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

I don't get why this is such a big deal. There are plenty of alternate options to use as Rough Riders if you don't like horses and the concept fits with the archaic nature of Imperial military tactics and traditions.

@tneva82
You're right, I had that rule completely different in mind. Considering the purpose of the Exterminator, it used to be the anti light vehicle and medium infantry choice. You know way way back in the day. But tables where larger back then and 48" counted for something. Today I have a hard time understanding what might be it's intended purpose other than "well we have the model as an option so we need to make rules for it".


Anyway, I am certainly guilty of unreasonably amount of whining. So I'll keep quit for now.

Quite a few seem to think it's die that gets minimum.

Not that it helps exterminator much...

And not just size of tables that hurts. These days boards are so heavy terrain 30" lane is hard.

But yeah these stats suck and shows gw ran out if ideas. It's just so lolbad vs even battle cannon. Shot difference too few. Even if you roll 1...

Punisher another one that just needs helps. Anti horde when hordes don't die and half shots. Vey ap-1. Aoc nullies that. Just waaaay too niche and even there not that amazing to take outside list tailoring.

tneva82 wrote:
Quite a few seem to think it's die that gets minimum.

Not that it helps exterminator much...

And not just size of tables that hurts. These days boards are so heavy terrain 30" lane is hard.

But yeah these stats suck and shows gw ran out if ideas. It's just so lolbad vs even battle cannon. Shot difference too few. Even if you roll 1...

Punisher another one that just needs helps. Anti horde when hordes don't die and half shots. Vey ap-1. Aoc nullies that. Just waaaay too niche and even there not that amazing to take outside list tailoring.

Actually, the Punisher cannon just got better against T3 hordes. With the boost to strength it's wounding on 2's, instead of 3's. Most of those horde armies don't have AoC. Also the tank can move the full distance before firing.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
And the complaining is without all the relevant context, it's prudent not to call any of the new rules amazing without all the knowledge, such as pt cost, any potential restrictions etc, at the same time it is not the time to call anything awful without the full context.

Discussing it is fine, as long as it is an objective and thought out discussion, lots of what typical happens is not that.

Trashing the lore with BS 4+ and melee attacks instead of BS 3+ for veterans does not have any "context" that would justify it.

Invalidating existing units/models by limiting units to what comes in that specific box does not have any "context" that would justify it.

I don't care if the point costs make this the most blatantly overpowered army GW has ever printed the changes are stupid and the 8th edition codex is a better book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:
Yeah, because beyond idiotic, utterly comical idea of previous editions that a massive blast riddling everything around with shrapnel (or focusing flamer stream on a single target instead of swinging it in an arc) magically ceased to exist if you had no buddies around worked sooo much better

The blast didn't cease to exist, it hit the one model in the unit. With a blast weapon you're either in the area of effect or you aren't, a single vehicle/soldier doesn't take variable damage depending on whether or not there are other targets nearby. A bomb exploding next to you doesn't magically focus more damage on you just because you're alone, or hurt you less if you have a dozen friends nearby.

Remember how monstrous creatures laughed at blasts and template weapons, even stuff that was supposed to fire antimatter or teleport spherical chunks of reality into warp, because it only ever did one wound? Apparently not, because you'd also remember how stupid, unbalanced (making MCs vastly better than any vehicle for multiple editions even with same stats), and suspension breaking that gak was...

That was an issue with stat lines, not the template mechanics. And the solution was to give MCs a damage table like vehicles and/or give weapons a damage stat that does multiple wounds to MCs, not the current nonsensical blast mechanics. A chunk of antimatter is represented by a S10 AP1 blast weapon that does D3+1 wounds/hull points on a successful wound, not by magically hitting the same target D6 times because there are no other models nearby to soak up hits.

 cuda1179 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Quite a few seem to think it's die that gets minimum.

Not that it helps exterminator much...

And not just size of tables that hurts. These days boards are so heavy terrain 30" lane is hard.

But yeah these stats suck and shows gw ran out if ideas. It's just so lolbad vs even battle cannon. Shot difference too few. Even if you roll 1...

Punisher another one that just needs helps. Anti horde when hordes don't die and half shots. Vey ap-1. Aoc nullies that. Just waaaay too niche and even there not that amazing to take outside list tailoring.

Actually, the Punisher cannon just got better against T3 hordes. With the boost to strength it's wounding on 2's, instead of 3's. Most of those horde armies don't have AoC. Also the tank can move the full distance before firing.

Ya. How many hordes you run to have need for punisher that say battlecannon cannot deai sufficiently well to accept huge loss of effect before?

Btw old punisher 4+ to hit s5 vs t3=13 wounds, new 3+ to hit s6 11 wounds...you get worse vs t4...so vs t3 you are worse off.

T5 old better, t6 slightly better for new(like 0.3 more).

That rekd better do lots of work...better face t6 2+ no aoc that's the ideal target for new punisher vs old actually.

IIRC there was a bit of WWII propaganda that the foolish and backwards Polish charged German tanks with lances.

There was German Propaganda to that effect. Notably however there are 16 confirmed instances of Polish cavalry charging the Germans during World War II. If I recall correctly 15 were successful, none were prosecuted against armor units.

I am very happy to see Roughriders return. I dislike immensely the horse. It just doesn't seem coherent to me, caparison and armor on the front half, nothing on the back half. Which is fine, my roughriders are already built, and most of them ride Treadbikes.

Justyn wrote:

IIRC there was a bit of WWII propaganda that the foolish and backwards Polish charged German tanks with lances.

There was German Propaganda to that effect. Notably however there are 16 confirmed instances of Polish cavalry charging the Germans during World War II. If I recall correctly 15 were successful, none were prosecuted against armor units.

Damn.

Don't @#$% with the Poles.

 RustyNumber wrote:
You can still just use dudes-on-motorbikes conversions if you want for RRs....

Gross! Why would you want that when you can have glorious, actual cavalry, with magnificent mounts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
Rough riders: pointless and stupid, and really out of place in a modern guard army.
At least you get rules to support your Catachan raptor riders now.

I don't see how you can have a "modern" guard army when the point of the Imperial guard is to pay homage to armies across human history. Yes, Cadians are supposed to represent the "modern" aspect, but they're just one part of the guard and reflect only a part of the overall concept.
Cavalry (and I mean real horses, not the modern usage of the word which refers to mechanized infantry) were used even in WW2.

Rough riders are fine in that respect, and go well with the anachronistic nature of the Imperium.

Now, as for the models themselves...I think GW released better horses. The Bretonnian mounts looked better, for example.
I hope there's more helmet options too, because the "attilan" style helmet would look out of place in say, a Cadian army or a DKOK army.

As I recall Rough Rider regiments are spread out and support other regiments, like Cadians for example. So lore-wise its not wrong to have a unit of Attilans working with a Cadian infantry regiment.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
And the complaining is without all the relevant context, it's prudent not to call any of the new rules amazing without all the knowledge, such as pt cost, any potential restrictions etc, at the same time it is not the time to call anything awful without the full context.

Discussing it is fine, as long as it is an objective and thought out discussion, lots of what typical happens is not that.

Trashing the lore with BS 4+ and melee attacks instead of BS 3+ for veterans does not have any "context" that would justify it.

Invalidating existing units/models by limiting units to what comes in that specific box does not have any "context" that would justify it.

I don't care if the point costs make this the most blatantly overpowered army GW has ever printed the changes are stupid and the 8th edition codex is a better book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:
Yeah, because beyond idiotic, utterly comical idea of previous editions that a massive blast riddling everything around with shrapnel (or focusing flamer stream on a single target instead of swinging it in an arc) magically ceased to exist if you had no buddies around worked sooo much better

The blast didn't cease to exist, it hit the one model in the unit. With a blast weapon you're either in the area of effect or you aren't, a single vehicle/soldier doesn't take variable damage depending on whether or not there are other targets nearby. A bomb exploding next to you doesn't magically focus more damage on you just because you're alone, or hurt you less if you have a dozen friends nearby.

Remember how monstrous creatures laughed at blasts and template weapons, even stuff that was supposed to fire antimatter or teleport spherical chunks of reality into warp, because it only ever did one wound? Apparently not, because you'd also remember how stupid, unbalanced (making MCs vastly better than any vehicle for multiple editions even with same stats), and suspension breaking that gak was...

That was an issue with stat lines, not the template mechanics. And the solution was to give MCs a damage table like vehicles and/or give weapons a damage stat that does multiple wounds to MCs, not the current nonsensical blast mechanics. A chunk of antimatter is represented by a S10 AP1 blast weapon that does D3+1 wounds/hull points on a successful wound, not by magically hitting the same target D6 times because there are no other models nearby to soak up hits.

Individual infantry taking more hits from explosions because they’ve got no mates is silly, but large things like vehicles and monsters (and to a lesser extent things like battle suits, cavalry, nid warriors, etc) absolutely should take more hits per model because they are bigger and therefore exposed to more of the blast.

The old rules were nonsensical when applied to big things, the new ones only when applied to very small units of small things.

Arguably a balance might be the current rules but with some sort of cap on hits to the latter, but that’s adding significant complication for very marginal gain.

If one wants to look at the veracity of cavalry charges in actual warfare look at WW1 and 2. The last sucsessful charge completed by the Polish cavalry(it was the last charge because the unit in question would after this action be equipted with t34s,) was in Soviet service in Eastern Prussia in winter 44, against a position that had previously slaughtered an assault by infantry and tanks. The Poles broke through and their attack coincided with another wave of conscripts and T34s so as the German positions collapsed from the inside, being overrun by Polish cavalrymen they were crushed by the soviet iron fist.

Horses can be used in extremely rugged terrain and in 40k can keep pace with sentinels the guards other rugged terrain high mobility unit. Which can pack heavy weapons.

Campaigns like the Tauros campaign highlight the near complete lack of motorisation in some imperial armies with troops often resorting to marching or tank riding to cover vast distances. Suitable mounts are 100x more perferable to this as all of your troops are not tied to the vehicles.

There is massive room for all kinds of cavalry in 40k.

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Individual infantry taking more hits from explosions because they’ve got no mates is silly, but large things like vehicles and monsters (and to a lesser extent things like battle suits, cavalry, nid warriors, etc) absolutely should take more hits per model because they are bigger and therefore exposed to more of the blast.

That's not the point though. The issue with the blast rules is that the number of hits per model depends on the number of models in the unit. If a blast weapon rolls four shots on the D6 then it always makes four attacks. Let's say it's BS 4+ and rolls an average two hits. If the shot is fired against a single-model unit the unit takes two hits. If the shot is fired against a two-model unit the unit still takes the same two hits, allocated to one of the two models with the other being untouched by the blast. This is nonsense from a thematic point of view.

Contrast this with blast templates in earlier editions: you can hit multiple models in the unit but you can only ever hit each model once, it's still only a single shot that either hits or doesn't hit. That's how area effect weapons work in reality and that's how they should work in the 40k rules. Large models being more exposed to more of the blast is already represented by the basic stat lines where a high-strength weapon has an improved wound chance against large models that isn't relevant against small infantry models.

There is to much we don’t know.

Regarding the rough riders i hope we get a ride commander. The death rider for dkok w cavalry orders are just way to useful.

Regarding tanks do we still get 6 to hit auto wound? Because that makes weapons like the punisher cannon better with its high volume low str shots… do we still double shots on turrets at half speed? What’s the tank orders. Etc… these are also just rumors so let’s wait and see.

Heafstaag wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
You can still just use dudes-on-motorbikes conversions if you want for RRs....

Gross! Why would you want that when you can have glorious, actual cavalry, with magnificent mounts?

Because they just released some really cool looking bike things for Necromunda that'd fit really well into my one Guard force.
It's made up largely of squads of old Necromunda gang figures. And some new ones.

gungo wrote:
do we still double shots on turrets at half speed?

Nope, that is gone and replaced by the higher base number of shots (D6 to D6+3, etc). Tank orders were shown earlier from the same source if you go back a few pages.

As for "just rumors", not really. These are leaks from playtesting and/or preview copies of the codex going out to content creators. There's very little chance that they are wrong in any significant ways.

Heafstaag wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
Rough riders: pointless and stupid, and really out of place in a modern guard army.
At least you get rules to support your Catachan raptor riders now.

I don't see how you can have a "modern" guard army when the point of the Imperial guard is to pay homage to armies across human history. Yes, Cadians are supposed to represent the "modern" aspect, but they're just one part of the guard and reflect only a part of the overall concept.
Cavalry (and I mean real horses, not the modern usage of the word which refers to mechanized infantry) were used even in WW2.

Rough riders are fine in that respect, and go well with the anachronistic nature of the Imperium.

Now, as for the models themselves...I think GW released better horses. The Bretonnian mounts looked better, for example.
I hope there's more helmet options too, because the "attilan" style helmet would look out of place in say, a Cadian army or a DKOK army.

As I recall Rough Rider regiments are spread out and support other regiments, like Cadians for example. So lore-wise its not wrong to have a unit of Attilans working with a Cadian infantry regiment.

Yeah, the classic Guard fighting formation was typically composed of one primary regiment (infantry) with support from others. Technically all tanks come from tank regiments, for example, and your unit of LRBTs is actually on secondment to your section. Same for railings, aircraft, psykers…. The Rough Riders being much the same is a return to form.
I actually quite like the hints we’ve been getting about ditching the requirement to have a single regiment keyword across the whole army and I want to know more but it seems the rumour mongers are focused on the numbers right now.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Invalidating existing units/models by limiting units to what comes in that specific box does not have any "context" that would justify it.

This is just crybaby whining. You know the context because you put it in your post. It's what comes in a specific box, because the worst thing anybody should have to do is buy multiple boxes to make one viable unit. The fact that you want this is absurd and smacks as some sort of contrarianism rather than an actual, honest criticism.

 Vilgeir wrote:
This is just crybaby whining. You know the context because you put it in your post. It's what comes in a specific box, because the worst thing anybody should have to do is buy multiple boxes to make one viable unit. The fact that you want this is absurd and smacks as some sort of contrarianism rather than an actual, honest criticism.

"No model no rules" is a fundamentally stupid idea and, like it or not, conversion is part of this hobby. You don't have to buy multiple boxes to do minor weapon swaps, and if you really hate conversion work you don't have to take the perfectly optimized netlist version of every possible unit.

 Vilgeir wrote:

This is just crybaby whining. You know the context because you put it in your post. It's what comes in a specific box, because the worst thing anybody should have to do is buy multiple boxes to make one viable unit. The fact that you want this is absurd and smacks as some sort of contrarianism rather than an actual, honest criticism.

Making your point without being rude about it is more likely to allow this conversation to be productive.


The problem with limiting options to what's in the box isn't that it's a bad idea, but that the process is backwards. Instead of designing the sprue to suit the rules, GW are seemingly designing the rules to fit the sprue with, in many cases, silly results.

People not having to buy multiple boxes to equip a single unit is absolutely a good thing, in theory. Artificially limiting weapon options because the sprue only includes one of each, particularly when the rules have previously allowed multiples, is not. It just creates arbitrary restrictions that make no logical sense and alienate existing players.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Heafstaag wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
Rough riders: pointless and stupid, and really out of place in a modern guard army.
At least you get rules to support your Catachan raptor riders now.

I don't see how you can have a "modern" guard army when the point of the Imperial guard is to pay homage to armies across human history. Yes, Cadians are supposed to represent the "modern" aspect, but they're just one part of the guard and reflect only a part of the overall concept.
Cavalry (and I mean real horses, not the modern usage of the word which refers to mechanized infantry) were used even in WW2.

Rough riders are fine in that respect, and go well with the anachronistic nature of the Imperium.

Now, as for the models themselves...I think GW released better horses. The Bretonnian mounts looked better, for example.
I hope there's more helmet options too, because the "attilan" style helmet would look out of place in say, a Cadian army or a DKOK army.

As I recall Rough Rider regiments are spread out and support other regiments, like Cadians for example. So lore-wise its not wrong to have a unit of Attilans working with a Cadian infantry regiment.

Yeah, the classic Guard fighting formation was typically composed of one primary regiment (infantry) with support from others. Technically all tanks come from tank regiments, for example, and your unit of LRBTs is actually on secondment to your section. Same for railings, aircraft, psykers…. The Rough Riders being much the same is a return to form.
I actually quite like the hints we’ve been getting about ditching the requirement to have a single regiment keyword across the whole army and I want to know more but it seems the rumour mongers are focused on the numbers right now.

While that is absolutely true about the regiments (and the fluff-weirdness of single regiment keywords, because that isn't at all how the Guard works)... at some point the logistics and supply of, say, three different hats becomes really dumb as the force moves from warzone to warzone (or stalls in a single warzone and supply becomes an issue). Sooner or later somebody in the supply chain is going to stop ordering multiple types of helmet, and is going to order one. The troops are going to be split on praying for either the best protection or most comfort, and style be fethed.

So different origin yes, different gear (beyond specialized equipment), not really. Well, at least until the next Munitorium cock-up sends ballistic pompadours instead of any kind of helmet.

 Vilgeir wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Invalidating existing units/models by limiting units to what comes in that specific box does not have any "context" that would justify it.

This is just crybaby whining. You know the context because you put it in your post. It's what comes in a specific box, because the worst thing anybody should have to do is buy multiple boxes to make one viable unit. The fact that you want this is absurd and smacks as some sort of contrarianism rather than an actual, honest criticism.

I think the word you're looking for there is optimal.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Justyn wrote:

IIRC there was a bit of WWII propaganda that the foolish and backwards Polish charged German tanks with lances.

There was German Propaganda to that effect. Notably however there are 16 confirmed instances of Polish cavalry charging the Germans during World War II. If I recall correctly 15 were successful, none were prosecuted against armor units.

Damn.

Don't @#$% with the Poles.

As briefly mentioned above, horse cavalry in modern warfare is not a dumb idea and is frequently re-explored even in the 21st century. As far as I know, the lack of horse cavalry in modern armies is an economic thing - sure they are viable but getting those battle-ready horses is too much of a fuss.

Austria still has cavalry, but more in the way of classic Dragoons, as mobile Infantry in regions were tanks or armoured cars are not suitable (be it because of terrain or noise):
http://www.doppeladler.com/oebh/tragtiere/reiter1.jpg
https://www.bundesheer.at/archiv/a2007/gebirgsmarsch/galerie/vollbild/3926.jpg

and WW2 in general was a war of horses, German Propaganda telling otherwise but even they used nearly 3 million horses throughout the war and had a cavalry division operating until the end (also because stud farms were not a target by allied air raids), with the SS Cavalry surrendered in Austria with 22k man and 16k horses left

German WW2 Cavalry training: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-O2XOnvPGL9s/VkVvABNU8II/AAAAAAAAKG4/-SZRmSd6b0s/s1600/German%2Bsoldiers%2Btake%2Baim%2Bfrom%2Bthe%2Bbacks%2Bof%2Bhorses%252C%2Bmid-1930.jpg

Plus there are folks out there who are more mad about horses being killed than people.

I remember hearing about how during Vietnam Americans targeted elephants since the VC used them to carry supplies through rugged terrain. My friends were more offended by that then by killing the people who were with the elephants.

And of course during the Afghanistan evacuation people were more pissed about the (false) stories of dogs being left behind than the ones about Afghans being left behind.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Plus there are folks out there who are more mad about horses being killed than people.

I remember hearing about how during Vietnam Americans targeted elephants since the VC used them to carry supplies through rugged terrain. My friends were more offended by that then by killing the people who were with the elephants.

And of course during the Afghanistan evacuation people were more pissed about the (false) stories of dogs being left behind than the ones about Afghans being left behind.

Well of course. Soldiers and fighters choose to put themselves in situations where they can blow each others brains out. Animals are being dragged into those positions.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Plus there are folks out there who are more mad about horses being killed than people.

I remember hearing about how during Vietnam Americans targeted elephants since the VC used them to carry supplies through rugged terrain. My friends were more offended by that then by killing the people who were with the elephants.

And of course during the Afghanistan evacuation people were more pissed about the (false) stories of dogs being left behind than the ones about Afghans being left behind.

Well of course. Soldiers and fighters choose to put themselves in situations where they can blow each others brains out. Animals are being dragged into those positions.

The vast majority of men do not "choose" to fight haha, most wars are enforced service. In his Vietnam war example many of the south Vietnamese, north Vietnamese and even Americans had as much choice as the pack animals.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vilgeir wrote:

This is just crybaby whining. You know the context because you put it in your post. It's what comes in a specific box, because the worst thing anybody should have to do is buy multiple boxes to make one viable unit. The fact that you want this is absurd and smacks as some sort of contrarianism rather than an actual, honest criticism.

Making your point without being rude about it is more likely to allow this conversation to be productive.


The problem with limiting options to what's in the box isn't that it's a bad idea, but that the process is backwards. Instead of designing the sprue to suit the rules, GW are seemingly designing the rules to fit the sprue with, in many cases, silly results.

People not having to buy multiple boxes to equip a single unit is absolutely a good thing, in theory. Artificially limiting weapon options because the sprue only includes one of each, particularly when the rules have previously allowed multiples, is not. It just creates arbitrary restrictions that make no logical sense and alienate existing players.

I said it earlier in this thread but nobody wins. The only reason this is an issue at all is people complained before about needing multiples, the solution is cut options or make bigger kits which inevitably cost more. None of those options will be welcomed by the community at large.

Lets face it, if the heavy ordnance batteries were a box of 3 with 1 of each weapon in, which the rules reflected. That's a brand new unit with no historical precedence and people would 100% complain about it being dead on arrival. Likewise if they made them in a box of either 1 or 3 with all options in people would complain at the cost of a full unit.

It's a fallacy to conclude anything other than making boxes bigger with every option with rules for any combination at no extra monetary cost will please people.

Dudeface wrote:

It's a fallacy to conclude anything other than making boxes bigger with every option with rules for any combination at no extra monetary cost will please people.

I mean, nothing stops them from just having 1 separate small box for each option and just let the players buy those boxes in any combination they wish. This was a thing before with the special weapons blisters and such.

Nothing's stopping them from just not putting these asinine sprue-based restrictions into the rules in the first place.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nothing's stopping them from just not putting these asinine sprue-based restrictions into the rules in the first place.

The original point is that if they don't do that then people will bitch about the options being too costly to make from the items on the in-box sprues. That's legit. But I'm saying that we can have our cookie and eat it too if the box content becomes less (and thus boxes become cheaper) and the players can simply combo together their buys however they want rather than getting forced to pay for stuff they don't want.