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

I honestly wonder if they're worth trying to save. Right now the unit has more problems with it than you can shake a stick at, not to mention a distinct lack of models for the unit. I'd almost rather our other units get some love before Rough Riders, but that's just my opinion.

 drunken0elf wrote:
rough riders need a full revamp. And I don't think anyone could possibly disagree.

I think they should be flatout cut from the codex, same with Ratlings.

Sadly the fact that they get namedropped in Mont'ka means I am very unlikely to get my wish.

 War Kitten wrote:
I honestly wonder if they're worth trying to save. Right now the unit has more problems with it than you can shake a stick at, not to mention a distinct lack of models for the unit. I'd almost rather our other units get some love before Rough Riders, but that's just my opinion.

Well, ironically, it is quite easy to fix them: Cut the costs, allow them to outflank, take flak armour and make the hunting lance work every combat and give the two wounds and a FNP save and +1 toughness.

Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.

Apart from to make them actually capable of surviving. Right now they cost over twice the amount of a regular bod but deliver far less.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.

Apart from to make them actually capable of surviving. Right now they cost over twice the amount of a regular bod but deliver far less.

That's what decreasing them in price, making them hit harder, ect. should do. They don't need to have FNP. It's unnecessary. +T makes as much sense as bikers getting it, but FNP makes absolutely no sense. They are just a guy on a horse. And 2W is sort of weird too. It really sounds like you don't want rough-rides but a whole new unit.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.

Apart from to make them actually capable of surviving. Right now they cost over twice the amount of a regular bod but deliver far less.

That's what decreasing them in price, making them hit harder, ect. should do. They don't need to have FNP. It's unnecessary. +T makes as much sense as bikers getting it, but FNP makes absolutely no sense. They are just a guy on a horse. And 2W is sort of weird too. It really sounds like you don't want rough-rides but a whole new unit.

I want a whole new unit.

One that isn't just "Napoleonics in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!".

Sadly, we're stuck with Rough Riders for awhile. They're name-dropped on the regimental stuff for Mont'ka, so they're not going anywhere.

Anyways, 2W and FNP? Not that far-fetched considering horses that were bred for knights were renowned for being hard to kill. It took the development of pikes and rifles to effectively kill off knights.

And the Imperium? The Imperium is mentioned as not just having horses bred for war, but CYBERNETICALLY ENHANCED WARHORSES!

Yes, quite far-fetched, horses are not that tough, even cyberneticly enhanced horses would be no tougher than, say, a war-bike. All it takes is a single broken leg, and that horse is down. At that point, most horses are just put down, it's so hard to fix. +T is acceptable considering bikes get it, but 2W is not, and FNP is just fething ridiculous and unnessiary.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.

Apart from to make them actually capable of surviving. Right now they cost over twice the amount of a regular bod but deliver far less.

That's what decreasing them in price, making them hit harder, ect. should do. They don't need to have FNP. It's unnecessary. +T makes as much sense as bikers getting it, but FNP makes absolutely no sense. They are just a guy on a horse. And 2W is sort of weird too. It really sounds like you don't want rough-rides but a whole new unit.

I mean, that's basically what FW did to DKoK Death Riders, they have 6+ FNP , 4+Sv, and W2, just not the +T

The big problem is that being T3, most of the time they're shot at, they don't ever get to use that 2nd wound, the FNP, or the 4+ save, or at least the 2nd wound and FNP, with stuff like Autocannons, Scatterlasers, Assault Cannons, Shuriken Cannons, Missile Pods, etc en-masse

Ultimately, I think however that the multi-wound, increased toughness, FNP-sporting units are a big problem with the game. Most of these units (Bikers, TWC's, Wraiths, etc) really have very little justification for being as hardy as they are, and they end up being absurdly resilient against both quantity and quality of firepower with basically no downsides in their functionality.

Initially, I really liked the DKoK Death Rider model, but in practical functionality they still don't really live long enough to do anything, and to make them do so starts putting them in the same realm as the above units. I think more and more that really they may be functional if they remain as they are, but are just made extremely cheap. If they were like 6ppm, people might look at them. Then if they die, oh well, if they don't, great, and that I think fits IG better than trying to make yet another multi-wound unit.

I'd go with S4 T4 Sv4+ on Rough Riders, ignoring the W2 and FNP in favor of a hefty points reduction - that brings the base model with LP&CCW to 7 pts.

Option to upgrade to +S Power Lances and/or 3 Special Weapons.

WS4 is a must.

They are cavalry, The spacewolf cavalry doesn't get a bonus T if I remember, so I don't see RR getting a bonus T, which is unfortunate.

BS4 can't be spat at either. It's crappy laspistols, but oh well. An upgrade to bolt pistols could be nice tho.

Carapace armor, YES PLEASE.

They need to either be a lot stronger on the initial charge or better after they have used their ok 1 trickpony weapons.

Idea of dragoons could be also cool. Basically a RR but with two boltpistols type of thing. Same rules and principle as the batlesisters Seraphim but it's cavalry in space yo! 100% more badass.
For people who don't know what Dragoons are : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon

 drunken0elf wrote:
WS4 is a must.

They are cavalry, The spacewolf cavalry doesn't get a bonus T if I remember, so I don't see RR getting a bonus T, which is unfortunate.

Oh they most definitely get a T bonus, they're very definitely T5.

They shouldn't be...but they are

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Why FNP and +T? I mean, +T could work (although they are still just a guy on a horse), but there is no reason for them to get FNP, gameplay or fluff.

Apart from to make them actually capable of surviving. Right now they cost over twice the amount of a regular bod but deliver far less.

That's what decreasing them in price, making them hit harder, ect. should do. They don't need to have FNP. It's unnecessary. +T makes as much sense as bikers getting it, but FNP makes absolutely no sense. They are just a guy on a horse. And 2W is sort of weird too. It really sounds like you don't want rough-rides but a whole new unit.

I want a whole new unit.

One that isn't just "Napoleonics in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!".

Sadly, we're stuck with Rough Riders for awhile. They're name-dropped on the regimental stuff for Mont'ka, so they're not going anywhere.

Anyways, 2W and FNP? Not that far-fetched considering horses that were bred for knights were renowned for being hard to kill. It took the development of pikes and rifles to effectively kill off knights.

And the Imperium? The Imperium is mentioned as not just having horses bred for war, but CYBERNETICALLY ENHANCED WARHORSES!

I think you'll find that the invention of the longbow basically killed off knights. Since the longbow came out, it was a race to build armor that could withstand it, which saw only limited success by the time gunpower became a thing, and it wasn't rifles but smoothbores that put the final nail in the coffin.

The way to get around having your horse be put down if its leg breaks is to make a servitor-horse mounted on an anti-grav sled.

 Psienesis wrote:
The way to get around having your horse be put down if its leg breaks is to make a servitor-horse mounted on an anti-grav sled.

If one can do that, one can make a (slow) Jetbike.

Or at least a Jump Pack.

At a minimum, one can use a regular Bike.

In no case is Cavalry a particularly good choice.

As much as I really dislike the concept of cavalry in a universe like 40k's in the "conventional military" faction, there's a couple ways I can see Cavalry having some sort of function.

Units raised from low-tech worlds operating in places where support for armored units simply may not be available in terms of logistics, or because of severe electrical storms or other atmospheric conditions, and against foes that are not likely to be utilizing significant ranged weapons. Say against Feral Orks or maybe primitive Eldar Exodites or operating along the flanks of armored columns through terrain that may be unsuitable for tanks.

I can see *some* applications, but nothing like the "yeah, hamfist Napoleonic cavalry into frontal attacks against automatic weapon wielding super soldiers" that the game tries to force them into.

Really, historically the most capable and feared cavalry units were not lancers or knights, but horse archers, that basically acted like an angry swarm of bees with gigantically powerful bows, devastating civilizations for over two thousand years, amongst dozens of Chinese states, ancient middle eastern empires like Babylon and Assyria, up through the Roman Empire and into the middle ages with the Mongols and their descendants, and not really being subdued until the widespread development of disciplined, organized, and plentiful firearms wielding infantry.

EDIT: actually, a cool cavalry unit, that would fit the "mongol" image the actual RR's have, would be basically just a normal Infantry Squad, but with the Cavalry unit type, and a special rule (they could call it "Feigned Flight") that would allow them to do something like the Warp Spiders "Flickerjump" if assaulted. That would probably work better in general, and reflect the "mongol" aspect better, along with fitting the IG playstyle more closely. Make them relatively cheap, and you'd have a winner.

It is easier and better to simply make "Rough Riders" a Veteran subtype, a la "Grenadiers", gaining Cavalry and H&R like Seraphim, or else Bikes with S&P. IG do not deserve "exotic" rules like Flickerjump, and even H&R / S&P are a bit much.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It is easier and better to simply make "Rough Riders" a Veteran subtype, a la "Grenadiers", gaining Cavalry and H&R like Seraphim, or else Bikes with S&P. IG do not deserve "exotic" rules like Flickerjump, and even H&R / S&P are a bit much.

the Veteran type I might agree with. I don't think however something like "flickerjump" is beyond something that IG would "deserve" on a specialized (and relatively fragile) unit reflecting a real-world tactic used for hundreds of years to great success by Cavalry, that kind of logic is what has kept IG a junk army for most of the game's lifespan.

Honestly. the more I think about it, the less I think RR's should really be a CC oriented unit. Successful cavalry throughout history has only rarely been melee centralized (and usually European), and I don't think with the way IG functions and the way the lances have ever worked, that something like H&R would ever do much good.

I strongly believe that IG should have only basic SRs, nothing really exotic or good. And that should be reflected in rock bottom per-model and per-unit costs. The idea of making IG "good" is foolish. We already have Eldar / Sisters / DEldar / Tau for that. Let IG be cheap and plentiful. The IG should only ever win through sheer quantity of volume and big numbers of, not quality or elites.

If IG become a Veteran-based unit, then the CC-focus functionally disappears because they start with BS4, while retain the option to take 3 Specials, which they will likely do. The Power Lance option becomes like the twin Lightning Claw option on Raptors - something that looks interesting from a completist standpoint, but nothing you'd ever take on the tabletop.

In principle I agree that IG should largely be a relatively "basic" army, but I don't think a "flickerjump" style ability against assaults, on T3 5+sv (maybe 4+sv) infantry would make them really astoundingly overly good or elite, it wouldn't augment killing power, wouldn't make them unkillable, it'd just force opponents to deal with them differently than normal putz guardsmen.

Also, at this point, with the way things are at this point in the game's life, I don't think any army can be made to function well purely on points costs. The killing power, speed, and ability of many units already existing in the game can cut through a few more guardsmen relatively easily, and, more fundamentally, there's a simple limit as to how much you can put on the table and how much of what you put on the table can be effective (e.g. "sweet, I've got 40 lascannon HWS's, but half of them can't see anything because I can't put them anywhere where they have LoS to anything, so my opponent only has to deal with half of them...")

Flickerjump is a *very* exotic ability, because it keeps happening and WS can move huge distances in a turn. It's only possible because it teleports the unit through the warp in a blink of an eye. For a ground-based unit, flickerjump is simply not appropriate. At best, they might voluntarily fall back. If RRs need flickerjump to be functional, I'd rather RRs be removed from the game permanently.

IG definitely can be resolved via points costs. Right now, a unit of 10 Guardsmen costs me 80+ points to field with ML & Plasmagun. That should be 45 points for the unit (with +1A Sgt, HB & Flamer) +5 for ML + pts for Plasma = 55 pts. I'd save -30% on Infantry costs. The 1,000 pts of Infantry I'd take today becomes 700 pts of Infantry, freeing up 300 pts. The 160 pts I currently play for a Leman Russ (Demolisher) becomes 110 pts, freeing up another 50 pts each. The 1750 pt army I currently field drops to 1250 pts, giving me 500-ish points overall. Instead of taking more low-density stuff that I already have enough of, I'd take those extra points for Baneblade & Valk, or Mech or whatever - increasing density and impact.

tl;dr, imagine if every IG army simply got a "FREE" Baneblade (in any configuration desired). Wouldn't that make Guard far more competitive than they are right now?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Flickerjump is a *very* exotic ability, because it keeps happening and WS can move huge distances in a turn. It's only possible because it teleports the unit through the warp in a blink of an eye. For a ground-based unit, flickerjump is simply not appropriate. At best, they might voluntarily fall back. If RRs need flickerjump to be functional, I'd rather RRs be removed from the game permanently.

Suffice to say I disagree, I don't think the such an ability used to guard against assaults, on a relatively weeny unit that can be very successfully engaged by other means, would be wildly exotic (certainly no moreso than combined squads or valyrie deep strike abilities or other such things). The problem I see with it being a fallback is that they'd be useless then next turn which is when you'd really need them to act.

And quite frankly, when armies like Eldar get to basically add +1 BS to their entire army for free (on top of lots of other new & free special rules) over the space of a couple of years, just because "well...space elves", the special rules have to go around a bit more.

IG definitely can be resolved via points costs. Right now, a unit of 10 Guardsmen costs me 80+ points to field with ML & Plasmagun. That should be 45 points for the unit (with +1A Sgt, HB & Flamer) +5 for ML + pts for Plasma = 55 pts. I'd save -30% on Infantry costs. The 1,000 pts of Infantry I'd take today becomes 700 pts of Infantry, freeing up 300 pts. The 160 pts I currently play for a Leman Russ (Demolisher) becomes 110 pts, freeing up another 50 pts each. The 1750 pt army I currently field drops to 1250 pts, giving me 500-ish points overall. Instead of taking more low-density stuff that I already have enough of, I'd take those extra points for Baneblade & Valk, or Mech or whatever - increasing density and impact.

tl;dr, imagine if every IG army simply got a "FREE" Baneblade (in any configuration desired). Wouldn't that make Guard far more competitive than they are right now?

How much do we inflate the scale of this game? If Superheavies are a required component in every game, how much *more* does that then contribute to the irrelevancy of something like the basic guardsman, when the scale inflates to the point where their only functional role is taking up physical board space?


I mean, I'm a huge fan of tanks. I own 4 Baneblades and dozens of other IG tanks and gobs of guardsmen. But I don't want to have to lug all that around all the time I don't want to be lugging one to every game. Once in a while, cool, but for evert 2k pickup game? Lets transition to Epic instead for that. Baneblades were supposed to be amazing centerpieces of large armies in special games, a transplant from a game of much larger scale, not taking the place of what the Leman Russ once was.

I mean, if we set that aside, sure, yeah, "free baneblades" will help anything, but I think if we step back, and take a look at that phrase, and put it within the context of 40k as a game, the issues become immediately apparent. "Free Baneblades" would be something you'd expect to see from a late night hyperbolic 4chan joke thread, not an actual serious balancing mechanic. If that's the point we're at, we've got problems.

That said, sadly, it would not be the only reality that just a short time ago was limited to late night 4chan joke threads.

They are men on horses retreating from the Enemy...

Eldar *should* get +1 BS - they're truly superhuman in every way except S&T. And BS5 vs BS4 really isn't that big of a deal when you look at the math for how much they cost. Just because Eldar are finally properly awesome does not mean that any other army should be Eldar-like. "Eldar envy" misses the entire point of what Eldar are.

Superheavies are already a required component of every game. As are Flyers. Guardsmen have never been more than extra wounds. And the easiest way to keep massed Guardsmen relevant is to always allow the Guard player to ignore "closest first" by always choosing their casualties. You want to kill a Lascannon, you'll have to go through 9 Guardsmen to do so...

I would have no problem "lugging" a Baneblade with me to every game, along with a dozen tanks and 200 Guardsmen. It's not like it takes up any more space in the bag (unlike a Warhound Titan or similar). If you're not fielding GCs & SH armor in your 2k games, you're doing it wrong. Baneblades should be part and parcel of any "large army", and 2000 pts of 40k7 is a large army. Very large indeed compared to the 1500 pts of 40k2 when the only Baneblade was Armorcast resin scaled up from the Epic model.

"FREE" Baneblades are indeed a serious balancing mechanic, given how much IG are currently overcosted. Do you dispute that IG are currently at least 25% overcosted? Do you dispute that the Baneblade is currently at least 25% overcosted? If you're talking 2,000 pts, then you're overpaying by at least 500 pts - the equivalent of what a fairly-priced, fully-loaded Baneblade platform should cost. So yes, IG have problems, and a massive points cost reduction across the board is a valid way to address it. It just happens to be my preferred "fix" for Guard.

Again, if you take your current 2k list, added a "FREE" Baneblade-equivalent, would that not give Decurion and Gladius and the others a relatively competitive game? So, what's the problem?

Again, if you take your current 2k list, added a "FREE" Baneblade-equivalent, would that not give Decurion and Gladius and the others a relatively competitive game? So, what's the problem?

Most games are at 1500pts not 2k, a free baneblade dies turn one what ever it is free or not. And it would suck if to play IG one would have to start with buying a baneblade. Where would one get one anyway, stores don't sell them and even the recast ones cost a lot. Worse while a store owner may not notice or care if a Knight is a recast one, because he sells them too, he will notice automaticly if an IG player suddenly turns up with a baneblade he does not sell.

@Makumba - in the US, most games are 1850-2000; games haven't been 1500 for a long time.

Stores definitely do sell Baneblades - it's been available in plastic for several years.

Finally, I'm not sure, but I suspect that you miss the key point of IG being overcosted. The "FREE" Baneblade is simply a concrete way of describing 400-500 points.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
imagine if every IG army simply got a "FREE" Baneblade (in any configuration desired). Wouldn't that make Guard far more competitive than they are right now?

In a game with drop podding melta marines, no scatter D "flamer" eldar, gauss necron infantry and tank hunting / always rear hitting tau everywhere, the baneblade as it is, is useless. too much buck for a WS 3 bang.
i would prefer 6 chimeras over one baneblade any time ...

 vostroyan second born wrote:
In a game with drop podding melta marines, no scatter D "flamer" eldar, gauss necron infantry and tank hunting / always rear hitting tau everywhere, the baneblade as it is, is useless. too much buck for a WS 3 bang.

That's what lovely blobs of cheap Guardsmen are for! To be honest there are a few pretty good formations in the book I think, I'm a big fan of the Sentinels one in particular. Take three teams all with autocannons for a good rate of fire and good strength and AP value and go to town.

Also the Leman Russ formation we're basically you get the old Holo Field rules is also quite viable. 5 Leman Russ battle tank variants and a tech priest with those rules is nothing to sneeze at. And I'm okay with not having all the cool new and shiny stuff that other armies get, I enjoyed the tactical challenge!

 gmaleron wrote:

 vostroyan second born wrote:
In a game with drop podding melta marines, no scatter D "flamer" eldar, gauss necron infantry and tank hunting / always rear hitting tau everywhere, the baneblade as it is, is useless. too much buck for a WS 3 bang.

That's what lovely blobs of cheap Guardsmen are for! To be honest there are a few pretty good formations in the book I think, I'm a big fan of the Sentinels one in particular. Take three teams all with autocannons for a good rate of fire and good strength and AP value and go to town.

Also the Leman Russ formation we're basically you get the old Holo Field rules is also quite viable. 5 Leman Russ battle tank variants and a tech priest with those rules is nothing to sneeze at. And I'm okay with not having all the cool new and shiny stuff that other armies get, I enjoyed the tactical challenge!

I run a light infantry long range penetration group. Bane blades, leman russes, and tracked vehicles in general, do not fit within the structure of that regiment.

Baneblades and hoards of infantry should not be the only way to play the guard. The problems with the guard need to be addressed differently and cannot be fixed by just giving out free stuff.

@Sledgehammer:

Could you explain further how a, or maybe just yours, light infantry regiment takes on the enemy? Or at least how it should.

Chaospling wrote:
@Sledgehammer:

Could you explain further how a, or maybe just yours, light infantry regiment takes on the enemy? Or at least how it should.

it holds the line until the spess mereen arrive and get the credit!

Chaospling wrote:
@Sledgehammer:

Could you explain further how a, or maybe just yours, light infantry regiment takes on the enemy? Or at least how it should.

Long Range Penetration
and Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols

These concepts are best exemplified by the Chindits Merril's Marauders The Long Range Desert Group, and the grueling combat patrols that soldiers often went on in Vietnam (see platoon).

Ground support is supplied via sentinels as they can easily, and stealthily, traverse terrain that conventional vehicles cannot. Small buggies and troop transports are supplied to the force for logistical reasons, and can also provide tactical mobility (although their inclusion is rare). I will in the future be making an armored car that will hopefully look like a Cadillac Gage with a 120mm cannon.

Tanks, APC's, and vehicles larger and/or heavier than the armored car that I just mentioned (which itself will suffer due to the terrain it is tasked to operate in) will have trouble maneuvering at all. To supplement the lack of armor, the group is often in contact with multiple artillery fire bases, and forward airfields.

The infantry engage only when it best suits them, using the terrain to mask their operations and strength of force.

to illustrate