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.

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

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

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

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 KommissarKiln wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CplPunishment wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CplPunishment wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, sentinels.

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



A smaller cousin to the Taurox?

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

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

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

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

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Again, sentinels.

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



A smaller cousin to the Taurox?

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

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

Bonus points, there was a "guntruck" variant.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Again, sentinels.

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



A smaller cousin to the Taurox?

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

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there even that big a different anymore?

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

Priorities with peoples suspension of belief here.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

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

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

Now they're all in a single unit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Priorities with peoples suspension of belief here.

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

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

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

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

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

 Polonius wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there even that big a different anymore?

It's a pretty big difference, yeah.

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

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

 Battlegrinder wrote:

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

Priorities with peoples suspension of belief here.

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

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

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

@ Kanluwen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Kanluwen

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

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

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

 KommissarKiln wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Polonius wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ehhh...

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

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

Merrils marauders used donkeys during the explots in ww2.

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Polonius wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Kanluwen wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CplPunishment wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few ideas, I am sure more will come.