If you happen to have Rough Riders in your OW game, a group I have NEVER been particularly fond of (would've preferred SM bikers Guardsman model everyday, and wouldn't have this quandary) how do they kit up for battle? My primary weapon is a Hunting Lance, the dumbest weapon, in my mind, in 40K. It's very nice, ONCE, and then it is junk. Nothing says you can still use it as an unpowered, slightly broken version, nothing says you have a big quiver with several (you probably have two, tops), something DOES say they can't be re-tipped in the battle, I think, and NOTHING says 40K military engagements will be quick.

Medieval lances were okay, and they didn't break EVERY time they were used. Knights also could climb down and fight you, and use a longsword from foot or horseback. Rough Riders don't seem so well planned. Real Mongols might've used curved swords, but other than the Officer, maybe, RRs use their lances, once. They have laspistols, of course, so they could ride around further, shooting as they go, but that makes a weird focus on their one-use, high-pen attack. So, how do Rough Riders fight in the long, drawn out battles? DO they have a quiver of spears, ride around shooting a pistol from horseback, or what? I suppose I could see a back line with supplies, and tall barrels of Hunting Lances, with the Riders circling around, fetching a new Lance, and charging again, but that becomes a hotspot for enemy attacks. Some thoughts would be appreciated.

the one we tried out actually all had swords as backup

we used napoleonic cavalery as model

lancers used their spear for shock and would either retreat entirly if the faced heavy opposition of finish off the enemy with their sabers

it works somewhat in OW but the entire regiment only has las pistols so they dont even try to shoot except on someone who is following them when they retreat

Tabletop wise they had close combat weapons, might want to requistiton it? And even so, they are only used for devestating charges. At least tabletop wise. They have that one charge and then they're done.

Also, I think rough riders only carry one lance into battle but have TONS of them back at camp so they can resupply. They're not there for the attrition warfare bit, they're there to seal the deal or die trying.

No kind of cavalry has ever been intended for battles of attrition. Horses go lame after about one charge, lances break, swords bend, armor gets dented, armored vehicles break down.

So a RR unit would charge just once, then return to camp to refit for new lances and perhaps horses. Then they would rejoin the battle.

Overall battles are done by infantry, with cavalry applying a strong thrust here and there on occassion.

As Nightcloak states, this is double true for lancers who unlike heavy cavalry have no ability to stay and fight after the initial charge.

I agree with all of this, but I'm trying to see it less from a cavalry angle, and more from a player angle. A lot of this game is battles, fighting, and war. How much fun do the players have riding at the foe ONCE, and calling it a day? I know it isn't rally that bad, but if the next HL is back at the base, hopefully several miles away, it just seems that the combat would lack good pacing, even if the horses weren't being lamed under the rider. Some of the best mounted riders were the Ottoman Turks, Moors, and Mongols, and they mostly all had curved sabers, so that they could stay in the fight, and fight without losing their swords, but thes Rough Riders don't normally come with one, powered or basic. I've never liked Rough Riders, when the Imperium could easily build more bikes, and Space Marines and Eldar both have cool equivalents, with good weapons, but it was the weapons load out I hated more than horses.

Mongols were specialists, I think, at shooting from horseback.

Go with that. Mounted lasgun cavalry. Carbines, better -- less of a penalty to shoot one-handed.

I see the OP point. But on the other hand I think it would be poor storytelling to use cavalry without bringing out some of the specific aspects of cavalry warfare.

Rough Riders seem to be inspired by the post-napoleonic period, before rifled cannon and minnie ball muskets turn all cavalry into mounted infantry. This means that the cavalry charge is still a central tactic.

They are indeed poorly suited to trading attacks over multiple rounds with enemies, so what other stories can they tell, and what other battles can we play?

I think I would base the battles on planning and surviving the run at the enemy, and then striking hard at tanks, emplacements and enemy stores, and lastly getting back out again.

So if the PCs have time, I would first let the players set up a plan to charge, then I would run several game rounds where the players roll to cross obstables and avoid sudden surprises crossing the ground, or even sneaking close as horse cavalry can actually do.

Then they would be "in the wire", and have to rush through the enemy to get to their target. Cavalry that stops to fight is cavalry that dies. This might entail shooting weapons or leaping trenches and obstables.

Finally they would be at the target, and the moment any cavalyman lives for arrives. They now have to hit their target with their lances, to take out the enemy tanks, bunkers, monsters, artillery or stores or whatever. There should be at least one crisis as some lances malfunction or desperate defenders leap up on the horses.

Now to get out, either directly through the enemy or back to their own lines according to plan and opportunity. This is where they spot a extra objective that would be extremely important to take out as well, or the enemy mobile forces try to intercept their retreat. At least once a companion should be unhorsed at this stage, and the players will have to choose between rescue or safety.

The key is to keep up the sense of speed and urgency. After the planning stage there should be no time for the players to think about or discuss their options. There should be new challenges at every stage as enemies are passed by and new unplanned threats suddenly appear. I might entirely drop ordinary initiative order and just hit the players with challenges each round, and develop the story from their achieved results.

While this might not work for a extended campaign, then by god's blood, I could make some fine sessions. It would be a great pause from the sluggish infantry, as cavalry warfare should well be - Especially in fiction.

Another option is to go for the style of cavalry of the late 19th century until WWII. And have the PCs be dragoons/mounted infantry. Perhaps with access to lances for when something has to be blown up.

This would be a story centered on long range recon, first line defense in response to sudden enemy moves, and stable drama.

This could be great too, I might do a mix of the two. Thank you for making my brain spin a bit about this problem.

They are also useful for behind enemy line action and long range patrols, basically raiding and recon. Horses are also quieter and more more fuel efficient than bikes. Especially if the supply line is long.

A nother option is to go for the style of cavalry of the late 19th century until WWII. And have the PCs be dragoons/mounted infantry.

My group plays a regiment of light dragoons, and so far it's worked very well. They generally play out much as any light recon regiment would, except with the option to stage a mounted ambush if they want to. Once my players got the idea that they don't have to be glued into the saddle the battles got rather fun

I think the problem with mounted troops is that people tend to zero in on the Hunting Lance and assume that's all there is to the regiment - charge with Lances, then stand around looking awkward. I don't see why a Lancer formation might not have the troops armoured in carapace and carrying chainswords as back-ups, with fire-support squadrons dismounting to keep the enemy's heads down before the charge