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.

If they decide to create a new line of models, I hope that our future heavy weapon teams can have plasma cannons. If I remember correctly, there was an IG issue tripod mounted plasma cannon in the space marine game. That would be a good base to use.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Fuel isn't a problem for the Tauros or the Blackshadow/Hornet bikes. All of them utilize a battery that self-charges with movement.

Oh FFS no. "GW doesn't understand thermodynamics" should not be the starting point for fluff.

B) Kept fed. Horses eat quite a bit.

The difference is that horses (and similar animals) can be fed with local supplies, even literally eating as they go if the planet has appropriate human-standard plant life. Vehicles require vast amounts of fuel, hauled at extreme costs across interstellar distances, and equally extreme amounts of effort and resources invested into the distribution infrastructure to get the fuel to the vehicles that need it. Just look at the sheer amount of effort that went into supplying WWII armies with fuel, and the crippling problems that happened when the supply was disrupted or inadequate. And then increase those problems significantly to account for the fact that all that tank fuel is coming from another planet instead of an adjacent country. If a shipment of fuel is delayed/destroyed in orbit/etc your tanks are static emplacements until more can arrive, while the cavalry keeps moving.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they decide to create a new line of models, I hope that our future heavy weapon teams can have plasma cannons.

You mean grav cannons, right? Grav is good. Plasma cannons are not.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Death Korps of Krieg are still pretty much around, Tallarn Desert Raiders, and several others.

As far as I know on the DKoK actually uses them in combat, and largely to demonstrate exactly why it's a bad idea to do so (it's kind of in the name).

That's not to say the IG as a whole has no use for horses of any kind. Perhaps they'd see use as a means to get people through places vehicles can't go or for a regiment that lacks them. But they'd be mounted infantry, not cavalry, and mounted infantry ditch the horses and fight on foot (which IIRC is how the Tallarn's use them). They simple do not fit the rest of the IG thematically. I only give a pass to the DKoK because I'm not too familiar with them beyond the fact they're tactics tend to lean toward "suicidal" being the good outcome, and even then I think they're still better know for siege warfare and mechanized units than cavalry.

The Attilan Rough Riders. Equestrian troops are their specialty.


The Tallarn are more of a mechanized force, much like the Steel Legion. But they make some use of equestrian units.


The Kreig Death Riders are used for scouting, screening, and exploiting breakthroughs, especially in the kinds of "moonscapes" created by their style of warfare. Their steeds are specially bred for these kinds of environments.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they decide to create a new line of models, I hope that our future heavy weapon teams can have plasma cannons.

You mean grav cannons, right? Grav is good. Plasma cannons are not.

Why not make plasma cannons the cheap option for infantry squads (where BS3 doesn't hurt as much) and have grav be available for veterans and heavy weapon squads.

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they decide to create a new line of models, I hope that our future heavy weapon teams can have plasma cannons.

You mean grav cannons, right? Grav is good. Plasma cannons are not.

Why not make plasma cannons the cheap option for infantry squads (where BS3 doesn't hurt as much) and have grav be available for veterans and heavy weapon squads.

I'd rather they stop adding grav in general it just defeats the point of every other heavy weapon when one does the job of all of them.

Jbz` wrote:

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If they decide to create a new line of models, I hope that our future heavy weapon teams can have plasma cannons.

You mean grav cannons, right? Grav is good. Plasma cannons are not.

Why not make plasma cannons the cheap option for infantry squads (where BS3 doesn't hurt as much) and have grav be available for veterans and heavy weapon squads.

I'd rather they stop adding grav in general it just defeats the point of every other heavy weapon when one does the job of all of them.

That's because all the other heavy weapons don't do anything anymore. It takes 40 BS 4 lascannon shots to kill Riptide.

Jbz` wrote:
I'd rather they stop adding grav in general it just defeats the point of every other heavy weapon when one does the job of all of them.

Not having grav is a nice idea in theory, but it's way too late for that. Grav exists, and the only question left is whether you have a good codex with access to grav (or similarly powerful things), or a bad codex that only has 5th edition heavy weapons. Restricting/removing access to grav is only ok if they get rid of it for everyone.

I would like to point out that during WW1 cavalry was effective on the eastern front where they had room to manoeuvre. Cavalry were used in their tradional role to exploit gaps and in pursuits. Cavalry charging emplaced machine guns was as stupid as infantry charging emplaced machine guns (especially at walking pace).

The famous scene where in WW2 where Polish lancers are depicted charing tanks, well actually the lancers were slaughtering the infantry. Until a couple of armoured cars turned up. The tanks actually arrived afterwards, in time for the photo.

I'm not keen on adding more grav weaponary either on account of how op it is. But they'll probably do it anyway. The future addition of 40k needs to address them.

Grav Cannons just don't fit with HWTs in my eyes. But you could slap them on a Sentinel, that'd work for me.

Honestly, I'd be cool if the only grab we had was the main weapon of a Russ, but typically Russ turrets add a little more, e.g. Executioner is a plasma cannon x 3, Exterminator is an Autocannon x 2 with TL, Vanquisher is lascannon with Armorbane. It'd be cool to see how we could outperform centurions, given the chance.

Yep if they want to encourage a vehicle-based IG then a Leman Russ with the heavy grav cannon of the kataphron is a way. While i can´t see it being dual (12 shots), a twin-linked version would fit.

That said i would prefer a less common (=grav as solution for everything) way.
What ever happened to the lascannon? Once it was THE long-range anti-tank weapon. It seems that with every edition it lost more of that role.
I would like to see a cheaper lascannon for the IG and the option to build a Leman Russ Annihilator (turret = 2 twin-linked shots).

Forge world have the predator annihilator. I wish it was more widespread. And that the annihilatior lascannon was like the exterminator autocannon (x2 shots as well as twin-linked).

If we have to get grav then maybe it should stay low key; armoured sentinel and Leman Russes sponsons only? No matter what way I type it though, I don't like it.

I'm ok with marines getting some gear that we don't get. If they make our existing weapons better we'all be ok. Seriously, if the vanquisher had instant death it would be an MC killer that would put us back in the game.

CplPunishment wrote:

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.

Three lines... Before Attilans and Tallarn, there were the RT-era Roughriders, the ones with Australian bush hats and helmets. The helmeted riders were the same as the motorcycle IG. 1989 catalogue,
http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Imperial_Guard_-_1988_to_1994

I'd like to see the option to take a multilaser in HW squads. I also like the idea of a motorcycle and sidecar combo for guard. 

I think one of the biggest issue the guard have is the having to remove  units closet to the enemy. If I run my guys forward 6 inches and then the following shooting phase the first 6 inches of my units is mowed down I'm back to where I started with less men. 

Earlier in the thread there someone mentioned something about a special rule for las guns. Some kind of combined fire. Unfortunately it would probably bog the game down but I'd like to see something where the more hits delivered onto a squad the more effective the gun becomes. Ie for every 10 hits the squad suffers an auto wound? 

I've always consider wounds I've scored against marines with lasguns not them penetrating the armour but the marine tanking so many shots that his armour gradually heats up until it fails or cooks whoever is inside. ‎

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Forge world have the predator annihilator. I wish it was more widespread. And that the annihilatior lascannon was like the exterminator autocannon (x2 shots as well as twin-linked).

If that happen, can the marines get that for our predators if we give you guys grav cannons? I've always hated how TL weapons have half the firepower the model seems to suggest.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Forge world have the predator annihilator. I wish it was more widespread. And that the annihilatior lascannon was like the exterminator autocannon (x2 shots as well as twin-linked).

If that happen, can the marines get that for our predators if we give you guys grav cannons? I've always hated how TL weapons have half the firepower the model seems to suggest.

In general, I feel that TL weapons are just a bad joke... most of the time it would be so much better to just have two guns, I don't mind the points increase either, it's just that TL seems so worthless at times.

morgoth wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Forge world have the predator annihilator. I wish it was more widespread. And that the annihilatior lascannon was like the exterminator autocannon (x2 shots as well as twin-linked).

If that happen, can the marines get that for our predators if we give you guys grav cannons? I've always hated how TL weapons have half the firepower the model seems to suggest.

In general, I feel that TL weapons are just a bad joke... most of the time it would be so much better to just have two guns, I don't mind the points increase either, it's just that TL seems so worthless at times.

Yep, I would love to see them go back to twin-linked being two guns instead of re-roll to hit.

 don_mondo wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

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.

Three lines... Before Attilans and Tallarn, there were the RT-era Roughriders, the ones with Australian bush hats and helmets. The helmeted riders were the same as the motorcycle IG. 1989 catalogue,
http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Imperial_Guard_-_1988_to_1994

I stand corrected. I started in 3rd edition so I've never seen those on shelves, the online store or another person's army.

Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Actually, you can't. Try running any of the Tempestus formations without Commissars. You can't do it. You are REQUIRED to take Commissars in the flipping Militarum Tempestus formations.
Do you understand how ridiculous that is?!

Or try running the Ogryn Auxilia formation with just Bullgryn. You can't do it, because the designers of the formation apparently decided that they had to make the Guard formations "inclusive" of old stuff. Additionally, I'm actually a fan of the Ogryn/Bullgryn. If you want to design a "counterattack" unit for the Guard, that is where your focus should be. Not on the dead end that is Rough Riders.

Try running formation of IG troopers without sentinels.

Emperor's Blade Assault Company.

They're Veterans. Not regular Guardsmen.
Could you find me a Formation of Imperial Guardsmen (regular infantry) without vehicles?

And honestly? Get over the Sentinel requirement. The thing to get irked about is the mandate of 5 "Infantry Squads" with no allowance for the Infantry, Heavy, or Special squads counting towards that requirement.

They had to pull the bundles down at launch and reword them because of that.

And I quote "Get over the *insert unwanted unit here*". So, if that's your response, why don't you just "get over" the fact you need to take Commissars in the Tempestus Militarum formations?

Is there formation of just SM assault marines?

Bladewing Assault Brotherhood.
2-4 Assault Squads, 1-3 Vanguard Veterans, Captain/Chaplain with Jump Packs.

So yeah. There is a formation of "just SM Assault Marines".

No. That's a minimum 2 Assault Squads and 1 Vanguard Veteran Squad. Not "just SM Assault Marines". That's Assault Marines and another unit of Space Marines I don't want to field. Or shall I just "get over it"?

Funny thing is formations aren't SUPPOSED to have just what players want. That's the trade off you are supposed to pay for otherwise free bonuses.

The point. You missed it.

Commissars are not and should not have been required in the Tempestus Formations.

Sentinels are not and should not have been required in the Astra Militarum Infantry Company formation.
Or do I have to "get over it"?

They should have been an option, but not required. Since there is the whole "Tempestus Command Squad" thing.

See my previous point.
What makes Militarum Tempestus so special that everyone needs to abide by Formation rules, but they don't?

Battlegrinder wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:
It sounds to me like Kanluwen thinks that codex: Astra Militarum should be codex: Cadians. I can't stress enough that all guard regiments do notoperate with the same tactics and wargear. Even the common lasgun is different from planet to planet.

It sounds to me like he's figured out that trying to fit dudes on horses into an army that fits with laser guns, artillery, and tanks is an amazing stupid concept that's only survived this long due to sheer inertia. I'm sure there was once a regiment that decided to go fight their battles from horseback. Emphasis on "was", because there is no way those stupid sods lived long enough to realize why that's a bad idea.

This is a world where battle tanks immobilise themselves on bushes and move slower than an infantryman, where there's no difference in accuracy between a gene-crafted super-soldier veteran of hundreds of years of warfare and a human who may have survived a few battles, where ICBMs are seen in battlefields the size of football pitches, and the machine gun equivalents of what used to mow down infantry and cavalry in WWI barely injures on infantryman.

Welcome to 40k.
Leave reality and logic at the door.

Battlegrinder wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Death Korps of Krieg are still pretty much around, Tallarn Desert Raiders, and several others.

As far as I know on the DKoK actually uses them in combat, and largely to demonstrate exactly why it's a bad idea to do so (it's kind of in the name).

That's not to say the IG as a whole has no use for horses of any kind. Perhaps they'd see use as a means to get people through places vehicles can't go or for a regiment that lacks them. But they'd be mounted infantry, not cavalry, and mounted infantry ditch the horses and fight on foot (which IIRC is how the Tallarn's use them). They simple do not fit the rest of the IG thematically. I only give a pass to the DKoK because I'm not too familiar with them beyond the fact they're tactics tend to lean toward "suicidal" being the good outcome, and even then I think they're still better know for siege warfare and mechanized units than cavalry.

I beg to differ on it doesn't fit the IG thematically.

It fits the:
Attilan Rough Riders
Death Riders of Krieg
Kashann Xeno Riders
Ezelti Lancers
Krum XVI
Gantor Riders
Praetorian Hussars
Fallonian Rough Riders
Tallarn Desert Raiders

Hmm. Lots of regiments it fits well. Not to mention that Cadians use Rough Riders, albeit in bike form. Hell, Rough Riders are described as being mounted on "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Bikers would fit in the bracket of Rough Rider. If the Rough Rider entry was elaborated to have a baseline, and then the mount could be upgraded to give different buffs, that would fit every version possible.

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.

Yes. Cavalry. That's exactly what we're asking for. Cavalry.

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.

Yes. But their key feature, which, in my opinion defines them, was that they were Cavalry. A planet can produce all variety of units in their regiments. Why can't cavalry be a feature?

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.

And what about the other regiments? Attilans, at the very least. You mean to say Rough Riders don't fit with them?

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.

No. It is Codex: Astra Militarum, which is more than just Cadians and Catachans. It is all forms of Imperial Guard, including Cadians, Catachans, Elysians, Attilans, Praetorians, Tanith, Harakoni, Prosan, Maccabian Janissaries - they should all, in my opinion, be represented in the book.

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.

I don't even own any Rough Riders. And if they were removed, then no, I can't take them, because they have no army list entry.

And likewise - Commissars are important in the Tempestus Militarum, because every Formation has them. Is that not your logic?

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.

Or, perhaps, in your overhaul (still awaiting that), you could make them a baseline Rough Rider entry, as cavalry, and include upgrades that improve the squad's mounts - X points to upgrade to Xenos Beast, which gives Y, Z points to upgrade to Bikes which changes their type to Bike, etc etc. Everyone is happy. Boom.

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.

So why does your suspension of disbelief end at horses? Not even genetically bred horses, or alien mounts, or other variants. You think it's more plausible that humanity has perfected genetic engineering on making humans literal demi-gods and that they haven't bred a horse or beast to be as strong? You think that being able to fire on a bike that moves at a speed to destroy walls and not be phased is more believable than humanity finding some cavalry that could be brought to bear in the 41st Millenium. You think that WWI tactics are okay and effective in the 41st Millennium, but horses breaks that immersion?

No-one's asking for guardsmen on cavalry (emphasis cavalry - it doesn't have to be a horse. It could be any sort of cavalry) to be better than Space Marines. They're asking for them to be effective and actually useful in game.

And no, thematically, a charge pureky made up of Attilan Rough Riders destroyed an entire Necron army at the battle of Lumen Valley, and won the war against the Necrons in the effort. Canonically, cavalry can fit in 40k. And I don't think it's a stretch to believe that cavalry could win against Space Marine, considering a Space Marine can be killed by Rippers, Scarabs, Grots and Conscripts.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is a world where battle tanks immobilise themselves on bushes and move slower than an infantryman, where there's no difference in accuracy between a gene-crafted super-soldier veteran of hundreds of years of warfare and a human who may have survived a few battles, where ICBMs are seen in battlefields the size of football pitches, and the machine gun equivalents of what used to mow down infantry and cavalry in WWI barely injures on infantryman.

Welcome to 40k.
Leave reality and logic at the door.

The issue I have with that is that logic is backwards (to me, at least). You're taking how stuff works on the tabletop and applying it the wider setting, I'm doing it the other way round. The 40k setting is not an extrapolation of the tabletop rules, the tabletop rules are an approximation of the 40k setting, and in that setting, infantry do get mowed down by HMGs (or at least any HMG aside from a stubber, and perhaps those too. They haven't shown up in the books I've read).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I beg to differ on it doesn't fit the IG thematically.

It fits the:
Attilan Rough Riders
Death Riders of Krieg
Kashann Xeno Riders
Ezelti Lancers
Krum XVI
Gantor Riders
Praetorian Hussars
Fallonian Rough Riders
Tallarn Desert Raiders

Hmm. Lots of regiments it fits well. Not to mention that Cadians use Rough Riders, albeit in bike form. Hell, Rough Riders are described as being mounted on "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Bikers would fit in the bracket of Rough Rider. If the Rough Rider entry was elaborated to have a baseline, and then the mount could be upgraded to give different buffs, that would fit every version possible.

To my knowledge most of them use those riders as scouts and the like, not frontline cavalry charging stuff with lances. They have them, but I'd guess they don't ride them into battle all that often, and if they do they're more like the riders I recall that showed up in books, like in the Last Ditch. They were dudes on motorcycles fighting it out from range using guns built into their bikes, they weren't charging 'nids headlong with a pointy metal stick.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So why does your suspension of disbelief end at horses? Not even genetically bred horses, or alien mounts, or other variants. You think it's more plausible that humanity has perfected genetic engineering on making humans literal demi-gods and that they haven't bred a horse or beast to be as strong? You think that being able to fire on a bike that moves at a speed to destroy walls and not be phased is more believable than humanity finding some cavalry that could be brought to bear in the 41st Millenium. You think that WWI tactics are okay and effective in the 41st Millennium, but horses breaks that immersion?

No-one's asking for guardsmen on cavalry (emphasis cavalry - it doesn't have to be a horse. It could be any sort of cavalry) to be better than Space Marines. They're asking for them to be effective and actually useful in game.

And no, thematically, a charge pureky made up of Attilan Rough Riders destroyed an entire Necron army at the battle of Lumen Valley, and won the war against the Necrons in the effort. Canonically, cavalry can fit in 40k. And I don't think it's a stretch to believe that cavalry could win against Space Marine, considering a Space Marine can be killed by Rippers, Scarabs, Grots and Conscripts.

I actually don't think WW1 tactics are ok either, and am glad the IG has (mostly) moved away from that being their stereotypical style (I'd appreciate if they moved all the way, but I guess we still gotta pander to people who think "people in the future are stupid" means "grimdark"), though if we stick even with WW1 tactics cavalry are out (they only pulled off the occasional charge in WW1 because rifles of the era were still mostly single shot or bolt action. Trying it on people with full or semi auto weapons like lasguns would end badly). And no, I don't think it's out of the question for a marine to be able to fire from a bike at top speed, he's had a couple centuries to pick up that skill. A regular dude not so much.

And the issue is that yes, they are asking for them to be on SM level effectiveness, because up until they got some new toys, SM bikers were not considered effective and useful.

And I'd point out that "it happened" doesn't mean it makes canonical sense. There's been a lot of nonsensical crap that's cropped up in the codex over the years (let's start with 5th edition grey knights), and people hated it.

Canon at this point is a very futile argument in my view.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Actually, you can't. Try running any of the Tempestus formations without Commissars. You can't do it. You are REQUIRED to take Commissars in the flipping Militarum Tempestus formations.
Do you understand how ridiculous that is?!

Or try running the Ogryn Auxilia formation with just Bullgryn. You can't do it, because the designers of the formation apparently decided that they had to make the Guard formations "inclusive" of old stuff. Additionally, I'm actually a fan of the Ogryn/Bullgryn. If you want to design a "counterattack" unit for the Guard, that is where your focus should be. Not on the dead end that is Rough Riders.

Try running formation of IG troopers without sentinels.

Emperor's Blade Assault Company.

They're Veterans. Not regular Guardsmen.
Could you find me a Formation of Imperial Guardsmen (regular infantry) without vehicles?

Nope, because there's very few Imperial Guard formations that feature Infantry Squads. Two of them that I specifically know of, as I don't have the revised version of Badab which might have some in there.

There's the Armored Shield(Start Collecting) which is an Infantry Squad, Commissar, and Leman Russ and the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon.

And I guess if you really want to get technical I guess there is three, since the Cadian Battle Group Detachment actually has an Auxiliary choice that is just a single Infantry Platoon with no required Sentinel.

But if that's the case, you could realistically just take the standard CAD as an Allied Detachment.

And honestly? Get over the Sentinel requirement. The thing to get irked about is the mandate of 5 "Infantry Squads" with no allowance for the Infantry, Heavy, or Special squads counting towards that requirement.

They had to pull the bundles down at launch and reword them because of that.

And I quote "Get over the *insert unwanted unit here*". So, if that's your response, why don't you just "get over" the fact you need to take Commissars in the Tempestus Militarum formations?

Because the Commissars being forced in there highlights, to me, the severe lack of understanding and effort that was put into the Militarum Tempestus book in general by the design team. The fluff hammers home time and time and time again that they're these super-loyal, super-zealous guys...yet for some reason they need a Commissar babysitting them like they're a bunch of Whiteshields.

There's a huge difference, IMO, to an "unwanted unit here" when the formation just consists of a single Troops choice otherwise(the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon) if you remove the other item versus what we got with the MT formations where you're taking multiple vehicles and Troops choices.

Is there formation of just SM assault marines?

Bladewing Assault Brotherhood.
2-4 Assault Squads, 1-3 Vanguard Veterans, Captain/Chaplain with Jump Packs.

So yeah. There is a formation of "just SM Assault Marines".

No. That's a minimum 2 Assault Squads and 1 Vanguard Veteran Squad. Not "just SM Assault Marines". That's Assault Marines and another unit of Space Marines I don't want to field. Or shall I just "get over it"?

Vanguard Veterans are Veteran Assault Marines.

Funny thing is formations aren't SUPPOSED to have just what players want. That's the trade off you are supposed to pay for otherwise free bonuses.

The point. You missed it.

Commissars are not and should not have been required in the Tempestus Formations.

Sentinels are not and should not have been required in the Astra Militarum Infantry Company formation.

Then run a CAD. There's very few Guard formations as it stands right now, and they wanted to showcase a distinctly Cadian Formation. Cadians are known for having Sentinels operating as part of their Infantry formations.

Or do I have to "get over it"?

They should have been an option, but not required. Since there is the whole "Tempestus Command Squad" thing.

See my previous point.
What makes Militarum Tempestus so special that everyone needs to abide by Formation rules, but they don't?

Well for one thing, read some formations sometime.

There's a thing called "0-1". If the Commissar were 0-1, with the ability for someone to mitigate the presence of it(see: Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon. 1-3 Sentinel Squads, with no required number of Sentinels meaning you can get an ESIC to only contain 3 Sentinels rather than being forced to have a character that has to be jampacked into one of your squads and will remove one of your models if you utilize a required mechanic of the army), or only required in the Start Collecting set?

Wildly different story. But that's not the case. They jammed the Commissar in because the schmucks writing the book wanted a non-squad option for the HQ. Which could have been done in a different way...or just not done at all as we've seen that they have no issue with limitations on the number of slots for things.

Martel732 wrote:
Canon at this point is a very futile argument in my view.

Canon for Guard literally makes us the most versatile army in existence baring Tyranids. We have everything from early blackpowder era troops to napoleonic line regiments to Boaer war era skirmishers and volley blocks to WW1 trenchers to WW2 skirmishers, armoured companies, raiders, airborne, combined arms armies, artillery batteries.....
We dont even scratch the surface. In fact what we have in the codex currently is a mere shadow of the most vanilla of lists we should have.

So yes, with that in line Rough Riders, or cavalry at least, do have a place in some variants of the Guard list. So do pikemen, musqueteers, fusiliers, infantry squares, volley blocks......
We literally have EVERYTHING.

Yeah, and BA can beat Eldar sometimes in the canon, too. Means nothing in the crunch.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, and BA can beat Eldar sometimes in the canon, too. Means nothing in the crunch.

Aye, I hear you there Martel.

I've never had much interest in collecting rough riders or ratlings, but this thread has me desperately wishing that the next Astra Militarum codex is nothing but ratlings mounted on horses.

I would take Rough Riders if we could get actual models for them again.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Someone above mentioned bringing the Guard back to their basic level: The Platoon.

This is, to me at least, a stupid idea. An army composed of platoons of infantry is neither viable nor flexible enough to ever function. What is more, transporting such a huge (660 models for three basic troops choices) is quite frankly virtually impossible without a car....

I can fit 110 models per "large" Chessex figure case, so that would be 2 sport duffel bags. Totally doable.

____

morgoth wrote:
I want to see 660 models, I want to see real fething Imperial Guard.

If I ever get into that army,

Go buy and build the your first 100 before you start making noise about what us existing IG players should do to satisfy your nonsense wishes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

UrsoerTheSquid wrote:
I'd like to see the option to take a multilaser in HW squads. ‎

Yes! Goto-pattern Multi-Lazors for all IG armies! IG would be perfect!!

Battlegrinder wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is a world where battle tanks immobilise themselves on bushes and move slower than an infantryman, where there's no difference in accuracy between a gene-crafted super-soldier veteran of hundreds of years of warfare and a human who may have survived a few battles, where ICBMs are seen in battlefields the size of football pitches, and the machine gun equivalents of what used to mow down infantry and cavalry in WWI barely injures on infantryman.

Welcome to 40k.
Leave reality and logic at the door.

The issue I have with that is that logic is backwards (to me, at least). You're taking how stuff works on the tabletop and applying it the wider setting, I'm doing it the other way round. The 40k setting is not an extrapolation of the tabletop rules, the tabletop rules are an approximation of the 40k setting, and in that setting, infantry do get mowed down by HMGs (or at least any HMG aside from a stubber, and perhaps those too. They haven't shown up in the books I've read).

So explain Terminators then.
Terminators are meant to be unkillable lynchpins of a Space Marine battleline, an impregnable bulwark against which the tides of war crash around them.
In game? Oh lord no.

The tabletop has no bearing on the fluff. Otherwise, I would only need a few Space Marines to win a game against a "normal" sized force. They do not affect eachother, regarding effectiveness.
However, units that exist in fluff can exist on the tabletop. For example - Rough Riders. And seeing as fluff has no bearing on the game, according to you, then Rough Riders should be balanced and brought in line to be effective in game, no? I mean, that's not a horse they're riding. It's just a unit of T3 cavalry. No horses, no sir.

Again, there is a massive disconnect between game and fluff in 40k. The game is meant to be units in fluff balanced in tabletop format. So why should Rough Riders be gunned down when mere infantry aren't?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I beg to differ on it doesn't fit the IG thematically.

It fits the:
Attilan Rough Riders
Death Riders of Krieg
Kashann Xeno Riders
Ezelti Lancers
Krum XVI
Gantor Riders
Praetorian Hussars
Fallonian Rough Riders
Tallarn Desert Raiders

Hmm. Lots of regiments it fits well. Not to mention that Cadians use Rough Riders, albeit in bike form. Hell, Rough Riders are described as being mounted on "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Bikers would fit in the bracket of Rough Rider. If the Rough Rider entry was elaborated to have a baseline, and then the mount could be upgraded to give different buffs, that would fit every version possible.

To my knowledge most of them use those riders as scouts and the like, not frontline cavalry charging stuff with lances. They have them, but I'd guess they don't ride them into battle all that often, and if they do they're more like the riders I recall that showed up in books, like in the Last Ditch. They were dudes on motorcycles fighting it out from range using guns built into their bikes, they weren't charging 'nids headlong with a pointy metal stick.

Attilans disagree. Example - Charge at Lumen Valley which routed a Necron army. And charging headlong into battle is EXACTLY the Death Korps and Attilan doctrine.
The Tallarn still use cavalry, and we can infer that the Praetorian Hussars use similar tactics to British cavalry in the Boer War.

There is no reason these should be ineffective in game, because the fluff has no bearing on the game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So why does your suspension of disbelief end at horses? Not even genetically bred horses, or alien mounts, or other variants. You think it's more plausible that humanity has perfected genetic engineering on making humans literal demi-gods and that they haven't bred a horse or beast to be as strong? You think that being able to fire on a bike that moves at a speed to destroy walls and not be phased is more believable than humanity finding some cavalry that could be brought to bear in the 41st Millenium. You think that WWI tactics are okay and effective in the 41st Millennium, but horses breaks that immersion?

No-one's asking for guardsmen on cavalry (emphasis cavalry - it doesn't have to be a horse. It could be any sort of cavalry) to be better than Space Marines. They're asking for them to be effective and actually useful in game.

And no, thematically, a charge pureky made up of Attilan Rough Riders destroyed an entire Necron army at the battle of Lumen Valley, and won the war against the Necrons in the effort. Canonically, cavalry can fit in 40k. And I don't think it's a stretch to believe that cavalry could win against Space Marine, considering a Space Marine can be killed by Rippers, Scarabs, Grots and Conscripts.

I actually don't think WW1 tactics are ok either, and am glad the IG has (mostly) moved away from that being their stereotypical style (I'd appreciate if they moved all the way, but I guess we still gotta pander to people who think "people in the future are stupid" means "grimdark"), though if we stick even with WW1 tactics cavalry are out (they only pulled off the occasional charge in WW1 because rifles of the era were still mostly single shot or bolt action. Trying it on people with full or semi auto weapons like lasguns would end badly). And no, I don't think it's out of the question for a marine to be able to fire from a bike at top speed, he's had a couple centuries to pick up that skill. A regular dude not so much.

Really? Have you missed all the Death Korps fluff? Or about Commander Chenkov? Imperial Guard doctrine is unchanged. They engage in A VARIETY of types of battle. Skirmish. Artillery. Tanks. Combined arms. Air assault. Infiltration. Trench warfare. And, funnily enough, CAVALRY. It fits Imperial Guard doctrine. They're not all modern warfare, and they're not all WWI. They're the most diverse army in terms of fluff, and that isn't represented.

Yes, those lasguns which kill a human 16.6666666667% of the time (50% to hit, 50% to wound, 66.6666666% chance to penetrate armour). Such effective weapons on tabletop.

And you haven't explained why it's okay that we can have gene-bred superhumans, and not gene-bred superhorses, or alien mounts.

And the issue is that yes, they are asking for them to be on SM level effectiveness, because up until they got some new toys, SM bikers were not considered effective and useful.

Where have I asked for them to be SM level effectiveness? I have asked for them to be useable and balanced in game. If "useable and balanced" is SM level effectiveness, then why can only Space Marines be useable and effective?

And I'd point out that "it happened" doesn't mean it makes canonical sense. There's been a lot of nonsensical crap that's cropped up in the codex over the years (let's start with 5th edition grey knights), and people hated it.

Yes, but this is consistent. You're the one saying "Cavalry can't do this because in the real world XYZ". 40k fluff says "Cavalry CAN do XYZ because I said so". So, the only logic thing to do is ignore both, because this is a wargame. And then we come round to "well, let's ignore all fluff and just make the game balanced". Which is what I'm advocating.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Actually, you can't. Try running any of the Tempestus formations without Commissars. You can't do it. You are REQUIRED to take Commissars in the flipping Militarum Tempestus formations.
Do you understand how ridiculous that is?!

Or try running the Ogryn Auxilia formation with just Bullgryn. You can't do it, because the designers of the formation apparently decided that they had to make the Guard formations "inclusive" of old stuff. Additionally, I'm actually a fan of the Ogryn/Bullgryn. If you want to design a "counterattack" unit for the Guard, that is where your focus should be. Not on the dead end that is Rough Riders.

Try running formation of IG troopers without sentinels.

Emperor's Blade Assault Company.

They're Veterans. Not regular Guardsmen.
Could you find me a Formation of Imperial Guardsmen (regular infantry) without vehicles?

Nope, because there's very few Imperial Guard formations that feature Infantry Squads. Two of them that I specifically know of, as I don't have the revised version of Badab which might have some in there.

Well, there we go. I guess GW doesn't do Formations that cater to my every whim. Much like your Tempestus ones.

There's the Armored Shield(Start Collecting) which is an Infantry Squad, Commissar, and Leman Russ and the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon.

They have vehicles, and thus do not fulfil what I asked for.
See, on your end, you have the Tempestus Formations, but they have Commissars. That's not what you wanted, was it? So why would I want Tanks when I asked not to have them?

And I guess if you really want to get technical I guess there is three, since the Cadian Battle Group Detachment actually has an Auxiliary choice that is just a single Infantry Platoon with no required Sentinel.

Not a Formation though.

But if that's the case, you could realistically just take the standard CAD as an Allied Detachment.

So if that's your response, allow me to give the same one to you:
You could realistically take a standard CAD as an Allied Detachment for your Scions, and not have to take a Commissar.

Does that help? No, because it's not what you asked for.

And honestly? Get over the Sentinel requirement. The thing to get irked about is the mandate of 5 "Infantry Squads" with no allowance for the Infantry, Heavy, or Special squads counting towards that requirement.

They had to pull the bundles down at launch and reword them because of that.

And I quote "Get over the *insert unwanted unit here*". So, if that's your response, why don't you just "get over" the fact you need to take Commissars in the Tempestus Militarum formations?

Because the Commissars being forced in there highlights, to me, the severe lack of understanding and effort that was put into the Militarum Tempestus book in general by the design team. The fluff hammers home time and time and time again that they're these super-loyal, super-zealous guys...yet for some reason they need a Commissar babysitting them like they're a bunch of Whiteshields.

Fluff has no bearing on the game.

There's a huge difference, IMO, to an "unwanted unit here" when the formation just consists of a single Troops choice otherwise(the Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon) if you remove the other item versus what we got with the MT formations where you're taking multiple vehicles and Troops choices.

And? I see no difference. You wanted to get rid of a unit in your Formation, I want to get rid of a unit in mine.
It's exactly the same to me.

Is there formation of just SM assault marines?

Bladewing Assault Brotherhood.
2-4 Assault Squads, 1-3 Vanguard Veterans, Captain/Chaplain with Jump Packs.

So yeah. There is a formation of "just SM Assault Marines".

No. That's a minimum 2 Assault Squads and 1 Vanguard Veteran Squad. Not "just SM Assault Marines". That's Assault Marines and another unit of Space Marines I don't want to field. Or shall I just "get over it"?

Vanguard Veterans are Veteran Assault Marines.

No. They're VANGUARD VETERANS.
I asked for Assault Marines. Not VANGUARD VETERANS.
Assault Marines have a different entry in the codex to VANGUARD VETERANS.

Well, unless you mean to tell me that Conscripts and Sternguard Veterans are the same unit because they footslog and have guns.

Funny thing is formations aren't SUPPOSED to have just what players want. That's the trade off you are supposed to pay for otherwise free bonuses.

The point. You missed it.

Commissars are not and should not have been required in the Tempestus Formations.

Sentinels are not and should not have been required in the Astra Militarum Infantry Company formation.

Then run a CAD. There's very few Guard formations as it stands right now, and they wanted to showcase a distinctly Cadian Formation. Cadians are known for having Sentinels operating as part of their Infantry formations.

Well, you know, perhaps you should run a CAD for your Scions then, if you don't want a Commissar babysitting them. As I said, fluff has no bearing on the game. And regardless, "Cadians Scions are known for having Sentinels Commissars operating as part of their Infantry Elite Tempestus formations".

Oh, you don't follow that fluff? Well who says that my guardsmen need to follow the fluff that says that?

Or do I have to "get over it"?

They should have been an option, but not required. Since there is the whole "Tempestus Command Squad" thing.

See my previous point.
What makes Militarum Tempestus so special that everyone needs to abide by Formation rules, but they don't?

Well for one thing, read some formations sometime.

There's a thing called "0-1". If the Commissar were 0-1, with the ability for someone to mitigate the presence of it(see: Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoon. 1-3 Sentinel Squads, with no required number of Sentinels meaning you can get an ESIC to only contain 3 Sentinels rather than being forced to have a character that has to be jampacked into one of your squads and will remove one of your models if you utilize a required mechanic of the army), or only required in the Start Collecting set?

So why aren't Sentinels 0-1? Why do Scions get to rewrite their Formation requirements because you don't want to run Commissars? If you don't want to run Commissars, take the advice you gave to me: play a CAD.

Wildly different story. But that's not the case. They jammed the Commissar in because the schmucks writing the book wanted a non-squad option for the HQ. Which could have been done in a different way...or just not done at all as we've seen that they have no issue with limitations on the number of slots for things.

"They jammed the Commissar Sentinels in because the schmucks writing the book wanted a non-squad option for the HQ. to sell Sentinels to Guard players. Which could have been done in a different way...or just not done at all as we've seen that they have no issue with limitations on the number of slots for things selling Sentinels alone, or in the Emperor's Talon Recon Company.

What is special about Scions that doesn't apply to any other army in the game? Disregarding fluff, because, you know, we're talking about tabletop.