View Full Version : If I Wrote the Codex
Dragonmann
09-13-2009, 10:08 AM
Everyone who plays 40k knows that there are some terrible units out there. Some started out that way, and some were left floundering in the desert of suck when the rules changed around them.
I thought it would be fun to take certain unit concepts, and rewrite them to make them awesome. Feel free to throw in your own ideas, and comment as you will.
One rule, no point values. Good units should and usually do cost more points, we all get that. Make the unit feel right, and the points can be argued about later.
---
Imperial Guard Rough Riders
WS 3
BS 3
S 3
T 3
W 1
I 3
A 1+1
Ld 7
Sv 5+
Serg: A2 Ld 8
Squads of 5 - 10
Weapons:
Squad: Las Pistol, Hunting Lance
1 Model may Replace their Hunting Lance with Flamer, Melta, or Grenade Launcher
Sergeant: Las Pistol, Power Weapon
Special Rules:
Cavalry, Fleet, Furious Charge
Hunting Lance: Models armed with a hunting lance count as rending on the turn they charge
Trample: The large iron shod hooves of the Rough Rider's horses are more than capable of crushing skulls on their own. Rough Riders gain bonus attacks from their mount (listed in the profile after the +). Both the rider and the mount gain extra attacks when charging. The mount's attacks do not gain the benefit of Hunting Lances (rending) or any other close combat attack.
Options:
Cyber Mounts: Many regiments of the imperial guard use cybernetically augmented mounts. They are hardier, but slower. Lose Fleet, model gains +1 toughness and 4+ save
Steel Horses: Many regiments raised on hive worlds have never seen domestic animals as large as a horse, instead riding motorcycles, or other small vehicles into battle. Such units count as Bikes instead of Cavalry, and loose the fleet special rule.
---
This version of rough riders turns them into a fast striking force, capable of actually hurting an enemy unit especially on the charge, but if they get caught out and get charged themselves they will get scattered.
Yes, a 5 man squad gets 12 rending attacks, 4 power weapon attacks, and 10 standard attacks on the charge. But if the don't crush their enemy, then are a small squad of guardsmen stuck in HTH, and about to get fethed up.
Hunting Lances are no longer use once, and then try to figure out what models in the squad have or have not used them.
And the mount options allow for a huge variation based on army style, while keeping the same general army.
Thoughts? Opinions? Other units?
Aldramelech
09-13-2009, 11:00 AM
I have to say that Ive never liked the idea of rough riders. The idea of cavalry running around the modern battlefield charging people is too much. I think that the concept of WW1 cav or WW2 Polish Cav would be more fitting, i.e mounted infantry that dismount to fight. The horse aspect being an alternative means of transport from mechanized units.
Chumbalaya
09-13-2009, 01:11 PM
If they were bikes instead of Horsies you might see some use out of them.
Emperorsmercy
09-13-2009, 01:21 PM
Well, yes, but if they didnt exist people would convert them anyway from horses, and people would complian that GW doesnt do enough variety.
Skragger
09-13-2009, 01:46 PM
I saw an interesting take on rough riders for a cityfight themed army.. instead of being cavalry, or even bikers, they had guardsment with attack dogs...
They were foot mounted with WHFB Vampire Counts Direwolves (I believe) - so the guard and the wolf shared a base - and the guardsmen were holding chains (from the spikey bitz sprue for Chaos) connected to the wolves.. VERY hardcore looking.
Aldramelech
09-13-2009, 02:42 PM
Thats a good idea that..........
entendre_entendre
09-13-2009, 02:57 PM
second that. I've also seen the necromunda cyber-dog used as wargear (a powerfist).
TSINI
09-13-2009, 05:42 PM
I saw an interesting take on rough riders for a cityfight themed army.. instead of being cavalry, or even bikers, they had guardsment with attack dogs...
They were foot mounted with WHFB Vampire Counts Direwolves (I believe) - so the guard and the wolf shared a base - and the guardsmen were holding chains (from the spikey bitz sprue for Chaos) connected to the wolves.. VERY hardcore looking.
thats an amazing idea!!
i'm going to have to get right on it. man BOLS lounge is an awesome source of inspiration!!
Mike X
09-13-2009, 05:49 PM
I have to say that Ive never liked the idea of rough riders. The idea of cavalry running around the modern battlefield charging people is too much.
I second that.
helline9
09-14-2009, 10:10 AM
I think in many way Rough riders makes much more sense than the bike squads in many armies as trained mounts will happily crush enimies underfoot for you while trying to handle a bike around terrain/ enimy troops/ your friends and their bikes while firing the bikes weapons and using your pistol/ throwing granades/ swinging sword etc is alot of stuff to keep organised in one head all at once.
I do like your suggestion for rough riders but isn't cyber-mounts and steel-horses a little too simerlier, couldn't it have the heading of 'Steel-horses' with 1 set of rules and left up to the reader to deside wether your talking about cyber-mounts or bikes?
Dragonmann
09-14-2009, 10:31 AM
If the worst i did was poor naming conventions, i'll take it.
The intent was to use one entry for 3 units, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, and bike cavalry
I do love the cyber hounds as well. I don't think they would get hunting lances (per my definition) so I would give the dogs rending all the time, and take away cavalry since they are all on foot.
helline9
09-14-2009, 10:32 AM
As for other units i've never been able to understand when compaired to Arco-flagellants why Sisters repentia are a 0-1 choice and can't use transports. Having 2-3 squads of them rushing out of rhinos would make them alot more feildable.
Dragonmann
09-14-2009, 10:39 AM
I have to say that Ive never liked the idea of rough riders. The idea of cavalry running around the modern battlefield charging people is too much. I think that the concept of WW1 cav or WW2 Polish Cav would be more fitting, i.e mounted infantry that dismount to fight. The horse aspect being an alternative means of transport from mechanized units.
You're kidding right?
You are fine with
fungus monsters
divine interventioin
abhuman irregulars
speed of light weapons that miss
.75 caliber hand guns
combat chainsaws
but cavalry bothers you?
helline9
09-14-2009, 10:46 AM
Yep i like the doggies idea too, giving you this: standard cavalry (mount), mech-cav' (bike) & hound squad.
Rough riders
Cavalry, Furious Charge, Hunting lance, Trample. (cavalry includes fleet)
Rough rider with 'steel-horses' upgrade
Bike, Furious Charge, Hunting lance (guess they loose cavalry & trample?)
Rough riders and Hound-squad modification
Furious Charge, rending (i'd possibly keep the charge based rending and add defensive grenades to represent the dogs senses?)
(note: I wouldn't change the type to beasts as the handlers can't keep up with the dogs speed if they where going that fast.)
Aldramelech
09-14-2009, 10:49 AM
You're kidding right?
You are fine with
fungus monsters
divine interventioin
abhuman irregulars
speed of light weapons that miss
.75 caliber hand guns
combat chainsaws
but cavalry bothers you?
Yep, fraid so.........:)
Glocknal
09-14-2009, 11:01 AM
I have no problem with the use of calvary in a IG army. Remember that the IG is comprised of regiments from millions of worlds. There is not going to be much homogenity with that kind of force. Remember thatr horses dont need spare parts, oiling, fuel (other than food and water), and can traverse difficult terrian.
I like the current rough riders, cheap, dangerously effective, if a bit of a one shot weapon. The only problem is that they share a FOC slot with better, more durable options (Valk, Hellhound variants)
helline9
09-14-2009, 11:02 AM
You're kidding right?
You are fine with
fungus monsters
divine intervention
abhuman irregulars
speed of light weapons that miss
.75 caliber hand guns
combat chainsaws
but cavalry bothers you?
You forgot:
deamons
anti-gravity belts
chain-axes (chainsaws use constant applied pressure while an axe swing relies on a large mass hitting very suddenly)
vehicles that have 'tardis'-like space distortion properties (try stuffing 10 marines into a rhino!)
Aldramelech
09-14-2009, 11:17 AM
I have no problem with the use of calvary in a IG army. Remember that the IG is comprised of regiments from millions of worlds. There is not going to be much homogenity with that kind of force. Remember thatr horses dont need spare parts, oiling, fuel (other than food and water), and can traverse difficult terrian.
I like the current rough riders, cheap, dangerously effective, if a bit of a one shot weapon. The only problem is that they share a FOC slot with better, more durable options (Valk, Hellhound variants)
At the start of the 2nd World War most European armies relied heavily on horses and horse drawn transport, despite popular myth even 3/4 of the German army relied on them. By the end of that war the horse had all but disappeared from the battlefield. Now, why do you think that is?
Are you seriously advocating that large amounts of horses are preferable to mechanized transport?
Horses are expensive, need to be trained over long periods of time, require constant care, feeding, water, Vets, wont stay quite when you want them to, make easy targets and are easy to kill. Cavalrymen also take far longer to train then truck drivers.
There are good reasons why the horse disappeared from the battlefield, why would it reappear in the far future?
Dragonmann
09-14-2009, 11:59 AM
Yeah, and within a few years of the invention of torsion bar suspensions, nobody built over the top tracks anymore. So why would tanks with no suspension come back?
Can't use logic like that in 40k.
As for the point about FoC, I would consider making them troops with some kind of restriction. A full field of cavalry would be awesome to look at.
Pietia
09-14-2009, 02:02 PM
At the start of the 2nd World War most European armies relied heavily on horses and horse drawn transport, despite popular myth even 3/4 of the German army relied on them. By the end of that war the horse had all but disappeared from the battlefield. ?
Really? I mean did they really disappear? That's a new one. Germans still relied on horses - when they could get them, as they did not have enough fuel for their tanks and aircraft (and trucks were far behind those in supply priorities). Soviets relied on horses for transport as they could not get enough trucks, and cavalry forces were still quite useful - as they could keep up with tanks (and, unlike tank-riding infantry were still able to fight after travelling long distances). Only Americans and Brits could have 100% mechanized transport - but they fought in Western Europe, with its short distances and good road network.
Now, why do you think that is?
Are you seriously advocating that large amounts of horses are preferable to mechanized transport
Horses are expensive, need to be trained over long periods of time, require constant care, feeding, water, Vets, wont stay quite when you want them to, make easy targets and are easy to kill. Cavalrymen also take far longer to train then truck drivers.
Vehicles are expensive, require constant care, mechanics, fuel (which unlike horse feed is usually a rare commodity), make easy targets and are easy to kill (on any kind of modern battlefield "you see it - it is dead"). What's more - mechanized transport requires good roads, horses can go pretty much anywhere.
There are good reasons why the horse disappeared from the battlefield, why would it reappear in the far future?
Why? Because they reappear every now and then. US Special Forces in Afghanistan fought and travelled on horseback in the early stages of the conflict. Mujadeen insurgents fought on horseback against Soviets - and they were doing quite well...
Aldramelech
09-14-2009, 02:49 PM
Really? I mean did they really disappear? That's a new one. Germans still relied on horses - when they could get them, as they did not have enough fuel for their tanks and aircraft (and trucks were far behind those in supply priorities). Soviets relied on horses for transport as they could not get enough trucks, and cavalry forces were still quite useful - as they could keep up with tanks (and, unlike tank-riding infantry were still able to fight after traveling long distances). Only Americans and Brits could have 100% mechanized transport - but they fought in Western Europe, with its short distances and good road network.
No they didn't, studies after the war by the American Army showed that the horse stock available to the German forces was so depleted by mid 1943 that they were unable to replace their losses from that point in the war. One of the reasons Germany worked so hard to get Turkey to join the axis was to try and fix this. To suggest that Soviet supply lines relied on horses is laughable, Rail networks providing this essential service. Strategic Supply has always been about Railways. Besides which I am talking about horses being used in the tactical environment.
Vehicles are expensive, require constant care, mechanics, fuel (which unlike horse feed is usually a rare commodity), make easy targets and are easy to kill (on any kind of modern battlefield "you see it - it is dead"). What's more - mechanized transport requires good roads, horses can go pretty much anywhere.
Wrong again. Vehicles, mass produced, are very cheap, and fuel is not a rare commodity. The Germans fuel shortages were more about an inability to move fuel rather then a lack of it. A well maintained vehicle requires little care, mechanics are plentiful and easy to train, unlike Vets, and you just cant feed a military horse on anything growing in a field, they require a very specific diet. Vehicles also dont get tired. Mechanized transport today certainly does not require good roads.
Why? Because they reappear every now and then. US Special Forces in Afghanistan fought and traveled on horseback in the early stages of the conflict. Mujadeen insurgents fought on horseback against Soviets - and they were doing quite well...
And again wrong! They did not fight on horseback, they used horses as transport to get to the fight.
Which if you'd read the thread properly is what I advocated as a more realistic use of 'rough riders' in the first place. Horses in Afghanistan enable the Special Forces to move around more discreetly and blend in. Did they use them in Iraq? No, because they didn't have to and why use them unless you have to?
The Mujadeen used them because they didn't have anything else.
Pietia
09-14-2009, 03:29 PM
And again wrong! They did not fight on horseback, they used horses as transport to get to the fight.
If you read a few reports from Afghanistan, you'd be surprised :D . Horses were used not only as transport... They did not charge into close combat, but these fights did not belong into the "get nearby on horseback and then fight dismounted" category.
The fact, that a horseman is a slightly bigger target than a human on foot (and can't really use cover) is often offset by the fact, that he moves much faster (and makes the target of the charge a bit nervous - fighting men are not machines, you know). There were examples of successful cavalry charges in the Great War and World War 2... even against enemies in prepared positions.
The Mujadeen used them because they didn't have anything else.
A lot of folks in 40k also don't have anything else. You have medieval worlds sending troops to fight - they get a bit more advanced weapons, but fight in the fashion they are used to.
DarkLink
09-14-2009, 09:28 PM
Special forces do sometimes use horses and mules in the mountains of afganistan, but mainly to carry supplies. Each of our soldiers and marines are burdened with 50+ pounds of body armor, weapons, ammo and other combat gear. That doesn't count field rations, water and other essenssials. Taking that load and putting on a mule lets our troops hike much, much quicker, which is a huge benifit as one problem we've encountered is that the enemy only has a rifle and some ammo to carry, and can literally run circles around our patrols.
Aldramelech
09-15-2009, 08:56 AM
[QUOTE=Pietia;19178]If you read a few reports from Afghanistan, you'd be surprised :D . Horses were used not only as transport... They did not charge into close combat, but these fights did not belong into the "get nearby on horseback and then fight dismounted" category.
The fact, that a horseman is a slightly bigger target than a human on foot (and can't really use cover) is often offset by the fact, that he moves much faster (and makes the target of the charge a bit nervous - fighting men are not machines, you know). There were examples of successful cavalry charges in the Great War and World War 2... even against enemies in prepared positions.
Name one (WW2)
Dragonmann
09-15-2009, 09:35 AM
Emperor's Teeth! Does it matter?
Rough Riders are part of the canon. The point was to make them a viable unit, not a waste of ink.
---
Unit 2:
Space Marine Predator
The predator got smacked with two major hits in this edition. One, the loss of defensive status for heavy bolters, and Two, being covered in vanilla from tip to tail.
The predator is suppose to be a fearsome tank, the space marine Main Battle Tank, although more of a Cavalry Tank and not comparable to the likes of a Russ, or other Battle Tank.
Anyway,
Same stats, new special rules:
Weapons:
Destructor Autocannon - Unlike imperial guard autocannons, the space marine destructor uses self propelled rounds similar to Heavy Bolter rounds, but able to carry much larger explosive charges.
R60 S7 AP4 Heavy3
Annihilator Lascannon - The enhanced power system, and superior cooling units allow the Annihllator Lascannon to maintain fire longer, enabling it to cut deeper into enemy armor than standard lascannons.
R48 S9 Ap1 Heavy1, Twin Linked
Special Rules:
Airborne Deployment: The predator may be deployed by deep strike when the scenario allows
Cavalry tank: The predator determines weapons that can be fired as a fast vehicle, but moves as a standard vehicle
Aldramelech
09-15-2009, 09:39 AM
He started it! ;)
Pietia
09-15-2009, 11:50 AM
Name one (WW2)
A few examples:
January 16th, 1942, Bataan, US 26th Cavalry Regiment (Philippine Scouts) - 27 men led by Lt Ed Ramsey, charged Japanese-held village of Morong (and succeeded). Lt Ramsey received Silver Star for this
August 24th, 1942, eastern front, River Don area near Chebotarevsky , Italian 3rd Dragoons Savoia Cavalleggeri - entire regiment led by Colonel Bettoni - lost 40 men, killed 150, captured over 900 - pretty much wiped out a fully kitted-out Siberian Rifles regiment
September 19th, 1939, Wolka Weglowa (near Warsaw), 14th Jazlowiec Uhlan Regiment charged through German lines, allowing Polish forces to break out of encirclement (plus 15 other successful cavalry charges of this campaign - details here: http://www.kawaleria.marcin-lewandowski.xip.pl/szarze.php, if you can read Polish)
March 1st, 1945, Western Pomeria, 1st Warsaw Cavalry Brigade - two squadrons charged German lines (and the Pomeranian Line was really well defended) and broke through, allowing other units to exploit the breakthrough
Aldramelech
09-15-2009, 12:42 PM
Gods sake, see above! The man wants his thread back...................
Pietia
09-15-2009, 03:35 PM
Gods sake, see above! The man wants his thread back...................
Well, you wanted an answer - you got one...
As for the Predator - I like the Cavalry tank rule. I am not sure, however, about the airborne deployment. In Epic you deploy Predators using the huge Lander dropships - but they... well... land, and only then they're deployed. Definitely not dropped. What's more - if the Predators were airdropped, Rhinos and Razorbacks should be too...
EmperorEternalXIX
09-15-2009, 03:45 PM
I'd rewrite the entire space marine codex and take everything the current one has as character-granted abilities, plus everything the old one had for traits, and turn them all into "Legacies" and make people pay points for them. Special Characters give Legacies for free.
Dragonmann
09-15-2009, 05:54 PM
I was modeling it off of the Sheridan, which can be quick dropped than has to be unshackled from the drop skid.
If it wasn't a 5-7 turn game I would say it can drop, and then spends a turn getting ready, which is more realistic, but sucks a tonne. The more i think of it, the less important it is.
SandWyrm
09-15-2009, 09:55 PM
Thoughts? Opinions? Other units?
1) Make them Troops instead of Fast Attack.
2) Allow mounted Priests and Commissars to be attached to the squads.
3) Make Ogryns 25 pts. each.
You could then take 6 units of Rough Riders, 3 units of (25 pt.) Ogryns, and 3 Hellhounds for a nice assault-based army style that's different from the gunline or mech forces we have now.
Aldramelech
09-16-2009, 08:57 AM
I was modeling it off of the Sheridan, which can be quick dropped than has to be unshackled from the drop skid.
Or the BMD and ASU85 maybe?
Aldramelech
09-16-2009, 08:59 AM
Well, you wanted an answer - you got one...
As for the Predator - I like the Cavalry tank rule. I am not sure, however, about the airborne deployment. In Epic you deploy Predators using the huge Lander dropships - but they... well... land, and only then they're deployed. Definitely not dropped. What's more - if the Predators were airdropped, Rhinos and Razorbacks should be too...
:rolleyes: How old?
Pietia
09-16-2009, 10:57 AM
Or the BMD and ASU85 maybe?
ASU-85 could not be airdropped, and BMD would be more along the lines of Razorback. The closest real-life thing to an airdroppable Predator besides Sheridan would be 2S25 Sprut and the M8 AGS...
How old?
Look left, click on nick, view public profile :rolleyes:
More on topic - Cavalry tank + deep strike + "new" twin linked lascannon = very nasty combination. You can fire an S9 AP1 twin linked weapon on the turn you deep strike...
Aldramelech
09-16-2009, 12:32 PM
The ASU 85 is fully capable of being airdropped.
Dragonmann
09-16-2009, 12:57 PM
I could easily imagine a couple of grav plates from land speeders making a very effective drop skid
Aldramelech
09-16-2009, 01:34 PM
I could easily imagine a couple of grav plates from land speeders making a very effective drop skid
Nah, too Elder! lol
You want something like the Russians use, retro rockets just before it hits the deck!
BlacknightIII
09-16-2009, 02:15 PM
More on topic - Cavalry tank + deep strike + "new" twin linked lascannon = very nasty combination. You can fire an S9 AP1 twin linked weapon on the turn you deep strike...
Correct me if i am wrong but a vehicle that deepstrikes counts as moving more than 12 inches, so it wouldnt be able to fire the turn it landed anyway.
Pietia
09-17-2009, 04:25 AM
The ASU 85 is fully capable of being airdropped.
It isn't. ASU-85 was supposed to be delivered in Il-76 (or An-12 or An-22) to a secured landing strip. It was too heavy to be airdropped when it was designed, so Russians did not prepare it for paradrops (e.g. it does not have reinforced suspension). So... like everything - it can be airdropped once, just don't expect to drive away in it.
Previous designs - like ASU-57 - could be airdropped. Later designs - all BMD series vehicles - could be airdropped. This one couldn't.
Correct me if i am wrong but a vehicle that deepstrikes counts as moving more than 12 inches, so it wouldnt be able to fire the turn it landed anyway.
"Vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed" - and since Dragonmann's Cavalry Tank rule makes the Predator count as a Fast Vehicle for shooting purposes, it can fire 1 weapon+all defensive weapons.
Aldramelech
09-17-2009, 08:56 AM
It isn't. ASU-85 was supposed to be delivered in Il-76 (or An-12 or An-22) to a secured landing strip. It was too heavy to be airdropped when it was designed, so Russians did not prepare it for paradrops (e.g. it does not have reinforced suspension). So... like everything - it can be airdropped once, just don't expect to drive away in it.
Previous designs - like ASU-57 - could be airdropped. Later designs - all BMD series vehicles - could be airdropped. This one couldn't.
"Vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed" - and since Dragonmann's Cavalry Tank rule makes the Predator count as a Fast Vehicle for shooting purposes, it can fire 1 weapon+all defensive weapons.
Your so getting on my nerves............
Yes it can, Ive seen footage of it being done! (and it wasn't a 57 before you say that). The Soviets worked around the problem of weight by designing a new chute system for it.
Now before you even reach for the keyboard, the guy does not want his thread taken up by us arguing so just drop it! The conversation has moved on and I fully intend to ignore you in future, so unless you have anything to offer instead of contradicting everyone, seek life elsewhere.:mad:
Grimgore
09-17-2009, 02:31 PM
hmmmmm... If I wrote the Chaos Codex<insert dream filled sigh>
0-1 Demon Princes, with more options like taking Demon Weapons, an additional CCW, and more effects added to their
mark choices
More options for Lords, Scorcs and the return of the Scorc Lord, with more effect to their Marks as well but not as strong
as a DP's Mark. Kinda going off the Mark system in WFB where the stronger the character the stronger the Mark effect
would be.
Bringing back Marks for individual models in a unit, and keeping Icons for Demons and teleporting Termies that could be
still be lost like they can now
Marks for Greater and Lesser Demons, some of the same effects and some different... i.e. Mark of Slaanesh on a Lesser Demon would give Assault Grenades
Some Veteran Abilities for Chosen , maybe 3 max, and the ability to be a Retinue again
Cult Terminators
Paying for Possessed abilities so they can be reliable, love the idea of Possessed but I won't field them as they are
now.
These are things I would change to the current Chaos Codex, as far as points go... I have no idea, I don't even get
some of the point values now. Just my 2 cents.
Grim
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.