I have noticed, that in a lot of threads there is wishing for rough riders to come back (either rule wise or with new models aswell). And I really don't get it. What is the love about? In my mind, they don't fit in and I don't really like the flavour of them. So in a total neutral way asked: What is it, you love so much about rough riders? I also have to say, that I got into guard after they were kicked out of the codex. It seems to me, it's not just that they were good rulewise, but people really like the idea and flavour of them.Is it just because of the DKoK-Riders?
1) Legacy armies - many people have rough rider models and want to be able to use them again in formal matched play games and tournament events. They've put money and hours into making them.
2) Imperial Guard are modelled on WWI style designs and tactics with a sci-fi edge to them. It's why their Lemon Russ battle tank basically uses nothing of modern tank design theories in its design; its why their artillery looks very old style; its why they fight rank and file in trenches. Heck the old Land Raider had 360 access tracks (no top cover) and was an Imperial Guard tank (before Marines stole it) and was very much similar to early tank designs made to get around trenches.
In that same line of thinking the warhorse was part of WWI and fits the asthetics of the army. It fits that whole grand system of bureaucratic madness that would see them mounted up and on the front lines
3) It fits with the hints that GW might well release dogs as units for Imperial Guard as well. Again another wartime animal.
Overall I really hope they get them back, its one unit that I think is very iconic for the guard as a group rather like the Russ battletank. It just formed the core part of so many armies in the past that it makes sense to have them restored to their rightful place in the wars of the 41st millennium
At times, they’ve been viable counter assault units.
I converted some for the giggles, and had fun with them.
They typically can run a pair of special weapons. Given their high speed, this made them quite capable of getting flamers and meltaguns into range.
They had S5, which made them suitable for charging most vehicles that had AV 10 on the rear.
I would have preferred motorized mounts, myself, but the rules were usually playable, and having “Guardsmen” that could stab face in assault was unique.
Because many people for whatever reason fail to note that the "Rough Riders" that are performing well/being taken to tournaments are actually Death Riders from the DKoK list which have unique rules and access to HQs that benefit them.
Plus they're perpetually stuck in the "Guard can only be one thing!!" mentality where for whatever reason they think Guard are strictly low tech low tactics WWI "wE nEeD aLL tHe CoMmiSsArS!!!" bit.
Never mind that for several years now we've had actual mention of biker scouts that function like the Jackal Alphus does.
Kanluwen wrote: Plus they're perpetually stuck in the "Guard can only be one thing!!" mentality where for whatever reason they think Guard are strictly low tech low tactics WWI "wE nEeD aLL tHe CoMmiSsArS!!!" bit.
I guess I just imagined all those lists with VTOL aircraft, self propelled artillery, and IFVs
Kanluwen wrote: Plus they're perpetually stuck in the "Guard can only be one thing!!" mentality where for whatever reason they think Guard are strictly low tech low tactics WWI "wE nEeD aLL tHe CoMmiSsArS!!!" bit.
I guess I just imagined all those lists with VTOL aircraft, self propelled artillery, and IFVs
Kinda feel like you missed the point.
For whatever silly reason, Rough Riders seem to be the de facto go to whenever people discuss things that Guard "need". Not a rework of Veterans to make them a viable unit, not a rework of Conscripts to actually make them feel like Conscripts, just an obsessive need by some people(who usually will shout down anything that they deem "too techy" for Guard I might add) to continually add units that don't really matter or won't really make a difference to the book overall.
Kanluwen wrote: For whatever silly reason, Rough Riders seem to be the de facto go to whenever people discuss things that Guard "need". Not a rework of Veterans to make them a viable unit, not a rework of Conscripts to actually make them feel like Conscripts, just an obsessive need by some people(who usually will shout down anything that they deem "too techy" for Guard I might add) to continually add units that don't really matter or won't really make a difference to the book overall.
Probably because rough riders would mean new models, while making conscripts feel like conscripts would mean making them cost 3ppm (and possibly WS/BS 6+). One involves genuinely new content, the other involves minor rules adjustments for balance. Is it really hard to see why people would have more interest in one of them?
Also,
You'll take my life but I'll take yours too
You'll fire your bolter but I'll run you through #Death Korps
Oh right. There isn't one. Admittedly the Cadian Shock Troops box can be used as one, but let's stop pretending that Conscripts actually have a kit or can't be made to be different to the point of requiring their own kit.
Oh right. There isn't one. Admittedly the Cadian Shock Troops box can be used as one, but let's stop pretending that Conscripts actually have a kit or can't be made to be different to the point of requiring their own kit.
Remind me what conscript equipment is? The standard flak armor and lasgun, chosen specifically because it is the standard equipment and conscripts don't get anything special? Remind me what exactly the reason is that conscripts need a new kit?
For me it's a mixture of nostalgia and liking the idea of fielding space soldiers on horses with explodey sticks to fight against th3 killer death robots and sentient war fungus
Also they let your converting gland flow free and clear for other ideas to cover the role
I think they are cool as hell. The tallarn rough riders were good looking models but I think most players converted their versions. The concept is good, bravely charging tyranids with a lance speaks of heroism
Kanluwen wrote: Plus they're perpetually stuck in the "Guard can only be one thing!!" mentality where for whatever reason they think Guard are strictly low tech low tactics WWI "wE nEeD aLL tHe CoMmiSsArS!!!" bit.
I guess I just imagined all those lists with VTOL aircraft, self propelled artillery, and IFVs
Kinda feel like you missed the point.
For whatever silly reason, Rough Riders seem to be the de facto go to whenever people discuss things that Guard "need". Not a rework of Veterans to make them a viable unit, not a rework of Conscripts to actually make them feel like Conscripts, just an obsessive need by some people(who usually will shout down anything that they deem "too techy" for Guard I might add) to continually add units that don't really matter or won't really make a difference to the book overall.
Perhaps because the imagery of a cavalry charge is one of the emotive and even tactical highlights of any historical or fictional battle ever.
People want them because cavalry charges are cool, and the juxtaposition of guys on horses in sci fi is also..cool. Just like magic elves in space, or religious inquisitors fighiting undead robots.
Granted, its not a gameplay requirement for the guard to have them, they are "needed" by the players, not the game. But then that goes for plenty of models I'd rather keep too.
Oh right. There isn't one. Admittedly the Cadian Shock Troops box can be used as one, but let's stop pretending that Conscripts actually have a kit or can't be made to be different to the point of requiring their own kit.
Remind me what conscript equipment is? The standard flak armor and lasgun, chosen specifically because it is the standard equipment and conscripts don't get anything special? Remind me what exactly the reason is that conscripts need a new kit?
Because this is a game of building, painting, and playing. It has many different aspects, and nothing is more beautiful than being able to distinguish every unit with their uniformity. Remind me again why you’re always so negative in almost anything you post on? After all, none of your posts are that different to the point of requiring you to post anymore.
Rough riders do three things that IG really benefit from:
1) counter charge
2) Mobility
3) fill a fast attack slot
IG are actually unique in being the only army that I can think of with no high mobility option outside of vehicles. No jump packs, no bikes, nothing. (yes, with Move Move Move IG infantry are actually ludicrously fast). Also, we have no non-vehicle option as a Fast attack choice. And finally, the only really solid assault unit we have is bullgryn (although tuned up catachans aren't shabby).
As for the anachronistic feel of cavalry... very little of 40k makes sense. Horse cavalry remained viable longer than motorbike mounted troops, after all. We accept things that make no sense, like a chainsaw blade sword combined with a small rocket launching pistol being an effective combination in combat.. Horse cavalry makes as much sense, and in a way cements the idea that the IG are really driven by necessity and reliability.
that all said, if GW would give the IG some more interesting fast attacks, I'd be all over it. I'd love five man squads with combat weapons and specials, mounted in small fast transports.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Because this is a game of building, painting, and playing. It has many different aspects, and nothing is more beautiful than being able to distinguish every unit with their uniformity. Remind me again why you’re always so negative in almost anything you post on? After all, none of your posts are that different to the point of requiring you to post anymore.
"Conscripts fluff-wise are equipped only with basic gear and giving them anything but basic gear from the standard guardsmen kit would be blatantly against the fluff."
"Rough riders are genuine new content and people want them."
WHY U SO NEGATIVEE??!>?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?@??@?!?!?
Perhaps the real question is why you feel compelled to pick out the statements criticizing an idea (and, by implication, stating that GW is doing the right thing) as "negative" and ignore the ones in favor of adding a cool new kit to the IG range? And why you think that zero-content complaining about how "negative" someone is and how much you don't like them is a useful thing to do?
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Because this is a game of building, painting, and playing. It has many different aspects, and nothing is more beautiful than being able to distinguish every unit with their uniformity. Remind me again why you’re always so negative in almost anything you post on? After all, none of your posts are that different to the point of requiring you to post anymore.
"Conscripts fluff-wise are equipped only with basic gear and giving them anything but basic gear from the standard guardsmen kit would be blatantly against the fluff."
"Rough riders are genuine new content and people want them."
WHY U SO NEGATIVEE??!>?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?@??@?!?!?
Perhaps the real question is why you feel compelled to pick out the statements criticizing an idea (and, by implication, stating that GW is doing the right thing) as "negative" and ignore the ones in favor of adding a cool new kit to the IG range? And why you think that zero-content complaining about how "negative" someone is and how much you don't like them is a useful thing to do?
Those are two very good questions that, if you were to refer to your post history, you’d see apply to you oh so well, old negative one. Every wants new kids. Let them hope and dream and wish that they will potentially get them. No reason to cry and whine about “but, but, they don’t need a kit cause they so simple
I find roughriders open up a ton of modeling possibilities, and I have always played on the modeling side. It's that simple. The idea of horses, not so exciting, but I have imagination. So the idea of guardsmen on giant lizardbeasts, or mamoth Emus, or rhinos, or any other alien type animal that seems cool and deadly. That said, I actually do have roughriders on horses, and roughriders on cold ones, and roughriders on triceratops (small ones) etc. I am working on the giant axebeak birds.
40k is basically medieval fantasy in space and who doesn't love a good cavalry charge? Rough Riders also tap deep into the Guard's WWI roots with the continued use of horse cav which was in many ways obsolete in a war dominated by machine guns, artillery, poison gas, etc (at least on the western front).
Personally Rough Riders make sense in form as faster infantry basically. But my true love to see a biker version of them similar to orcs and space marines. I mean a squad of bikes firing off pistols and gunning with twinlinked weapons mounted on the front would be cool and having sidecars for heavier weapon use.
Lore wise though horse cavalry are from mostly feral worlds and it's what they know. It's a game of numbers and humanity is one of the top contenders.
nostalgia and modeling/painting opportunities for me, I have the standard DKOK death riders, attilan squad with WHFB Empire pistolier horse swap, discontinued IG special character Mogul Kamir(without official model) made with WHFB Empire engineer on clockwork horse and catachan bits and dark elf lance, tallarn squad with pistolier horse swap, catachan squad riding WHFB old metal cold ones; and I still want more.
It's not really such a fantastical idea, even in 40K. We can acknowledge that 40K is science fiction, but it's not terribly advanced science fiction.
Even today, numerous law enforcement and military organizations use horse-mounted units. Admittedly they're not for charging into enemy positions, but rather used for convenient transport in difficult environments. A horse is reliable, can normally feed off the local terrain, doesn't require gas or spare parts (outside of water), and can carry a ton of weight.
China's military uses large horse-mounted units to patrol their vast border. In one of my former jobs we likewise had horse patrol units which operated in the mountains while dirt bikes and quads were used on the more accessible areas. It's not some crazy "throw back" idea. It's completely feasible to imagine that on distant worlds, in vast new environments, a horse or similar creature would serve the same purpose and offer the same benefits.
Admittedly it's unlikely they'd be charging into combat most of the time. That added bit is definitely the silliness of 40K and that's fine with me. But entire horse-mounted companies of infantry would make sense in a number of instances even in a setting like 40K. Camels, alien creatures, etc.
Game-wise they're cheap, good for outflanking and proving a pest. My buddy runs them and we allow him to use orders (because they're absolutely have access to orders had they made it into the Codex) and we allow him to mount any character of his choosing on a horse for +10 points so he's working on a few officers and commissars to ride with them. It's not some game-breaking thing, but it gives his armour more options and flavour. Equipped with lances, and a couple of plasma or melta guns, the outflanking is pretty effective. It's just another thing we have to be wary of when we know he's got stuff waiting to charge in the backfield and put our artillery under stress.
Here is a picture from our last game where a squadron was able to charge the back of my Fire Prism which was wounded and slow to flee.
Spoiler:
They die quick, but they often make up their points just from a turn of plasma fire, and hopefully a successful charge.
Yeah, I think the modelling potential and variety is part of what makes them so appealing. They come from an era where the IG rules allowed a huge amount of variation, and converting was encouraged. As such, they readily fitted into lists built around feral/feudal worlders and the like.
The potential mount variety is also cool- horses, motorbikes, alien beasts etc.
I really hope GW makes a new kit for them, and really loads it up on options so we can go wild with conversions. I'd hope it would be like the GSC neophyte or jackal kits- lots of weapon options. An individual rough rider should have the option to take any combo of laspistol, close combat weapon, hunting lance, and longarm (lasgun/shotgun/special weapon). They should be able to take all 4 if you pay the points too. This would allow for so many modeling opportunities, with different roles too (counter assault, dragoon mobile fire support, cheap objectives grabbers).
It probably won't happen though, which is a shame.
I've been wanting to convert some for years, but the cost is somewhat prohibitive without a dedicated kit.
Lets also not forget that there is still an Eldar subfaction that rides dinosaurs into war. Although GW hasn't really paid any attention to them in decades (outside of possible mentions in stories from BL); but they are there, riding monsters into battle.
Anyone who has gone off-road will attest that there is certain terrain that vehicles struggle with and the Imperium is so heavily stuck within its limited mindset that they won't advance designs to meet challenging conditions all the time.
Plus extreme climatic factors can affect machines just as they do living animals. Sometimes a living animal is superior because its adapted to a specific environment that might put increased wear and tear or cause faults in machinery mass produced for general use.
Also Space Wolves ride to battle on wolves now - oversized (sometimes augmented) wolves
Idea of IG 'bikes'/'horses' appeals, but done differently to others, the bikes being a mobility thing, not a gun platform or close assault platform as such.
easy to use bikes, horses, beasts or whatever to represent them, fits perfectly with the 'patrol' idea without them becoming actual assault units, better would be the idea of 'dragoons' who can act a bit like Kradshurtzen (spelling?) units, move up, dismount and then fight as infantry with heavier weapons they cannot fire while mounted
I've actually been toying with starting a Guard force to go with my Knights, and I want to make some Rough Riders using the new GSC Atalan Jackal bikers. Problem is, what do I do with the quad bikes? Maybe make them squad leaders or something? I'd also have to come up with some lances from somewhere. Of course, if they decide to nix the indexes from matched play...
leopard wrote:Idea of IG 'bikes'/'horses' appeals, but done differently to others, the bikes being a mobility thing, not a gun platform or close assault platform as such.
easy to use bikes, horses, beasts or whatever to represent them, fits perfectly with the 'patrol' idea without them becoming actual assault units, better would be the idea of 'dragoons' who can act a bit like Kradshurtzen (spelling?) units, move up, dismount and then fight as infantry with heavier weapons they cannot fire while mounted
I do like the idea of Rough Riders as a sort of dragoon type unit, though completely dismounting them sounds like buying extra models. Probably simpler would be to give them a rule that gives a bonus to shooting if they stay still for a turn.
ZergSmasher wrote:I've actually been toying with starting a Guard force to go with my Knights, and I want to make some Rough Riders using the new GSC Atalan Jackal bikers. Problem is, what do I do with the quad bikes? Maybe make them squad leaders or something? I'd also have to come up with some lances from somewhere. Of course, if they decide to nix the indexes from matched play...
You could have the quad be the one carrying extra supplies and parts. Or if they are the footmen of a Knightly house, you could say that the Sacristans of the household stowed extra parts, munitions, etc for the Knight itself on it for some on the field repairs.
Lances are fairly common in several Sigmar kits. Though then again, at that point you might as well be buying them for the mounts too...
My old college roommate, who got me into 40k, lured me in with his rough rider models.
He was putting together a Catachan army at the time (early 2001). The models he used were kitbashed parts from the Catachan line, custom sculpted stuff, and instead of a horse he used some Raptor-like mounts from the VOID line. All the riders had vest, no sleeves, and camo cowboy hats.
This is what got me into the hobby, so Roughriders have a special place in my heart.
We talked about the quad bikes in another thread - I personally suggest using them as Sentinels. You'd need the okay from your opponent (different size/height). I'd absolutely let you rock them as Sentinels because narratively it'd be a very cool thematic force.
Russ Chassis
Chimera Chassis
Sentinel Chassis
Valkyrie Chassis
“Infantry” Chassis
“Scion” Chassis
“Ogryn” Chassis
(In the codex)
So having the Rough Riders cut is 1/8 of the Chassis available.
Compared to loyalist Marines, just off the top of my head...
Tactical Chassis
Scout Chassis
Primaris Chassis
Tactical Bike
Scout Bike
Tactical Jump Pack
Primaris Jump Pack
Terminator (and variations thereof)
Centurions
Land Speeders
Rhino Chassis
Land Raider Chassis
Various Dreadnought Chassis
Storm Raven
2 other Flyer Chassis
So there’s 16 Chassis (even more) to pick from, that gives different visuals on the board. More variety. I acknowledge that I picked the golden goose for variety, but they could cut half the line and still have more Chassis to choose from.
Thats’s 14 Chassis off the top of my head, and they didn’t have a real codex till 4th edition, if I recall. Again, they could cut half the Chassis and have as many options as Guard.
Guard is an army where variety of models is in short supply. Losing RR’s is a shame, just from the modeling potential being cut.
I want new models for rough riders, but not the horses kind.
Personally, I think rough riders riding horses is a bit silly. Yeah, the IG is supposed to invoke images of anachronistic fighting styles, but using horses in war and cavalry charges died out in WW1 for a reason.
I want to see motorcycle rough riders, or say snowmobile rough riders for a winter regiment. Practical, useful, mobile, and fits the sci-fi theme. Guard are really lacking in the fast-attack slot and some vehicle mounted infantry are just the thing to flesh it out.
For the same reason I want to see Snakebite Cyboar riders make a return. Even if they had just been an index footnote, I could have converted them. Still could, I suppose, & have them stand in for warbikes.
Kanluwen wrote: Plus they're perpetually stuck in the "Guard can only be one thing!!" mentality where for whatever reason they think Guard are strictly low tech low tactics WWI "wE nEeD aLL tHe CoMmiSsArS!!!" bit.
Yup, because horses are strictly low-tech and have no place on modern battlefied:
Oh wait. Oh well, it's not like they played big enough role in recent wars to get monument or anything...
Kanluwen wrote: Plus they're perpetually stuck in the "Guard can only be one thing!!" mentality where for whatever reason they think Guard are strictly low tech low tactics WWI "wE nEeD aLL tHe CoMmiSsArS!!!" bit.
Yup, because horses are strictly low-tech and have no place on modern battlefied:
Oh wait. Oh well, it's not like they played big enough role in recent wars to get monument or anything...
Oh wait, again Methinks it's not the cavalry fans that are stuck in single-minded, wrong mentality here...
Whilst dragoons are still useful, admittedly charging the enemy to engage them with a lance in melee is somewhat obsolete But it looks bloody awesome, so I'd rather keep them in the AM roster.
Overread wrote: Lets also not forget that there is still an Eldar subfaction that rides dinosaurs into war. Although GW hasn't really paid any attention to them in decades (outside of possible mentions in stories from BL); but they are there, riding monsters into battle.
Exodites aren't exactly running around the galaxy conquering everything.
Anyone who has gone off-road will attest that there is certain terrain that vehicles struggle with and the Imperium is so heavily stuck within its limited mindset that they won't advance designs to meet challenging conditions all the time.
Plus extreme climatic factors can affect machines just as they do living animals. Sometimes a living animal is superior because its adapted to a specific environment that might put increased wear and tear or cause faults in machinery mass produced for general use.
This is a nonargument. Look at the GSC range, all of a sudden the Imperium has this equipment in the form of the Ridgerunners, quads, and Jackal bikes that are described as being for extreme climatic factors.
Also Space Wolves ride to battle on wolves now - oversized (sometimes augmented) wolves
And? Space Wolves also are the only codex currently for Marines that get Bolt Carbines on their Lieutenant equivalents.
Whilst dragoons are still useful, admittedly charging the enemy to engage them with a lance in melee is somewhat obsolete But it looks bloody awesome, so I'd rather keep them in the AM roster.
People continually cite this specific event as though it actually should mean something.
The whole point of why this specific instance was so extensively documented and why it was so notable is the fact that it was so abnormal. Special forces were embedded with a local population and had to use local transportation.
Also, as you said: dragoons are still useful. These soldiers were acting as forward observers for airstrikes and later as dismounted infantry.
Overread wrote: Lets also not forget that there is still an Eldar subfaction that rides dinosaurs into war. Although GW hasn't really paid any attention to them in decades (outside of possible mentions in stories from BL); but they are there, riding monsters into battle.
Exodites aren't exactly running around the galaxy conquering everything.
Anyone who has gone off-road will attest that there is certain terrain that vehicles struggle with and the Imperium is so heavily stuck within its limited mindset that they won't advance designs to meet challenging conditions all the time.
Plus extreme climatic factors can affect machines just as they do living animals. Sometimes a living animal is superior because its adapted to a specific environment that might put increased wear and tear or cause faults in machinery mass produced for general use.
This is a nonargument. Look at the GSC range, all of a sudden the Imperium has this equipment in the form of the Ridgerunners, quads, and Jackal bikes that are described as being for extreme climatic factors.
Also Space Wolves ride to battle on wolves now - oversized (sometimes augmented) wolves
And? Space Wolves also are the only codex currently for Marines that get Bolt Carbines on their Lieutenant equivalents.
Whilst dragoons are still useful, admittedly charging the enemy to engage them with a lance in melee is somewhat obsolete But it looks bloody awesome, so I'd rather keep them in the AM roster.
People continually cite this specific event as though it actually should mean something.
The whole point of why this specific instance was so extensively documented and why it was so notable is the fact that it was so abnormal. Special forces were embedded with a local population and had to use local transportation.
Also, as you said: dragoons are still useful. These soldiers were acting as forward observers for airstrikes and later as dismounted infantry.
Give horses more credit, from my quick internet research, horses fell out of military combat favor after the end of WW2.
I like rough riders as a reminder to what 40k is and isn't. What it is, is a crazy space fantasy setting designed for constant warring factions of Tolkien races, actual demons, terminator robots, magic and pre-1980s sci-fi space monster/bugs. Oh, and anime robots. The blocky 1980s ones, not the sleek bio-mecha type ones. A setting where most armies haven't progressed beyond WWI tactics of lining up huge number of tightly packed troops and sending them in waves across no man's land. And this works because in the universe close combat is just as effective as ranged. And artillery/close air/space support strikes don't work all that well.
What 40k is not, largely, is a science fiction future (or even post WWII) war setting. The tech is just science-y enough to feel high tech but really there to explain a lot of the crazy stuff. However, the more someone tries to make the science work in setting the worse the setting looks because of how ridiculous it really is. So it is best not to go too far down the realism rabbit hole as it breaks with the lightest of scrutiny.
I think part of what kept 40k going is the fact is that with all of its anachronistic tech, battle tactics, etc. it has created a sort of timeless setting that feels both like the far future and also the long ago past. It never really feels like the now though. Well that, and liberally 'borrowing' nearly every decent fantasy/sci-fi idea from the 1950s to the 1980s.
Some may not like the high cost of a hellhound and the utility of a sentinel. Having a cheap unit that can come on from a board edge at a later turn for cheap points is tactically very useful.
I like to keep my fast attack slots cheap and that means going by codex taking a sentinel for 35-40pts. Sentinels die pretty easily and have subpar fire power so having a unit that can go for backfield objectives is very good.
Personally, a guy on a horse charging into combat makes more sense than a bike doing so. Bikes are harder to steer with no hands; and have trouble standing upright below a certain speed.
Also horses are quieter.
"Remember men, that on this recon with have to be quiet to not alert the enemy." Starts bike, RAAAAAAAAAAARH!!!
Tygre wrote: Personally, a guy on a horse charging into combat makes more sense than a bike doing so. Bikes are harder to steer with no hands; and have trouble standing upright below a certain speed.
Truthfully, this is the whole reason why Rough Riders are such a poor concept. It's someone charging with a mount and an exploding lance.
Look at the Atalan Jackals. They can take CCWs but also can be bringing actual ranged weapons to the party. Their associated special character type? It's a sniper on a motorcycle. It's not hard to envision Guard getting bikers with utility effects for artillery in the back or toting normal ranged weapons instead of just "Grrrr! Charge!"
Also horses are quieter.
"Remember men, that on this recon with have to be quiet to not alert the enemy." Starts bike, RAAAAAAAAAAARH!!!
Horses being quieter is...debatable. Horses can be pretty damn loud when they want to be and they can have a heck of a temper.
Since people keep wanting to bring Real World(tm) into this...look into the kinds of motorcycles that the military uses now for special operations. All kinds of fun gadgets from headlights that only show up with night vision gear active to muffled engines or solar/electric motors.
Kanluwen wrote: It's someone charging with a mount and an exploding lance.
Yes, this is exactly why it is perfect. Charging with a horse and an exploding lance, against a space marine with a chainsaw sword and RPG pistol or a horde of rioting British soccer fans led by Margaret Thatcher. A cavalry charge fits the setting beautifully.
Irbis wrote: Oh wait. Oh well, it's not like they played big enough role in recent wars to get monument or anything...
Oh wait, again Methinks it's not the cavalry fans that are stuck in single-minded, wrong mentality here...
And how many successful cavalry charges were there in Afghanistan?
How many battles were turned by the presence of cavalry on the battlefield?
Right...
The horse's sole value on a modern battlefield is the ability to transport men and material across rough terrain. It is done better by vehicles anyway.
Tygre wrote: Personally, a guy on a horse charging into combat makes more sense than a bike doing so. Bikes are harder to steer with no hands; and have trouble standing upright below a certain speed.
Also horses are quieter.
"Remember men, that on this recon with have to be quiet to not alert the enemy." Starts bike, RAAAAAAAAAAARH!!!
You do realize that the civilian motorbikes you are accustomed to are custom built to be as loud as possible right?
A bike made for military use would probably be much quieter, probably not as quiet as a horse, but still.
A bike with solid construction doesn't die or buck its rider after it gets shot either...
They are also much easier to maintain and keep operating.
Tygre wrote: Personally, a guy on a horse charging into combat makes more sense than a bike doing so. Bikes are harder to steer with no hands; and have trouble standing upright below a certain speed.
Truthfully, this is the whole reason why Rough Riders are such a poor concept. It's someone charging with a mount and an exploding lance.
Look at the Atalan Jackals. They can take CCWs but also can be bringing actual ranged weapons to the party. Their associated special character type? It's a sniper on a motorcycle.
It's not hard to envision Guard getting bikers with utility effects for artillery in the back or toting normal ranged weapons instead of just "Grrrr! Charge!"
Also horses are quieter.
"Remember men, that on this recon with have to be quiet to not alert the enemy." Starts bike, RAAAAAAAAAAARH!!!
Horses being quieter is...debatable. Horses can be pretty damn loud when they want to be and they can have a heck of a temper.
Since people keep wanting to bring Real World(tm) into this...look into the kinds of motorcycles that the military uses now for special operations. All kinds of fun gadgets from headlights that only show up with night vision gear active to muffled engines or solar/electric motors.
So... riders on horses must have lances and riders on bikes can do all the other cool things you suggest?
I don't see the distinction in 8th terms. Unit types are no longer really a thing, so a unit called "Rough riders" can happily be used to represent both.
All they need is a suitably high move characteristic, and the option to take lances and/or longarms as their primary weapon. Then everyone is happy yes? That covers both? Honestly, there is no reason the Rough rider rules shouldn't allow more weapons options, except a lack of kit.
Also, all the things about bikes being more durable today don't terribly matter for 40k, where they have very effective personal armour, widespread cybernetics and use of combat-enhancing drugs, and various examples of incredibly tough genetic varients of things. Ogryns are genetically a human subspecies, that are harder to kill than a Space Marine. The "horses" of the 41st millennium will be different to the horses we have today.
Melissia wrote: Why do you feel "everyone" loves Rough Riders? A lot more people have absolute disdain for them or just don't care for them than "love" them.
Yes, but this is an internet forum, where every statement needs to be taken to ridiculous extreme. "Why do some people like Rough Riders and some others do not?" wouldn't work nearly so well as clickbait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haighus wrote: The "horses" of the 41st millennium will be different to the horses we have today.
The horses of the Death Korps of Krieg already are.
I don't know why people keep mentioning Rough Riders with horses when probably horses are the less used animal in the Rough Riders regiments of the galaxy.
The classic model has horses because they where Attilan Rough Riders.
Kanluwen wrote: It's someone charging with a mount and an exploding lance.
Yes, this is exactly why it is perfect. Charging with a horse and an exploding lance, against a space marine with a chainsaw sword and RPG pistol or a horde of rioting British soccer fans led by Margaret Thatcher. A cavalry charge fits the setting beautifully.
Like I said- "Those who love RR and those who are wrong".
Nerak wrote: It's not like the guard codex is overflowing with close combat or highly mobile choices...
EDIT: They did provide some excellent modelling potential too. I've seen rough riders on motorcycles, clockwork horses and dinosaurs.
Yep, that was part of the draw for me. My original Cadian rough riders were all on scout bikes, with a mix of tallarn and forge world models for variety. The new GSC models is giving me the oppurtunity to update some new sergeants.
First, 40k is written with space marines and not basic humans as a baseline. Many of the IG units cover the variety of ways mundane humans could possibly compensate against a galaxy where the odds are stacked against them. Ride a machine, or ride animal. Riding a mount that is as large as a space marine and out performs a space marine in a few ways give humans some means of being more than fodder.
On the table top IG tend to be static, but Rough Riders give the army an interdiction capability and one of the few close combat capabilities. Use them poorly and they're only speed bumps, use them wisely and their contribution is disproportionate.
Third, I think a lack of cohesive vision for the army on GW's part has seen the "Imperial" part of the Imperial Guard theme neglected. The IG are a galaxy spanning military force, the original vision for the army was an IG army should be composed of all these units from different parts of the galaxy that are organized into something more effective than a single worlds military capability. They are suppose to be the army of a galaxy spanning empire and not just slightly better grade planetary defense. What units actually convey that part of their identity? -Mostly the elites, Tempestus Scions who come from the elite military school, Ogryns and Ratling abhumans that set a time scale on how far into the future it is and show how diverse humanity has become... But also arguably character units like Sanctioned Psykers and Commissars. Roughriders do as well, they bring to the IG the fact that many Imperial worlds are backwards and feudal by todays standards and that the IG are more than just an analogue for a modern military.
People watch the original Star Wars movie and see a Storm Trooper riding a big lizard, and its something cool and adds to the world building.
The failure of Rough Riders is a failure in execution, and a failure to update them. Some people want to give them motorcycles to do that, but it does nothing to build on the armies themes and the setting. FW got it right when they made bio-engineered bionic enhanced super horses for DKoK or the alien beast for Tallarn. A bike can come from any world. Even if GW didn't want to be more imaginative with their Rough Riders' mounts and just stuck to plain old horses... the concept of what the rider represents can still be further accentuated.
The riders are described as being the elite and the children of the nobility from a variety of different worlds. So make them that, as much as any of the other units that use similar descriptions... other nobility and children of nobility have tanks and Knights, some cases they are in the Tempestus Scions or Commissariat... so even if they're riding a horse they should get some consideration towards their status. GW could double down on sci-fi feudal and give the rider a power sword and a storm shield with the horse carrying the power supply. Put an energy shield around that bio-engineered super steed, its easier for people to grasp how it survives.
Alternatively go a different route, make them like Storm Troopers on horseback... wearing heavier body armor and wielding the larger more powerful pistols and carbines that historical Dragoons would carry. And or, allow them some greater distinctiveness... make them something like Pink/Blue Horror... where after a model is "killed" the rider dismounts and keeps fighting from the ground.
My point is that when people dismiss them they're looking at a unit that no one at GW has tried to consider since 2nd edition. IF you judged chaos by how it originally presented Obliterators, we wouldn't have the craziness being previewed today.
w1zard wrote:
How many battles were turned by the presence of cavalry on the battlefield?
Right...
When has a guy with a sword ever mattered when you go to nuke a planet? A lot of suspension of disbelief is necessary for 40k. A guy on a horse is orders of magnitude more believable than planet melting aliens, extraplanar daemons, or Egyptian robots.
Don't try and bring logic to our fantasy. Rule of cool. Where cool is in the eyes of the beholder.
First, 40k is written with space marines and not basic humans as a baseline. Many of the IG units cover the variety of ways mundane humans could possibly compensate against a galaxy where the odds are stacked against them. Ride a machine, or ride animal. Riding a mount that is as large as a space marine and out performs a space marine in a few ways give humans some means of being more than fodder.
On the table top IG tend to be static, but Rough Riders give the army an interdiction capability and one of the few close combat capabilities. Use them poorly and they're only speed bumps, use them wisely and their contribution is disproportionate.
Third, I think a lack of cohesive vision for the army on GW's part has seen the "Imperial" part of the Imperial Guard theme neglected. The IG are a galaxy spanning military force, the original vision for the army was an IG army should be composed of all these units from different parts of the galaxy that are organized into something more effective than a single worlds military capability. They are suppose to be the army of a galaxy spanning empire and not just slightly better grade planetary defense. What units actually convey that part of their identity? -Mostly the elites, Tempestus Scions who come from the elite military school, Ogryns and Ratling abhumans that set a time scale on how far into the future it is and show how diverse humanity has become... But also arguably character units like Sanctioned Psykers and Commissars. Roughriders do as well, they bring to the IG the fact that many Imperial worlds are backwards and feudal by todays standards and that the IG are more than just an analogue for a modern military.
People watch the original Star Wars movie and see a Storm Trooper riding a big lizard, and its something cool and adds to the world building.
The failure of Rough Riders is a failure in execution, and a failure to update them. Some people want to give them motorcycles to do that, but it does nothing to build on the armies themes and the setting. FW got it right when they made bio-engineered bionic enhanced super horses for DKoK or the alien beast for Tallarn. A bike can come from any world. Even if GW didn't want to be more imaginative with their Rough Riders' mounts and just stuck to plain old horses... the concept of what the rider represents can still be further accentuated.
The riders are described as being the elite and the children of the nobility from a variety of different worlds. So make them that, as much as any of the other units that use similar descriptions... other nobility and children of nobility have tanks and Knights, some cases they are in the Tempestus Scions or Commissariat... so even if they're riding a horse they should get some consideration towards their status. GW could double down on sci-fi feudal and give the rider a power sword and a storm shield with the horse carrying the power supply. Put an energy shield around that bio-engineered super steed, its easier for people to grasp how it survives.
Alternatively go a different route, make them like Storm Troopers on horseback... wearing heavier body armor and wielding the larger more powerful pistols and carbines that historical Dragoons would carry. And or, allow them some greater distinctiveness... make them something like Pink/Blue Horror... where after a model is "killed" the rider dismounts and keeps fighting from the ground.
My point is that when people dismiss them they're looking at a unit that no one at GW has tried to consider since 2nd edition. IF you judged chaos by how it originally presented Obliterators, we wouldn't have the craziness being previewed today.
w1zard wrote:
How many battles were turned by the presence of cavalry on the battlefield?
Right...
When has a guy with a sword ever mattered when you go to nuke a planet? A lot of suspension of disbelief is necessary for 40k. A guy on a horse is orders of magnitude more believable than planet melting aliens, extraplanar daemons, or Egyptian robots.
Don't try and bring logic to our fantasy. Rule of cool. Where cool is in the eyes of the beholder.
So much this!
It would be awesome if they made a duel kit that could build the sort of light cavalry we have now, and an armoured heavy cavalry version. The ogryn/bullgryn kit shows this can be done. Ideally, both builds could use lances, with the light cavalry getting access to lasguns/shotguns and the heavy cavalry getting hotshot carbines like you say. If they could maybe squeeze in some command squad parts, that would be superb.
That would be fething awesome! The number of sprues may be excessive, even for five riders. If they used three sprues like SM Tactical squads, it could be done.
A bike with solid construction doesn't die or buck its rider after it gets shot either...
They are also much easier to maintain and keep operating.
If the shot jams the front wheel whole.moving at speed, or shears the front forks, then yes the bike could also buck the rider when shot.
In low technology environments, or away from repair facilities, horses are self replicating.and self.repairing in a way that bikes aren't. Durability in a high intensity battlefield.is one thing, while there are also advantages to be had of a horse in a low intensity setting.
A bike with solid construction doesn't die or buck its rider after it gets shot either...
They are also much easier to maintain and keep operating.
If the shot jams the front wheel whole.moving at speed, or shears the front forks, then yes the bike could also buck the rider when shot.
In low technology environments, or away from repair facilities, horses are self replicating.and self.repairing in a way that bikes aren't. Durability in a high intensity battlefield.is one thing, while there are also advantages to be had of a horse in a low intensity setting.
On the more advance side of it, lets also not forget in the 40k setting the Mechanicus can and does produce Psyber animals... A sufficiently elite corp of riders on a feudal world, paying fealty to a Mechanicus Forgeworld could just as easily be supplied with robotic horses controlled by mind link interface units.... and thus never buck unless the rider himself wants it to.
Historically, mechanized forces require less maintenance than ones equipped with horses in the long run. Though horses can eat off the land, if there is insufficient food and water they quickly become a logistical nightmare.
Ironically, the German army in WW II used MORE horses for transportation past the first year and a half of the war because they were less strain on the one thing the Germans severely lacked: fuel. Not really a problem with the Imperial Guard's power plant technology.
amanita wrote: Historically, mechanized forces require less maintenance than ones equipped with horses in the long run. Though horses can eat off the land, if there is insufficient food and water they quickly become a logistical nightmare.
Ironically, the German army in WW II used MORE horses for transportation past the first year and a half of the war because they were less strain on the one thing the Germans severely lacked: fuel. Not really a problem with the Imperial Guard's power plant technology.
Not to mention the fact that the Russian Steppe was one giant mud hole! WW1 and WW2 were horse wars history just dosen't like to talk about that part. We want to think it was a graceful expansion of trains and trucks, who did indeed play host to much of the more dynamic parts of the war. However, Horses moved the equipment, the food, and even the fuel. Plus in the middle east horses were integral to pretty much all of the combat since it was a highly mobile affair.
I think mounts in 40k could stem from all kinds of things. Local traditions, adapting to terrain, or even just pure weirdness (we do have floating skulls, giant flying baby ammunition carriers, and armies of feral chem addicts, if its stupid and wasteful its in 40k).
I think people love rough riders for two reasons
1. They are actually quite good now since they can deep strike. Dropping in a plasma gun that can also tie up a shooting unit or a low cost is pretty nice 2. They are the fun to build and model. If you want a Rough Rider you will have to get your conversion hat on and get to work. Guard players occupy the same hobby niche as Orks where conversions and ridiculousness goes hand in hand and there is no limit to how much guardsman you can really own (I have 3 1/2 guard armies, im kind of a madwoman). 3. Its almost like a challenge to the system. For some reason GW dosent want to make them a model and they still include the rules. Most people probably unconsciously see it as fighting the power because "screw those guys, i'll make my own Rough Riders....with Hookers and Black Jack! In fact, forget the Rough Riders!"
4. Its cool, look at mine! Its Praetorian Lizard Riders, how much more 40k can you get? They even have giant mutton chops.
Well then, back to the green stuff, that sounds HILARIOUS! (silly stuff is always fun, we have a guy locally who armed all of his Custodes with push brooms and mops)
I absolutely love that we're arguing motorbikes v horses in a gonzo, over the top sci fi game. The internet is the best!
But yea, in my sci fi world, the bikes are electric, and utterly silent. Plus they're all self driving, the handlebars are just for stability, if the rider feels their giant sword is too heavy and they want to rest.
I really just liked the bike models over the horse models (if I remember correctly, the original RR models are really showing their age). I think a really trippy alien mount would be cool too. Something like the kroot use for cavalry, or some variant of the slanesh weird anteater thingie.
A bike with solid construction doesn't die or buck its rider after it gets shot either...
They are also much easier to maintain and keep operating.
If the shot jams the front wheel whole.moving at speed, or shears the front forks, then yes the bike could also buck the rider when shot.
Notice I said, a bike of "solid construction".
Such a bike would be built in a way that nothing short of an anti-materiel round would jam the front wheel or shear the front forks.
I find the argument for cyber horses much more compelling, but a motorcycle is more low tech and easier to both construct and maintain than a cyber-horse would be. Arguably still more durable too. Fleshy bits are always inferior to metal, even cybernetically enhanced fleshy bits.
"Notice I said, a bike of "solid construction"
Then how does it turn?
That's not a bike you're describing. That's an armored vehicle.
Besides, if you're making a low tech motorcycle, it's not going to be much more durable than a modern one, and a horse is still comparable.
It's totally possible to construct a bike out of materials that are resistant to small arms fire.
Granted, it isn't going to be invulnerable. But it will take more punishment before breaking down than a horse ever could.
Mmmpi wrote: Besides, if you're making a low tech motorcycle...
Who says they have to be low tech? Remember this is the guard we are talking about... I'm sure there is an STC of a rugged military motorcycle kicking around somewhere, considering that hoverbikes are commonplace on some worlds.
It's totally possible to construct a bike out of materials that are resistant to small arms fire.
Granted, it isn't going to be invulnerable. But it will take more punishment before breaking down than a horse ever could.
Mmmpi wrote: Besides, if you're making a low tech motorcycle...
Who says they have to be low tech? Remember this is the guard we are talking about... I'm sure there is an STC of a rugged military motorcycle kicking around somewhere, considering that hoverbikes are commonplace on some worlds.
Hover bikes being common is news to me last I heard Samual had the "Last Jetbike"
It's totally possible to construct a bike out of materials that are resistant to small arms fire.
Granted, it isn't going to be invulnerable. But it will take more punishment before breaking down than a horse ever could.
Mmmpi wrote: Besides, if you're making a low tech motorcycle...
Who says they have to be low tech? Remember this is the guard we are talking about... I'm sure there is an STC of a rugged military motorcycle kicking around somewhere, considering that hoverbikes are commonplace on some worlds.
Not if you're putting enough armor on it to stop an AT round.
Shoot a horse in the chest, horse drops. Shoot a motorcycle in the engine block, it's just as done. You're not mounting tons of armor on either without massively compromising endurance/fuel efficiency, and maneuverability.
There are. They're call Space Marine bikes. Outside of the custodies, the only factions that get anti-grav anything are the Space Marines, and even they only have one jetbike. Why would the guard have them?
Mmmpi wrote: Not if you're putting enough armor on it to stop an AT round.
I didn't say anything about stopping an AT round, I said resistant to small arms fire.
It is totally possible using even modern day materials and technology to make a motorcycle that can take 30 or 40 rounds from an assault rifle before it is appreciably damaged. (Standard, non-AP rounds)
Mmmpi wrote: Outside of the custodies, the only factions that get anti-grav anything are the Space Marines, and even they only have one jetbike. Why would the guard have them?
Plenty of depictions of worlds with hover cars and other such vehicles in many Imperial Guard novels. The tech is probably expensive, but with that level of technology I don't see why it would be too difficult to construct a rugged military motorcycle for outriders and scouts.
You flat out said anti-material rifles. Those are still light AT weapons.
It's not possible to make a motorcycle that can take that punishment and still retain full maneuverability or fuel economy. And it still can't take a .50 or 20mm round.
Sure. But the fluff also says unambiguously that only custodes and one space marine have bikes, and that the marines would use them if they were available. So no hover bikes for RR.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying "No motorcycles". I'm saying "Not only motorcycles".
Flinty wrote: In low technology environments, or away from repair facilities, horses are self replicating.and self.repairing in a way that bikes aren't. Durability in a high intensity battlefield.is one thing, while there are also advantages to be had of a horse in a low intensity setting.
Pretty much this.
It is of course nonsense to charge into battle on a horse across the no-mans land in the middle of a massive battle, with tanks exploding all around and tactical nukes flying above. You'll probably get mowed down, like everything else.
Having a horse on, for an example, a recon patrol, where you don't have access to supplies, a horse might be more effective than a bike. You might be slower, but you don't care about noise, horse fuel and if you get into a dire situation, the horse can be used as a fuel for you as well.
Imagine being stranded in the middle of the Amazon rainforest / Siberia / wherever, away from all civilization and no means of communication. Would you rather take a bike or a horse, in order to get back?
I think the relevance of Sammael's "last jetbike" is that it is the last military-grade jetbike in Imperial service outside the Custodes. It seems that heavy duty grav is the rare stuff, so once you start slapping armour on something, you can't find sufficiently powerful grav engines.
Lots of more advanced Imperial worlds make widespread use of light grav vehicles- after all, a servo skull is basically the same thing. Grav technology is not totally lost to the IoM. But it would seem these light vehicles are not suited to war.
The durability of a bike vs horse is a bit silly when we are talking about bikes and horses after 30,000 years of selective breeding and technologic development As an example, Ogryns are genetically a human subspecies who are tough enough to survive an antimaterial rifle round. Who is to say some horse derivative has not been bred to be as tough?
"Horse" has also been a loose term for Rough riders, out of the 4 official models produced, two have been on huge but phenotypically-modern horses in appearance; one on genetically, cybernetically, and chemically modified super-horses; and one on some alien beast of burden. Common conversions are on Cold One dinosaurs or motorbikes of some kind. I think this nicely illustrates the range of units Rough riders have the potential to represent.
"Horse" has also been a loose term for Rough riders, out of the 4 official models produced, two have been on huge but phenotypically-modern horses in appearance; one on genetically, cybernetically, and chemically modified super-horses; and one on some alien beast of burden. Common conversions are on Cold One dinosaurs or motorbikes of some kind. I think this nicely illustrates the range of units Rough riders have the potential to represent.
"Horse" has also been a loose term for Rough riders, out of the 4 official models produced, two have been on huge but phenotypically-modern horses in appearance; one on genetically, cybernetically, and chemically modified super-horses; and one on some alien beast of burden. Common conversions are on Cold One dinosaurs or motorbikes of some kind. I think this nicely illustrates the range of units Rough riders have the potential to represent.
Haighus wrote: I think the relevance of Sammael's "last jetbike" is that it is the last military-grade jetbike in Imperial service outside the Custodes. It seems that heavy duty grav is the rare stuff, so once you start slapping armour on something, you can't find sufficiently powerful grav engines.
Lots of more advanced Imperial worlds make widespread use of light grav vehicles- after all, a servo skull is basically the same thing. Grav technology is not totally lost to the IoM. But it would seem these light vehicles are not suited to war.
There are also the suspensor units marines will add to their weapons that negate some of the weight through anti-grav tech.
I don't mean to contradict you, its sort of the settings own hypocrisy, but a great number of the aircraft, drop pods, and large scale landers make use of some anti-grav tech to lighten their load. Less effective mass also means ease of maneuverability. Everyone questions how some of the marine flyers can even fly, but if you can cancel out gravity you never drop and can easily out accelerate drag forces and fly like the best aerodynamically designed aircraft.
Haighus wrote: I think the relevance of Sammael's "last jetbike" is that it is the last military-grade jetbike in Imperial service outside the Custodes. It seems that heavy duty grav is the rare stuff, so once you start slapping armour on something, you can't find sufficiently powerful grav engines.
Lots of more advanced Imperial worlds make widespread use of light grav vehicles- after all, a servo skull is basically the same thing. Grav technology is not totally lost to the IoM. But it would seem these light vehicles are not suited to war.
There are also the suspensor units marines will add to their weapons that negate some of the weight through anti-grav tech.
I don't mean to contradict you, its sort of the settings own hypocrisy, but a great number of the aircraft, drop pods, and large scale landers make use of some anti-grav tech to lighten their load. Less effective mass also means ease of maneuverability. Everyone questions how some of the marine flyers can even fly, but if you can cancel out gravity you never drop and can easily out accelerate drag forces and fly like the best aerodynamically designed aircraft.
Oh yeah, grav tech is absolutely everywhere in some form- Imperial Navy pilots wear flight suits with inertial dampners for example, to allow them to do exactly what you suggest.
But I think there is a distinction between lightening something here and there or floating a servo skull, and something heavy duty kept aloft by pure anti-grav like a Space Marine Land Speeder or jetbike.
A bike with solid construction doesn't die or buck its rider after it gets shot either...
They are also much easier to maintain and keep operating.
If the shot jams the front wheel whole.moving at speed, or shears the front forks, then yes the bike could also buck the rider when shot.
Notice I said, a bike of "solid construction".
Such a bike would be built in a way that nothing short of an anti-materiel round would jam the front wheel or shear the front forks.
I find the argument for cyber horses much more compelling, but a motorcycle is more low tech and easier to both construct and maintain than a cyber-horse would be. Arguably still more durable too. Fleshy bits are always inferior to metal, even cybernetically enhanced fleshy bits.
But if your world.has a cyber horse factory and an economy based on cyber horses, maybe they would be easier to build and maintain compared to.this.weird thing on wheels that relies on constantly exploding fuel.packages in a weird mechanical.heart thing with whirry things attached Magic space technology is magic and inconsistent
Mmmpi wrote: You flat out said anti-material rifles. Those are still light AT weapons.
I said that if the bike was of solid construction, the only think that could jam the front wheel or shear the front fork would be a round from an anti-material rifle. Please look back at the conversation. I was not saying that you could make a motorcycle immune to anti-materiel rounds, merely resistant to small arms fire.
Mmmpi wrote: It's not possible to make a motorcycle that can take that punishment and still retain full maneuverability or fuel economy.
Against non-AP small arms rounds? It is absolutely possible. We can make WINDOWS bullet resistant.
Mmmpi wrote: Just to be clear, I'm not saying "No motorcycles". I'm saying "Not only motorcycles".
And I am saying that having horse rough riders is pointless. A military motorcycle can do everything a horse can, except better, and it fits better with the background lore. If we do get rough rider models they should be riding motorcycles, not horses.
Hawky wrote: Imagine being stranded in the middle of the Amazon rainforest / Siberia / wherever, away from all civilization and no means of communication. Would you rather take a bike or a horse, in order to get back?
Bike. If the terrain is so bad that I cannot use a motorcycle, it is certainly bad enough that I cannot ride a horse. In the Siberian wilderness I also don't have to worry about my bike dropping dead of cold.
The problem here is that when I say "motorcycle" people have this image in their heads of civilian road motorcycles like Harley Davidsons that are purposely built to be loud as hell, and only good on flat paved roads. They should look up military motorbikes and offroad cycles and enlighten themselves.
Mmmpi wrote: You flat out said anti-material rifles. Those are still light AT weapons.
I said that if the bike was of solid construction, the only think that could jam the front wheel or shear the front fork would be a round from an anti-material rifle. Please look back at the conversation. I was not saying that you could make a motorcycle immune to anti-materiel rounds, merely resistant to small arms fire.
Mmmpi wrote: It's not possible to make a motorcycle that can take that punishment and still retain full maneuverability or fuel economy.
Against non-AP small arms rounds? It is absolutely possible. We can make WINDOWS bullet resistant.
Mmmpi wrote: Just to be clear, I'm not saying "No motorcycles". I'm saying "Not only motorcycles".
And I am saying that having horse rough riders is pointless. A military motorcycle can do everything a horse can, except better, and it fits better with the background lore. If we do get rough rider models they should be riding motorcycles, not horses.
Hawky wrote: Imagine being stranded in the middle of the Amazon rainforest / Siberia / wherever, away from all civilization and no means of communication. Would you rather take a bike or a horse, in order to get back?
Bike. If the terrain is so bad that I cannot use a motorcycle, it is certainly bad enough that I cannot ride a horse. In the Siberian wilderness I also don't have to worry about my bike dropping dead of cold.
Just a point of contention here. I fully support bike Rough Riders as they fit my lore better. But saying horses don't fit canon is flat wrong or at least mistaken only motorcycles make sense. Because in this galaxy of billions of planets of all sorts techno and other types of barbarians is a thing. And for ease of training these a horse makes more sense as they would have a background with that and all they would have to learn is either combat <which they would have some experience of anyways> or to point an pull a trigger.
Drakka77 wrote: Just a point of contention here. I fully support bike Rough Riders as they fit my lore better. But saying horses don't fit canon is flat wrong or at least mistaken only motorcycles make sense. Because in this galaxy of billions of planets of all sorts techno and other types of barbarians is a thing. And for ease of training these a horse makes more sense as they would have a background with that and all they would have to learn is either combat <which they would have some experience of anyways> or to point an pull a trigger.
I mean sure, yeah, a horse would probably be easier to obtain on a backwater world. That doesn't mean they are any less outdated on a modern battlefield. I'm sure a metal sword (of the non power weapon variety) is easier to obtain than a lasgun on a backwater world, but I fail to see why we should be pushing for IG miniatures armed entirely with swords.
Various BL libraries have examples of civilian anti grav cars and transports. I believe the first one I read personally were on of the Eisenhorn books. It's clear though that adabting that to be durable enough to withstand battlefield conditions is both rare and very labor intensive.
Even Space Marine chapters can only field a limited number of speeders and it's noted that they are among the hardest things to keep in service and training pilots for them requires a lot of dedication. IG need something much simpler than that given the scale of their organization. Doesn't get much simpler than oldest example of a military animal.
Mmmpi wrote: You flat out said anti-material rifles. Those are still light AT weapons.
I said that if the bike was of solid construction, the only think that could jam the front wheel or shear the front fork would be a round from an anti-material rifle. Please look back at the conversation. I was not saying that you could make a motorcycle immune to anti-materiel rounds, merely resistant to small arms fire.
Mmmpi wrote: It's not possible to make a motorcycle that can take that punishment and still retain full maneuverability or fuel economy.
Against non-AP small arms rounds? It is absolutely possible. We can make WINDOWS bullet resistant.
Mmmpi wrote: Just to be clear, I'm not saying "No motorcycles". I'm saying "Not only motorcycles".
And I am saying that having horse rough riders is pointless. A military motorcycle can do everything a horse can, except better, and it fits better with the background lore. If we do get rough rider models they should be riding motorcycles, not horses.
Hawky wrote: Imagine being stranded in the middle of the Amazon rainforest / Siberia / wherever, away from all civilization and no means of communication. Would you rather take a bike or a horse, in order to get back?
Bike. If the terrain is so bad that I cannot use a motorcycle, it is certainly bad enough that I cannot ride a horse. In the Siberian wilderness I also don't have to worry about my bike dropping dead of cold.
The problem here is that when I say "motorcycle" people have this image in their heads of civilian road motorcycles like Harley Davidsons that are purposely built to be loud as hell, and only good on flat paved roads. They should look up military motorbikes and offroad cycles and enlighten themselves.
#1. We already have bikes like that in game. Space marines ride them. Why do you think they get +1 toughness and an extra wound?
#2. Which is why I said against .50 and 20mm. If you're going to complain about me not reading your posts, you could do the courtesy and read mine.
#3. A motorcycle can't steer itself, help keep watch, or be a food source. They also make poor companions compared to a horse, which are usually as smart as dogs. And there are lots of places horses do better than motorcycles. Swamps for instance, and mountains.
#4. I'd rather have the horse in the Amazon. Same with Russian winters. WWII, trucks broke down from the cold. Horses and men could keep working. Most Colonial era Russians weren't too worried about their horses dying on them from normal use in Siberia. What do you think pulled the vehicles there during the winter? Bears?
w1zard wrote: In the Siberian wilderness I also don't have to worry about my bike dropping dead of cold.
If your horse is dead then so is the soldier riding the bike, so who cares if the bike itself survives. And, unlike the bike, the horse can be fed from local food supplies in many cases while the bike often requires hauling fuel. Which goes back to a classic quote: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. Don't be the amateur who focuses too much on what you can do on the battlefield and runs out of gas before you get there.
To add on to the previous posts, I just found out that during WW2, the germans used 2.8 million horses to transport stuff because their oil resources were so scarce. Russia used 3.5 million.
Both had massive horse shortages, and the Russians were buying as many as they could from places like Argentina. This is with the US handing them massive amounts of trucks and jeeps.
Horses have been used throughout military history, and the IG/AM often use past armies as inspiration. If a current army has horses, the odds are military governor will go out of his way to get some for his version.
This juxtaposed image makes me think of what GW intended for the Demiurge when they drew up them up as a re-conceptualization of the space dwarf in 40k... The squats had exo-armor, and GW were going to make a more advance exo-armor (along with drones) the centerpiece for that army... The concept was rolled into the Tau and became their crisis suits. So had space dwarfs been brought back to 40k they'd 15 feet tall and flying around in these over-sized and zippy armors.
Dandelion wrote: To add on to the previous posts, I just found out that during WW2, the germans used 2.8 million horses to transport stuff because their oil resources were so scarce. Russia used 3.5 million.
And? If they could have used vehicles in place of the horses they would have. It was an act of desperation, not an act of choice.
In any environment where supplies aren't an issue, the motorbike is purely superior to the horse in every respect. The only time I could see you making an argument for horses over motorbikes is when fuel and spare parts are scarce, AND foodstuffs + clean water are abundant.
The bayonet charge was used often during the civil war too, that doesn't mean that the tactic wasn't beginning to be outdated either.
nareik wrote: Horses aren't going to be completely redundant for military use until humans are.
It happened in WW2 buddy. Technically WW1, but the death throes ended in WW2.
Dandelion wrote: To add on to the previous posts, I just found out that during WW2, the germans used 2.8 million horses to transport stuff because their oil resources were so scarce. Russia used 3.5 million.
And? If they could have used vehicles in place of the horses they would have. It was an act of desperation, not an act of choice.
Horses break down less than trucks do, and do better in rough terrain.
In any environment where supplies aren't an issue, the motorbike is purely superior to the horse in every respect. The only time I could see you making an argument for horses over motorbikes is when fuel and spare parts are scarce, AND foodstuffs + clean water are abundant.
Can you eat a motorcycle? How well do they handle broken terrain? Because horses are actually fairly good there compared to bikes. How about stairs? Horses can climb those. They have more room for cargo too. Why do police use horses to patrol urban areas?
The bayonet charge was used often during the civil war too, that doesn't mean that the tactic wasn't beginning to be outdated either.
nareik wrote: Horses aren't going to be completely redundant for military use until humans are.
It happened in WW2 buddy. Technically WW1, but the death throes ended in WW2.
Last bayonet charge was in 2004, and it worked very well. The US army has used Tomahawks (the axe) in iraq and Afghanistan successfully as well. The last lancer cavalry charge was in 2008 (not all riders had lances, and they all had assault rifles). That charge was successful, despite the defenders having trenches and T-55's. While not a common occurrence, they do still succeed under the right conditions.
Cavalry is much more mobile than infantry tactically, but not strategically. Moving 500 infantry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men. Moving 500 cavalry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men, and probably 1200-1500 horses. Very rarely was a highly trained and very valuable combat mount also used for mundane transportation of either the rider or other resources. Plus there was always the desire to keep that horse fresh so it will still be effective once you make contact with the enemy.
I think both beasts and machines fit quite nicely into the 40K aesthetic, I'm just throwing out facts for consideration.
I like them for the same reason as many other people in this thread. I like 40k as a crazy space fantasy game full of anachronisms. I like seeing horses alongside grav tanks. I like humans bayonet charging aliens in mecha suits. I think it's fun and cool. Plus some nostalgia and desire for more modeling opportunities.
That said, I totally wouldn't mind if a new Rough Riders kit had the humans mounted on dirt bikes. That's cool too, and in terms of rules I don't see them needing to be distinct. A new Free Peoples cavalry unit for AoS that had some extra bits or cross-compatibility with IG kits would also be neat.
This thread has got me thinking about grox ranchers riding lobotomized grox with Krootox-style weapon mounts as Scout Sentinels in friendly games.
amanita wrote: Cavalry is much more mobile than infantry tactically, but not strategically. Moving 500 infantry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men. Moving 500 cavalry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men, and probably 1200-1500 horses. Very rarely was a highly trained and very valuable combat mount also used for mundane transportation of either the rider or other resources. Plus there was always the desire to keep that horse fresh so it will still be effective once you make contact with the enemy.
I think both beasts and machines fit quite nicely into the 40K aesthetic, I'm just throwing out facts for consideration.
It's actually worse than that for the horse. An army without cavalry can force march 30 miles a day. One with cavalry can only go 20 unless they leave their horses behind. Humans, long term, have more endurance. Usually though, the tactical speed is worth keeping the horses.
amanita wrote: Cavalry is much more mobile than infantry tactically, but not strategically. Moving 500 infantry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men. Moving 500 cavalry 500 miles requires provision for 500 men, and probably 1200-1500 horses. Very rarely was a highly trained and very valuable combat mount also used for mundane transportation of either the rider or other resources. Plus there was always the desire to keep that horse fresh so it will still be effective once you make contact with the enemy.
I think both beasts and machines fit quite nicely into the 40K aesthetic, I'm just throwing out facts for consideration.
It's actually worse than that for the horse. An army without cavalry can force march 30 miles a day. One with cavalry can only go 20 unless they leave their horses behind. Humans, long term, have more endurance. Usually though, the tactical speed is worth keeping the horses.
One with cavalry can go more than 20 miles a day, but they need an excessive number of horses per soldier (something like 5 minimum per rider). This is how the Mongols achieved their remarkable strategic mobility- they had huge numbers of horses, so could keep them fairly fresh.
This has the obvious downside of needing colossal amounts of forage, which was the Mongols greatest weakness, and why they struggled so much against scorched-earth campaigns and in regions with poor pasture. It is also the chief reason the Mongols sucked at long sieges, and tried to take cities quickly- if they stayed in one place too long, they quickly exhausted the grass and had to spread out over a wide area. This made the army weak to a counter-attacking relief force.
I don't know much about horses*, but when they are being worked hard don't they need supplemental feed like grain or alfalfa pellets? Like grass is fine if they are just being ridden for a bit each day, but not sufficient if they spend a lot of the day pulling an artillery piece? I'm not sure where I got that idea, maybe it's bunk.
*Despite being raised by ranchers who used to ride horses for a living I picked up very little knowledge of them. Not much call for them where I live.
Dandelion wrote: To add on to the previous posts, I just found out that during WW2, the germans used 2.8 million horses to transport stuff because their oil resources were so scarce. Russia used 3.5 million.
And? If they could have used vehicles in place of the horses they would have. It was an act of desperation, not an act of choice.
War itself is an act of desperation. There is never going to be a war where the circumstances are ideal. If war was only about choice, then no one could ever lose.
Dandelion wrote: To add on to the previous posts, I just found out that during WW2, the germans used 2.8 million horses to transport stuff because their oil resources were so scarce. Russia used 3.5 million.
And? If they could have used vehicles in place of the horses they would have. It was an act of desperation, not an act of choice.
War itself is an act of desperation. There is never going to be a war where the circumstances are ideal. If war was only about choice, then no one could ever lose.
There was a Military History Visualized video a while back that seemed to indicate that for the Russians trucks were sometimes better and horses were sometimes better. Trucks were generally better on the roads but horses were sometimes preferable as large parts of Russia had bad roads/no roads. (I'm not sure how good of a source Military History Visualized is, but he does have a relevant degree and he cites his sources.)
Of course that has to do with horses vs trucks when it comes to bulk transportation. Horses vs motorcycles when it comes to scouting, raiding and/or charging hover tanks with melta spears is a different story.
Hawky wrote: What about stealth? A motorbike makes a lot of noise, a horse, not so much...
As I have said in previous comments, you are used to civilian motorbikes that are designed to be as loud as possible. Military motorcycles are a lot quieter.
Mmmpi wrote: Can you eat a motorcycle? How well do they handle broken terrain? Because horses are actually fairly good there compared to bikes. How about stairs? Horses can climb those. They have more room for cargo too. Why do police use horses to patrol urban areas?
Can't eat a motorcycle, but any situation where you are eating your horses you have bigger problems to worry about. Motorcycles handle broken terrain better than horses. Military motorcycles can go up stairs. Motorcycles have just as much room for cargo as horses do. Police use motorcycles to patrol urban areas far more often than they do horses.
w1zard wrote: In any environment where supplies aren't an issue
IOW, nowhere.
You conveniently ignored the rest of the sentence, so I will post it again so you understand: "...the motorbike is purely superior to the horse in every respect. The only time I could see you making an argument for horses over motorbikes is when fuel and spare parts are scarce, AND foodstuffs + clean water are abundant."
Fuel and spare parts being more common than food and clean water happens a LOT. In fact I would say it would be a much more common situation than the other way around in the 41st millennium.
Mmmpi wrote: Last bayonet charge was in 2004, and it worked very well. The US army has used Tomahawks (the axe) in iraq and Afghanistan successfully as well. The last lancer cavalry charge was in 2008 (not all riders had lances, and they all had assault rifles). That charge was successful, despite the defenders having trenches and T-55's. While not a common occurrence, they do still succeed under the right conditions.
Sources, please for all of that? Last I checked, the last "successful" cavalry charge was in WW1.
Cavalry charges have definitely become less common, but they aren't gone yet.
Though I really don't see what motorcycles do that make them more suitable for actual combat than horses. If we look at the genecult bikers, they're just on dirtbikes with no armor so why is that better than being on a horse?
I don't think Imperial Guard rough riders should be on bikes. We can talk about all the virtues of bikes in modern combat, but despite that it isn't just an aesthetic change to the unit. The rules make a distinction between bikes and cavalry, and I think the bonuses related to their using horses are pretty beneficial.
I think if IG were to get bikes, it should be an all together new unit.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: I don't know much about horses*, but when they are being worked hard don't they need supplemental feed like grain or alfalfa pellets? Like grass is fine if they are just being ridden for a bit each day, but not sufficient if they spend a lot of the day pulling an artillery piece? I'm not sure where I got that idea, maybe it's bunk.
*Despite being raised by ranchers who used to ride horses for a living I picked up very little knowledge of them. Not much call for them where I live.
The same is true of humans as well - a soldier needs far more in general to remain at top performance than, say, an office worker.
Horses are also not just "go fasta" objects. A motorcycle can keep going all day long so long as its got fuel, whilst your standard horse needs rest. Games and films often give the impression that they can run for ages and ages, when in truth they need to pause and break and need time with their rider off their backs on longer marches. You can push them, but they will die if you push them too far (there's a good few tales of messengers and the like driving a horse to death in desperation to deliver a message). One also forgets that when horses were the standard mode of transport there were things like inns and pubs where a change of horses was present for those running teams pulling the carriages.
Now of course your 41st millennium horse is not going to be the same and the augmented and Imperial Seal Approved food provided to guard likely feeds their horse too. So the 40K horse is likely far closer to fiction than a horse of the real world today.
I'm going to drastically oversimply things and say there are generally four arguments being made:
1. Horses are a stupid idea on a futuristic battlefield (even though bayonet charges and swordfights are somehow okay).
2. Horses aren't my cup of tea, so I'd prefer to see other units, but it's fine that others like them since this is a silly space fantasy game.
3. Fighting from horseback doesn't usually make much sense in modern warfare, but I think it's cool and it fits well in the unrealistic setting of 40k where rule of cool trumps most everything.
4. Fighting from horseback is perfectly viable in our modern world, so it makes sense to have it in 40k too.
I suspect the vast majority of people have positions along the lines of 2 and 3, but because communicating is hard on the Internet they might be interpreted as arguing for 1 or 4.
Of course this is all based on a hunch, I have no real evidence.
I like the rough riders from a back to basics standpoint. The scifi trope of a society with so much tech that thier scanners for power signatures or large amounts of metal and/or heat from an angine. It allows the group to sneak in on horseback. Also it seems like the imperium would want any allies on its side they can get. if some feudal world is brought in the imperium and has trained cavalry fighters... well give that man a power lance and tell him to charge. worse case he distracts the opponent long enough to allow others to do something. best case he connects and charges again.
A bunch of lunatics charging across a battlefield on drugged up horses in order to stab miserable space elves with exploding sticks is cooler.
40k isn't about carefully thought out units that make sense in a modern context. It's all rule of cool
I'd love a new set of broad-brush approaches to rough riders, allowing different weapon loadouts and different capabilities for their mounts (motorbike, space lions, attack gazelle, horses, doombirds, etc).
Hawky wrote: What about stealth? A motorbike makes a lot of noise, a horse, not so much...
As I have said in previous comments, you are used to civilian motorbikes that are designed to be as loud as possible. Military motorcycles are a lot quieter.
Can I ask for a source of your claim? My searches proved otherwise so far...
Hawky wrote: What about stealth? A motorbike makes a lot of noise, a horse, not so much...
As I have said in previous comments, you are used to civilian motorbikes that are designed to be as loud as possible. Military motorcycles are a lot quieter.
Mmmpi wrote: Can you eat a motorcycle? How well do they handle broken terrain? Because horses are actually fairly good there compared to bikes. How about stairs? Horses can climb those. They have more room for cargo too. Why do police use horses to patrol urban areas?
Can't eat a motorcycle, but any situation where you are eating your horses you have bigger problems to worry about. Motorcycles handle broken terrain better than horses. Military motorcycles can go up stairs. Motorcycles have just as much room for cargo as horses do. Police use motorcycles to patrol urban areas far more often than they do horses.
w1zard wrote: In any environment where supplies aren't an issue
IOW, nowhere.
You conveniently ignored the rest of the sentence, so I will post it again so you understand: "...the motorbike is purely superior to the horse in every respect. The only time I could see you making an argument for horses over motorbikes is when fuel and spare parts are scarce, AND foodstuffs + clean water are abundant."
Fuel and spare parts being more common than food and clean water happens a LOT. In fact I would say it would be a much more common situation than the other way around in the 41st millennium.
Mmmpi wrote: Last bayonet charge was in 2004, and it worked very well. The US army has used Tomahawks (the axe) in iraq and Afghanistan successfully as well. The last lancer cavalry charge was in 2008 (not all riders had lances, and they all had assault rifles). That charge was successful, despite the defenders having trenches and T-55's. While not a common occurrence, they do still succeed under the right conditions.
Sources, please for all of that? Last I checked, the last "successful" cavalry charge was in WW1.
Hawky has already asked for a source for your motorcycle claim, so I'll wait for that.
But eating your horse is still something that you can't do with a motorcycle. I'll need a source for how your armored motorcycle does off-road. We already know armored horses can navigate rough terrain (steeper slopes, and narrower paths) than a motorcycle.. Dirt bikes can go upstairs. Sometimes. Cruiser bikes have just as much room for cargo as a combat horse. Pack horses carry far more than a motorcycle can however. But police do use horses. More militaries use horses in combat than motorcycles now.
53 seconds: A horse can climb that.
1:30 seconds: a horse can cross that.
You found once motorcycle made for a military that can come close to a horse. Congratulations? How much armor does that bike have? If it's being carried like that I'd suspect that it can't survive being shot 30 times by an assault rifle.
No, I didn't ignore the rest of your sentence. Fuel and parts are almost always rarer than grass and water. Unless your're in the desert, you're going to have both food and water just about everywhere, at least for the horse. The motorbike has advantages, but it's not superior in every respect. Based on the novels and such in the 40K universe, most planets have plenty of food and water for horses. It's rare that they don't take place on an earth like world.
World War II the Italians at the Don River. Afghanistan, there was cavalry action at Mazir-i-Sharif. The Chinese successfully used cavalry in their skermishes with the USSR in the 1970's.
Hawky wrote: What about stealth? A motorbike makes a lot of noise, a horse, not so much...
As I have said in previous comments, you are used to civilian motorbikes that are designed to be as loud as possible. Military motorcycles are a lot quieter.
Can I ask for a source of your claim? My searches proved otherwise so far...
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: 1. Horses are a stupid idea on a futuristic battlefield (even though bayonet charges and swordfights are somehow okay).
Exactly!
Bayonet charges and swordfights don't work very well in modern warfare either. But, there are explanations within the 40k setting as to why they are relevant on the battlefield of the 41st millenium. (Example: Power weapons that are capable of slicing through advanced armor as though it weren't there. Armor that would otherwise render ranged weapons ineffective.)
So equally, if there was some explanation as to why horse mounted cavalry is relevant on the battlefield of the 41st millennium I would still think it somewhat silly, but ultimately have no issue with it. (Example: Power lances plus robotic steeds, or something similar).
ORDINARY horses serving as mounts crosses that critical barrier for me that breaks suspension of disbelief.
Plus there are people in here trying to argue with a straight face that cavalry charges are still a valid tactic in modern warfare .
A nearly silent prototype is in development yes. However, civilian motorcycles are actually designed and built to be louder than they should be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB7ySTE2QtY
Even non "silenced" military motorcycles are much quieter than civilian models.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: 1. Horses are a stupid idea on a futuristic battlefield (even though bayonet charges and swordfights are somehow okay).
Exactly!
Bayonet charges and swordfights don't work very well in modern warfare either. But, there are explanations within the 40k setting as to why they are relevant on the battlefield of the 41st millenium. (Example: Power weapons that are capable of slicing through advanced armor as though it weren't there. Armor that would otherwise render ranged weapons ineffective.)
Hmmm...looks like a successful bayonet charge in current modern warfare.
Most 40K melee weapons are steel bayonets, steel knives, or chain swords. Not power weapons. Meanwhile, a las gun has a decent chance of penetrating power armor.
So equally, if there was some explanation as to why horse mounted cavalry is relevant on the battlefield of the 41st millennium I would still think it somewhat silly, but ultimately have no issue with it. (Example: Power lances plus robotic steeds, or something similar).
Which is one possibility that people have suggested.
Ordinary horses serving as mounts crosses that critical barrier for me that breaks suspension of disbelief.
Key part of this phrase is the "for me" part. No one is stopping you from converting your RR's from Jackels, or making cyber horses.
Plus there are people in here trying to argue with a straight face that cavalry charges are still a valid tactic in modern warfare .
No one is saying it isn't a common use, only that there are valid situations for cavalry charges in the modern world, and that horses in general are still useful for a modern military, particularly in the few areas a motorcycle isn't the best option.
A nearly silent prototype is in development yes. However, civilian motorcycles are actually designed and built to be louder than they should be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB7ySTE2QtY
Even non "silenced" military motorcycles are much quieter than civilian models.
Mmmpi wrote: Hmmm...looks like a successful bayonet charge in current modern warfare.
Looks like someone can't tell the difference between. "Doesn't work very well" and "is impossible and never works".
A bayonet charge on a modern battlefield is the wrong call in 99% of situations.
Mmmpi wrote: Most 40K melee weapons are steel bayonets, steel knives, or chain swords. Not power weapons.
Knives with mono-molecular edges, and chainswords with adamantium teeth and engines powerful enough to tear through ceramite. Do you even read any of the IG lore?
Mmmpi wrote: Key part of this phrase is the "for me" part. No one is stopping you from converting your RR's from Jackels, or making cyber horses.
The argument that "you can just convert your horse RR from fantasy models" is equally valid.
Mmmpi wrote: that horses in general are still useful for a modern military...
No, because anything a horse can do, a powered vehicle can do better. The U.S military doesn't spend its money on buying horses for a reason.
The only time horses are used on the modern battlefield is when vehicles cannot be obtained for some reason. Whether because the fighting force in question is poor, or because there are logistical problems. No modern military, when having the choice between vehicles and horses is going to pick horses... NONE.
Mmmpi wrote: But those are still louder than a horse.
Loud enough to outweigh the advantages that a motorcycle has over a horse? No.
Not sure why cyber horse cavalry is ok but normal horse cavalry is not. The weakness isn't the horse itself, it's the lack of protection for the rider. That's what's bothering me about wizard's stance. Besides, it's not like we can't armor our horses.
Dandelion wrote: Not sure why cyber horse cavalry is ok but normal horse cavalry is not. The weakness isn't the horse itself, it's the lack of protection for the rider. That's what's bothering me about wizard's stance. Besides, it's not like we can't armor our horses.
To me, the weakness is the horse itself. A pothole can cripple a horse... a single bullet (even in a non vital area) renders it useless as a mount. It also has the rider much higher up than a motorcycle would.
Don't get me wrong, a motorcycle rider is exposed too, but it is much easier to justify high-tech 40k motorcycle rough riders than old fashioned horse rough riders.
Wizard for the record from a us military member. We dont buy bikes for combat either. And we do have a actual horse unit <ceremonial but eh> wiki horses in warfare on wiki and see China has a whole horse regiment because they can get where bikes can't. I am not saying horses are better then bikes but your resistance to horses is bordering on obsessive. Both bikes and horses can belong.
Dandelion wrote: Not sure why cyber horse cavalry is ok but normal horse cavalry is not. The weakness isn't the horse itself, it's the lack of protection for the rider. That's what's bothering me about wizard's stance. Besides, it's not like we can't armor our horses.
To me, the weakness is the horse itself. A pothole can cripple a horse... a single bullet (even in a non vital area) renders it useless as a mount. It also has the rider much higher up than a motorcycle would.
Don't get me wrong, a motorcycle rider is exposed too, but it is much easier to justify high-tech 40k motorcycle rough riders than old fashioned horse rough riders.
Have you not seen the dkok horses? they suppose to be able to take massive amount of punishment and still keeps going and going, genetically enhanced. Not arguing for one or the other, but I love the potential modeling opportunity the rough rider gives the creator.
Mmmpi wrote: Hmmm...looks like a successful bayonet charge in current modern warfare.
Looks like someone can't tell the difference between. "Doesn't work very well" and "is impossible and never works".
A bayonet charge on a modern battlefield is the wrong call in 99% of situations.
Mmmpi wrote: Most 40K melee weapons are steel bayonets, steel knives, or chain swords. Not power weapons.
Knives with mono-molecular edges, and chainswords with adamantium teeth and engines powerful enough to tear through ceramite. Do you even read any of the IG lore?
Mmmpi wrote: Key part of this phrase is the "for me" part. No one is stopping you from converting your RR's from Jackels, or making cyber horses.
The argument that "you can just convert your horse RR from fantasy models" is equally valid.
Mmmpi wrote: that horses in general are still useful for a modern military...
No, because anything a horse can do, a powered vehicle can do better. The U.S military doesn't spend its money on buying horses for a reason.
The only time horses are used on the modern battlefield is when vehicles cannot be obtained for some reason. Whether because the fighting force in question is poor, or because there are logistical problems. No modern military, when having the choice between vehicles and horses is going to pick horses... NONE.
Mmmpi wrote: But those are still louder than a horse.
Loud enough to outweigh the advantages that a motorcycle has over a horse? No.
Horses can be pretty loud too.
Good thing no one is claiming that it is the right move 100% of the time. Just that it's the right move some of the time.
Yes, I do read through their lore. I also see their AP-0 which is the same as a steel bayonet.
No, because they make bike kits. They don't make a cavalry kit.
Ok, drive that car up a 60 degree slope on a path two feet wide, with it's weight in cargo. The US military doesn't spend it's money on horses, because in the 1930's it switched to all mechanized. The US isn't the only military in the world.
Yes, too loud to outweigh the advantages over a horse. Lots of horses can be loud. A horse is relatively quiet.
Dandelion wrote: Not sure why cyber horse cavalry is ok but normal horse cavalry is not. The weakness isn't the horse itself, it's the lack of protection for the rider. That's what's bothering me about wizard's stance. Besides, it's not like we can't armor our horses.
To me, the weakness is the horse itself. A pothole can cripple a horse... a single bullet (even in a non vital area) renders it useless as a mount. It also has the rider much higher up than a motorcycle would.
Don't get me wrong, a motorcycle rider is exposed too, but it is much easier to justify high-tech 40k motorcycle rough riders than old fashioned horse rough riders.
A single pothole can cripple a car or a bike too. I should know. I've had it happen more than once.
A single bullet can render a car useless too. You won't drive far without a functioning radiator for example. Or a flat tire. And you can't hang on a motorcycle's side while riding to use it as cover like you can with a horse.
There's just as much justification for a horse, before looking at social/economic reasons, as there is a motorcycle.
Dandelion wrote: Not sure why cyber horse cavalry is ok but normal horse cavalry is not. The weakness isn't the horse itself, it's the lack of protection for the rider. That's what's bothering me about wizard's stance. Besides, it's not like we can't armor our horses.
To me, the weakness is the horse itself. A pothole can cripple a horse... a single bullet (even in a non vital area) renders it useless as a mount. It also has the rider much higher up than a motorcycle would.
Don't get me wrong, a motorcycle rider is exposed too, but it is much easier to justify high-tech 40k motorcycle rough riders than old fashioned horse rough riders.
Warhorses are/were specifically trained to avoid potholes when riding at full gallop. It's like saying a bike is bad because a single nail can blow the tire.
Warhorses are also trained to give the rider a very smooth ride over rough terrain to allow accurate shooting (used to be with a bow, but a rifle works too)
And horses are tough, much tougher than humans are (seriously, they weigh over half a ton). The kind of bullet that would render a horse useless in one shot would also render a bike useless.
The Guard have access to a lot of ranged weapons that are relatively good at punching through armor. More elite forces like the Space Marines, Scions and Sisters have even more access to such weapons. They still use chainsaw swords because they're cool.
I can appreciate attempts to make things make sense in-universe. It might be futile, but it can be a fun exercise. It just seems weird when someone is willing to do tons of mental backflips to explain most things but doesn't seem to be willing to spend any effort trying to suspend disbelief for others.
I don't mean to sound too critical, I think we all have a few things we have a hard time suspending disbelief for and as a result we don't like. It just seems kind of silly to others who don't have that particular hangup when most everything in the universe don't make much sense and have a shoddy explanation at best.
Many of the people that dislike Rough Riders on horseback lean on the notion of the “modern battlefield” and as a reason why they shouldn’t work... However 40k isn’t a modern battlefield, it’s science fiction and fantasy. In the lore many rough riders are coming from feudal worlds where a horse is the best of their technology.
It goes back to what I was talking about before. The Imperial Guard is a galactic army and Rough Riders on horses are one of only a handful of units that paint that picture of diversity.
A bunch of lunatics charging across a battlefield on drugged up horses in order to stab miserable space elves with exploding sticks is cooler.
40k isn't about carefully thought out units that make sense in a modern context. It's all rule of cool
I'd love a new set of broad-brush approaches to rough riders, allowing different weapon loadouts and different capabilities for their mounts (motorbike, space lions, attack gazelle, horses, doombirds, etc).
As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.
I think horse-mounted troops would make more sense if they were presented as independent units meant to operate deep behind enemy lines with zero logistical support. A bunch of survivalist soldiers with easy to recharge lasguns could live off the land, along with their horses (or dinos or whatever) for as long as they'd need to and potentially do a lot of damage via guerilla tactics. I don't know how well that kind of unit would fit in your usual 40k battle, though.
Tiennos wrote: As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.
I think horse-mounted troops would make more sense if they were presented as independent units meant to operate deep behind enemy lines with zero logistical support. A bunch of survivalist soldiers with easy to recharge lasguns could live off the land, along with their horses (or dinos or whatever) for as long as they'd need to and potentially do a lot of damage via guerilla tactics. I don't know how well that kind of unit would fit in your usual 40k battle, though.
To be fair, previous editions had Rough Riders outflanking in support of your main force, so they really did do this. I can't remember what rules they have in the 8th Index.
What most are referring to as RR are Attilan. There are a multitude of other variations:-
Spoiler:
Ratskins. Native militia. infiltration and pursuit.
Krum "Ironsides". Imperium cult puritans. ECW "roundhead" cavalry in space. Gantor Rider. Abhumans on dinosaurs. Rapid onslaught.
Ezelti Lancers. High risk riot control and containment. Riot police on horses. Praetorian Hussars. Ceremonial parade.
Paladius Freelancers. Mercenaries.
Tallarn "Desert Riders". Genetically modified mounts for desert environments
Kreig "Death Riders". Bionically enhanced mounts.
Remus "Crushers". Armed with Reman Mace-lance.
That's from just looking in 1 old codex, there will be more in BL books.
Why does everything have to be compared to "real" or "modern" warfare? Do that and you reduce 40k to IG and...... IG. No genetically enhanced humans, no space elves, no walking and killing mushrooms, no tall green(blue) men. It's not real, so can work outside of reality.
Part of why I love RR is the fact there is no kit. That leaves the options open for individual interpretation on their look. Now though, with the "no model, no rule" there is a requirement for a kit, or at least a model or two, just to keep them in the rules.
Another reason to love them is the anachronistic nature of them existing, it fits in so well with the whole setting.
I’ve grown up all my life around motorcycles, my parents owned a dealership, so I may be a bit biased, but I can’t ever imagine a motorcycle sending fear to my heart the way a mass of mounted riders would. I think we should also think about some kind of fear factor when talking about live mounts.
I’ve been next Boss Hoss cycle with 502 cubic inch big block engine. Those puppies are loud, basically having car engines, but I’d like to see someone try to put armor on one of those.
Big Mac wrote: Have you not seen the dkok horses? they suppose to be able to take massive amount of punishment and still keeps going and going, genetically enhanced. Not arguing for one or the other, but I love the potential modeling opportunity the rough rider gives the creator.
DKOK horses are cyber steeds , they aren't relevant to the discussion.
Mmmpi wrote: A single pothole can cripple a car or a bike too. I should know. I've had it happen more than once.
Not if the motorcycle is designed right. Your experience has been with driving civilian vehicles.
Mmmpi wrote: A single bullet can render a car useless too. You won't drive far without a functioning radiator for example. Or a flat tire.
Again, civilian vehicles. Any military vehicle worth its weight is going to be at least bullet resistant, if not bullet proof. We can and do have bullet resistant motorcycles today that use lightweight plastics.
Mmmpi wrote: And you can't hang on a motorcycle's side while riding to use it as cover like you can with a horse.
I'm pretty sure you can. Even if you cannot, there are things you can do on a motorbike that you cannot do on a horse either.
Drakka77 wrote: Wizard for the record from a us military member. We dont buy bikes for combat either. And we do have a actual horse unit <ceremonial but eh> wiki horses in warfare on wiki and see China has a whole horse regiment because they can get where bikes can't. I am not saying horses are better then bikes but your resistance to horses is bordering on obsessive. Both bikes and horses can belong.
I'm not resistant to horse RR so long as there is some in setting explanation as to why they work.
I AM resistant, bordering on obsessive, to this notion that horses provide something to a modern military that a vehicle would not do better, or that a cavalry charge is a valid battlefield tactic in the 21st century. Are horses used by modern militaries? Yes. But, key point, are only done so because of lack of access (from either funds or logistics) to a vehicle in place of that horse. Or as you said, for ceremonial purposes.
Calling me "obsessive" for trying to argue with someone who sits across from me and smugly proclaims that the sky is green may be true, but then so is what I am trying to argue.
EDIT: There are nations that do use military motorcycle units. The Russians do, and here is a video of a japanese military/police unit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNsRLapfSZU
Very true. Those Mechanicus engineered horse - gecko hybrids are pretty awesome.
Tiennos wrote: As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.
As cool as it looks, I have to say that attempts at any kind of close combat against enemies armed with heavy, fast firing weapons like autocannons, or heavy bolters, is kinda hard to believe...
This whole game requires a pretty deep suspension of disbelief just to have a close combat. Nomads or knights, men from some backward planet riding animals making use of whatever limited technology they have is far easier to believe than daemons, acid blooded hiveminded aliens, living egyptian robots, and even psychic mind powers.
Do you disbelieve it when Kroot use Krootox? Do you disbelieve it when daemons ride their mounts?
Your concern about cavalry is built into the game. Your opponent has a shooting phase. Your opponent gets to overwatch. If the 40k world was "real" more of your games would end with both armies being nuked from orbit, or bombarded by aircraft so high up you never get to shoot at them, or blasted by Titans many kilometers away. If Rough Riders die to shooting, they die to it, if they don't then they don't; just like the countless other units in this game that require you to accept that they'd ever really have a chance to get across the battlefield.
aka_mythos wrote: Very true. Those Mechanicus engineered horse - gecko hybrids are pretty awesome.
Tiennos wrote: As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.
As cool as it looks, I have to say that attempts at any kind of close combat against enemies armed with heavy, fast firing weapons like autocannons, or heavy bolters, is kinda hard to believe...
This whole game requires a pretty deep suspension of disbelief just to have a close combat. Nomads or knights, men from some backward planet riding animals making use of whatever limited technology they have is far easier to believe than daemons, acid blooded hiveminded aliens, living egyptian robots, and even psychic mind powers.
Do you disbelieve it when Kroot use Krootox? Do you disbelieve it when daemons ride their mounts?
Your concern about cavalry is built into the game. Your opponent has a shooting phase. Your opponent gets to overwatch. If the 40k world was "real" more of your games would end with both armies being nuked from orbit, or bombarded by aircraft so high up you never get to shoot at them, or blasted by Titans many kilometers away. If Rough Riders die to shooting, they die to it, if they don't then they don't; just like the countless other units in this game that require you to accept that they'd ever really have a chance to get across the battlefield.
There is only one thing that is likely to make melee viable again- effective personal armour. This exists in 40k, so really any cavalry should be using armour.
The only reason melee remained viable after the invention of slings and bows is effective portable defence- shields and armour. This balance could shift back, although it is unlikely to match pace with the increasing firepower available to troops. Having said that, true heavy infantry is a thing again for the first time in centuries, so maybe the balance could shift. We've seen British heavy infantry pull off successful bayonet charges in the last couple of decades, for example. An argument could be made that these units would've performed just as well without the armour though.
Interestingly, the introduction of tanks forced poorly equipped infantry to adopt desperate melee tactics to defeat them, so there is precedence for this.
Rough Riders are loved because they are cool - not because they are plausable. Space Mongols with exploding lances are cooler.
Original Rogue Trader marines had access to lizard mounts, plastic RTB 01 had a 'saddled stance' set of legs to accommodate. Chaos marine riders were a thing, so bring on the new RR set, I'd be up for it. Perhaps a Cyborg style mount might settle arguments?
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Warboar#Super_Cyboars
I don't understand the refutation of rough riders in 40K, either as live mounts or as motorbikes. To accept 40K, one must accept melee as a viable tactic. Therefore cavalry charges, at least at times, is also a viable tactic.
The technology to make a live mount more practical 40,000 years in an alternate future also exists to make a motorbike a reliable combat platform. Horses could be genetically altered in a myriad of ways to improve their performance, and machines could easily be quieted,stabilized, armored, self-sealing and practically autonomous.
What is the problem, folks? As said before...rough riders are cool! Silly? Probably. But cool!
Big Mac wrote: Have you not seen the dkok horses? they suppose to be able to take massive amount of punishment and still keeps going and going, genetically enhanced. Not arguing for one or the other, but I love the potential modeling opportunity the rough rider gives the creator.
DKOK horses are cyber steeds , they aren't relevant to the discussion.
Mmmpi wrote: A single pothole can cripple a car or a bike too. I should know. I've had it happen more than once.
Not if the motorcycle is designed right. Your experience has been with driving civilian vehicles.
Mmmpi wrote: A single bullet can render a car useless too. You won't drive far without a functioning radiator for example. Or a flat tire.
Again, civilian vehicles. Any military vehicle worth its weight is going to be at least bullet resistant, if not bullet proof. We can and do have bullet resistant motorcycles today that use lightweight plastics.
Mmmpi wrote: And you can't hang on a motorcycle's side while riding to use it as cover like you can with a horse.
I'm pretty sure you can. Even if you cannot, there are things you can do on a motorbike that you cannot do on a horse either.
Drakka77 wrote: Wizard for the record from a us military member. We dont buy bikes for combat either. And we do have a actual horse unit <ceremonial but eh> wiki horses in warfare on wiki and see China has a whole horse regiment because they can get where bikes can't. I am not saying horses are better then bikes but your resistance to horses is bordering on obsessive. Both bikes and horses can belong.
I'm not resistant to horse RR so long as there is some in setting explanation as to why they work.
I AM resistant, bordering on obsessive, to this notion that horses provide something to a modern military that a vehicle would not do better, or that a cavalry charge is a valid battlefield tactic in the 21st century. Are horses used by modern militaries? Yes. But, key point, are only done so because of lack of access (from either funds or logistics) to a vehicle in place of that horse. Or as you said, for ceremonial purposes.
Calling me "obsessive" for trying to argue with someone who sits across from me and smugly proclaims that the sky is green may be true, but then so is what I am trying to argue.
EDIT: There are nations that do use military motorcycle units. The Russians do, and here is a video of a japanese military/police unit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNsRLapfSZU
1. Says who? I think they are relevant to the discussion.
2. A bent rim is a bent rim. Even military vehicles get damaged by the environment. I've seen dirtbike built for off-road crack a rim on a pothole. Unlike a motorcycle, a horse can avoid a pothole on it's own.
3. The russian motorcycle you showed certainly wasn't armored. It was made of light aluminum and plastic.
4. You can't. The bike would fall over. Oh, I'm sure someone somewhere has managed once or twice, but it's a hard to learn trick. With a horse, it's more easily accomplished (https://youtu.be/R8TVsOmQhlE)
Three videos of horses being taught to do the same trick. Of course your bike in the example has no armor or gear, aside from a small camera, and is a VERY light bike. Which brings up the question of why anyone would need to cross a bridge like that in a realistic situation.
5. You've been give several pages of reasons.
A valid tactic in the right situation. The only person who's said always the best option is you shooting it down. They get used by modern militaries because they're the right tools for the job. Special forces in Afghanistan used horses because they were the best for use in the mountains. Simple as that. The chinese made good use of them in the 60's and 70's because they made logistics easier, and gave tactical mobility in a region with poor road systems.
No one is saying the sky is green. Others and I are saying it's not as black and white as you're claiming. You're the one throwing out absolutes in the face of others, not us. And great, you found two countries that have military motorcycles (one in development).
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Haighus
The bayonet didn't exist until the 'death' of armor. That is, the end of armor being a common sight on the battlefield. Until the charge in Iraq, pretty much every bayonet charge has been done by unarmored men.
aka_mythos wrote: Very true. Those Mechanicus engineered horse - gecko hybrids are pretty awesome.
Tiennos wrote: As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.
As cool as it looks, I have to say that attempts at any kind of close combat against enemies armed with heavy, fast firing weapons like autocannons, or heavy bolters, is kinda hard to believe...
This whole game requires a pretty deep suspension of disbelief just to have a close combat. Nomads or knights, men from some backward planet riding animals making use of whatever limited technology they have is far easier to believe than daemons, acid blooded hiveminded aliens, living egyptian robots, and even psychic mind powers.
Do you disbelieve it when Kroot use Krootox? Do you disbelieve it when daemons ride their mounts?
Your concern about cavalry is built into the game. Your opponent has a shooting phase. Your opponent gets to overwatch. If the 40k world was "real" more of your games would end with both armies being nuked from orbit, or bombarded by aircraft so high up you never get to shoot at them, or blasted by Titans many kilometers away. If Rough Riders die to shooting, they die to it, if they don't then they don't; just like the countless other units in this game that require you to accept that they'd ever really have a chance to get across the battlefield.
First, I know it's fantasy, but you can't excuse absolutely everything with "it looks fun/cool" either, because there's no limit to that. And when you get to the point where a guy can break a planet by punching it real hard, then there's no point in anything else anymore.
Second, I'm not against riders. If I was good at modelling, I'd make Space Horses to go with some Space Marines. What are sci-fi knights without their sci-fi steeds, right? But the mounts need protection similar to their riders to have a similar chance of getting anywhere.
So if Rough Riders' horses are supposed to be wearing barding, or be genetically-altered super horses, or cyborg horses (cyborses?), then I guess it's ok for me. It's mostly the "mongol horde" style cavalry that seems weird to me, anyway.
There is only one thing that is likely to make melee viable again- effective personal armour. This exists in 40k, so really any cavalry should be using armour.
The only reason melee remained viable after the invention of slings and bows is effective portable defence- shields and armour. This balance could shift back, although it is unlikely to match pace with the increasing firepower available to troops. Having said that, true heavy infantry is a thing again for the first time in centuries, so maybe the balance could shift. We've seen British heavy infantry pull off successful bayonet charges in the last couple of decades, for example. An argument could be made that these units would've performed just as well without the armour though.
Interestingly, the introduction of tanks forced poorly equipped infantry to adopt desperate melee tactics to defeat them, so there is precedence for this.
The Rough Riders have never really been updated and I think that is one of their issues. Setting aside the modern viability of cavalry, in historical and near modern use they've mostly been elite units, where the current rough riders are instead treated as just guardsmen on horses.
Whether its been light cavalry or heavy cavalry one thing that has been relatively consistent in history, is the fact that riding a horse means you can carry "more"... sometimes that just meant more supplies for autonomy, self sufficiency and scouting, but its also meant wearing armor or carrying weapons heavier than infantry typically would. Rough Riders in a number of instances have been described as the children of nobility or the elite from Feudal worlds. If we look at the other units similarly described we're looking at Storm Troopers and Crusaders... and I think from that we could easily imagine Rough Riders being better equipped than they presently are equipped.
Why do these children of the Imperium's nobility only get a lance and horse when there are some stomping around in giant walkers and others riding around in tanks? -Even if one were to argue they aren't as well off, there is a large gap between those units and rough riders.
Their lore and discription, in many ways the Rough Riders should effectively be the mounted close combat equivalent to Storm Troopers.
In the 40k setting it wouldn't be hard to imagine someone riding a beast of some kind and the rider wearing armor or carrying a shield or just wearing the sort of personal field generator some higher ranking officers have access to... or using the fact they are on a mount to carry the heavy power packs that typically make certain ranged or close combat weapons more prohibitive to carry. The 40k equivalent to the Queen's Lifeguard would similarly wear cuirass but while in our time its mostly ornamental, such a unit in the 40k era would be wearing chest plates not too unlike the Tempestus Scions... its not hard to justify a 4+ save for updated Rough Riders.
The bayonet didn't exist until the 'death' of armor. That is, the end of armor being a common sight on the battlefield. Until the charge in Iraq, pretty much every bayonet charge has been done by unarmored men.
Yeah, but that is because strictly speaking, melee simply requires the ability to close without unacceptable losses to ranged fire. In the further past, this required shields and armour. In the age of musket and horse, it was due to the slow fire rate of muskets- muskets supplanting bows for a variety of complex reasons. Effective body armour against small arms is a feasible possibility for the future (and true in the 40k setting). Weapons returning to a very slow fire rate is not going to happen, so can be discounted when discussing the 40k setting (which is why I didn't mention it).
I mainly mentioned the recent bayonet charges because they have been extremely uncommon since at least WWII and more likely WWI, and especially outside urban combat and storming fortifications. Bayonet charges over open ground haven't featured much since the 19th century. Yet one occurred in Afghanistan over fairly open terrain against foes with automatic small arms. Hence why I am wondering if the modern rise in heavy infantry may see a small increase in melee combat. Of course, British units also conducted bayonet charges in the Fauklands, so it may just be because the British Army is bonkers.
There is only one thing that is likely to make melee viable again- effective personal armour. This exists in 40k, so really any cavalry should be using armour.
The only reason melee remained viable after the invention of slings and bows is effective portable defence- shields and armour. This balance could shift back, although it is unlikely to match pace with the increasing firepower available to troops. Having said that, true heavy infantry is a thing again for the first time in centuries, so maybe the balance could shift. We've seen British heavy infantry pull off successful bayonet charges in the last couple of decades, for example. An argument could be made that these units would've performed just as well without the armour though.
Interestingly, the introduction of tanks forced poorly equipped infantry to adopt desperate melee tactics to defeat them, so there is precedence for this.
The Rough Riders have never really been updated and I think that is one of their issues. Setting aside the modern viability of cavalry, in historical and near modern use they've mostly been elite units, where the current rough riders are instead treated as just guardsmen on horses.
Whether its been light cavalry or heavy cavalry one thing that has been relatively consistent in history, is the fact that riding a horse means you can carry "more"... sometimes that just meant more supplies for autonomy, self sufficiency and scouting, but its also meant wearing armor or carrying weapons heavier than infantry typically would. Rough Riders in a number of instances have been described as the children of nobility or the elite from Feudal worlds. If we look at the other units similarly described we're looking at Storm Troopers and Crusaders... and I think from that we could easily imagine Rough Riders being better equipped than they presently are equipped.
Why do these children of the Imperium's nobility only get a lance and horse when there are some stomping around in giant walkers and others riding around in tanks? -Even if one were to argue they aren't as well off, there is a large gap between those units and rough riders.
Their lore and discription, in many ways the Rough Riders should effectively be the mounted close combat equivalent to Storm Troopers.
In the 40k setting it wouldn't be hard to imagine someone riding a beast of some kind and the rider wearing armor or carrying a shield or just wearing the sort of personal field generator some higher ranking officers have access to... or using the fact they are on a mount to carry the heavy power packs that typically make certain ranged or close combat weapons more prohibitive to carry. The 40k equivalent to the Queen's Lifeguard would similarly wear cuirass but while in our time its mostly ornamental, such a unit in the 40k era would be wearing chest plates not too unlike the Tempestus Scions... its not hard to justify a 4+ save for updated Rough Riders.
This is the kind of Rough rider I would like to see- heavy cavalry that can be built as lancers or dragoons. Something like the DKoK Death riders, but with carbine options. Of course, Death rider steeds don't wear armour, but the horses in this case are heavily augmented in other ways.
The one that happened in Iraq was successful in large part to the poor training of the defenders. In addition to that though, US troops have done room clearing with bayonets and tomahawks in the same area.
aka_mythos wrote: Very true. Those Mechanicus engineered horse - gecko hybrids are pretty awesome.
Tiennos wrote: As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.
As cool as it looks, I have to say that attempts at any kind of close combat against enemies armed with heavy, fast firing weapons like autocannons, or heavy bolters, is kinda hard to believe...
This whole game requires a pretty deep suspension of disbelief just to have a close combat. Nomads or knights, men from some backward planet riding animals making use of whatever limited technology they have is far easier to believe than daemons, acid blooded hiveminded aliens, living egyptian robots, and even psychic mind powers.
Do you disbelieve it when Kroot use Krootox? Do you disbelieve it when daemons ride their mounts?
Your concern about cavalry is built into the game. Your opponent has a shooting phase. Your opponent gets to overwatch. If the 40k world was "real" more of your games would end with both armies being nuked from orbit, or bombarded by aircraft so high up you never get to shoot at them, or blasted by Titans many kilometers away. If Rough Riders die to shooting, they die to it, if they don't then they don't; just like the countless other units in this game that require you to accept that they'd ever really have a chance to get across the battlefield.
First, I know it's fantasy, but you can't excuse absolutely everything with "it looks fun/cool" either, because there's no limit to that. And when you get to the point where a guy can break a planet by punching it real hard, then there's no point in anything else anymore.
Second, I'm not against riders. If I was good at modelling, I'd make Space Horses to go with some Space Marines. What are sci-fi knights without their sci-fi steeds, right? But the mounts need protection similar to their riders to have a similar chance of getting anywhere.
So if Rough Riders' horses are supposed to be wearing barding, or be genetically-altered super horses, or cyborg horses (cyborses?), then I guess it's ok for me. It's mostly the "mongol horde" style cavalry that seems weird to me, anyway.
"Rule of cool" is 90% of 40k. While I understand there is some limit to before things just seem stupid, cavalry is real, it has context in the setting, and it only conceptually "fails" when you impose logic that makes much larger portions of the game and setting fail. You wouldn't say Star Wars fails as story because light sabers are unbelievable. For you to get to the point where light sabers are a problem you are going to encounter countless other problems.
What you're getting at is a case of Rough Riders being frozen in their 2nd edition interpretation of their concept. Rough Riders are described as being the elite and children of nobility from feudal worlds; there is nothing elite or feudal about their rules.
When you stop and look at how the Imperial Guard were originally conceived when they came up with the different units way back when, each "elite" was a certain archetype commando, sniper, brute etc... Each designed to address "how mere humans" can compete with a Space Marine. All are specialized and taken to grim dark extremes to justify it and in each case they come from seemingly distant parts of the galaxy, separate and removed from the main regiments they are attached to. You have Storm Troopers that are almost as indoctrinated as Marines. You have Ratlings and Ogryn abhumans that evolved to get to a point they are as sharp eyed or tough. Then you have Rough Riders, humans riding horses and equipped with a 12ft pole that has an explosive on the tip... the extreme required to have a "human" fast enough to quickly attack a space marine and actually have a chance of against them.
Storm Troopers, Ogryns, and even Ratling have had minor updates to keep up with how the rules have changed. Rough Riders not as much. Storm Troopers and Ogryns have been expanded on to make them more capable in their particular niches. Rough Riders not so much.
Rough Riders are described as being the elite and children of nobility from feudal worlds. Other instances where units have similar descriptions: Knight Titans, Storm Troopers, Crusaders, Tank commanders like Pask, and Rough Riders. Of all those I think the Rough Riders is least like the others a most lacking.
The Death Korps of Kriegs, Deathriders is one form of the Rough Rider concept updated and I think it does it well. It shows what happens when you take the concept to a grimdark extreme, making them indoctrinated, giving them armor and psyber-steeds. When you read everything that makes their horses special, those horses are the Astartes of horses; genetically engineered and cybernetically enhanced.
So even while the discussion is on "Rough Riders" part of the argument is for the idea and for what they could be if GW ever updated the models and rules for them.
This is the kind of Rough rider I would like to see- heavy cavalry that can be built as lancers or dragoons. Something like the DKoK Death riders, but with carbine options. Of course, Death rider steeds don't wear armour, but the horses in this case are heavily augmented in other ways.
They're cybernetically enhanced... In the lore there are plenty of instances of sub-dermal armor being a part of a cybernetic enhancement. No doubt these horses have that and when your horse is partially metal, adding armor isn't as necessary.
Again, I have no problems with in-setting justifications as to why horse mounted cavalry works. Powered horse armor, robo-steeds, whatever.
There are in-setting justifications as to why melee combat is a thing and it is good enough for me.
What I do have a problem with is people who want to have "plain jane" horses on the 40k tabletop with a totally straight face, and take umbrage when I point out that it's a stupid idea and there needs to be some justification behind it. Furthermore these same people seem to be laboring under the delusion that horses are used as anything but "better than nothing" beasts of burden in modern militaries, and seem to think a massed cavalry charge against tanks with RPG lances would work in real life. Protip: It won't outside of hilariously contrived circumstances. Either that, or these same people are being purposely contrarian.
Motorcycles aren't very effective except in niche roles in modern warfare either... most nations don't field motorcycle infantry. However, when we are talking about 40k... high-tech motorcycle RR has that certain something that makes it PALATABLE when put into the context of the setting. Horse RRIMO do NOT, unless there is something more there to justify them...
Furthermore, the original argument that generated this discussion is that if guard get new RR models, should they be motorcycle RR or horse RR? I am obviously of the opinion that they should be motorcycle RR because I think that it is less anachronistic and fits with the setting better. But the argument that we should get horse RR models because: "you can just convert motorcycle RR from marine bikes" is not a valid argument when I can just as easily say "you can just convert horse RR from fantasy models".
Mmmpi wrote: The one that happened in Iraq was successful in large part to the poor training of the defenders. In addition to that though, US troops have done room clearing with bayonets and tomahawks in the same area.
You really need to stop spreading this trash.
They're not running around COD style bayoneting everyone or hucking tomahawks around. They're isolated instances.
Crimson wrote: Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)
Again, you fail to understand what the equipment of the setting is actually capable of. Flak armor and lasguns are miles better than even modern guns and armor... chainswords can cut through power armor. There is a justified reason why those things work.
I con't believe people are fighting about the realism of using cavalry units in a game where a psychic being can do damage to a tank with their mind. An imortal great psycher made 20 sons stealing powers from literal gods in order to defeat said gods. But somehow horseback riding soldiers... that's the line? This is 40k, rule of cool applies 1000% to GW and its their game/world. want realism? go play bolt action or something
the question is why people liek them, they say why they think they are cool and get attacked for it?
Crimson wrote: Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)
Again, you fail to understand what the equipment of the setting is actually capable of. Flak armor and lasguns are miles better than even modern guns and armor... chainswords can cut through power armor. There is a justified reason why those things work.
Nonsense. Lasgun is barely better than modern rifles, it has same stats in the game than autogun, and chainsword certainly can't cut through power armour, its purpose is to rend flesh. And they have the bomb lances. If magic a scify word thrown in makes it all work for you, let's say they're armed with corbomite bombs. Yay, a viable scifi unit for W1zard!
Just look at the tabletop. A couple of plasma gun, melta gun, a few cannons here and there and suddenly, a few dozen Space Marine looks like something that can be handled. The same thing would go in 40K. Space Marines are only ever useful when they aren't caught in the open fighting against well armed forces. I don't remember the last time in Space Marine book where they fought an army of humans where one out of five had a anti-armor weapon and an armored vehicle for every 20-30 footsoldier. To give you an idea, in a hundred to one fight, that would mean about 20 anti-tank/anti-armor weapon and 3 tanks per Space Marine.
The setting works as form of legend told by supersticious people desperate to grasp at some hope. Nothing really make sense beside that.
Rough Rider also make sense in the context of desperation. Any army that is on its last leg will deploy cavalry. Hell they will deploy child soldiers, untrained people. Your mom, who jasn't practice any sport since she passed the age of 21 and is enjoying menopause could get physically qualified to be a front line trooper for as a war advances, physical requirements go down until they don't exist anymore beside "are you blind and do you have over 85% of your limbs?". In the best circomstances, Rough Riders are a circumstancial tool in a military arsenal useful. In the worst ones, they are what's left and you have to use them or you have to surrender.
G00fySmiley wrote: I con't believe people are fighting about the realism of using cavalry units in a game where a psychic being can do damage to a tank with their mind. An imortal great psycher made 20 sons stealing powers from literal gods in order to defeat said gods. But somehow horseback riding soldiers... that's the line? This is 40k, rule of cool applies 1000% to GW and its their game/world. want realism? go play bolt action or something
the question is why people liek them, they say why they think they are cool and get attacked for it?
You know what is kinda funny about your statement? When I played Bolt Action, I actually did get a little upset at Polish Cavalry units because they were so good in the game and machine guns weren't very good to counter them. Too many people started to take them and the games got too far from my image of World War II a bit too often. I just can't see having an issue with cavalry in Warhammer 40k though. I just don't think the setting is that sci-fi. Nor do I want it do be. If I want a little more of a sci-fi game I would probably go with Mantic's Warpath. Last time I looked at Warpath, they were going way more sci-fi and less fantasy with that setting even though it still has many of the Tolkien tropes in it.
Crimson wrote: Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)
Again, you fail to understand what the equipment of the setting is actually capable of. Flak armor and lasguns are miles better than even modern guns and armor... chainswords can cut through power armor. There is a justified reason why those things work.
Nonsense. Lasgun is barely better than modern rifles, it has same stats in the game than autogun, and chainsword certainly can't cut through power armour, its purpose is to rend flesh. And they have the bomb lances. If magic a scify word thrown in makes it all work for you, let's say they're armed with corbomite bombs. Yay, a viable scifi unit for W1zard!
Depends. Sometimes lasguns are described as powerful enough to sever limbs, but semi-auto only. Sometimes they're full-auto but not powerful enough for a single hit to be very effective at stopping a determined human attacker. Autoguns actually used to be slightly better at penetrating armor than lasguns (AP 6 vs AP -) before they gave them the same stats for the sake of simplicity.
Flak Armor I've generally seen described as not usually being able to stop direct hits from weapons but being useful protection against shrapnel (kind of like the name suggests).
I thought that chainswords used to have an armor penetration value in 2nd? I didn't start until 3rd, so that's before my time. They are described as being useful for chewing through armor, which is pretty absurd but that's how it works in-universe. Exactly like how cavalry charging tanks with bomb spears is fairly absurd but that's the way it works in-universe because the fluff says so.
G00fySmiley wrote: I con't believe people are fighting about the realism of using cavalry units in a game where a psychic being can do damage to a tank with their mind. An imortal great psycher made 20 sons stealing powers from literal gods in order to defeat said gods. But somehow horseback riding soldiers... that's the line?
Yep.
FTL travel and psychic powers? Sure. Machine priests, laser guns, immortal god emperor, fine. Horse riding cavalry on a sci-fi battlefield with no/inadequate explanation? Nope, too far for me. People in this thread need to look up suspension of disbelief and why it is so important to storytelling. The setting explains all that other stuff pretty well.
How can you accept orks charging guns but not accept horses charging guns? Horses are probably tougher than ork boyz anyway. (horses weigh 1000+ lbs with larger breeds reaching 2000 lbs, and I don't imagine boyz being that large, though I could be wrong)
And on top of that, armoring horses is pretty easy in the grand scheme of things. Slap some plates on the horse and suddenly it's way tougher and scarier than a motorbike. Then we could always say that they're genetically enhanced horses to be faster, stronger and tougher with thicker skin, a bullet-proof skull and redundant organs. The lances could be "power lances" since that seems to work for you for some reason.
It really doesn't matter, since many of us just think mixing horses with high tech gear is awesome. Motorbikes just don't have the same appeal to me tbh.
Regardless, most of us seem to have no problem suspending our disbelief when it comes to Rough Riders.
Mmmpi wrote: The one that happened in Iraq was successful in large part to the poor training of the defenders. In addition to that though, US troops have done room clearing with bayonets and tomahawks in the same area.
You really need to stop spreading this trash.
They're not running around COD style bayoneting everyone or hucking tomahawks around. They're isolated instances.
I never said they were. I said it happened, and more than once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
w1zard wrote: Again, I have no problems with in-setting justifications as to why horse mounted cavalry works. Powered horse armor, robo-steeds, whatever.
There are in-setting justifications as to why melee combat is a thing and it is good enough for me.
What I do have a problem with is people who want to have "plain jane" horses on the 40k tabletop with a totally straight face, and take umbrage when I point out that it's a stupid idea and there needs to be some justification behind it. Furthermore these same people seem to be laboring under the delusion that horses are used as anything but "better than nothing" beasts of burden in modern militaries, and seem to think a massed cavalry charge against tanks with RPG lances would work in real life. Protip: It won't outside of hilariously contrived circumstances. Either that, or these same people are being purposely contrarian.
Motorcycles aren't very effective except in niche roles in modern warfare either... most nations don't field motorcycle infantry. However, when we are talking about 40k... high-tech motorcycle RR has that certain something that makes it PALATABLE when put into the context of the setting. Horse RRIMO do NOT, unless there is something more there to justify them...
Furthermore, the original argument that generated this discussion is that if guard get new RR models, should they be motorcycle RR or horse RR? I am obviously of the opinion that they should be motorcycle RR because I think that it is less anachronistic and fits with the setting better. But the argument that we should get horse RR models because: "you can just convert motorcycle RR from marine bikes" is not a valid argument when I can just as easily say "you can just convert horse RR from fantasy models".
The problem is that you want us to accept your "Melee is fine" while rejecting our "horses are cool". As for the rest of that paragraph, you've already been told that's not the argument being made. Is there a reason you don't want to read the text being posted here? Are you trying to start a fight? And yet, there you are, trying to strawman people.
I agree motorcycles in 40K are rule of cool. So are horses. What you consider cool doesn't trump what I think is cool. I'm saying both options are fine.
I said convert from the Jackel kit. The GSC bike unit, not Space Marines. I've said it once in this thread, and twice in the IG wishlist thread. Ideally they would have both horses and bike kits, so people could have the option for cyber horses. But the limits of the previous argument was one kit.
Crimson wrote: Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)
Again, you fail to understand what the equipment of the setting is actually capable of. Flak armor and lasguns are miles better than even modern guns and armor... chainswords can cut through power armor. There is a justified reason why those things work.
M-16's and AK-47's also shoot through power armor. A lasgun hits as hard as those two weapons. (See autogun.) A chainsword and a bayonet have the same ability to wound and defeat power armor. A bayonet in 40K (for the IG) is usually just a steel knife with a lug.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
G00fySmiley wrote: I con't believe people are fighting about the realism of using cavalry units in a game where a psychic being can do damage to a tank with their mind. An imortal great psycher made 20 sons stealing powers from literal gods in order to defeat said gods. But somehow horseback riding soldiers... that's the line? This is 40k, rule of cool applies 1000% to GW and its their game/world. want realism? go play bolt action or something
the question is why people liek them, they say why they think they are cool and get attacked for it?
G00fySmiley wrote: I con't believe people are fighting about the realism of using cavalry units in a game where a psychic being can do damage to a tank with their mind. An imortal great psycher made 20 sons stealing powers from literal gods in order to defeat said gods. But somehow horseback riding soldiers... that's the line?
Yep.
FTL travel and psychic powers? Sure. Machine priests, laser guns, immortal god emperor, fine. Horse riding cavalry on a sci-fi battlefield with no/inadequate explanation? Nope, too far for me. People in this thread need to look up suspension of disbelief and why it is so important to storytelling. The setting explains all that other stuff pretty well.
The problem is that you're projecting YOUR suspension of disbelief on the rest of us.
Crimson wrote: Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)
Again, you fail to understand what the equipment of the setting is actually capable of. Flak armor and lasguns are miles better than even modern guns and armor... chainswords can cut through power armor. There is a justified reason why those things work.
Nonsense. Lasgun is barely better than modern rifles, it has same stats in the game than autogun, and chainsword certainly can't cut through power armour, its purpose is to rend flesh. And they have the bomb lances. If magic a scify word thrown in makes it all work for you, let's say they're armed with corbomite bombs. Yay, a viable scifi unit for W1zard!
Depends. Sometimes lasguns are described as powerful enough to sever limbs, but semi-auto only. Sometimes they're full-auto but not powerful enough for a single hit to be very effective at stopping a determined human attacker. Autoguns actually used to be slightly better at penetrating armor than lasguns (AP 6 vs AP -) before they gave them the same stats for the sake of simplicity.
Flak Armor I've generally seen described as not usually being able to stop direct hits from weapons but being useful protection against shrapnel (kind of like the name suggests).
I thought that chainswords used to have an armor penetration value in 2nd? I didn't start until 3rd, so that's before my time. They are described as being useful for chewing through armor, which is pretty absurd but that's how it works in-universe. Exactly like how cavalry charging tanks with bomb spears is fairly absurd but that's the way it works in-universe because the fluff says so.
The default minimum power for an acceptable lasgun for military use in the Great Crusade was 70% mortality from a single shot to the torso of an unarmoured human (it doesn't state if medical care was given). Considering the different mechanisms of injury compared to a bullet, I don't know how much can be inferred from this. As you point out, lasguns can also have a variable power-per-shot, so this standard may be intended to set a minimum power-per-shot with lasgun patterns like the Lucius pattern notably exceeding this with a lower fire rate.
Autoguns are supposed to be better than modern assault rifles, although how is not generally mentioned (I think there are some references to caseless ammunition, but most models have ejection ports). Given the Imperium has far superior materials tech to us now, this isn't surprising. Autoguns are not equal to modern general-issue assault rifles, at worst they are modern rifles made with wonder materials by todays standards.
Likewise, "flak" armour looks to be pretty effective against projectiles (capable of stopping the closest equivalent to modern day heavy machine guns in 40k- heavy stubbers), and carapace armour is very impressive. Current personal armour couldn't hope to stop a direct hit from a .50 BMG cartridge, yet flak armour can do just that.
Haighus wrote: The default minimum power for an acceptable lasgun for military use in the Great Crusade was 70% mortality from a single shot to the torso of an unarmoured human (it doesn't state if medical care was given). Considering the different mechanisms of injury compared to a bullet, I don't know how much can be inferred from this. As you point out, lasguns can also have a variable power-per-shot, so this standard may be intended to set a minimum power-per-shot with lasgun patterns like the Lucius pattern notably exceeding this with a lower fire rate.
Autoguns are supposed to be better than modern assault rifles, although how is not generally mentioned (I think there are some references to caseless ammunition, but most models have ejection ports). Given the Imperium has far superior materials tech to us now, this isn't surprising. Autoguns are not equal to modern general-issue assault rifles, at worst they are modern rifles made with wonder materials by todays standards.
Likewise, "flak" armour looks to be pretty effective against projectiles (capable of stopping the closest equivalent to modern day heavy machine guns in 40k- heavy stubbers), and carapace armour is very impressive. Current personal armour couldn't hope to stop a direct hit from a .50 BMG cartridge, yet flak armour can do just that.
Interesting. I hadn't read the 70% mortality rate bit.
I do remember getting the impression way back when that autoweapons were supposed to use caseless ammunition and fire relatively small projectiles at a really high velocity and rate of fire, while more normal firearms firing cased ammunition were all called stubbers. I'm not sure where this idea came from, maybe the Inquisitor RPG? Anyway, you're right in that most autoguns today just appear to be regular rifles. Where does the idea that they are super high-tech come from?
Not sure I agree about the flak armor. I don't remember reading anywhere that it could reliably stop hits from a heavy stubber. Got a source? A lot of heavy stubbers also appear to fire cartridges substantially smaller than .50 BMG.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: Not sure I agree about the flak armor. I don't remember reading anywhere that it could reliably stop hits from a heavy stubber. Got a source? A lot of heavy stubbers also appear to fire cartridges substantially smaller than .50 BMG.
I think this is one of those things where the rules are heavily generalized for the sake of simplicity. A "heavy stubber" on the standard IG tank upgrade sprue is a short-barrelled M2 .50cal, a "heavy stubber" for the DKoK is a .303 Bren gun, but both have the exact same rules. And flak armor has a 33% chance of stopping both of them.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: Not sure I agree about the flak armor. I don't remember reading anywhere that it could reliably stop hits from a heavy stubber. Got a source? A lot of heavy stubbers also appear to fire cartridges substantially smaller than .50 BMG.
I think this is one of those things where the rules are heavily generalized for the sake of simplicity. A "heavy stubber" on the standard IG tank upgrade sprue is a short-barrelled M2 .50cal, a "heavy stubber" for the DKoK is a .303 Bren gun, but both have the exact same rules. And flak armor has a 33% chance of stopping both of them.
Generalizing a wide variety of machine guns into one heavy stubber profile does make a lot of sense. The Chimera on my desk has one, but the cartridges coming out of the belt look a lot smaller than .50 BMG. on the other hand, it could very well be that the GSC manning it is out of scale with the tank.
Flak Armor also has a 33% chance of bouncing a round from a bolter, which I think would be a pretty rare occurrence in the fluff. I definitely don't think that tabletop rules should be thrown out in background discussions, but they can lead to some weird places.
To be fair, if you're at the point of having to eat your horses to survive then you're probably screwed anyway and you would have been better off not having the horse and keeping its food for the soldiers. The real advantage of horses is that it's a hell of a lot easier to supply horse food than gas/spare parts/etc for a bike, especially in the context of interstellar war. Any human-habitable planet is going to have food that a horse can eat, probably within a very short distance from where the battle is happening, but if you want to support those bikes you may have to haul fuel/parts/etc across interstellar distances and deal with all of the logistics hell of getting it from the landing zone to wherever the bike cavalry is. And that can easily get into the exponential growth problem where now you have to haul trucks to haul the fuel, then more fuel for the trucks, then more trucks to haul that fuel, and so on until your army implodes under the weight of its logistics burden.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: Not sure I agree about the flak armor. I don't remember reading anywhere that it could reliably stop hits from a heavy stubber. Got a source? A lot of heavy stubbers also appear to fire cartridges substantially smaller than .50 BMG.
I think this is one of those things where the rules are heavily generalized for the sake of simplicity. A "heavy stubber" on the standard IG tank upgrade sprue is a short-barrelled M2 .50cal, a "heavy stubber" for the DKoK is a .303 Bren gun, but both have the exact same rules. And flak armor has a 33% chance of stopping both of them.
Generalizing a wide variety of machine guns into one heavy stubber profile does make a lot of sense. The Chimera on my desk has one, but the cartridges coming out of the belt look a lot smaller than .50 BMG. on the other hand, it could very well be that the GSC manning it is out of scale with the tank.
Flak Armor also has a 33% chance of bouncing a round from a bolter, which I think would be a pretty rare occurrence in the fluff. I definitely don't think that tabletop rules should be thrown out in background discussions, but they can lead to some weird places.
I agree that rules-based arguments can be... odd sometimes. However, if you look at pre-8th rules for the heavy stubber, it was AP6 from 3rd to 7th. Bolters/stormbolters were AP5, so ignored flak armour. That is where my argument comes from- heavy stubbers were not capable of ignoring flak armour for 5 editions of the game where bolters could (bolters being described as armour piercing).
Of course, this depends on what you call reliably Flak armour in the rules only ever stops 1/3rd of "shots". However, I have always felt a 40k rules "shot" to be equivalent to a burst for that weapon type, which could be a single missile or shell, or a short burst of several shots for a heavy stubber or something, which are abstracted into reasonable quanta for a tabletop game. In that context, it isn't urprising that armour which isn't totally covering the body doesn't stop a hail of shots all that often, even if the armour itself can stop the individual shots.
Alright, so I had to remake my name here as I haven't posted on forums much lately and not really at all here that I think of. That said, I had to take a stand for my boys, The Riders of the Rough.
As has been mentioned, yes they are silly. However they are also amazing in their visual appeal for some people. Now if they make bike versions, or horses, or cyber horses or some cross in between like genetic super horses, whatever they do, I want them back.
They fit the silly but fun appeal of a 40k unit, they have a niche that could be cool and a multi part kit done right to modernize the models and make them more like their own core unit would sell a lot to me at least as well as some other cavalry super fans. Not to get mired in the discussion of those who hate or love the idea, I'll just leave this quote which I think speaks to every Rough Rider lover. One of my favorite guard quotes as a matter of fact. Enjoy and bring on the space horses GW, I want them.
"I have seen war in all its forms. I have seen feral world savages braining each other with stones, and I have monitored the death of a whole planet at the hands of a virus bomb. I have seen Space Marines drop to certain death, and win. I have seen Titans crush whole platoons underfoot. But there is no more stirring sight in war than the charge of massed cavalry."
But it looks bloody awesome, so I'd rather keep them in the 
.
