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.

Can I have my guard landspeeders back?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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?

There is a disconnect, yes. I fail to see why the correct answer to that should be "let's double down on that" and not "let's fix that". And you keep saying mere infantry don't get gunned down.....yes they do. guardsman die in job lots to anything but the dinkiest heavy weapon in the game (the one you keep bringing up as an example for some reason, even though heavy stubbers are rare in both fluff and tabletop), rough riders included.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

So...two incidents, since the Tallarn's use theirs as scouts and and the Praetorian things is pure speculation. That sounds like a great reason to keep useless units around.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

The problem with the "diverse army" thing is that at some point you've got to fit all this crap into a book and make models for it, and that will inherently punish bloat. You can have as many rough riders as you want, I'm sure everyone else will accept that as a fair trade for GW molding them instead of making conversion bits for the units everyone uses.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Your inability to look at the universe through any lens but stat blocks and math doesn't mean the rest of us have too. and hey, whatever happened to justifying tabletop stuff based on the fluff, like you do right before and after this line?

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

'Cause the rough riders are some well known for using super tough horses and ultra durable xenos.....oh, wait, no they're not. They in fact had to import specially bred ones for the one time they did so.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

40k fluff as says Draigo can carve his boss's name into a daemon primarch's heart. Just because it's in a book somewhere doesn't mean it's holy writ.

And sure, we can dump the fluff and go for pure game mechanics....in which case the riders still get the ax, since they're mechanically the odd man out in a shooty army focused on infantry blobs, tanks, artillery, and air power.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

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.

I have more than 300 eldar infantry and I really have mostly vehicles.

You do what you like, I'm just telling you how I would like it if I did start that army.

Smudge: By pure math-hammer, boltguns aren't really that deadly either. Only has a 50% chance to kill an unarmored human per shot that hits them! I could do better than that with modern firearms.

Attempting to claim math-hammer IS fluff is ridiculous, and of COURSE it's ridiculous because the crunch of the game is an abstraction, and you KNOW that it's an abstraction, so honestly you should really already know it is ridiculous, so stop pretending it isn't.

Why can't rough riders be fast moving guardsmen? It seems people are really overthinking this.

... by "fast-moving" do you mean on foot?

Simply put, because guardsmen are humans, and humans don't move that fast on foot. But I think a better solution is simply to not give a damn and lump rough-riders in with bikers and say model it however you want. But then again, my apathy on the topic is well stated.

morgoth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

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.

I have more than 300 eldar infantry and I really have mostly vehicles.

You do what you like, I'm just telling you how I would like it if I did start that army.

You know, I think I don't want to interact with you any more.

And for the record, I have more Eldar infantry than you do. On top of the 100s of T3 Imperials that I own.

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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?

There is a disconnect, yes. I fail to see why the correct answer to that should be "let's double down on that" and not "let's fix that". And you keep saying mere infantry don't get gunned down.....yes they do. guardsman die in job lots to anything but the dinkiest heavy weapon in the game (the one you keep bringing up as an example for some reason, even though heavy stubbers are rare in both fluff and tabletop), rough riders included.

No, I absolutely agree. Let's fix that. And by that, I mean, let's actually get up and fix Rough Riders and make them viable.

You say mere infantry get gunned down - by what, exactly? Alien tech? But I'm going by what you said about WWI cavalry. Therefore, I'll compare it to the closest thing we have - lasguns and heavy stubbers. Even using them as metrics, Guardsmen survive a hell-of-a-lot. A basic rifle kills a man 16.6666666667% of the time. How are infantry massacred by modern weapons then?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

So...two incidents, since the Tallarn's use theirs as scouts and and the Praetorian things is pure speculation. That sounds like a great reason to keep useless units around.

Tallarn use cavalry far more than scouting. And given that we know Praetorian battle discipline, and it's remarkable similarity to Colonial British tactics, it's logical to think that their cavalry tactics will be similar.

Yes, they're useless units. Units which exist in the fluff, and should be improved. That wouldn't be too hard, would it? We're asking for a unit to be BALANCED. Is that too much to ask?
Not to mention that if we now delete all useless units, we wouldn't even need to improve any. We'd just delete it. Such as Terminators, Pyrovores, Ratlings, etc etc

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

The problem with the "diverse army" thing is that at some point you've got to fit all this crap into a book and make models for it, and that will inherently punish bloat. You can have as many rough riders as you want, I'm sure everyone else will accept that as a fair trade for GW molding them instead of making conversion bits for the units everyone uses.

No need to swear.
GW didn't have a problem giving Space Marines nine different tactics and specialities. They didn't have a problem making the IG Doctrines way back when.
If you think that adding something at least a-la Chapter Tactics is bloat, then why do SM get it?

And no, no need for guaranteed models - you can sell Cadians on as default, and allow players to convert armies. Or, better yet, possible conversion kits - like Genestealer Cults or Deathwatch.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Your inability to look at the universe through any lens but stat blocks and math doesn't mean the rest of us have too. and hey, whatever happened to justifying tabletop stuff based on the fluff, like you do right before and after this line?

The universe isn't stat blocks. The tabletop is.

The tabletop and universe are different. Which do you wish to address? The tabletop? Well, why should we remove a unit instead of fixing it? In universe? Why get rid of something that clearly fits in many force aesthetics?

And I don't justify anything by fluff. I I justify it because why should I remove a unit that could be fixed instead?

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

'Cause the rough riders are some well known for using super tough horses and ultra durable xenos.....oh, wait, no they're not. They in fact had to import specially bred ones for the one time they did so.

Excuse me? Allow me to quote: "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Huh. And what are Mukaali (which, IIRC, gave a +1 T) then?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

40k fluff as says Draigo can carve his boss's name into a daemon primarch's heart. Just because it's in a book somewhere doesn't mean it's holy writ.

So, you're advocating we ignore all fluff? Fine. So, in that case, let's get round to making the game balanced. Let's balance Rough Riders.

And sure, we can dump the fluff and go for pure game mechanics....in which case the riders still get the ax, since they're mechanically the odd man out in a shooty army focused on infantry blobs, tanks, artillery, and air power.

So, Ogryns, Bullgryns, Veterans, Wyrdvanes, Ratlings and Sentinels get the cut? I mean, they're none of the things you listed.
And Kroot for Tau, as well as Onager Gauntlets?
And Grotesques in the Dark Eldar?
And Scouts in Space Marines (because they don't have Power Armour and are thus mechanically different)?

Or, perhaps having a bit of everything (including cavalry) is the Imperial Guard's thing. Their variety. The fact that they can be moulded into any army, because the Imperial Guard is just so big? Maybe that's why people like it - because they can make Their Dudes.

Imperial Guard are a TERRIBLE shooting army. They're outclassed by Tau. Does that mean that the Imperial Guard should be entirely scrapped because Tau do their job?

What reason do you have, given that you want to FIX the game, for scrapping a unit entirely instead of actually doing some work and fixing the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Smudge: By pure math-hammer, boltguns aren't really that deadly either. Only has a 50% chance to kill an unarmored human per shot that hits them! I could do better than that with modern firearms.

Exactly. So why Battlegrinder is saying the cavalry would be blown to pieces is beyond me.

Attempting to claim math-hammer IS fluff is ridiculous, and of COURSE it's ridiculous because the crunch of the game is an abstraction, and you KNOW that it's an abstraction, so honestly you should really already know it is ridiculous, so stop pretending it isn't.

I'm not claiming mathhammer is fluff. I'm saying the game ISN'T dictated by fluff - hence why Rough Riders should be given whatever stats it takes to make them actually viable.

I think the entire problem with rough riders is an issue of trying to design the armies first and then the units. We've got guys who fight it out on horseback, so let's put some horses in the codex. This is a problematic design tactic from minute one.

By contrast, look at how the SM codex works. It's got like two dozen units that are all mechanically functional and work in their intended role (more or less), baring a few bugs in the system like over effective grav weapons and less effective terminators. But overall, everything works.
You then take that selection of solidly designed models, stack one special rule and one or two special characters who have a rule our two of their own, and viola! You have a bunch of distinct and separate armies that aren't clogging the codex with units no one else will ever use.
Iron hands, Raven Guard, White Scars and Ultramarines all use the exact same models with the exact same rules (baring chapter tactics and maybe a special character), and yet those few tweaks and the player's choice of how to build that army will mean they play very differently.

This would inevitably homogenize the guard a teeny tiny bit. It would also make them a stronger and more effective army, even if we end up ditching some of their units. Because yeah, there;s going to be some units that just one army uses and no one else does, and trying to write a book that has rules for a dozen plus armies own unique stuff isn't going to work out. However, some kind of chapter-tactics style tweak would mean those armies actually play differantly, instead of having your catachan sqaud and your cadian sqaud and your vallahan sqaud all play exactly the same even though those regiments have totally different themes and styles.

Or we can keep moving heaven and earth to keep the horsies around, because you can't have a guard codex without a bunch of dudes with lances in it, no way.

Martel732 wrote:
Why can't rough riders be fast moving guardsmen? It seems people are really overthinking this.

They can be. The problem is that even fast moving guardsman will be gunned down and hacked apart in short order, no matter what you do with their stats.

If the only problem with IG was that RRs were overcosted ...

RRs are so far down on the list of things that need fixing, it isn't even funny. How about addressing the IG Platoon and Leman Russ, eh? Let's worry about that. If RRs and Ogryns and Ratlings *ALL* jump to 50 ppm, that's fine, I can do without any of them. What I can't do is accept an IG army with ineffective Guardsmen and Leman Russes.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, some of us are in the process of going that far.

This photo doesn't include the other 110 I've painted up since. Or the other ones that need stripping, prepping and painting up.




I'm clocking up in the region of 500+ Praetorians, a labour of love since 1998.

On an unrelated note, I've seen GW's first background reference to Praetorians I can recall since the 3rd ed Codex courtesy of the latest Captain Catachan article from the Regimental Standard:

https://regimental-standard.com/2017/02/22/captain-catachans-guide-to-dangerous-flora/


"Please excuse his colourful language and harsh local colloquialisms: he was raised in less refined surroundings than you, good men of Mordia, Praetoria and Cadia".


Huzzah!

 Battlegrinder wrote:
I think the entire problem with rough riders is an issue of trying to design the armies first and then the units. We've got guys who fight it out on horseback, so let's put some horses in the codex. This is a problematic design tactic from minute one.

Is it? I see it as no different to Space Marines having bikes.

"We have Space Marines who fight on bikes, so let's put bikes in the Codex!" The difference is that bikes are good, and cavalry is not. So, solution? Improve Cavalry.

By contrast, look at how the SM codex works. It's got like two dozen units that are all mechanically functional and work in their intended role (more or less), baring a few bugs in the system like over effective grav weapons and less effective terminators. But overall, everything works.

Only when you ignore Terminators and Tactical Squads taken in ten man units, and plasma cannons, and storm bolters, etc etc...

What someone *could* do is fix them. However, your response seems to be to remove anything that doesn't work, instead of fixing it.

Rough Riders *could* fill their role as fast moving hassle and harry units, giving some speedy punch to the Imperial Guard, if they were fixed. If they were removed, then the Guard lacks that.

You then take that selection of solidly designed models, stack one special rule and one or two special characters who have a rule our two of their own, and viola! You have a bunch of distinct and separate armies that aren't clogging the codex with units no one else will ever use.

Terminators are not solidly designed. They're terrible.

So, what to do? Remove Terminators? They don't fit your criteria.
Do you know what *could* fit your criteria? Rough Riders, if they were actually looked at and improved, instead of being removed.

Iron hands, Raven Guard, White Scars and Ultramarines all use the exact same models with the exact same rules (baring chapter tactics and maybe a special character), and yet those few tweaks and the player's choice of how to build that army will mean they play very differently.

So why is this not done to the Imperial Guard?

This would inevitably homogenize the guard a teeny tiny bit. It would also make them a stronger and more effective army, even if we end up ditching some of their units.

I fail to see how REMOVING choices from the army will make it better. It won't. It'll streamline it, but that doesn't mean the options you're left with are any better. It just means you have less rubbish to look through, instead of actually fixing the rubbish and making everything viable.

Eventually, if you go down that way, we end up with mono-builds, because everything is homogenised.

Because yeah, there;s going to be some units that just one army uses and no one else does, and trying to write a book that has rules for a dozen plus armies own unique stuff isn't going to work out.

This is ONE UNIT. Do you think removing one unit will make all the difference? This isn't like trying to cram every Space Marine chapter in one book. This is one unit, of which variants are in use across a range of aspects of the army.

There isn't a dozen plus armies getting represented. This is one unit, which is represented in a dozen armies alone. What change will removing one single unit do?

However, some kind of chapter-tactics style tweak would mean those armies actually play differantly, instead of having your catachan sqaud and your cadian sqaud and your vallahan sqaud all play exactly the same even though those regiments have totally different themes and styles.

You mean to say that a hypothetical "Attilan" Chapter Tactic would make my guardsmen all cavalry? I mean, because there wouldn't be a unit that could fill that role. How do you propose an Attilan army be played without cavalry?

Or we can keep moving heaven and earth to keep the horsies around, because you can't have a guard codex without a bunch of dudes with lances in it, no way.

Or you can actually do some work and put some effort in and balance a unit instead of giving up and saying "nope, can't handle this, if it's broken, throw it away".

Unless that's what you want to do - in which case, I would ask you to throw away most of the CSM, Tyranid, Imperial Guard, and Ork armies for being sub-par. And Terminators.

Martel732 wrote:
Why can't rough riders be fast moving guardsmen? It seems people are really overthinking this.

They can be. The problem is that even fast moving guardsman will be gunned down and hacked apart in short order, no matter what you do with their stats.

So me giving Guardsmen T10, 2+/2++/2+++ wouldn't make them any more durable?

Anything can be improved. It's a case of how far you're willing to go.

Then they're no longer really Guardsmen.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

No, I absolutely agree. Let's fix that. And by that, I mean, let's actually get up and fix Rough Riders and make them viable.

You say mere infantry get gunned down - by what, exactly? Alien tech? But I'm going by what you said about WWI cavalry. Therefore, I'll compare it to the closest thing we have - lasguns and heavy stubbers. Even using them as metrics, Guardsmen survive a hell-of-a-lot. A basic rifle kills a man 16.6666666667% of the time. How are infantry massacred by modern weapons then?

They can't be made viable because the game mechanically leaves no room for that. They're T3 with a six up save, and mediocre WS and BS. No one would look at that statline and go "yeah, that looks like a great CC charging unit".

And they get gunned down by anything and everything bigger than two weakest ranged weapons in the games. Bolters, heavy bolters, autocannons, pulse weapons, ect. This whole "they can tank stubber fire" started off with some bizzare hypothetical about a lone squad charging a lone stubber emplacement, which in game....will never happen.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Tallarn use cavalry far more than scouting. And given that we know Praetorian battle discipline, and it's remarkable similarity to Colonial British tactics, it's logical to think that their cavalry tactics will be similar.

Yes, they're useless units. Units which exist in the fluff, and should be improved. That wouldn't be too hard, would it? We're asking for a unit to be BALANCED. Is that too much to ask?
Not to mention that if we now delete all useless units, we wouldn't even need to improve any. We'd just delete it. Such as Terminators, Pyrovores, Ratlings, etc etc

You must not be seeing all the threads that have mentioned terminators aren't worth it, and it's not like anyone was taking pyrovores before this, so yeah, dump em.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No need to swear.
GW didn't have a problem giving Space Marines nine different tactics and specialities. They didn't have a problem making the IG Doctrines way back when.
If you think that adding something at least a-la Chapter Tactics is bloat, then why do SM get it?

And no, no need for guaranteed models - you can sell Cadians on as default, and allow players to convert armies. Or, better yet, possible conversion kits - like Genestealer Cults or Deathwatch.

I pointed out that idea, however riders still get ditched under that model, because the SM paradigm needs a solid framework of functional units to build itself around, and riders don't fit that. How many units exclusively useful with one set of chapter tactics are there in the SM codex? You've got crusader squads as a holdover from when the Templars had their own codex....and that's it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The universe isn't stat blocks. The tabletop is.

The tabletop and universe are different. Which do you wish to address? The tabletop? Well, why should we remove a unit instead of fixing it? In universe? Why get rid of something that clearly fits in many force aesthetics?

And I don't justify anything by fluff. I I justify it because why should I remove a unit that could be fixed instead?

The tabletop and setting are different, but they're supposed to be two sides of the same coin, not two totally dissimilar coins.

And we should remove the riders because you can't fix some things. Sure, maybe with a better save and better weapon skill they could be a bit better, and maybe we'll give them tougher mounts to patch that weakness......oh, look. You invented the scout bike squad.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Excuse me? Allow me to quote: "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Huh. And what are Mukaali (which, IIRC, gave a +1 T) then?

I notice a distinct lack of "many of which are incredibly tough and resilient compared to horses" in that line, and bringing up the fact that one specific special upgrade as for a mount that was tougher than a horse doesn't really make the argument that they usually have super horses any stronger.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, you're advocating we ignore all fluff? Fine. So, in that case, let's get round to making the game balanced. Let's balance Rough Riders.

They already did, they're called scout bikes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, Ogryns, Bullgryns, Veterans, Wyrdvanes, Ratlings and Sentinels get the cut? I mean, they're none of the things you listed.
And Kroot for Tau, as well as Onager Gauntlets?
And Grotesques in the Dark Eldar?
And Scouts in Space Marines (because they don't have Power Armour and are thus mechanically different)?

Something being the odd man out mechanically doesn't mean it has some vague difference, they mean it specially doesn't work like anything else in the army on a fundemental level. Most of those things don't fit that bill (save ogryns and kroot, and frankly I could live with a 40k that purged the last couple bits of "it's WHFB in space, because making sense is for squares", or that hacked out supflious bits from the tau like their auxiliaries who don't work with any other part of the army as it stands).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or, perhaps having a bit of everything (including cavalry) is the Imperial Guard's thing. Their variety. The fact that they can be moulded into any army, because the Imperial Guard is just so big? Maybe that's why people like it - because they can make Their Dudes.

Yeah, I love how my stormtroopers play exactly like every single other stormtrooper in the game, that really makes them feel like my own army. You make an army that looks a bit different but still plays the same, or you can get one that looks, feels, and plays differently, all that cost of like two units that didn't work right either way.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Imperial Guard are a TERRIBLE shooting army. They're outclassed by Tau. Does that mean that the Imperial Guard should be entirely scrapped because Tau do their job?

What reason do you have, given that you want to FIX the game, for scrapping a unit entirely instead of actually doing some work and fixing the problem?

By that logic we should ditch every army but eldar, after all they can do anything better than just about anyone else. The guard have a set theme that most everything works around and with, and that theme doesn't fit riders into it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Is it? I see it as no different to Space Marines having bikes.

"We have Space Marines who fight on bikes, so let's put bikes in the Codex!" The difference is that bikes are good, and cavalry is not. So, solution? Improve Cavalry.

By doing....what? I keep hering calls to fix it, I don't see any possible method to do so.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Only when you ignore Terminators and Tactical Squads taken in ten man units, and plasma cannons, and storm bolters, etc etc...

What someone *could* do is fix them. However, your response seems to be to remove anything that doesn't work, instead of fixing it.

Rough Riders *could* fill their role as fast moving hassle and harry units, giving some speedy punch to the Imperial Guard, if they were fixed. If they were removed, then the Guard lacks that.

No, they really can't. They're mechanically not designed or able to do that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators are not solidly designed. They're terrible.

So, what to do? Remove Terminators? They don't fit your criteria.
Do you know what *could* fit your criteria? Rough Riders, if they were actually looked at and improved, instead of being removed.

If you can't fix it (hint, you can't)....sure.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So why is this not done to the Imperial Guard?

Because GW sucks? I dunno.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I fail to see how REMOVING choices from the army will make it better. It won't. It'll streamline it, but that doesn't mean the options you're left with are any better. It just means you have less rubbish to look through, instead of actually fixing the rubbish and making everything viable.

Eventually, if you go down that way, we end up with mono-builds, because everything is homogenised.

Yeah, 'cause that totally happens with marines or tau or all those other army's.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is ONE UNIT. Do you think removing one unit will make all the difference? This isn't like trying to cram every Space Marine chapter in one book. This is one unit, of which variants are in use across a range of aspects of the army.

There isn't a dozen plus armies getting represented. This is one unit, which is represented in a dozen armies alone. What change will removing one single unit do?

Proably wouldn't be just the one, you've brought up more than that yourself.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You mean to say that a hypothetical "Attilan" Chapter Tactic would make my guardsmen all cavalry? I mean, because there wouldn't be a unit that could fill that role. How do you propose an Attilan army be played without cavalry?

Same way you did before, you don't. Only at least this time it's because you can't rather than you get tabled because your army is mechanically infeasible.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or you can actually do some work and put some effort in and balance a unit instead of giving up and saying "nope, can't handle this, if it's broken, throw it away".

Unless that's what you want to do - in which case, I would ask you to throw away most of the CSM, Tyranid, Imperial Guard, and Ork armies for being sub-par. And Terminators.

So, again, where's your magic fix for riders that sticks with thier fluff and doesn't turn them into scout bikers?

Melissia wrote:Then they're no longer really Guardsmen.

What makes a Guardsman a Guardsman?

What matters more in a wargame? Balance, or being consistent? I say that genuinely, because I don't know where I stand on it, and could be persuaded either way.

Battlegrinder wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

No, I absolutely agree. Let's fix that. And by that, I mean, let's actually get up and fix Rough Riders and make them viable.

You say mere infantry get gunned down - by what, exactly? Alien tech? But I'm going by what you said about WWI cavalry. Therefore, I'll compare it to the closest thing we have - lasguns and heavy stubbers. Even using them as metrics, Guardsmen survive a hell-of-a-lot. A basic rifle kills a man 16.6666666667% of the time. How are infantry massacred by modern weapons then?

They can't be made viable because the game mechanically leaves no room for that. They're T3 with a six up save, and mediocre WS and BS. No one would look at that statline and go "yeah, that looks like a great CC charging unit".

And they get gunned down by anything and everything bigger than two weakest ranged weapons in the games. Bolters, heavy bolters, autocannons, pulse weapons, ect. This whole "they can tank stubber fire" started off with some bizzare hypothetical about a lone squad charging a lone stubber emplacement, which in game....will never happen.

So, what you do is make them NOT T3 6+ with a better WS or BS. If you want make them viable as a unit in a wargame.
Unless you want to go by fluff, in which case there should be hundreds of Rough Riders for each Space Marine.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Tallarn use cavalry far more than scouting. And given that we know Praetorian battle discipline, and it's remarkable similarity to Colonial British tactics, it's logical to think that their cavalry tactics will be similar.

Yes, they're useless units. Units which exist in the fluff, and should be improved. That wouldn't be too hard, would it? We're asking for a unit to be BALANCED. Is that too much to ask?
Not to mention that if we now delete all useless units, we wouldn't even need to improve any. We'd just delete it. Such as Terminators, Pyrovores, Ratlings, etc etc

You must not be seeing all the threads that have mentioned terminators aren't worth it, and it's not like anyone was taking pyrovores before this, so yeah, dump em.

So, IOW - don't fix anything, just scrap the unit.

Okay. Would you fancy sharing that belief in every thread where people discuss how to improve an army or unit?

"How do we improve the Lena Russ?" "Scrap it."
"How do we make Terminators not suck?" "Scrap them."
"How to improve the Imperial Guard?" "Scrap them."

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No need to swear.
GW didn't have a problem giving Space Marines nine different tactics and specialities. They didn't have a problem making the IG Doctrines way back when.
If you think that adding something at least a-la Chapter Tactics is bloat, then why do SM get it?

And no, no need for guaranteed models - you can sell Cadians on as default, and allow players to convert armies. Or, better yet, possible conversion kits - like Genestealer Cults or Deathwatch.

I pointed out that idea, however riders still get ditched under that model, because the SM paradigm needs a solid framework of functional units to build itself around, and riders don't fit that.

Nor do Terminators.

How many units exclusively useful with one set of chapter tactics are there in the SM codex? You've got crusader squads as a holdover from when the Templars had their own codex....and that's it.

Who said Rough Riders can only be taken by Attilans? If all my suggestions were taken on, and Rough Riders could upgrade their mounys, Cadians could have motorbike Rough Riders - thereby making them available to EVERYONE.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The universe isn't stat blocks. The tabletop is.

The tabletop and universe are different. Which do you wish to address? The tabletop? Well, why should we remove a unit instead of fixing it? In universe? Why get rid of something that clearly fits in many force aesthetics?

And I don't justify anything by fluff. I I justify it because why should I remove a unit that could be fixed instead?

The tabletop and setting are different, but they're supposed to be two sides of the same coin, not two totally dissimilar coins.

And we should remove the riders because you can't fix some things. Sure, maybe with a better save and better weapon skill they could be a bit better, and maybe we'll give them tougher mounts to patch that weakness......oh, look. You invented the scout bike squad.

No. We have something with the same stats as a Scout Bike Squad. It is not a Scout Bike Squad though. It is Rough Riders.
Unless you mean to say that Chaos Space Marines are actually just loyalist Space Marines, because their statline and warhead are the same.

Would you say giving Rough Riders that statline would be balanced?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Excuse me? Allow me to quote: "a horse/animal/beast/grox/bike or other mount". Huh. And what are Mukaali (which, IIRC, gave a +1 T) then?

I notice a distinct lack of "many of which are incredibly tough and resilient compared to horses" in that line, and bringing up the fact that one specific special upgrade as for a mount that was tougher than a horse doesn't really make the argument that they usually have super horses any stronger.

No, but we know the Imperium CAN. With retconning, if you felt that was necessary, it becomes completely feasible to have augmented cavalry. Not to mention the Space Wolves have augmented and tough cava!ry of their own.

Mukaali are enough reason to justify it: they prove the existence of at least one variant of tough mount. And I'm sure there's more.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, you're advocating we ignore all fluff? Fine. So, in that case, let's get round to making the game balanced. Let's balance Rough Riders.

They already did, they're called scout bikes.

Brilliant. No need to scarp them then. They're balanced now, so therefore fit and have a role.

Unless they don't, so they're not balanced, which means that just using a Scout Bike profile isn't enough work.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, Ogryns, Bullgryns, Veterans, Wyrdvanes, Ratlings and Sentinels get the cut? I mean, they're none of the things you listed.
And Kroot for Tau, as well as Onager Gauntlets?
And Grotesques in the Dark Eldar?
And Scouts in Space Marines (because they don't have Power Armour and are thus mechanically different)?

Something being the odd man out mechanically doesn't mean it has some vague difference, they mean it specially doesn't work like anything else in the army on a fundemental level. Most of those things don't fit that bill (save ogryns and kroot, and frankly I could live with a 40k that purged the last couple bits of "it's WHFB in space, because making sense is for squares", or that hacked out supflious bits from the tau like their auxiliaries who don't work with any other part of the army as it stands).

So you're advocating getting rid of units that you yourself think are inappropriate.

I really want to see this one getting proposed:
Yes, let's remove Kroot, Ogryns, Bullgryns, Terminators, Vespid etc etc.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or, perhaps having a bit of everything (including cavalry) is the Imperial Guard's thing. Their variety. The fact that they can be moulded into any army, because the Imperial Guard is just so big? Maybe that's why people like it - because they can make Their Dudes.

Yeah, I love how my stormtroopers play exactly like every single other stormtrooper in the game, that really makes them feel like my own army. You make an army that looks a bit different but still plays the same, or you can get one that looks, feels, and plays differently, all that cost of like two units that didn't work right either way.

I wasn't aware that Rough Riders and Regimental Tactics were mutually exclusive.
Oh, right - they don't have to be, but you seem to be hell bent on enforcing that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Imperial Guard are a TERRIBLE shooting army. They're outclassed by Tau. Does that mean that the Imperial Guard should be entirely scrapped because Tau do their job?

What reason do you have, given that you want to FIX the game, for scrapping a unit entirely instead of actually doing some work and fixing the problem?

By that logic we should ditch every army but eldar, after all they can do anything better than just about anyone else. The guard have a set theme that most everything works around and with, and that theme doesn't fit riders into it.

Well, you heard it here first. Only take Eldar, because everything else is being scrapped, because we shouldn't bother trying to nce underpowered units.

After all, isn't that what you suggest with Rough Riders?

And no, we clearly have different ideas on what the theme of the Imperial Guard is.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Is it? I see it as no different to Space Marines having bikes.

"We have Space Marines who fight on bikes, so let's put bikes in the Codex!" The difference is that bikes are good, and cavalry is not. So, solution? Improve Cavalry.

By doing....what? I keep hering calls to fix it, I don't see any possible method to do so.

You proposed Scout Bikes.

Again, there's always the whole buff to insanity approach. I can guarantee it'll make them good. Too good, however. The key is to make them BALANCED.

Anything can be balanced. Either by points, or by abilities. It's just a case of putting work in.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Only when you ignore Terminators and Tactical Squads taken in ten man units, and plasma cannons, and storm bolters, etc etc...

What someone *could* do is fix them. However, your response seems to be to remove anything that doesn't work, instead of fixing it.

Rough Riders *could* fill their role as fast moving hassle and harry units, giving some speedy punch to the Imperial Guard, if they were fixed. If they were removed, then the Guard lacks that.

No, they really can't. They're mechanically not designed or able to do that.

And yet bikes fill the same role for Space Marines. Why couldn't Rough Riders do thathat same role if they were improved?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Terminators are not solidly designed. They're terrible.

So, what to do? Remove Terminators? They don't fit your criteria.
Do you know what *could* fit your criteria? Rough Riders, if they were actually looked at and improved, instead of being removed.

If you can't fix it (hint, you can't)....sure.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that if something is broken, there's no way it can be fixed?

Best go tell people that in every "Buff XYZ" thread then.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So why is this not done to the Imperial Guard?

Because GW sucks? I dunno.

Exactly.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I fail to see how REMOVING choices from the army will make it better. It won't. It'll streamline it, but that doesn't mean the options you're left with are any better. It just means you have less rubbish to look through, instead of actually fixing the rubbish and making everything viable.

Eventually, if you go down that way, we end up with mono-builds, because everything is homogenised.

Yeah, 'cause that totally happens with marines or tau or all those other army's.

Why? It's along your logic. If all the bad units are removed, we're left with on!y the best units, thus creating homogony. I haven't said that any army has achieved it yet. I'm saying that's your argument, taken to the logical extreme.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
This is ONE UNIT. Do you think removing one unit will make all the difference? This isn't like trying to cram every Space Marine chapter in one book. This is one unit, of which variants are in use across a range of aspects of the army.

There isn't a dozen plus armies getting represented. This is one unit, which is represented in a dozen armies alone. What change will removing one single unit do?

Proably wouldn't be just the one, you've brought up more than that yourself.

You believe that by getting rid of all the sub-par units, the Codex will become good? Tell me, how will Infantry Squads get better if Ratings, Ogryns, Bullgryns and Rough Riders are removed?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You mean to say that a hypothetical "Attilan" Chapter Tactic would make my guardsmen all cavalry? I mean, because there wouldn't be a unit that could fill that role. How do you propose an Attilan army be played without cavalry?

Same way you did before, you don't. Only at least this time it's because you can't rather than you get tabled because your army is mechanically infeasible.

Again, if my Rough Riders are infeasible, then they haven't been improved. To which I would ask that they ARE fixed.

Also, loving the whole "I disagree with your army as a concept, therefore you can't play it" opinion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or you can actually do some work and put some effort in and balance a unit instead of giving up and saying "nope, can't handle this, if it's broken, throw it away".

Unless that's what you want to do - in which case, I would ask you to throw away most of the CSM, Tyranid, Imperial Guard, and Ork armies for being sub-par. And Terminators.

So, again, where's your magic fix for riders that sticks with thier fluff and doesn't turn them into scout bikers?

What's wrong with having the same statline as Scout Bikers? If it fixes them, so be it.
And with the tabletop, I'm not fussed about fluff. I'd rather see them be actually effective. And besides, with fluff, we'd see all of ten Space Marines fighting against an entire Warband of Orks. Clearly not accurate to tabletop.

And no, I'm leaving the fix for Kanluwen and the overhaul.

 Melissia wrote:
... by "fast-moving" do you mean on foot?

Simply put, because guardsmen are humans, and humans don't move that fast on foot. But I think a better solution is simply to not give a damn and lump rough-riders in with bikers and say model it however you want. But then again, my apathy on the topic is well stated.

No, I mean the actual cavalry models.

Why are we pretending that fixing rough riders is an impossible task? DKoK death riders are already way better, especially in the "death riders as troops" detachment. Simply putting them into codex IG armies as-is would fix most of the problem, and adding a "take rough riders as troops" option would fix the rest.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are we pretending that fixing rough riders is an impossible task? DKoK death riders are already way better, especially in the "death riders as troops" detachment. Simply putting them into codex IG armies as-is would fix most of the problem, and adding a "take rough riders as troops" option would fix the rest.

While I would grant that DKoK Death Riders are way better, I'm not even sure they can be considered particularly functional in 7E. They were "ok" earlier, but mine certainly just get immediately pasted and driven off the board quickly, though I'm not running them in large numbers as Troops.

Ok, I'm not going to keep spending my time on these sprawling mega-posts, it's too much of a time sink and I've got stuff to do. So I'll give a quick summary and move on.

Sure, you can 'balance' riders by turning them into scout bikers, which would be great if not for the minor flaw of them not being rough riders anymore. The fact that was the only suggestion kinda underlines the whole "they're hosed, dump them" point I'm making (and I'm somewhat amused by the constant "well, how about we get rid of termies too, since they don't work" as if you're expecting that to make me change my mind. Sure, scrap 'em).

40k has gotten ride of units before, and will do so again. It's a natural part of the game's development, and sometimes you just have to deal with it. As it stands, rough riders cannot be fixed because their core concept of "dude on a horse" does not work out mechanically, and they really don't have a role (scout bikes do, but scout bikes have a role in an entirely differant army that you can't just swap into the IG). What do you want riders to actually do?

How about you send some to contest an objective? Assuming they're not gunned down the way, sure, they can get there. And then they'll be pushed back off one by the first determined push, because they're still just guardsman, they don't have a commissar or priest for morale and they're proably out of orders range. Whereas a regular infantry squad with a chimera could get there a bit easier, has an APC with heavy weapons to back them up, and can take special characters.

How about as a hit a run harressment unit, like you've suggested....yeah, not gonna work either. They're still to easy to kill, have guard BS and no heavy weapons, and most screening forces can stop them cold. Hit and run harassment requires that you can actually do worthwhile damage to an enemy....something sentinels can do, since they're tough and have more firepower.

Ok, so how about CC.....with S3 and guard weapon skill.....no.

That leaves....what? Really, what are they supposed to do? Scout bikes have more firepower, infiltrate, and locator beacons, so they can get in early, do damage, and then call in the heavy stuff. Riders can't, and even if you buff them up to scout level (I really like the "are chaos marines the same as loyalist, because they have the same statline" bit.....uh, pretty much? Plus or minus a few rules and some wargear, that's kinda thier entire point, is to be loyalist marines but evil. Doesn't mean you can give the guard loyalist marines but just call them something else).

 Peregrine wrote:
Why are we pretending that fixing rough riders is an impossible task? DKoK death riders are already way better, especially in the "death riders as troops" detachment. Simply putting them into codex IG armies as-is would fix most of the problem, and adding a "take rough riders as troops" option would fix the rest.

Maybe because saying "they need to be ditched because they can't be fixed" sounds like a more compelling argument than "they need to be ditched because I don't like horses."

Weapons in the fluff are much more dangerous than they are on the tabletop. Lasguns are supposed to be fairly deadly and bolters are supposed to be devastating. That doesn't work so well on the tabletop as things would get killed way too quickly. Kind of like how Marines and other really elite units don't play on the table like they read in the fluff. If a person had over a hundred Orks or IG with supporting vehicles and their opponent had a single squad of Marines or Aspect Warriors it would make for a weird game. (That could be fun sometimes, but not as the normal game.)

I'm struggling a bit with the difference between making sense and being realistic. I know that things can make sense internally within a non-realistic setting. I just get worried when people start talking about 40k needing to make sense because I sometimes read it as them wanting to make 40k realistic, which would be a big waste of time and ruin all the things that make 40k great in my opinion. I like that 40k is total space opera fantasy where the rule of cool prevails.

A lot of things don't make sense in the game (as opposed to being simply unrealistic) but they are awesome. Does a super human in power armor on an armored motorcycle stand a better chance of getting into close combat than a regular human on a horse? Yes, but it still doesn't make much sense to do so. Even with the superhuman biology and armor, it would make a lot more sense (in my mind at least) to get off the motorcycle, get behind cover and shoot at the enemy. However, superhumans on motorcycles crashing into the enemy is cool. Why would someone want run up try to hack at someone with a sword when they have a gun? Yeah, a superhuman in armor would be more likely to be able to get up close, but even up close most of the time it would make more sense (in my mind) to shoot them. Chainsaw swords don't make any kind of sense, but they're awesome.

If we remove everything that doesn't make sense, is unrealistic and/or doesn't work very well on the tabletop there won't be anything left for us to play with.

I want supermen with chainsaw swords fighting Orcs in Spaaaaaace! I want suicidal cavalry charges into withering plasma fire! I don't want another generic sci-fi setting that tries to be realistic but fails because that usually makes for a boring game.

Keep 40k weird!

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I want supermen with chainsaw swords fighting Orcs in Spaaaaaace! I want suicidal cavalry charges into withering plasma fire! I don't want another generic sci-fi setting that tries to be realistic but fails because that usually makes for a boring game.

Keep 40k weird!

Well, given that the closest thing we got to a 'fix' for riders involved turning them into space marines, it looks like we can combine those two wishes. Now, I mainly play marines so I can kind of appreciate the appeal, but I can't help but thing it kind of clashes with the rest of the IG's theme.

It is my opinion that rough riders shouldn't be an assault unit. They should be a rapid strike unit that shows us unexpectedly, rides through an encampment and rides out. Basically they should ride through the center of camp with rapid firing lasguns, carbines, etc, then uses sabres to mop up the stragglers. I'm not a fan of their current incarnation personally.

you expose yourself to way too much fire if you try to engage an enemy in melee while they have machine guns.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
What matters more in a wargame? Balance, or being consistent?

Yes.

Perfect balance with a complete disregard for faction differentiation leads to all factions being the exact same. That makes for a bad wargame for the most part.

 Battlegrinder wrote:
As it stands, rough riders cannot be fixed because their core concept of "dude on a horse" does not work out mechanically

DKoK death riders disagree with you.

Let's say we replace Rough Riders as they currently are with the much, much better DKoK Death Riders. An extra attack and wound per base, 6+ FnP and able to take 4+ armor, and re-rolling dangerous terrain. With all that, I'd absolutely take them at current Rough Rider costs (no idea how many points they are in actuality, as I don't have the DKoK supplement). This makes them noticeably harder to kill than typical guardsmen, and it's actually very safe to use cover, as opposed to how suicidal it is for regular RRs. If that statline was just moved to the regular IG codex, I would absolutely use them. I note that they can also be taken in platoons just like stormtroopers and regular infantry!

 Battlegrinder wrote:
40k has gotten ride of units before, and will do so again. It's a natural part of the game's development, and sometimes you just have to deal with it. As it stands, rough riders cannot be fixed because their core concept of "dude on a horse" does not work out mechanically, and they really don't have a role (scout bikes do, but scout bikes have a role in an entirely differant army that you can't just swap into the IG). What do you want riders to actually do?

See my above paragraph.

How about you send some to contest an objective? Assuming they're not gunned down the way, sure, they can get there. And then they'll be pushed back off one by the first determined push, because they're still just guardsman, they don't have a commissar or priest for morale and they're proably out of orders range.

Mech vets are also just guardsmen, can easily be pushed off objectives if the opponent deems it important, generally far from orders range, and are not worth attaching a commissar or priest, but they are useful, right? Yes they are, you even mention them in the next quote. But there is an awesome looking mounted Commissar model, thought I'd throw that out there too.

Whereas a regular infantry squad with a chimera could get there a bit easier, has an APC with heavy weapons to back them up, and can take special characters.

But wounding a horse extra hard doesn't cause it to sometimes explode and kill half of the unit in the process. Transports can be as dangerous as they are useful, if you're not careful. If mine are still alive after I dump off my vets, I get them at least 6" away as a precaution.

How about as a hit a run harressment unit, like you've suggested....yeah, not gonna work either. They're still to easy to kill, have guard BS and no heavy weapons, and most screening forces can stop them cold. Hit and run harassment requires that you can actually do worthwhile damage to an enemy....something sentinels can do, since they're tough and have more firepower.

Currently, RR squads can take as many special weapons as a stormtrooper squad, and you shouldn't put Heavy Weapons in your fast units like mech vets anyways. A sentinel can put out a couple ranged shots a turn, but are slow and terrible at assault, so the RRs actually fill the "hit and run" niche much better, as DKoK's number of attacks on the charge, I5, S5, and AP3 even once can be quite impactful.

TL;DR Just give Codex IG Rough Riders those Death Rider stats and they'll provide much greater utility over the course of a game, particularly because they can make use of cover. One unit would easily deserve a limited Fast Attack slot over a sentinel or two. And, they are still cavalry units. Boom, exactly what we've been asking for! They don't have to be great, but they would certainly be playable. So, why talk about removing RRs when they could instead be more like their cousins from another supplement?

 Battlegrinder wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I want supermen with chainsaw swords fighting Orcs in Spaaaaaace! I want suicidal cavalry charges into withering plasma fire! I don't want another generic sci-fi setting that tries to be realistic but fails because that usually makes for a boring game.

Keep 40k weird!

Well, given that the closest thing we got to a 'fix' for riders involved turning them into space marines, it looks like we can combine those two wishes. Now, I mainly play marines so I can kind of appreciate the appeal, but I can't help but thing it kind of clashes with the rest of the IG's theme.

I would agree that they shouldn't be as tough as Marines. Is there a place for a fast moving but fragile unit that hits hard?

Most of the blurbs I've read about Rough Riders talk about them being long-range, self-sufficient scouts who sometimes ambush the enemy using hit-and-run tactics. That's pretty different than heavy shock cavalry, although players use them to represent both and the blurb in the current codex briefly mentions both styles. I've read about the hunting lances having explosive tips. I thought that we used to be able to give them different tips that emulated the power of different weapons (krak, plasma, melta) for different amounts of points? Maybe I hallucinated that whole thing. My memory in unreliable.

Maybe give them outflank, the ability to assault the turn they come in from reserves, WS 4 and make the hunting lances have a melta attack that hits at high initiative. They would essentially be a one-use melta missile that can take out a troublesome unit in the opponent's backfield. There would probably be justification for giving them rules like Furious Charge, Hammer of Wrath, and Hit & Run, but that might be too many rules for one unit.

That would be representative of scout cavalry. Heavy cavalry would be trickier.

By clashing with the rest of the IG's theme do you mean how they work on the tabletop, or for aesthetic/fluff reasons?

I'm really curious to see 8th edition. It's hard to talk about small, individual changes when there might be broad, sweeping changes in the near future. If they go to a warscrolls system then keeping legacy units around isn't such a big deal. If they stick with the Codex system I wouldn't be too upset if Rough Riders and ab-humans got removed from the main Codex but had some support in a supplement. It'd be nice to see the Guard getting more support and variety (both in terms of models and rules) in the future.

Peregrine wrote:

 Battlegrinder wrote:
As it stands, rough riders cannot be fixed because their core concept of "dude on a horse" does not work out mechanically

DKoK death riders disagree with you.

Aren't they like cyborged up stormtroopers pumped to the gills with combat drugs? That's not exactly the same as "dude on a horse".

KommissarKiln wrote:Mech vets are also just guardsmen, can easily be pushed off objectives if the opponent deems it important, generally far from orders range, and are not worth attaching a commissar or priest, but they are useful, right? Yes they are, you even mention them in the next quote. But there is an awesome looking mounted Commissar model, thought I'd throw that out there too.

Yeah, but they can at least make a bit more of a fight of it. and no, I was unaware of a mounted commissar being a thing.

KommissarKiln wrote:But wounding a horse extra hard doesn't cause it to sometimes explode and kill half of the unit in the process. Transports can be as dangerous as they are useful, if you're not careful. If mine are still alive after I dump off my vets, I get them at least 6" away as a precaution.

True, but I don't think a squad of Riders would get there at full strength while under fire either.

KommissarKiln wrote:Currently, RR squads can take as many special weapons as a stormtrooper squad, and you shouldn't put Heavy Weapons in your fast units like mech vets anyways. A sentinel can put out a couple ranged shots a turn, but are slow and terrible at assault, so the RRs actually fill the "hit and run" niche much better, as DKoK's number of attacks on the charge, I5, S5, and AP3 even once can be quite impactful.

I think they could do "hit" well enough, sure. The "and run" bit would be dicier. Sentinels have maginally less punch but greater survivablity, which is good because if RR wind up as a suicide unit you're wasting a lot of extra points on them over regular guard. And greater range, at least if you're going to try and use the special weapons on the riders.

KommissarKiln wrote:TL;DR Just give Codex IG Rough Riders those Death Rider stats and they'll provide much greater utility over the course of a game, particularly because they can make use of cover. One unit would easily deserve a limited Fast Attack slot over a sentinel or two. And, they are still cavalry units. Boom, exactly what we've been asking for! They don't have to be great, but they would certainly be playable. So, why talk about removing RRs when they could instead be more like their cousins from another supplement?

The main issue would be that DKoK riders, while they have some good stuff going for them...are not really the same as RR. It's like replacing a regular tactical squad with sterngaurds, yeah they do the same kind of thing, but they're not the same.

 Battlegrinder wrote:
Aren't they like cyborged up stormtroopers pumped to the gills with combat drugs? That's not exactly the same as "dude on a horse".

No. Their horses are genetically engineered horse-beasts on combat drugs, but the men riding them are just normal humans. And grimdark horse-beasts instead of WHFB horses is entirely in line with the theme of 40k.

and no, I was unaware of a mounted commissar being a thing.

It was a FW event-only limited edition model, but rules-wise DKoK death rider squads can take commissars.

The main issue would be that DKoK riders, while they have some good stuff going for them...are not really the same as RR. It's like replacing a regular tactical squad with sterngaurds, yeah they do the same kind of thing, but they're not the same.

Of course they're the same thing. Just look at the models (which, until fairly recently, were just alternate models for the standard IG rough rider rules):



Guardsmen on horses carrying lances. The only difference (aside from being good sculpts instead of the ancient rough riders) is that they're DKoK guardsmen instead of Cadian guardsmen, there's no reason that the same rules couldn't represent "normal" Cadians too.

I thought that we used to be able to give them different tips that emulated the power of different weapons (krak, plasma, melta) for different amounts of points? Maybe I hallucinated that whole thing. My memory in unreliable.

I believe it was either Forgeworld or 4th edition.

But let's put it bluntly, the only arguments against Rough Riders at this point is pretty much "I don't like them and don't want them to exist" given the constant changing of the goal posts.

Rough riders need free grav-carbines and multi-lasers on everyone to be unique and not just 'worse scoutbikes':

18" S* Ap2 Assault 3, Grav
36" S6 Ap6 Assault 3