
The faction pitch for the IG/AM is paradoxically inflexiable: Lots of cheap and weak infantry backed up by a select number of slow and powerful vehicles. While a great deal of aesthetic varation is possible, you can't really expand beyond the inital pitch without encroaching on the style of different factions, be they Imperium or otherwise: Too much stealth/mobilty; that's for the Genestealer cults, Unmanned Vehicles and Robots; Admech got you covered.
You've not got a chip on your shoulder, dude - you've got an entire sack of potatoes.
* * *
For me, it would be the mythical Greatcoat Guard infantry set(s) - ideally done in such a way that Krieg/Valhallan/Armageddon units can be made out of the kit, even if Krieg might need a FW head upgrade pack.
The Heavy Weapon sprue is fine, so you're looking at a PBI kit, a Heavy Weapon Gunner small frame, and a command frame. Keep the parts between these interchangable for variety, and use some of the dead space in the current Cadian/Catachan sprues for the parts to make both regiments - and maybe making sure a PBI squad comes with one of each special weapon.
Oh, and if you're doing those bayonet/canteen/pouch bits, do enough so if you build everyone with lasguns, the number with and without sheathed bayonets matches the lasgun arms - that was one thing that bugged me with the recent Cadian Conscripts I put together, as you end up with one too many with a bayonet in the scabbard compared to the lasgun arms. A minor thing, but one that could be amended.
Kanluwen wrote: Rough Riders are and always have been a garbage concept.
The Jackal Alphus is something that the Guard should have gotten first: a scout unit with access to a sniper rifle and a way to reposition quickly while also allowing for nearby units to get a ballistic skill boost.
As a "cavalry charge" unit yeah, that really has no place on the battlefield of the 41st millenium. As motorcycle mounted scouts or dragoons? Hell yes.
Kanluwen wrote: Rough Riders are and always have been a garbage concept.
The Jackal Alphus is something that the Guard should have gotten first: a scout unit with access to a sniper rifle and a way to reposition quickly while also allowing for nearby units to get a ballistic skill boost.
As a "cavalry charge" unit yeah, that really has no place on the battlefield of the 41st millenium. As motorcycle mounted scouts or dragoons? Hell yes.
If commanders get a sword for use in combat, a cavalry charge is very 40k.
Mmmpi wrote: And the IG used a krak grenade lance. Just as impractical.
There is a big difference between the assumed battlefield performance of a ultra-maneuverable, ulta-fast, hoverbike with a laser lance, and a regular horse with a wooden lance and an RPG tip. The latter wouldn't even be good on the modern battlefield let alone the battlefield of the 41st millennium.
Mmmpi wrote: And the IG used a krak grenade lance. Just as impractical.
There is a big difference between the assumed battlefield performance of a ultra-maneuverable, ulta-fast, hoverbike with a laser lance, and a regular horse with a wooden lance and an RPG tip. The latter wouldn't even be good on the modern battlefield let alone the battlefield of the 41st millennium.
Neither would chainsaw swords or RPG "rifles", but both of those are iconic elements of the setting.
I want cavalry with lances and no amount of military logic and reasoning will sway me.
(Mega bonus points if you can give them flags and banners.)
There's just something beautiful about blending hi-tech gear with something as ancient and proud as cavalry.
Mmmpi wrote: And the IG used a krak grenade lance. Just as impractical.
There is a big difference between the assumed battlefield performance of a ultra-maneuverable, ulta-fast, hoverbike with a laser lance, and a regular horse with a wooden lance and an RPG tip. The latter wouldn't even be good on the modern battlefield let alone the battlefield of the 41st millennium.
Meanwhile you have McSpace Marine strapping rockets on his back to hit things with a mallet.
A Krak grenade is a light AT weapon in 40K, a Krak grenade on a stick is just as effective. Besides, there's no reason you can't have (in fluff) a unit with refractor fields and power lances if you want high tech. Keep in mind, that horse is just as fast and maneuverable as the average motorbike.
No one is talking about using them on a modern battlefield. We're talking about using them on a 40K battlefield, where the average rifle has a 500' max range, and artillery has trouble firing over the next hill. There's plenty of room for some of the stranger parts of the Imperium to make itself known. There's also no reason to only have shock cav style rough riders. Give them Str4 Assault 2 (or 3) weapons and call them las carbines. Boom carbiners. Let them retreat from combat, then charge again. Hussars. Give them horse drawn weapons teams, and you have mounted artillery. More special weapons, and you have dragoons.
Peregrine wrote: Neither would chainsaw swords or RPG "rifles", but both of those are iconic elements of the setting.
Who says a chainsaw sword and an automatic .75 caliber RPG launcher wouldn't be good? The only reason we aren't using those kinds of things right now is because we can't do it with our current level of technology.
Mmmpi wrote: Besides, there's no reason you can't have (in fluff) a unit with refractor fields and power lances if you want high tech.
Sure, but that isn't how rough riders are depicted.
Mmmpi wrote: Keep in mind, that horse is just as fast and maneuverable as the average motorbike.
Uh, no they really aren't. Setting aside the top speed difference (which is considerable), bikes are even better across rough terrain due to suspension, and are much more maneuverable at higher speeds.
Mmmpi wrote: We're talking about using them on a 40K battlefield, where the average rifle has a 500' max range, and artillery has trouble firing over the next hill.
I'm not sure where you are getting this from either... Lasguns are stated to be even more accurate, and just as deadly as modern day ballistic weapons. Imperial vehicles and ordinance match or surpass modern day equivalents. You are confusing AESTHETIC with performance.
Mmmpi wrote: Besides, there's no reason you can't have (in fluff) a unit with refractor fields and power lances if you want high tech.
Sure, but that isn't how rough riders are depicted.
Mmmpi wrote: Keep in mind, that horse is just as fast and maneuverable as the average motorbike.
Uh, no they really aren't. Setting aside the top speed difference (which is considerable), bikes are even better across rough terrain due to suspension, and are much more maneuverable at higher speeds.
Mmmpi wrote: We're talking about using them on a 40K battlefield, where the average rifle has a 500' max range, and artillery has trouble firing over the next hill.
I'm not sure where you are getting this from either... Lasguns are stated to be even more accurate, and just as deadly as modern day ballistic weapons. Imperial vehicles and ordinance match or surpass modern day equivalents. You are confusing AESTHETIC with performance.
#1. There's no reason they have to be depicted exactly the same way in the codex. In the fluff they're just as varied as the guard itself, with all sorts of different ideas from different planets.
#2. I was referring to rules. But even then, there are places a horse can go, but a motorcycle can't. Also, you can't fuel a motorcycle with grass.
#3. They are, but the scale on the table top, compared to the models means very short range. If we take rules and mix that with fluff however, we find horses that must be enhanced, because a RR unit can move 12, and then charge 12 (though rare, due to the poor odds). That means they can traivers the entire range of a modern or better rifle in less time then it takes the unit in question to fire more than one volley. Damn horses must be on speed.
Mmmpi wrote: I was referring to rules. But even then, there are places a horse can go, but a motorcycle can't. Also, you can't fuel a motorcycle with grass.
Fuel for vehicles has several advantages over foodstuffs for mounts. Namely it packs a lot more energy in a smaller space, and is not perishable.
If you're in an environment where: A. The environment itself provides the foodstuffs, and B. The foodstuffs are edible for your mount, and C. The environment can self-sustain the foodstuffs eaten by your mounts. Then you might have an argument. However, I can see that only rarely being the case. For example, if you are in a desert, it's probably better to have 20 gallons of fuel and a motorcycle, than 20 pounds of hay and a horse.
Mmmpi wrote: They are, but the scale on the table top, compared to the models means very short range. If we take rules and mix that with fluff however, we find horses that must be enhanced, because a RR unit can move 12, and then charge 12 (though rare, due to the poor odds). That means they can traivers the entire range of a modern or better rifle in less time then it takes the unit in question to fire more than one volley. Damn horses must be on speed.
Why are you trying to use the inaccurate scale of the tabletop game to justify why horse mounted cavalry belong in a 41st millennium army?
Mmmpi wrote: I was referring to rules. But even then, there are places a horse can go, but a motorcycle can't. Also, you can't fuel a motorcycle with grass.
Fuel for vehicles has several advantages over foodstuffs for mounts. Namely it packs a lot more energy in a smaller space, and is not perishable.
If you're in an environment where: A. The environment itself provides the foodstuffs, and B. The foodstuffs are edible for your mount, and C. The environment can self-sustain the foodstuffs eaten by your mounts. Then you might have an argument. However, I can see that only rarely being the case. For example, if you are in a desert, it's probably better to have 20 gallons of fuel and a motorcycle, than 20 pounds of hay and a horse.
Most 40K worlds, at least in fluff are the right enviornment to find food. And while promethium is more energy efficient per unit of measure than grass, a motorcycle also uses far more. The Tallarns (and Arabs, and Parthians, and Apache, ect) have had no issues with supplying horses in a desert. Finally, in a pinch you can't eat your motorcycle, or drink it's water.
Mmmpi wrote: They are, but the scale on the table top, compared to the models means very short range. If we take rules and mix that with fluff however, we find horses that must be enhanced, because a RR unit can move 12, and then charge 12 (though rare, due to the poor odds). That means they can traivers the entire range of a modern or better rifle in less time then it takes the unit in question to fire more than one volley. Damn horses must be on speed.
Why are you trying to use the inaccurate scale of the tabletop game to justify why horse mounted cavalry belong in a 41st millennium army?
I'm not using it to justify why it belongs in a 40K army. I'm using it to point out the issues with your argument about weapon ranges. The reason they belong in 40K are the same reason rocket powered mallets belong in 40K. People think it's cool.
A new Sentinel
A New Guardsmen
A new Conscript
A new Commander
A new Commissar
A new Leman Russ
A new Battle Tank
A new walker
A new Artillery
New Ratlings
Soooo
A Whole new range that isn't cadian cause well. They are all dead.
Geez, if anybody wants to gallop around on a smelly horse and poke things with long sticks with a bomb attached to them, let them.
If we were about to get new Rough Riders, I'd be glad if they could exchange their poky-explody sticks for Lasguns (or equivalent), to make them very mobile, T3 W2 Guardsmen.
Mmmpi wrote: I'm not using it to justify why it belongs in a 40K army. I'm using it to point out the issues with your argument about weapon ranges. The reason they belong in 40K are the same reason rocket powered mallets belong in 40K. People think it's cool.
The difference is, the rocket powered mallet has pseudoscience behind why it is effective on the battlefield of the 41st millennium.
You want cybernetically-enhanced or robo horses? Fine. I still think it would be easier to just have a motorcycle but fine.
Plain jane horses with nothing making them special are already outdated and useless on a MODERN battlefield outside of being beasts of burden. They have no place on a 40k battlefield. You might as well have an entire IG regiment armed with pikes (non power weapon).
Given that the OP's question was what single model you would want, if you could only get one made, I'm not sure why 'an entire line of guardsmen' would be desirable, seeing as how it's either ignoring the actual question, or hoping for an army made of dozens of versions of one model.
So, rather than just listing all the potential new models I'd like to see, or all the resculpts I'd like to see, or all the variants I'd like to see, I'm gonna try to actually answer the OP's question, specifically.
I would like to see an IG supply vehicle. Either a cargo-8, which gets mentioned all the time in the novels, but never shows up in the game, or a basic IG truck, (prior to ork looting). I think it would be a cool addition, kind of like scenery, and it would give you play options, objective options, and modeling options. It would be easy enough to convert to use for GSC use (so rules could appear in WD), as well as Traitor Guard use, and (if it wasn't a de-orkified trukk), Orks could loot it as well. It would work well in Necromunda, as well as in Kill Team.
It wouldn't plug any tactical holes in the game, but I think it would be a hit with a lot of people for a lot of different uses, and it would expand a bit of the 40K universe just past troops and tanks. So despite being a single model, it would have loads of uses.
I'd argue that bike troops are as outdated as horses. When was the last time soldiers actually used a bike in combat? Honestly, are there actually any accounts of people riding a bike through a battle, and not just to transport themselves? If you think about it, a bike trooper has all the weaknesses of a cavalryman, that of being exposed and difficult to maneuver. Neither bikes nor horses "belong" on a modern battlefield. The fact that the mount is different doesn't make the trooper any easier or harder to kill. But we're talking about 40k: everything has a place in 40k.
Dandelion wrote: I'd argue that bike troops are as outdated as horses. When was the last time soldiers actually used a bike in combat? Honestly, are there actually any accounts of people riding a bike through a battle, and not just to transport themselves? If you think about it, a bike trooper has all the weaknesses of a cavalryman, that of being exposed and difficult to maneuver. Neither bikes nor horses "belong" on a modern battlefield. The fact that the mount is different doesn't make the trooper any easier or harder to kill. But we're talking about 40k: everything has a place in 40k.
Horses have been used as mounts for soldiers up until the 70's and even today there are used by military scouts in rugged terrain. A horse is way more manoeuvrable and useful than a motorcycle in a war theater. Technically, Arbites should probably have acces to horses or similar mounts as they are very efficient to disband poorly armed rioters and very intimidating.
epronovost wrote: Technically, Arbites should probably have acces to horses or similar mounts as they are very efficient to disband poorly armed rioters and very intimidating.
Mmmpi wrote: I'm not using it to justify why it belongs in a 40K army. I'm using it to point out the issues with your argument about weapon ranges. The reason they belong in 40K are the same reason rocket powered mallets belong in 40K. People think it's cool.
The difference is, the rocket powered mallet has pseudoscience behind why it is effective on the battlefield of the 41st millennium.
You want cybernetically-enhanced or robo horses? Fine. I still think it would be easier to just have a motorcycle but fine.
Plain jane horses with nothing making them special are already outdated and useless on a MODERN battlefield outside of being beasts of burden. They have no place on a 40k battlefield. You might as well have an entire IG regiment armed with pikes (non power weapon).
Well if we're going psudoscience, the I can make up any reason I want for horses to be present.
I seem to recall the heavy use of horses in the modern war of Afghanistan. And WWII. Hmmm...
As for pikes, I'm sure there's an Imperial world that does just that. We just haven't seen it yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Follow up, the mounted arbitie sounds cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or even mounted crusaders.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for single model, I think a new light tank would be cool. Right now there's SP guns (basalisk, wyvern), assault guns (medusa), AT light tank (Devil Dog) AA (Hydra), and flame tank (Hellhound/banewolf), but no longer ranged combat/recon tank.
Who says RR has to be on a horse? The codexs show them mounted on huge lizards, bears and other 'animals', depending on their planet of origin. Though we are on about guard, not SM, you don't see Thunderwolf cavalry on horses!
Bike mounted RR would be fine with me, but molded in such a way that the AoS cavalry legs and horses (or demigryph) fit the torso.
Riders with horses and guns would be neat.
Have them take lasguns, with a rifle upgrade. Same str same shots, but d3 damage for say 2 points per 5 riders.
Give them a command version and a heavy weapon version with a big packhorse.
And the upradge to explode lance once a game !
Dr Coconut wrote: Who says RR has to be on a horse? The codexs show them mounted on huge lizards, bears and other 'animals', depending on their planet of origin. Though we are on about guard, not SM, you don't see Thunderwolf cavalry on horses!
Bike mounted RR would be fine with me, but molded in such a way that the AoS cavalry legs and horses (or demigryph) fit the torso.
Nothing says they have to be on horses. Some people like horses, some like motorcycles. Some like giant lizards. The debate in question is about them ONLY being on motorcycles, and whether or not horses would even be used.
Yea I'm a proponent of the horse mounted rough rider, but I definitely wouldn't mind if options for cold ones, motorcycles, war bears etc existed to give other peoples armies some more variety.
Peregrine wrote: So do the horses. By sheer awesome they slaughter all who dare to stand before them. Bikes lack that level of awesome and would be less effective.
That's not how suspension of disbelief works.
If there exists a setting where people fly around and gravity doesn't apply to them, then there must be a reasonable explanation within the setting as to why gravity doesn't work that way. Not explaining it is bad writing.
We can obviously see that horse-mounted tactics don't work in real life anymore, let alone work on a battlefield thousands of years more advanced. Then there must exist an explanation of why it does work IE (robo horses, cyber steeds) for it to be acceptable.
Mmmpi wrote: I seem to recall the heavy use of horses in the modern war of Afghanistan. And WWII. Hmmm...
As I have said in another thread... this was desperation. If they could have used vehicles in place of horses, they would have.
Mmmpi wrote: Nothing says they have to be on horses. Some people like horses, some like motorcycles. Some like giant lizards. The debate in question is about them ONLY being on motorcycles, and whether or not horses would even be used.
Remember this is a discussion about a NEW MODEL. If it comes down to a choice between horses and motorcycles, it should be motorcycles. I have no problems with people converting their horse-mounted rough riders and saying they are "robo" horses or whatever, even if it's a bit silly. I do have a problem with GW coming out with horse mounted rough rider models and saying they are unmodified, plane jane horses with a straight face, and expecting me to take it seriously.
Dandelion wrote: I'd argue that bike troops are as outdated as horses. When was the last time soldiers actually used a bike in combat? Honestly, are there actually any accounts of people riding a bike through a battle, and not just to transport themselves? If you think about it, a bike trooper has all the weaknesses of a cavalryman, that of being exposed and difficult to maneuver. Neither bikes nor horses "belong" on a modern battlefield. The fact that the mount is different doesn't make the trooper any easier or harder to kill. But we're talking about 40k: everything has a place in 40k.
Peregrine wrote: So do the horses. By sheer awesome they slaughter all who dare to stand before them. Bikes lack that level of awesome and would be less effective.
That's not how suspension of disbelief works.
That's subjective.
If there exists a setting where people fly around and gravity doesn't apply to them, then there must be a reasonable explanation within the setting as to why gravity doesn't work that way. Not explaining it is bad writing.
"Why does the Imperium use horses?" Because they still find value in them. Done. Explained.
We can obviously see that horse-mounted tactics don't work in real life anymore, let alone work on a battlefield thousands of years more advanced. Then there must exist an explanation of why it does work IE (robo horses, cyber steeds) for it to be acceptable.
Cavalry charge in 2008. Was successful in the face of tanks. And you're telling me a setting that has people drive closer to hit things with swords wouldn't do a cavalry charge? They have entire space marine chapters built around the idea of space sword fighting. As for justification why it works, YOU need further justification. We don't.
Mmmpi wrote: I seem to recall the heavy use of horses in the modern war of Afghanistan. And WWII. Hmmm...
As I have said in another thread... this was desperation. If they could have used vehicles in place of horses, they would have.
They had air strikes. They could have infiltrated on foot. They CHOSE to charge on horseback. Why is this so difficult a concept? The horse got them across no mans land quickly enough not to get completely cut apart.
Mmmpi wrote: Nothing says they have to be on horses. Some people like horses, some like motorcycles. Some like giant lizards. The debate in question is about them ONLY being on motorcycles, and whether or not horses would even be used.
Remember this is a discussion about a NEW MODEL. If it comes down to a choice between horses and motorcycles, it should be motorcycles. I have no problems with people converting their horse-mounted rough riders and saying they are "robo" horses or whatever, even if it's a bit silly. I do have a problem with GW coming out with horse mounted rough rider models and saying they are unmodified, plane jane horses with a straight face, and expecting me to take it seriously.
It should be horses, there's already a motorcycle kit they can use for conversions (GSC bikes). I find 'plain Jane' Horses completely acceptable. After all, we have plain Jane humans in the game, and they work just fine. Some consider them broken even.
Dandelion wrote: I'd argue that bike troops are as outdated as horses. When was the last time soldiers actually used a bike in combat? Honestly, are there actually any accounts of people riding a bike through a battle, and not just to transport themselves? If you think about it, a bike trooper has all the weaknesses of a cavalryman, that of being exposed and difficult to maneuver. Neither bikes nor horses "belong" on a modern battlefield. The fact that the mount is different doesn't make the trooper any easier or harder to kill. But we're talking about 40k: everything has a place in 40k.
Look them up on youtube, along with "military motorcycle".
Some bike units had side cars, but they really didn't see much combat, and were more for back line patrols. German motorcycle units were primarily scouts, not main combat units, meanwhile, several armies on both sides maintained their cavalry, despite having access to motorcycles. The Germans didn't because the Poles wiped them out.
epronovost wrote: Technically, Arbites should probably have acces to horses or similar mounts as they are very efficient to disband poorly armed rioters and very intimidating.
ooh, that's a good idea
Yeah, that's why our little Judge Dredd like guys already have bikes.
A Whole new range that isn't cadian cause well. They are all dead.
Read your lore. They ain't dead.
Planet broke before the Cadians did--and there's still all the worlds settled by Cadians that have kept their traditions. For all intents and purposes, they're going the Battlestar Galactica route with Cadians: "Our planet's destroyed, now we need to find a new home..."
If there exists a setting where people fly around and gravity doesn't apply to them, then there must be a reasonable explanation within the setting as to why gravity doesn't work that way. Not explaining it is bad writing.
If there exists a setting where only some people can manipulate some kind of "Force" to move objects, affect the minds of others etc. then it must be explained why not everyone can do so. Not explaining it is bad writing.
Seriously, sometimes it is actually better that you do not try to force in explanations for every single thing as it can actually weaken the story you're trying to tell.
Or do you consider midichlorians a worthwhile and needed addition to the Star Wars story and the failure to tell you why only some people could wield the Force in the original trilogy terrible writing?
Look them up on youtube, along with "military motorcycle".
Motorcycle "infantry" implies that the motorcycle is used for transport and not combat. You use the bike to get to the fight then you dismount. Just like you'd use horses and there are plenty of accounts of both happening (dismounting from bikes or horses to shoot). Bikes are no better tactically than horses (but are usually better for transport, but not always), because it's not the horse that's a risk, it's the exposed rider. And horses are harder to kill than people btw. No standing military is using bikes today (or ever afaik) the way the genecult riders are using them. i.e. with guns blazing at full throttle.
Shooting from a moving bike is just as ridiculous as shooting from a moving horse.
Shooting from a moving bike is just as ridiculous as shooting from a moving horse.
You can shoot from horseback with minimal training and with a lot of training, you can shoot from horseback with ennerving accuracy as demonstrated by Native Americans and Steppe warriors. You can guide a horse only with your legs even in rather complecated manoeuvre. That's how mounted archery and early days dragoon worked afterall. You can't do that with a motorcycle as you need both hands on the handle to drive it without killing yourself, especially on hard terrain.
Shooting from a moving bike is just as ridiculous as shooting from a moving horse.
You can shoot from horseback with minimal training and with a lot of training, you can shoot from horseback with ennerving accuracy as demonstrated by Native Americans and Steppe warriors. You can guide a horse only with your legs even in rather complecated manoeuvre. That's how mounted archery and early days dragoon worked afterall. You can't do that with a motorcycle as you need both hands on the handle to drive it without killing yourself, especially on hard terrain.
I was talking more about the fact that riding through a modern battlefield will get you killed. You're putting yourself way out for no gain.
The extra speed though does make you a harder target. Probably not enough to completely erase the accuracy advantage of modern weapons, but it would help. But bikes have the same issue.
Shooting from a moving bike is just as ridiculous as shooting from a moving horse.
You can shoot from horseback with minimal training and with a lot of training, you can shoot from horseback with ennerving accuracy as demonstrated by Native Americans and Steppe warriors. You can guide a horse only with your legs even in rather complecated manoeuvre. That's how mounted archery and early days dragoon worked afterall. You can't do that with a motorcycle as you need both hands on the handle to drive it without killing yourself, especially on hard terrain.
I was talking more about the fact that riding through a modern battlefield will get you killed. You're putting yourself way out for no gain.
Sigh. I like how people completely ignore context of wars, just lumping them into 'modern' despite their imagination of one just includes tiny fraction of the world. See WW1 for one - all you can imagine is trenches, right? Then you'd be wrong, because on the whole eastern and middle eastern fronts hundreds of thousands of horses and cavalrymen were used. Hell, main British Mesopotamian campaign unit was entirely mounted:
Then you have WW2, with small, tiny front in France being decided by tanks, while huge, expansive one in Russia saw lots of cavalry actions, with even such niche formation as SS fielding no less than six cavalry divisions, and cavalry actions occurring as late as 1945 despite terrain again shifting to cramped, unsuitable one:
Then you have Cold War, which is what people see as "modern" war - the problem is, the avalanche of dozens of armoured divisions packed tightly into small river gap in central Germany is not what typical war in the last 50 years looked like, in fact, seeing it never came to pass, you can argue it's warped anomaly that doesn't represent modern war in any way or shape. Wars in Africa saw cavalry actions. In Asia, too. In fact, in last 40 years, NATO did more bayonet charges in wars than they did armoured offensives.
If you had a sparsely populated, mostly flat planet in 40K, you can bet you'd see cavalry on it too. Not only because horses are more reliable and less problematic in many ways, but because of the aspect most of people here ignored - logistics. Tank engine needs to be taken apart and rebuilt every 500 to 1000 km. That's why in WW2 in Russia you saw so many cavalry - tanks were only moved short distances to important battles, as any breakdown meant capture or blowing it up. You can get away with just driving tanks in such small campaign as French one, but if wanted to cover more ground than that, you did that on foot or mounted. Now, in 40K, they still have the same considerations - and seeing enginseers are way more limited in numbers than technicians are in modern armies, you simply can't keep tank regiment going for long if you want to wage long war of maneuver. Fuel isn't the only limiting factor. Typical 40K soldier can learn how to take care of an animal, but on a lot of worlds, teaching him how to do basic tank maintenance is heresy...
You're reading way too deep into what I said. I agree that horses do have uses, but sitting on a horse makes you an easy target. Sitting on a bike makes you an easy target. Standing in the open also makes you an easy target. Standing on a hill makes you an easy target etc...
And when I said "modern" war I was referring to how the US currently approaches engagements (as I am a little familiar with it and the US spends a lot of time improving the military). The US does not train troops to fight directly from horseback nor from a motorcycle. If you do happen to use either as a means of transport, you are expected to dismount and fight on foot since it's more effective. That's all I'm trying to say.
And for the record, I am not against cavalry in 40k, in fact I would love it.
Note than many cavalry divisions were actually tank or airmobile divisions.
I don't really have anything against Rough Riders, but as a treadhead, I'd rather my recon units be light tanks rather than horse mounted. Or maybe something like a Willy's jeep with heavy weapon in the back.
I don't really have anything against Rough Riders, but as a treadhead, I'd rather my recon units be light tanks rather than horse mounted.
What if they were tank-horses?
I hate walkers. Period. No.
Small trucks, like little jeeps with guns, would be cool though.
Something like that would be cool. Maybe a plastic version of the Tauros or Salamander? (Neither is a jeep, but sound pretty close to what you're talking about.)
This makes me think of what a waste of potential the Taurox is. It could have been so many interesting things in terms of both rules and fluff, but instead it's redundant and ... ugh.
Dandelion wrote: And when I said "modern" war I was referring to how the US currently approaches engagements (as I am a little familiar with it and the US spends a lot of time improving the military).
The US approach to war is "spend an obscene percentage of the country's wealth, more than the rest of the world combined, and only attack helpless small countries that have no hope of winning". Yeah, things are great when you have an unlimited amount of money to spend on a "war" and completely outclass the opposition. Logistics don't matter when you're free to spend a million dollars and various transport vehicles to move a tank of gas for a bike. But that's not at all what the 40k universe is like. Fights are fair, resources are limited, and you can't magically solve all problems by playing in god mode.
I would like to see plastic towed artillery that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (it doesn't necessarily have to be Earthshaker-size). I don't think it's necessary gameplay-wise, as guard already have artillery pretty well covered. I just think it's cool.
Fast Attack choices seem the most limited at the moment. New Rough Riders (whether on motorbikes or horses) would be a fun way to expand the selection.
Something else I've been thinking about is possibly giving Special Weapon Squads a scout move (like Scout Sentinels and Tau Pathfinders) and moving them to Fast Attack. Special Weapons Squads acting as scouts with Sniper Rifles or infiltrating saboteurs with Melta Guns* makes a lot of sense to me. Some of the other special weapons maybe not quite as much. The things I like about this is that it wouldn't require a new kit and it would give people running infantry regiments a unit in the Fast Attack slot.
*In some of the old fluff melta guns were described as being preferred by units infiltrating behind enemy lines because they made a *woooosh* noise that was quieter than many other weapons. I'm not sure if that fluff is outdated.
A new plastic infantry squad that could be customized to represent many different regiments is kind of boring but at the same time the thing that would probably make me the most happy, especially if they had greatcoats.
Mmmpi wrote: "Why does the Imperium use horses?" Because they still find value in them. Done. Explained.
Not good enough, especially since it wouldn't even fly TODAY.
Mmmpi wrote: Cavalry charge in 2008. Was successful in the face of tanks.
Again, source? The poles tried that in WW2 and it didn't work out for them.
Mmmpi wrote: And you're telling me a setting that has people drive closer to hit things with swords wouldn't do a cavalry charge?
That was a meme. If you cannot separate memes about the setting from actual background lore you shouldn't be talking about what is acceptable for the setting.
Mmmpi wrote: They have entire space marine chapters built around the idea of space sword fighting. As for justification why it works, YOU need further justification. We don't.
And space sword fighting works because the "swords" are hyper advanced energy weapons that can cut through any armor or material. Perfectly plausible within the confines of the setting. Regular horses and cavalry charges do NOT work TODAY, how do you expect them to work in the 41st millenium when the average infantry weapon is a 75 caliber automatic grenade launcher.
Because you are exaggerating or outright misrepresenting the horse's usefulness on the modern battlefield. The horse is a beast of burden to be used to transport men and material across rough terrain, and ONLY when there is no access to vehicles which do the same thing except better. Horses have not been used seriously in combat since WW1.
Mmmpi wrote: "Why does the Imperium use horses?" Because they still find value in them. Done. Explained.
Not good enough, especially since it wouldn't even fly TODAY.
Mmmpi wrote: Cavalry charge in 2008. Was successful in the face of tanks.
Again, source? The poles tried that in WW2 and it didn't work out for them.
Mmmpi wrote: And you're telling me a setting that has people drive closer to hit things with swords wouldn't do a cavalry charge?
That was a meme. If you cannot separate memes about the setting from actual background lore you shouldn't be talking about what is acceptable for the setting.
Mmmpi wrote: They have entire space marine chapters built around the idea of space sword fighting. As for justification why it works, YOU need further justification. We don't.
And space sword fighting works because the "swords" are hyper advanced energy weapons that can cut through any armor or material. Perfectly plausible within the confines of the setting. Regular horses and cavalry charges do NOT work TODAY, how do you expect them to work in the 41st millenium when the average infantry weapon is a 75 caliber automatic grenade launcher.
Because you are exaggerating or outright misrepresenting the horse's usefulness on the modern battlefield. The horse is a beast of burden to be used to transport men and material across rough terrain, and ONLY when there is no access to vehicles which do the same thing except better. Horses have not been used seriously in combat since WW1.
firstly the standard infantry gun isn't a 75 calibre automatic ROCKET , not grenade, launcher, that is only for 1 million people in the whole universe, secondly in modern warfare which you are comparing this to is trench warfare used, NO in case you haven't realised warfare changes over time, as proven with cavalry charges, which went out of fashion for being bad and then were brought back in 150 years for being good in the general style of warfare of the time. also horses have been used in Afghanistan in the 2000's over motorbikes because of accuracy and they make lots less noise than motorbikes
A new and interesting HQ model, either guard or Scions. Preferably a new Scion commander because at least you can get alternate guard command from Forgeworld.
I'm disappointed that it looks like forgeworld has given up on the AM lines. We need a new troop box. Seeing what they have done with GSC a new veteran kit could be awsome. I'd like to see FW put a regular turret on the Malcadore chassis. Someone did that as a conversion and it looked awsome. While I like that the GW vehicles seem to be getting smaller footprints, the Malcadore chassis seems to be a good size.
Mmmpi wrote: "Why does the Imperium use horses?" Because they still find value in them. Done. Explained.
Not good enough, especially since it wouldn't even fly TODAY.
Mmmpi wrote: Cavalry charge in 2008. Was successful in the face of tanks.
Again, source? The poles tried that in WW2 and it didn't work out for them.
Mmmpi wrote: And you're telling me a setting that has people drive closer to hit things with swords wouldn't do a cavalry charge?
That was a meme. If you cannot separate memes about the setting from actual background lore you shouldn't be talking about what is acceptable for the setting.
Mmmpi wrote: They have entire space marine chapters built around the idea of space sword fighting. As for justification why it works, YOU need further justification. We don't.
And space sword fighting works because the "swords" are hyper advanced energy weapons that can cut through any armor or material. Perfectly plausible within the confines of the setting. Regular horses and cavalry charges do NOT work TODAY, how do you expect them to work in the 41st millenium when the average infantry weapon is a 75 caliber automatic grenade launcher.
Because you are exaggerating or outright misrepresenting the horse's usefulness on the modern battlefield. The horse is a beast of burden to be used to transport men and material across rough terrain, and ONLY when there is no access to vehicles which do the same thing except better. Horses have not been used seriously in combat since WW1.
There are militaries that use horses, some of them regularly. The US is one of the not regular users. The main reason the US switched was because in the 1930's the US was the major oil exporter, which means it had the resources and logistics to supply fuel. Almost no one else was in that situation at the time.
So, no. My reasoning is perfectly fine. Because the Imperium does find value in using them. We know this because they use them. Successfully.
That old myth? The Poles wiped out a large portion of the German cavalry, outpaced their AT guns, and were attacked by a tank formation. They didn't charge anything, they were retreating back to weapons that could hurt the tanks (which were on horse limbers). After the battle, the Germans rearrainged the dead to make it look like the Poles charged the tanks.
It is a meme, but it's one that sums up much of the Imperium's mindset. After all, we still have entire chapters of space marines who's primary strategy is charge with chainswords.
The average imperial Melee weapon by numbers is a steel bayonet. By table top presence a chainsword. Not a powersword. You were saying? As for the average 40K ranged weapon, it's either the lasgun, or the autogun, not the bolter. Besides, a horses flak armor has about a 1/3 chance of stopping a bolter round. Which by modern armor standards is pretty damn good.
Nope, not misrepresenting anything. Just countering your attempts to misrepresent their usefulness. It is a good rough terrain transport. The horse however can fight. As in literally fight. In rough terrain, the only better vehicle is a helicopter btw. The were used seriously in combat in WWII. Italian cavalry seized Don River crossings in Russia for example. China used cavalry successfully into the 1970's. The US used them in 2001 (not 2008 like I had said earlier), and still uses them for rural patrols. Hell, modern police use them instead of motorcycles in urban areas in many places, and urban centers definitely have roads.
Crimson wrote: I think what the Guard needs most is new plastic basic infantry. The Cadians are pretty bad by modern standards and less is said about the Catachans the better. When you compare them to the newer human sized infantry such as GSC Neophytes, Necromunda gangers or the BSF Traitor Guard their proportions just do not hold up.
Yep, I'd fully agree with this. I don't actually mind the plastic Cadians as much as some seem to, but the Catachans are horrible. New basic infantry kit with more variety of options (special & Sgt weapons, male & female troops, wider variety of heads etc) would be sick.
It would also be good if the basic infantry is less "heroiclly" proportioned. less thick limbs, smaller hands and heads compared to the current ones.
Not perfect 1/58, the slightly out of proportion heroic build is used for a reason (makes model recognition easier across the table as do the oversize weapons) but the cadians/catachans are looking a bit deformed rather than heroic.
Insurgency Walker wrote: I'm disappointed that it looks like forgeworld has given up on the AM lines.
I'd settle for updated rules.
Since the codex dropped (and let's not even mention CA), my Malcador Infernus, Valdor and Macharius Battle Tank are all laughably overpriced.
Especially my Macharius cries itself to sleep every night, knowing that a regular LRBT that doesn't move more than 3" has almost the same amount of firepower for less than half the price...
I don't mind the Cadians nearly as much now that we have upscaled Marines. Catachans being so big made sense, them being hulking giants in the fluff. Cadians being so big was just weird.
I do think they went too hard on the heroic proportions for the Cadians, and wouldn't mind seeing that dialed back in a new regiment, but I don't think they look that bad.
I'll post here, rough riders with a vastly updated model and capability to make officers mounted as well as command squads with maybe a second type of unit. Like a mounted fire support version and the standard lance stabby version with some nice rules. No need to be over the top just workable. I'd be great with that.
Lacking that, an updated Bassie kit with a dual or more capability to have more big guns, that won't tire. That would be good as well. Though Rough Riders #1.
Because you are exaggerating or outright misrepresenting the horse's usefulness on the modern battlefield. The horse is a beast of burden to be used to transport men and material across rough terrain, and ONLY when there is no access to vehicles which do the same thing except better. Horses have not been used seriously in combat since WW1.
They were used on the eastern front a lot. They and mules were used in combat situations in vietnam. Also what does use in combat mean. If a bicykle is used to get a soldier on to the very spot where he is engage in a firefight, like it was the case in korea, vietnam or chinesse civil war, then is the bike being use in a combat situation ?
What about horse drawn field artilery. Most german ones and most russian ones were horse pulled durning WWII.
Rough Riders all the way. All the guys bleating "but muh realism!" should remember that infantry charging with swords is about as out of place as cavalry, but we don't see them complaining that GW should squat the orks, genestealers and anybody waving a sword or an axe.
Giving you the option to run them as mounted infantry or standard heavy cavalry would be nice, though.
Outside of those, a nice casemated tank hunter/assault gun. Because StuG life.
A new multi-build artillery kit like that would definitely make me happy, especially if it wasn't a webstore exclusive. I can see why people might not like long-range artillery in non-Apocalypse settings, but I think they're fun.
As has been mentioned, we already Lieutenants. One thing that I think would be cool (but definitely not necessary) is having a Regimental Commander. Maybe not as a separate kit, but as an upgrade stratagem like Chapter Master for Space Marines? Maybe it could give access to a few new orders?
It has always struck me as a little weird that Chapter Masters can easily be taken in normal games but IG officers above the rank of Captain aren't an option* and neither are Ork Warlords (other than Ghazzy), despite both of those being far more common than Chapter Masters. Of course if the IG command staff ends up on the front lines things have gone horribly wrong and the Ork Warboss is probably an approximation of a wide variety of different Ork bosses. So it really isn't that weird. Tau also no longer have their different ranks of Commanders.
A new multi-build artillery kit like that would definitely make me happy, especially if it wasn't a webstore exclusive. I can see why people might not like long-range artillery in non-Apocalypse settings, but I think they're fun.
As has been mentioned, we already Lieutenants. One thing that I think would be cool (but definitely not necessary) is having a Regimental Commander. Maybe not as a separate kit, but as an upgrade stratagem like Chapter Master for Space Marines? Maybe it could give access to a few new orders?
It has always struck me as a little weird that Chapter Masters can easily be taken in normal games but IG officers above the rank of Captain aren't an option* and neither are Ork Warlords (other than Ghazzy), despite both of those being far more common than Chapter Masters. Of course if the IG command staff ends up on the front lines things have gone horribly wrong and the Ork Warboss is probably an approximation of a wide variety of different Ork bosses. So it really isn't that weird. Tau also no longer have their different ranks of Commanders.
*I think this was an option in 3rd?
It makes more sense when you remember that the Chapter Master leads 1,000 guysbut broken up into penny packets usually. So in many cases, if the CM takes the field, it's in a company sized group at the best. A captain for the IG leads a company of 25-300 men, with about 100 being the average. In terms of the scale of forces, it's about right. A major or colonel probably wouldn't show up until you started to see battalion/regiment level deployments (300-1,000), which even for IG is above the scope of 40K. In both cases, the greater formations send out company and smaller sized forces, but while the marines are more likely to do this with their whole force, split over 5-30 warzones, thus meaning the CM either stays home with the logistic guys, or goes out with the force after the most difficult/prestigious/politically viable target. Meanwhile, though a regiment might send a platoon, or a company after an objective, the bulk of the regiment stays together, and that bulk is too large a formation for 40K, meaning the Colonel equivalent rank is more frequently off the table.
Literally the only reason we have this current mess with the officers is because for whatever reason someone decided to rename them from "Junior" and "Senior" Officers to the current setup.
Would people stop complaining about the ranks if it went back to that? Probably not. But it wouldn't hurt to do so.
A Platoon Leader usually has the rank of Second Lieutenant, IIRC. There have been Imperial Guard Lieutenants as long as I've been playing.
Yes, but is there an actual model? A unit called platoon leader exists, but look at the title. Every model I have seen is a mash up of a SGT model with a company commander. I would love to see a dedicated unit model, for a unit that is pointless and serves no purpose.
Why are there 9 Baneblade variants? We are only going to use maybe 3. AM needs to reduce their bloat before we add in new models. Half the codex is stuff that hasn't been used in forever, and doesn't even have models anymore. Look at the pointless units first. Astropaths, Deathstrikes, Sentinels, Ogryns, Wyrdvane, and pretty much everything except Valks in the flyer lists. We don't need so many Lehman Russ variants. Especially when the base model outperforms all of them with the lone exception of the Punisher.
So, year, I don't see them needing any NEW models.
A Platoon Leader usually has the rank of Second Lieutenant, IIRC. There have been Imperial Guard Lieutenants as long as I've been playing.
Yes, but is there an actual model? A unit called platoon leader exists, but look at the title. Every model I have seen is a mash up of a SGT model with a company commander. I would love to see a dedicated unit model, for a unit that is pointless and serves no purpose.
Gee, it's almost like there are compatible parts in the Company Command Squad box that allows for you to actually do mash-ups in such a way that people can make the models 'theirs'...
Crazy!
Why are there 9 Baneblade variants? We are only going to use maybe 3.
Because there are components for 9 Baneblade variants?
AM needs to reduce their bloat before we add in new models. Half the codex is stuff that hasn't been used in forever, and doesn't even have models anymore. Look at the pointless units first. Astropaths, Deathstrikes, Sentinels, Ogryns, Wyrdvane, and pretty much everything except Valks in the flyer lists. We don't need so many Lehman Russ variants. Especially when the base model outperforms all of them with the lone exception of the Punisher.
So, year, I don't see them needing any NEW models.
Fezzik a point, though.
For example, Deathstrike is supposed to be a tactical nuke able to obliterate half of the table. Now it goes *poof* and maybe kills something. What is 3D6 on a 4+? You get about 6 hits on average against a single unit. Pathetic.
Now, other units.
Vanquisher? Is any sane person deploying them?
Eradicator? Did you ever use it in 8th?
Exterminator? Same question.
Bane Wolf? Again...
Salamander? Once more...
Colossus? Griffon? Medusa? No?
I don't want to stir up discussion about what units are or are not, I'm just proving the point that we have plenty of units that are meh or crappy that nobody uses them.
A point that can be made for a vast number of armies.
For example, Deathstrike is supposed to be a tactical nuke able to obliterate half of the table. Now it goes *poof* and maybe kills something. What is 3D6 on a 4+? You get about 6 hits on average against a single unit. Pathetic.
Oh noes, Deathstrikes aren't great now! Not like they ever really were...
Also, if you're firing Deathstrikes and not using Vortex Missile Stratagem, you're doing it wrong anyways. Reroll failed hit rolls for it and add 1 to the roll made to determine whether other units within 6" are hit. If a model is wounded but not slain by the attack you roll another dice and on a 6 the model suffers a further D6 Mortal Wounds. With Vortex Missile: 3D6(so anywhere from 3 to 18) attacks, hitting on 4+s rerolling all failed hits. Those hits then become Mortal Wounds (not regular wounds) which is a Big Deal. And after all those hits have been resolved? You then get to inflict D3 Mortal Wounds on nearby enemy units on a 3+.
And don't act like a purely Guard army(which let's be real here, is the only place a Deathstrike really fits in) won't have CP to burn. They will.
Now, other units. Vanquisher? Is any sane person deploying them? Eradicator? Did you ever use it in 8th? Exterminator? Same question. Bane Wolf? Again...
Can't speak for anyone else, but yes. I'm using Vanquishers and Exterminators. I like 'em, I make 'em work as Cadians. I just tag enemies in advance with "Overlapping Fields of Fire" to get the most out of my shots.
And (spoiler) that helps out those daggone Deathstrikes too!
Salamander? Once more... Colossus? Griffon? Medusa? No?
All of these are FW. And haven't really been great before anyways.
If anything the fact that your list is strictly focused on tanks ignores that Guard vehicles being BS4+ has long been an issue.
I don't want to stir up discussion about what units are or are not, I'm just proving the point that we have plenty of units that are meh or crappy that nobody uses them.
And again: there are a large number of armies that have the same point. Most of the units being specifically called out have long had issues.
A point that can be made for a vast number of armies.
For example, Deathstrike is supposed to be a tactical nuke able to obliterate half of the table. Now it goes *poof* and maybe kills something. What is 3D6 on a 4+? You get about 6 hits on average against a single unit. Pathetic.
Oh noes, Deathstrikes aren't great now!
Not like they ever really were...
Also, if you're firing Deathstrikes and not using Vortex Missile Stratagem, you're doing it wrong anyways. Reroll failed hit rolls for it and add 1 to the roll made to determine whether other units within 6" are hit. If a model is wounded but not slain by the attack you roll another dice and on a 6 the model suffers a further D6 Mortal Wounds.
With Vortex Missile:
3D6(so anywhere from 3 to 18) attacks, hitting on 4+s rerolling all failed hits.
Those hits then become Mortal Wounds (not regular wounds) which is a Big Deal.
And after all those hits have been resolved?
You then get to inflict D3 Mortal Wounds on nearby enemy units on a 3+.
And don't act like a purely Guard army(which let's be real here, is the only place a Deathstrike really fits in) won't have CP to burn. They will.
Now, other units.
Vanquisher? Is any sane person deploying them?
Eradicator? Did you ever use it in 8th?
Exterminator? Same question.
Bane Wolf? Again...
Can't speak for anyone else, but yes. I'm using Vanquishers and Exterminators. I like 'em, I make 'em work as Cadians. I just tag enemies in advance with "Overlapping Fields of Fire" to get the most out of my shots.
And (spoiler) that helps out those daggone Deathstrikes too!
Salamander? Once more...
Colossus? Griffon? Medusa? No?
All of these are FW. And haven't really been great before anyways.
If anything the fact that your list is strictly focused on tanks ignores that Guard vehicles being BS4+ has long been an issue.
I don't want to stir up discussion about what units are or are not, I'm just proving the point that we have plenty of units that are meh or crappy that nobody uses them.
And again: there are a large number of armies that have the same point. Most of the units being specifically called out have long had issues.
Oh stop with the "I use them". Seriously. Vanquishers could double their shots and still get outperformed by Punishers against TANKS. It is literally the worst performing LR at it's job,with the executioner coming in second.
Personal experience isn't a valid argument. The entire AM codex is bloated beyond all hell by worthless units. If they made the units actually worth while, instead of crap, then yes, I could see them being in there in the first place. But don't pretend that you take Vanqs in your list because you like losing.
Oh stop with the "I use them". Seriously. Vanquishers could double their shots and still get outperformed by Punishers against TANKS. It is literally the worst performing LR at it's job,with the executioner coming in second.
Gee, it's almost like we're in yet another edition where ROF and chipping away at an enemy is superior to high S with armor mods.
Personal experience isn't a valid argument. The entire AM codex is bloated beyond all hell by worthless units. If they made the units actually worth while, instead of crap, then yes, I could see them being in there in the first place. But don't pretend that you take Vanqs in your list because you like losing.
All of which has nothing to do with "bloat". You're conflating two concepts and then getting pissy when called out on it.
If there were six tanks that all did what the Vanquisher did? You'd have a point. But there isn't, so your personal opinion of what is or is not worthless is just as valid as my anecdotes.
