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.

Dandelion wrote:

epronovost wrote:
Technically, Arbites should probably have acces to horses or similar mounts as they are very efficient to disband poorly armed rioters and very intimidating.

ooh, that's a good idea

Yeah, that's why our little Judge Dredd like guys already have bikes.

Plastic thunderbolt!

 Asherian Command wrote:

A Whole new range that isn't cadian cause well. They are all dead.

Read your lore. They ain't dead.

Planet broke before the Cadians did--and there's still all the worlds settled by Cadians that have kept their traditions. For all intents and purposes, they're going the Battlestar Galactica route with Cadians: "Our planet's destroyed, now we need to find a new home..."

w1zard wrote:

If there exists a setting where people fly around and gravity doesn't apply to them, then there must be a reasonable explanation within the setting as to why gravity doesn't work that way. Not explaining it is bad writing.

If there exists a setting where only some people can manipulate some kind of "Force" to move objects, affect the minds of others etc. then it must be explained why not everyone can do so. Not explaining it is bad writing.

Seriously, sometimes it is actually better that you do not try to force in explanations for every single thing as it can actually weaken the story you're trying to tell.

Or do you consider midichlorians a worthwhile and needed addition to the Star Wars story and the failure to tell you why only some people could wield the Force in the original trilogy terrible writing?

w1zard wrote:

Motorcycle infantry are a thing even today.

Look them up on youtube, along with "military motorcycle".

Motorcycle "infantry" implies that the motorcycle is used for transport and not combat. You use the bike to get to the fight then you dismount. Just like you'd use horses and there are plenty of accounts of both happening (dismounting from bikes or horses to shoot). Bikes are no better tactically than horses (but are usually better for transport, but not always), because it's not the horse that's a risk, it's the exposed rider. And horses are harder to kill than people btw. No standing military is using bikes today (or ever afaik) the way the genecult riders are using them. i.e. with guns blazing at full throttle.

Shooting from a moving bike is just as ridiculous as shooting from a moving horse.

Dandelion wrote:



Shooting from a moving bike is just as ridiculous as shooting from a moving horse.

You can shoot from horseback with minimal training and with a lot of training, you can shoot from horseback with ennerving accuracy as demonstrated by Native Americans and Steppe warriors. You can guide a horse only with your legs even in rather complecated manoeuvre. That's how mounted archery and early days dragoon worked afterall. You can't do that with a motorcycle as you need both hands on the handle to drive it without killing yourself, especially on hard terrain.

epronovost wrote:

Dandelion wrote:



Shooting from a moving bike is just as ridiculous as shooting from a moving horse.

You can shoot from horseback with minimal training and with a lot of training, you can shoot from horseback with ennerving accuracy as demonstrated by Native Americans and Steppe warriors. You can guide a horse only with your legs even in rather complecated manoeuvre. That's how mounted archery and early days dragoon worked afterall. You can't do that with a motorcycle as you need both hands on the handle to drive it without killing yourself, especially on hard terrain.

I was talking more about the fact that riding through a modern battlefield will get you killed. You're putting yourself way out for no gain.

The extra speed though does make you a harder target. Probably not enough to completely erase the accuracy advantage of modern weapons, but it would help. But bikes have the same issue.

It's not really accuracy that does bikes/horses in, it's the rate of fire. Automatic guns force everyone into cover.

Dandelion wrote:

epronovost wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Shooting from a moving bike is just as ridiculous as shooting from a moving horse.

You can shoot from horseback with minimal training and with a lot of training, you can shoot from horseback with ennerving accuracy as demonstrated by Native Americans and Steppe warriors. You can guide a horse only with your legs even in rather complecated manoeuvre. That's how mounted archery and early days dragoon worked afterall. You can't do that with a motorcycle as you need both hands on the handle to drive it without killing yourself, especially on hard terrain.

I was talking more about the fact that riding through a modern battlefield will get you killed. You're putting yourself way out for no gain.

Sigh. I like how people completely ignore context of wars, just lumping them into 'modern' despite their imagination of one just includes tiny fraction of the world. See WW1 for one - all you can imagine is trenches, right? Then you'd be wrong, because on the whole eastern and middle eastern fronts hundreds of thousands of horses and cavalrymen were used. Hell, main British Mesopotamian campaign unit was entirely mounted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_Division_(India)

Then you have WW2, with small, tiny front in France being decided by tanks, while huge, expansive one in Russia saw lots of cavalry actions, with even such niche formation as SS fielding no less than six cavalry divisions, and cavalry actions occurring as late as 1945 despite terrain again shifting to cramped, unsuitable one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Schoenfeld

Then you have Cold War, which is what people see as "modern" war - the problem is, the avalanche of dozens of armoured divisions packed tightly into small river gap in central Germany is not what typical war in the last 50 years looked like, in fact, seeing it never came to pass, you can argue it's warped anomaly that doesn't represent modern war in any way or shape. Wars in Africa saw cavalry actions. In Asia, too. In fact, in last 40 years, NATO did more bayonet charges in wars than they did armoured offensives.

If you had a sparsely populated, mostly flat planet in 40K, you can bet you'd see cavalry on it too. Not only because horses are more reliable and less problematic in many ways, but because of the aspect most of people here ignored - logistics. Tank engine needs to be taken apart and rebuilt every 500 to 1000 km. That's why in WW2 in Russia you saw so many cavalry - tanks were only moved short distances to important battles, as any breakdown meant capture or blowing it up. You can get away with just driving tanks in such small campaign as French one, but if wanted to cover more ground than that, you did that on foot or mounted. Now, in 40K, they still have the same considerations - and seeing enginseers are way more limited in numbers than technicians are in modern armies, you simply can't keep tank regiment going for long if you want to wage long war of maneuver. Fuel isn't the only limiting factor. Typical 40K soldier can learn how to take care of an animal, but on a lot of worlds, teaching him how to do basic tank maintenance is heresy...

You're reading way too deep into what I said. I agree that horses do have uses, but sitting on a horse makes you an easy target. Sitting on a bike makes you an easy target. Standing in the open also makes you an easy target. Standing on a hill makes you an easy target etc...

And when I said "modern" war I was referring to how the US currently approaches engagements (as I am a little familiar with it and the US spends a lot of time improving the military). The US does not train troops to fight directly from horseback nor from a motorcycle. If you do happen to use either as a means of transport, you are expected to dismount and fight on foot since it's more effective. That's all I'm trying to say.

And for the record, I am not against cavalry in 40k, in fact I would love it.

Note than many cavalry divisions were actually tank or airmobile divisions.

I don't really have anything against Rough Riders, but as a treadhead, I'd rather my recon units be light tanks rather than horse mounted. Or maybe something like a Willy's jeep with heavy weapon in the back.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Note than many cavalry divisions were actually tank or airmobile divisions.

I don't really have anything against Rough Riders, but as a treadhead, I'd rather my recon units be light tanks rather than horse mounted.

What if they were tank-horses?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Note than many cavalry divisions were actually tank or airmobile divisions.

I don't really have anything against Rough Riders, but as a treadhead, I'd rather my recon units be light tanks rather than horse mounted.

What if they were tank-horses?

I hate walkers. Period. No.

Small trucks, like little jeeps with guns, would be cool though.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Note than many cavalry divisions were actually tank or airmobile divisions.

I don't really have anything against Rough Riders, but as a treadhead, I'd rather my recon units be light tanks rather than horse mounted.

What if they were tank-horses?

I hate walkers. Period. No.

Small trucks, like little jeeps with guns, would be cool though.

Something like that would be cool. Maybe a plastic version of the Tauros or Salamander? (Neither is a jeep, but sound pretty close to what you're talking about.)

This makes me think of what a waste of potential the Taurox is. It could have been so many interesting things in terms of both rules and fluff, but instead it's redundant and ... ugh.

This is what I'm using for my "recon" tanks at the moment. Well, as a stand in for a mechanized cop car.



I'm using taurox stats, but would love an actual recon/light tank.

Dandelion wrote:
And when I said "modern" war I was referring to how the US currently approaches engagements (as I am a little familiar with it and the US spends a lot of time improving the military).

The US approach to war is "spend an obscene percentage of the country's wealth, more than the rest of the world combined, and only attack helpless small countries that have no hope of winning". Yeah, things are great when you have an unlimited amount of money to spend on a "war" and completely outclass the opposition. Logistics don't matter when you're free to spend a million dollars and various transport vehicles to move a tank of gas for a bike. But that's not at all what the 40k universe is like. Fights are fair, resources are limited, and you can't magically solve all problems by playing in god mode.

I would like to see plastic towed artillery that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (it doesn't necessarily have to be Earthshaker-size). I don't think it's necessary gameplay-wise, as guard already have artillery pretty well covered. I just think it's cool.

Fast Attack choices seem the most limited at the moment. New Rough Riders (whether on motorbikes or horses) would be a fun way to expand the selection.

Something else I've been thinking about is possibly giving Special Weapon Squads a scout move (like Scout Sentinels and Tau Pathfinders) and moving them to Fast Attack. Special Weapons Squads acting as scouts with Sniper Rifles or infiltrating saboteurs with Melta Guns* makes a lot of sense to me. Some of the other special weapons maybe not quite as much. The things I like about this is that it wouldn't require a new kit and it would give people running infantry regiments a unit in the Fast Attack slot.
*In some of the old fluff melta guns were described as being preferred by units infiltrating behind enemy lines because they made a *woooosh* noise that was quieter than many other weapons. I'm not sure if that fluff is outdated.

A new plastic infantry squad that could be customized to represent many different regiments is kind of boring but at the same time the thing that would probably make me the most happy, especially if they had greatcoats.

 Mmmpi wrote:
"Why does the Imperium use horses?" Because they still find value in them. Done. Explained.

Not good enough, especially since it wouldn't even fly TODAY.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Cavalry charge in 2008. Was successful in the face of tanks.

Again, source? The poles tried that in WW2 and it didn't work out for them.

 Mmmpi wrote:
And you're telling me a setting that has people drive closer to hit things with swords wouldn't do a cavalry charge?

That was a meme. If you cannot separate memes about the setting from actual background lore you shouldn't be talking about what is acceptable for the setting.

 Mmmpi wrote:
They have entire space marine chapters built around the idea of space sword fighting. As for justification why it works, YOU need further justification. We don't.

And space sword fighting works because the "swords" are hyper advanced energy weapons that can cut through any armor or material. Perfectly plausible within the confines of the setting. Regular horses and cavalry charges do NOT work TODAY, how do you expect them to work in the 41st millenium when the average infantry weapon is a 75 caliber automatic grenade launcher.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Why is this so difficult a concept?

Because you are exaggerating or outright misrepresenting the horse's usefulness on the modern battlefield. The horse is a beast of burden to be used to transport men and material across rough terrain, and ONLY when there is no access to vehicles which do the same thing except better. Horses have not been used seriously in combat since WW1.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
"Why does the Imperium use horses?" Because they still find value in them. Done. Explained.

Not good enough, especially since it wouldn't even fly TODAY.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Cavalry charge in 2008. Was successful in the face of tanks.

Again, source? The poles tried that in WW2 and it didn't work out for them.

 Mmmpi wrote:
And you're telling me a setting that has people drive closer to hit things with swords wouldn't do a cavalry charge?

That was a meme. If you cannot separate memes about the setting from actual background lore you shouldn't be talking about what is acceptable for the setting.

 Mmmpi wrote:
They have entire space marine chapters built around the idea of space sword fighting. As for justification why it works, YOU need further justification. We don't.

And space sword fighting works because the "swords" are hyper advanced energy weapons that can cut through any armor or material. Perfectly plausible within the confines of the setting. Regular horses and cavalry charges do NOT work TODAY, how do you expect them to work in the 41st millenium when the average infantry weapon is a 75 caliber automatic grenade launcher.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Why is this so difficult a concept?

Because you are exaggerating or outright misrepresenting the horse's usefulness on the modern battlefield. The horse is a beast of burden to be used to transport men and material across rough terrain, and ONLY when there is no access to vehicles which do the same thing except better. Horses have not been used seriously in combat since WW1.

firstly the standard infantry gun isn't a 75 calibre automatic ROCKET , not grenade, launcher, that is only for 1 million people in the whole universe, secondly in modern warfare which you are comparing this to is trench warfare used, NO in case you haven't realised warfare changes over time, as proven with cavalry charges, which went out of fashion for being bad and then were brought back in 150 years for being good in the general style of warfare of the time. also horses have been used in Afghanistan in the 2000's over motorbikes because of accuracy and they make lots less noise than motorbikes

Guard and Sisters use the boltgun too, far more than 1 million users.

A new and interesting HQ model, either guard or Scions. Preferably a new Scion commander because at least you can get alternate guard command from Forgeworld.

I'm disappointed that it looks like forgeworld has given up on the AM lines. We need a new troop box. Seeing what they have done with GSC a new veteran kit could be awsome. I'd like to see FW put a regular turret on the Malcadore chassis. Someone did that as a conversion and it looked awsome. While I like that the GW vehicles seem to be getting smaller footprints, the Malcadore chassis seems to be a good size.

There are militaries that use horses, some of them regularly. The US is one of the not regular users. The main reason the US switched was because in the 1930's the US was the major oil exporter, which means it had the resources and logistics to supply fuel. Almost no one else was in that situation at the time.
So, no. My reasoning is perfectly fine. Because the Imperium does find value in using them. We know this because they use them. Successfully.

That old myth? The Poles wiped out a large portion of the German cavalry, outpaced their AT guns, and were attacked by a tank formation. They didn't charge anything, they were retreating back to weapons that could hurt the tanks (which were on horse limbers). After the battle, the Germans rearrainged the dead to make it look like the Poles charged the tanks.

It is a meme, but it's one that sums up much of the Imperium's mindset. After all, we still have entire chapters of space marines who's primary strategy is charge with chainswords.

The average imperial Melee weapon by numbers is a steel bayonet. By table top presence a chainsword. Not a powersword. You were saying? As for the average 40K ranged weapon, it's either the lasgun, or the autogun, not the bolter. Besides, a horses flak armor has about a 1/3 chance of stopping a bolter round. Which by modern armor standards is pretty damn good.

Nope, not misrepresenting anything. Just countering your attempts to misrepresent their usefulness. It is a good rough terrain transport. The horse however can fight. As in literally fight. In rough terrain, the only better vehicle is a helicopter btw. The were used seriously in combat in WWII. Italian cavalry seized Don River crossings in Russia for example. China used cavalry successfully into the 1970's. The US used them in 2001 (not 2008 like I had said earlier), and still uses them for rural patrols. Hell, modern police use them instead of motorcycles in urban areas in many places, and urban centers definitely have roads.

 Mmmpi wrote:
*snip*

Let's not derail two threads with the same argument. If you want to keep discussing it let's move over to the other one.

I'll just end with re-iterating that I would like to see motorcycle rough riders as a new guard model.

Just as I'd like to see horses, due to a human scale bike kit already existing for easy conversions.

Yes though, I was just about to suggest keeping this in the RR thread.

New plastic guardsmen, any day. I've been waiting that for 20 years now. Cadians are great, but other regiments are also tempting..

 Crimson wrote:
I think what the Guard needs most is new plastic basic infantry. The Cadians are pretty bad by modern standards and less is said about the Catachans the better. When you compare them to the newer human sized infantry such as GSC Neophytes, Necromunda gangers or the BSF Traitor Guard their proportions just do not hold up.

Yep, I'd fully agree with this. I don't actually mind the plastic Cadians as much as some seem to, but the Catachans are horrible. New basic infantry kit with more variety of options (special & Sgt weapons, male & female troops, wider variety of heads etc) would be sick.

It would also be good if the basic infantry is less "heroiclly" proportioned. less thick limbs, smaller hands and heads compared to the current ones.

Not perfect 1/58, the slightly out of proportion heroic build is used for a reason (makes model recognition easier across the table as do the oversize weapons) but the cadians/catachans are looking a bit deformed rather than heroic.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
I'm disappointed that it looks like forgeworld has given up on the AM lines.

I'd settle for updated rules.
Since the codex dropped (and let's not even mention CA), my Malcador Infernus, Valdor and Macharius Battle Tank are all laughably overpriced.
Especially my Macharius cries itself to sleep every night, knowing that a regular LRBT that doesn't move more than 3" has almost the same amount of firepower for less than half the price...