Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also as to Rough Riders keep in mind that GW's release strategy is likely going to be very different going forward than it was in the past. Before it was Codex and then a ton of new models.

Now though they will have released all of the codexes in a short period of time. So they will probably do smaller individual unit releases going forward, which would allow them to release new Rough Riders with rules included or in PDF format.

 Fayric wrote:
GW hate horses.
Just look at AoS -any unit riding horses are either not sold anymore, not included in updated rulebooks or get such crappy rules no one can include them in a serious game.
Instead you get IP protected demigryphs, bird cavalry, monster pigs, dragondogs etc.

The only hope Rough Riders have is if GW do a specific guard codex and release some weird lizard-riding cavalry. (i think thats a thing, but not sure about the source).

Oh, and why the heck would anyone want to use Rough Riders?

Marauder Horsemen, Pistoliers/Outriders, Chaos Knights, Ellyrion Reavers(in the Spire of Dawn set but still), Dragonblades, Dark Riders/Doomfire Warlocks...

There's horses around. They haven't gotten "updated rulebooks" yet but they are far from crappy rules. Dark Riders alone make the Scourge Privateers viable.

 vonjankmon wrote:
Also as to Rough Riders keep in mind that GW's release strategy is likely going to be very different going forward than it was in the past. Before it was Codex and then a ton of new models.

Now though they will have released all of the codexes in a short period of time. So they will probably do smaller individual unit releases going forward, which would allow them to release new Rough Riders with rules included or in PDF format.

Or they could have just shown some conversions and listed the models needed - like they already did for the stupid Grandmaster/Baby carrier for Grey Knights or inf act the Guard regiments in the very same book....

 BrookM wrote:
Rough Riders have the <REGIMENT> keyword, so rejoice.

It's worth mentioning that they have neither the INFANTRY nor the VEHICLE keywords, which means that a lot of the doctrines technically won't affect them. In fact, the only doctrine I can think of that affects them would be the Vostroyan doctrine, which is pretty nice if you get them plasmaguns.

 Fayric wrote:
GW hate horses.
Just look at AoS -any unit riding horses are either not sold anymore, not included in updated rulebooks or get such crappy rules no one can include them in a serious game.
Instead you get IP protected demigryphs, bird cavalry, monster pigs, dragondogs etc.

The only hope Rough Riders have is if GW do a specific guard codex and release some weird lizard-riding cavalry. (i think thats a thing, but not sure about the source).

Oh, and why the heck would anyone want to use Rough Riders?

Since there was no word today from GW, I assume no new preorder this week for codex on 14th? With Shadespire being 21st, that would mean no new codex until 28th.... disappointing.

 bullyboy wrote:
Since there was no word today from GW, I assume no new preorder this week for codex on 14th? With Shadespire being 21st, that would mean no new codex until 28th.... disappointing.

They let us know on Sunday what's going on preorder on Saturday. The preorders for the 7th can be found here:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/01/multipart-plague-marines-the-biologus-putrifier-and-more/

Codex Astra Militarum has been on preorder since Saturday and will be released on the 7th.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Codex-Astra-Militarum-hb-2017-eng

 Fayric wrote:
GW hate horses.
Just look at AoS -any unit riding horses are either not sold anymore, not included in updated rulebooks or get such crappy rules no one can include them in a serious game.
Instead you get IP protected demigryphs, bird cavalry, monster pigs, dragondogs etc.

The only hope Rough Riders have is if GW do a specific guard codex and release some weird lizard-riding cavalry. (i think thats a thing, but not sure about the source).



Oh, and why the heck would anyone want to use Rough Riders?

They’re pretty cool looking. Not the Attillans, cavalry in general.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Rough Riders are still legal per the Codex/Index FAQ:

Sure, until that goes out of print once they release all the Codices for the armies in that book (and a replacement PDF for Sisters players).

 Fayric wrote:


Oh, and why the heck would anyone want to use Rough Riders?

You'd have to ask the guy who brought 80 to NOVA:

http://sepulchreofheroes.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/fear-cavalry-my-converted-all-death.html

 Fayric wrote:
GW hate horses.
Just look at AoS -any unit riding horses are either not sold anymore, not included in updated rulebooks or get such crappy rules no one can include them in a serious game.
Instead you get IP protected demigryphs, bird cavalry, monster pigs, dragondogs etc.

The only hope Rough Riders have is if GW do a specific guard codex and release some weird lizard-riding cavalry. (i think thats a thing, but not sure about the source).

Oh, and why the heck would anyone want to use Rough Riders?

If I could give them lasrifles instead of Hunting Spears and use them a Dragoons/American Cavalry I would make an army with them. 1870s US Cav themed IG Rough Riders? Yes please.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Fayric wrote:


Oh, and why the heck would anyone want to use Rough Riders?

You'd have to ask the guy who brought 80 to NOVA:

http://sepulchreofheroes.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/fear-cavalry-my-converted-all-death.html

I don't think Rough Riders are bad, but note that these are DKoK Death Riders, which are far better.

Why want to use cavalry? Because they are fast and cavalry is glorious. Lower the lances and charge!

Well, time for more Warzone boxes for cheap conscripts, There's even a sale today (once added to cart).

http://shop.princeaugust.ie/tg2420-warzone-mutant-chronicles-tabletop-wargame/

 Therion wrote:
Hyperbole nonsense about Guard winning it all.

Try disallowing Elysian bs and Earthshaker Carriages, then comp you can only take max 3 detachments and max 3 of the same unit, and all of a sudden the most absurd stuff is out.

Max 3? Gee. You would kill my orks(4+ ork boyz common) and IG(who has heard IG infantry company without at least 4 squads of infantry? 3 is pretty normal for a platoon...). Generally any horde type of army would be in trouble. Especially ones with limited troop choices. Tyranids would likely be less than happy.

Meanwhile marines etc elite armies shrug it off.

Yeah we need more marine armies!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Rough Riders are still legal per the Codex/Index FAQ:

Sure, until that goes out of print once they release all the Codices for the armies in that book (and a replacement PDF for Sisters players).

Which even then would be player self-imposed ban.

tneva82 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Hyperbole nonsense about Guard winning it all.

Try disallowing Elysian bs and Earthshaker Carriages, then comp you can only take max 3 detachments and max 3 of the same unit, and all of a sudden the most absurd stuff is out.

Max 3? Gee. You would kill my orks(4+ ork boyz common) and IG(who has heard IG infantry company without at least 4 squads of infantry? 3 is pretty normal for a platoon...). Generally any horde type of army would be in trouble. Especially ones with limited troop choices. Tyranids would likely be less than happy.

Yeah, that limit would break my list even at just 1000 points with infantry squads and heavy weapon squads, which I've never heard anyone muster a credible complaint against. Doesn't scale and it would actually force me to take conscripts so that I could still have the troop presence I need.

The Complete Guide to Conscripts - https://regimental-standard.com/2017/10/04/the-complete-guide-to-conscripts/

* Some potential titles include:
– The Don’ts and Don’ts of Dealing with Mutants
– The Imperial Cult and the Art of Chainsword Maintenance
– Never Shake Hands With an Electro-Priest, And Other Advice For Fighting With The Adeptus Mechanicus

The order table is an odd part of that issue. All the rest seem to bebased on the rules except for that one.

I love Regimental Standard, their passive-aggresive and totally incorrect take to the community is priceless, like their article about how the Lasgun can kill Landraiders

 BrookM wrote:

– The Imperial Cult and the Art of Chainsword Maintenance

I don't want to admit it, but that's brilliant.

 vonjankmon wrote:
Also as to Rough Riders keep in mind that GW's release strategy is likely going to be very different going forward than it was in the past. Before it was Codex and then a ton of new models.

Now though they will have released all of the codexes in a short period of time. So they will probably do smaller individual unit releases going forward, which would allow them to release new Rough Riders with rules included or in PDF format.

That is what people said about AoS, but that isn't what happened. They've focused solely on small clumps of new armies or re-releasing old models as is (but with round bases!)

 Galas wrote:
I love Regimental Standard, their passive-aggresive and totally incorrect take to the community is priceless, like their article about how the Lasgun can kill Landraiders

This stuff is gameplay based?

I thought it was just taking 40k back to it's stupid, horrifically funny origins.

 NivlacSupreme wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I love Regimental Standard, their passive-aggresive and totally incorrect take to the community is priceless, like their article about how the Lasgun can kill Landraiders

This stuff is gameplay based?

I thought it was just taking 40k back to it's stupid, horrifically funny origins.

It's both. A lot of the "strategic/tactical" articles have tongue-in-cheek basis in internet netlisting and hyperbole via the most common social media and forum posts.

It used to be more from the standpoint of a guardsmen in the actual imperium universe. Now it's more about "if players were guardsmen" so the articles are almost entirely out of universe narrating.

The imperium wouldn't give this information to random guardsmen. Knowing evil is punishable by death, after all. Even knowing that there is something you aren't supposed to know is heresy. However, the fluff is more comical now and less utterly hopeless grimdark (which is a shame)

I wish whoever wrote the regimental standard could write some of the background in the actual books.

So when are we gonna make GW do an FAQ to affect Calvary with these rules?

It isn't even just for the Guard codex, stupidly good as it is. It's a matter of principle the models that are Calvary type be affected. Same with Chaos Marines and the Legion traits. If we don't speak up, we encourage the phasing out.

 Galas wrote:
I love Regimental Standard, their passive-aggresive and totally incorrect take to the community is priceless, like their article about how the Lasgun can kill Landraiders

You mean people weren't bitching about how the new damage table makes it totally possible and viable to just chip heavy tanks to death with small arms, provided you take no damage and have several turns to do so? I must have been misreading posts here then.

Played with the new codex. Internal balance is good as a lot of the units become good competitive considerations after the adjustment.

The strong outliers for imperium armies are still the same ones: conscripts, basilisks, psykers, scions and commisars.

I think you'd be seeing more IG lists and more of units like Plasma executioners (now somewhat efficient), Tank commanders (now can self order), and bullgryns (a really good frontline unit)

Calvhalla wrote:
Played with the new codex. Internal balance is good as a lot of the units become good competitive considerations after the adjustment.

The strong outliers for imperium armies are still the same ones: conscripts, basilisks, psykers, scions and commisars.

I think you'd be seeing more IG lists and more of units like Plasma executioners (now somewhat efficient), Tank commanders (now can self order), and bullgryns (a really good frontline unit)

Do you know if Crusaders got the AM keyword so they can ride in chimeras?

Yeah crusaders in a Valkyrie seem fun. Especially if Catachan ones are S4! Aren't they a minimum # small unit too? So I could fit 3 Bullgryn and 2 crusaders in it? Maybe a priest or Psyker too

I was just looking through my old 3rd edition codexes and I noticed that GWs building and painting skills are so much better now. It's hilarious. The hobby sections in the Catachan and 3rd edition codex are cool though. I like referencing them for painting inspiration. With Russes actually being viable I think I'm going to repaint mine since they're garbage from me painting them when I was like 12.