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.

What most are referring to as RR are Attilan. There are a multitude of other variations:-



Why does everything have to be compared to "real" or "modern" warfare? Do that and you reduce 40k to IG and...... IG. No genetically enhanced humans, no space elves, no walking and killing mushrooms, no tall green(blue) men. It's not real, so can work outside of reality.

Part of why I love RR is the fact there is no kit. That leaves the options open for individual interpretation on their look. Now though, with the "no model, no rule" there is a requirement for a kit, or at least a model or two, just to keep them in the rules.

Another reason to love them is the anachronistic nature of them existing, it fits in so well with the whole setting.

I’ve grown up all my life around motorcycles, my parents owned a dealership, so I may be a bit biased, but I can’t ever imagine a motorcycle sending fear to my heart the way a mass of mounted riders would. I think we should also think about some kind of fear factor when talking about live mounts.

I’ve been next Boss Hoss cycle with 502 cubic inch big block engine. Those puppies are loud, basically having car engines, but I’d like to see someone try to put armor on one of those.

 Big Mac wrote:
Have you not seen the dkok horses? they suppose to be able to take massive amount of punishment and still keeps going and going, genetically enhanced. Not arguing for one or the other, but I love the potential modeling opportunity the rough rider gives the creator.

DKOK horses are cyber steeds , they aren't relevant to the discussion.

 Mmmpi wrote:
A single pothole can cripple a car or a bike too. I should know. I've had it happen more than once.

Not if the motorcycle is designed right. Your experience has been with driving civilian vehicles.

 Mmmpi wrote:
A single bullet can render a car useless too. You won't drive far without a functioning radiator for example. Or a flat tire.

Again, civilian vehicles. Any military vehicle worth its weight is going to be at least bullet resistant, if not bullet proof. We can and do have bullet resistant motorcycles today that use lightweight plastics.

 Mmmpi wrote:
And you can't hang on a motorcycle's side while riding to use it as cover like you can with a horse.

I'm pretty sure you can. Even if you cannot, there are things you can do on a motorbike that you cannot do on a horse either.

I would like to see a horse do this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DET3DuXEHxk

 Drakka77 wrote:
Wizard for the record from a us military member. We dont buy bikes for combat either. And we do have a actual horse unit <ceremonial but eh> wiki horses in warfare on wiki and see China has a whole horse regiment because they can get where bikes can't. I am not saying horses are better then bikes but your resistance to horses is bordering on obsessive. Both bikes and horses can belong.

I'm not resistant to horse RR so long as there is some in setting explanation as to why they work.

I AM resistant, bordering on obsessive, to this notion that horses provide something to a modern military that a vehicle would not do better, or that a cavalry charge is a valid battlefield tactic in the 21st century. Are horses used by modern militaries? Yes. But, key point, are only done so because of lack of access (from either funds or logistics) to a vehicle in place of that horse. Or as you said, for ceremonial purposes.

Calling me "obsessive" for trying to argue with someone who sits across from me and smugly proclaims that the sky is green may be true, but then so is what I am trying to argue.

EDIT: There are nations that do use military motorcycle units. The Russians do, and here is a video of a japanese military/police unit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNsRLapfSZU

You can't stand like this with a motorbike. With a horse, you apparently can.

Very true. Those Mechanicus engineered horse - gecko hybrids are pretty awesome.

Tiennos wrote:
As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.

As cool as it looks, I have to say that attempts at any kind of close combat against enemies armed with heavy, fast firing weapons like autocannons, or heavy bolters, is kinda hard to believe...

This whole game requires a pretty deep suspension of disbelief just to have a close combat. Nomads or knights, men from some backward planet riding animals making use of whatever limited technology they have is far easier to believe than daemons, acid blooded hiveminded aliens, living egyptian robots, and even psychic mind powers.

Do you disbelieve it when Kroot use Krootox? Do you disbelieve it when daemons ride their mounts?

Your concern about cavalry is built into the game. Your opponent has a shooting phase. Your opponent gets to overwatch. If the 40k world was "real" more of your games would end with both armies being nuked from orbit, or bombarded by aircraft so high up you never get to shoot at them, or blasted by Titans many kilometers away. If Rough Riders die to shooting, they die to it, if they don't then they don't; just like the countless other units in this game that require you to accept that they'd ever really have a chance to get across the battlefield.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Very true. Those Mechanicus engineered horse - gecko hybrids are pretty awesome.

Tiennos wrote:
As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.

As cool as it looks, I have to say that attempts at any kind of close combat against enemies armed with heavy, fast firing weapons like autocannons, or heavy bolters, is kinda hard to believe...

This whole game requires a pretty deep suspension of disbelief just to have a close combat. Nomads or knights, men from some backward planet riding animals making use of whatever limited technology they have is far easier to believe than daemons, acid blooded hiveminded aliens, living egyptian robots, and even psychic mind powers.

Do you disbelieve it when Kroot use Krootox? Do you disbelieve it when daemons ride their mounts?

Your concern about cavalry is built into the game. Your opponent has a shooting phase. Your opponent gets to overwatch. If the 40k world was "real" more of your games would end with both armies being nuked from orbit, or bombarded by aircraft so high up you never get to shoot at them, or blasted by Titans many kilometers away. If Rough Riders die to shooting, they die to it, if they don't then they don't; just like the countless other units in this game that require you to accept that they'd ever really have a chance to get across the battlefield.

There is only one thing that is likely to make melee viable again- effective personal armour. This exists in 40k, so really any cavalry should be using armour.

The only reason melee remained viable after the invention of slings and bows is effective portable defence- shields and armour. This balance could shift back, although it is unlikely to match pace with the increasing firepower available to troops. Having said that, true heavy infantry is a thing again for the first time in centuries, so maybe the balance could shift. We've seen British heavy infantry pull off successful bayonet charges in the last couple of decades, for example. An argument could be made that these units would've performed just as well without the armour though.

Interestingly, the introduction of tanks forced poorly equipped infantry to adopt desperate melee tactics to defeat them, so there is precedence for this.

Rough Riders are loved because they are cool - not because they are plausable. Space Mongols with exploding lances are cooler.
Original Rogue Trader marines had access to lizard mounts, plastic RTB 01 had a 'saddled stance' set of legs to accommodate. Chaos marine riders were a thing, so bring on the new RR set, I'd be up for it. Perhaps a Cyborg style mount might settle arguments?
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Warboar#Super_Cyboars

I don't understand the refutation of rough riders in 40K, either as live mounts or as motorbikes. To accept 40K, one must accept melee as a viable tactic. Therefore cavalry charges, at least at times, is also a viable tactic.

The technology to make a live mount more practical 40,000 years in an alternate future also exists to make a motorbike a reliable combat platform. Horses could be genetically altered in a myriad of ways to improve their performance, and machines could easily be quieted,stabilized, armored, self-sealing and practically autonomous.

What is the problem, folks? As said before...rough riders are cool! Silly? Probably. But cool!

1. Says who? I think they are relevant to the discussion.

2. A bent rim is a bent rim. Even military vehicles get damaged by the environment. I've seen dirtbike built for off-road crack a rim on a pothole. Unlike a motorcycle, a horse can avoid a pothole on it's own.

3. The russian motorcycle you showed certainly wasn't armored. It was made of light aluminum and plastic.

4. You can't. The bike would fall over. Oh, I'm sure someone somewhere has managed once or twice, but it's a hard to learn trick. With a horse, it's more easily accomplished (https://youtu.be/R8TVsOmQhlE)

As for your video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dHA1Q_Etx4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnB2gckP0_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg_79oPWvB4

Three videos of horses being taught to do the same trick. Of course your bike in the example has no armor or gear, aside from a small camera, and is a VERY light bike. Which brings up the question of why anyone would need to cross a bridge like that in a realistic situation.

5. You've been give several pages of reasons.

A valid tactic in the right situation. The only person who's said always the best option is you shooting it down. They get used by modern militaries because they're the right tools for the job. Special forces in Afghanistan used horses because they were the best for use in the mountains. Simple as that. The chinese made good use of them in the 60's and 70's because they made logistics easier, and gave tactical mobility in a region with poor road systems.

No one is saying the sky is green. Others and I are saying it's not as black and white as you're claiming. You're the one throwing out absolutes in the face of others, not us. And great, you found two countries that have military motorcycles (one in development).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Haighus

The bayonet didn't exist until the 'death' of armor. That is, the end of armor being a common sight on the battlefield. Until the charge in Iraq, pretty much every bayonet charge has been done by unarmored men.

First, I know it's fantasy, but you can't excuse absolutely everything with "it looks fun/cool" either, because there's no limit to that. And when you get to the point where a guy can break a planet by punching it real hard, then there's no point in anything else anymore.

Second, I'm not against riders. If I was good at modelling, I'd make Space Horses to go with some Space Marines. What are sci-fi knights without their sci-fi steeds, right? But the mounts need protection similar to their riders to have a similar chance of getting anywhere.
So if Rough Riders' horses are supposed to be wearing barding, or be genetically-altered super horses, or cyborg horses (cyborses?), then I guess it's ok for me. It's mostly the "mongol horde" style cavalry that seems weird to me, anyway.

 Haighus wrote:

There is only one thing that is likely to make melee viable again- effective personal armour. This exists in 40k, so really any cavalry should be using armour.

The only reason melee remained viable after the invention of slings and bows is effective portable defence- shields and armour. This balance could shift back, although it is unlikely to match pace with the increasing firepower available to troops. Having said that, true heavy infantry is a thing again for the first time in centuries, so maybe the balance could shift. We've seen British heavy infantry pull off successful bayonet charges in the last couple of decades, for example. An argument could be made that these units would've performed just as well without the armour though.

Interestingly, the introduction of tanks forced poorly equipped infantry to adopt desperate melee tactics to defeat them, so there is precedence for this.

The Rough Riders have never really been updated and I think that is one of their issues. Setting aside the modern viability of cavalry, in historical and near modern use they've mostly been elite units, where the current rough riders are instead treated as just guardsmen on horses.

Whether its been light cavalry or heavy cavalry one thing that has been relatively consistent in history, is the fact that riding a horse means you can carry "more"... sometimes that just meant more supplies for autonomy, self sufficiency and scouting, but its also meant wearing armor or carrying weapons heavier than infantry typically would. Rough Riders in a number of instances have been described as the children of nobility or the elite from Feudal worlds. If we look at the other units similarly described we're looking at Storm Troopers and Crusaders... and I think from that we could easily imagine Rough Riders being better equipped than they presently are equipped.

Why do these children of the Imperium's nobility only get a lance and horse when there are some stomping around in giant walkers and others riding around in tanks? -Even if one were to argue they aren't as well off, there is a large gap between those units and rough riders.

Their lore and discription, in many ways the Rough Riders should effectively be the mounted close combat equivalent to Storm Troopers.

In the 40k setting it wouldn't be hard to imagine someone riding a beast of some kind and the rider wearing armor or carrying a shield or just wearing the sort of personal field generator some higher ranking officers have access to... or using the fact they are on a mount to carry the heavy power packs that typically make certain ranged or close combat weapons more prohibitive to carry. The 40k equivalent to the Queen's Lifeguard would similarly wear cuirass but while in our time its mostly ornamental, such a unit in the 40k era would be wearing chest plates not too unlike the Tempestus Scions... its not hard to justify a 4+ save for updated Rough Riders.

Mmmpi wrote:[spoiler]
@Haighus

The bayonet didn't exist until the 'death' of armor. That is, the end of armor being a common sight on the battlefield. Until the charge in Iraq, pretty much every bayonet charge has been done by unarmored men.

Yeah, but that is because strictly speaking, melee simply requires the ability to close without unacceptable losses to ranged fire. In the further past, this required shields and armour. In the age of musket and horse, it was due to the slow fire rate of muskets- muskets supplanting bows for a variety of complex reasons. Effective body armour against small arms is a feasible possibility for the future (and true in the 40k setting). Weapons returning to a very slow fire rate is not going to happen, so can be discounted when discussing the 40k setting (which is why I didn't mention it).

I mainly mentioned the recent bayonet charges because they have been extremely uncommon since at least WWII and more likely WWI, and especially outside urban combat and storming fortifications. Bayonet charges over open ground haven't featured much since the 19th century. Yet one occurred in Afghanistan over fairly open terrain against foes with automatic small arms. Hence why I am wondering if the modern rise in heavy infantry may see a small increase in melee combat. Of course, British units also conducted bayonet charges in the Fauklands, so it may just be because the British Army is bonkers.

aka_mythos wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

There is only one thing that is likely to make melee viable again- effective personal armour. This exists in 40k, so really any cavalry should be using armour.

The only reason melee remained viable after the invention of slings and bows is effective portable defence- shields and armour. This balance could shift back, although it is unlikely to match pace with the increasing firepower available to troops. Having said that, true heavy infantry is a thing again for the first time in centuries, so maybe the balance could shift. We've seen British heavy infantry pull off successful bayonet charges in the last couple of decades, for example. An argument could be made that these units would've performed just as well without the armour though.

Interestingly, the introduction of tanks forced poorly equipped infantry to adopt desperate melee tactics to defeat them, so there is precedence for this.

The Rough Riders have never really been updated and I think that is one of their issues. Setting aside the modern viability of cavalry, in historical and near modern use they've mostly been elite units, where the current rough riders are instead treated as just guardsmen on horses.

Whether its been light cavalry or heavy cavalry one thing that has been relatively consistent in history, is the fact that riding a horse means you can carry "more"... sometimes that just meant more supplies for autonomy, self sufficiency and scouting, but its also meant wearing armor or carrying weapons heavier than infantry typically would. Rough Riders in a number of instances have been described as the children of nobility or the elite from Feudal worlds. If we look at the other units similarly described we're looking at Storm Troopers and Crusaders... and I think from that we could easily imagine Rough Riders being better equipped than they presently are equipped.

Why do these children of the Imperium's nobility only get a lance and horse when there are some stomping around in giant walkers and others riding around in tanks? -Even if one were to argue they aren't as well off, there is a large gap between those units and rough riders.

Their lore and discription, in many ways the Rough Riders should effectively be the mounted close combat equivalent to Storm Troopers.

In the 40k setting it wouldn't be hard to imagine someone riding a beast of some kind and the rider wearing armor or carrying a shield or just wearing the sort of personal field generator some higher ranking officers have access to... or using the fact they are on a mount to carry the heavy power packs that typically make certain ranged or close combat weapons more prohibitive to carry. The 40k equivalent to the Queen's Lifeguard would similarly wear cuirass but while in our time its mostly ornamental, such a unit in the 40k era would be wearing chest plates not too unlike the Tempestus Scions... its not hard to justify a 4+ save for updated Rough Riders.

This is the kind of Rough rider I would like to see- heavy cavalry that can be built as lancers or dragoons. Something like the DKoK Death riders, but with carbine options. Of course, Death rider steeds don't wear armour, but the horses in this case are heavily augmented in other ways.

The one that happened in Iraq was successful in large part to the poor training of the defenders. In addition to that though, US troops have done room clearing with bayonets and tomahawks in the same area.

Didn't that one also happened because the Brits were out of ammo?

Tiennos wrote:

Spoiler:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Very true. Those Mechanicus engineered horse - gecko hybrids are pretty awesome.

Tiennos wrote:
As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.

As cool as it looks, I have to say that attempts at any kind of close combat against enemies armed with heavy, fast firing weapons like autocannons, or heavy bolters, is kinda hard to believe...

This whole game requires a pretty deep suspension of disbelief just to have a close combat. Nomads or knights, men from some backward planet riding animals making use of whatever limited technology they have is far easier to believe than daemons, acid blooded hiveminded aliens, living egyptian robots, and even psychic mind powers.

Do you disbelieve it when Kroot use Krootox? Do you disbelieve it when daemons ride their mounts?

Your concern about cavalry is built into the game. Your opponent has a shooting phase. Your opponent gets to overwatch. If the 40k world was "real" more of your games would end with both armies being nuked from orbit, or bombarded by aircraft so high up you never get to shoot at them, or blasted by Titans many kilometers away. If Rough Riders die to shooting, they die to it, if they don't then they don't; just like the countless other units in this game that require you to accept that they'd ever really have a chance to get across the battlefield.

First, I know it's fantasy, but you can't excuse absolutely everything with "it looks fun/cool" either, because there's no limit to that. And when you get to the point where a guy can break a planet by punching it real hard, then there's no point in anything else anymore.

Second, I'm not against riders. If I was good at modelling, I'd make Space Horses to go with some Space Marines. What are sci-fi knights without their sci-fi steeds, right? But the mounts need protection similar to their riders to have a similar chance of getting anywhere.
So if Rough Riders' horses are supposed to be wearing barding, or be genetically-altered super horses, or cyborg horses (cyborses?), then I guess it's ok for me. It's mostly the "mongol horde" style cavalry that seems weird to me, anyway.

"Rule of cool" is 90% of 40k. While I understand there is some limit to before things just seem stupid, cavalry is real, it has context in the setting, and it only conceptually "fails" when you impose logic that makes much larger portions of the game and setting fail. You wouldn't say Star Wars fails as story because light sabers are unbelievable. For you to get to the point where light sabers are a problem you are going to encounter countless other problems.

What you're getting at is a case of Rough Riders being frozen in their 2nd edition interpretation of their concept. Rough Riders are described as being the elite and children of nobility from feudal worlds; there is nothing elite or feudal about their rules.

When you stop and look at how the Imperial Guard were originally conceived when they came up with the different units way back when, each "elite" was a certain archetype commando, sniper, brute etc... Each designed to address "how mere humans" can compete with a Space Marine. All are specialized and taken to grim dark extremes to justify it and in each case they come from seemingly distant parts of the galaxy, separate and removed from the main regiments they are attached to. You have Storm Troopers that are almost as indoctrinated as Marines. You have Ratlings and Ogryn abhumans that evolved to get to a point they are as sharp eyed or tough. Then you have Rough Riders, humans riding horses and equipped with a 12ft pole that has an explosive on the tip... the extreme required to have a "human" fast enough to quickly attack a space marine and actually have a chance of against them.

Storm Troopers, Ogryns, and even Ratling have had minor updates to keep up with how the rules have changed. Rough Riders not as much. Storm Troopers and Ogryns have been expanded on to make them more capable in their particular niches. Rough Riders not so much.

Rough Riders are described as being the elite and children of nobility from feudal worlds. Other instances where units have similar descriptions: Knight Titans, Storm Troopers, Crusaders, Tank commanders like Pask, and Rough Riders. Of all those I think the Rough Riders is least like the others a most lacking.

The Death Korps of Kriegs, Deathriders is one form of the Rough Rider concept updated and I think it does it well. It shows what happens when you take the concept to a grimdark extreme, making them indoctrinated, giving them armor and psyber-steeds. When you read everything that makes their horses special, those horses are the Astartes of horses; genetically engineered and cybernetically enhanced.

So even while the discussion is on "Rough Riders" part of the argument is for the idea and for what they could be if GW ever updated the models and rules for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:

This is the kind of Rough rider I would like to see- heavy cavalry that can be built as lancers or dragoons. Something like the DKoK Death riders, but with carbine options. Of course, Death rider steeds don't wear armour, but the horses in this case are heavily augmented in other ways.

They're cybernetically enhanced... In the lore there are plenty of instances of sub-dermal armor being a part of a cybernetic enhancement. No doubt these horses have that and when your horse is partially metal, adding armor isn't as necessary.

Again, I have no problems with in-setting justifications as to why horse mounted cavalry works. Powered horse armor, robo-steeds, whatever.

There are in-setting justifications as to why melee combat is a thing and it is good enough for me.

What I do have a problem with is people who want to have "plain jane" horses on the 40k tabletop with a totally straight face, and take umbrage when I point out that it's a stupid idea and there needs to be some justification behind it. Furthermore these same people seem to be laboring under the delusion that horses are used as anything but "better than nothing" beasts of burden in modern militaries, and seem to think a massed cavalry charge against tanks with RPG lances would work in real life. Protip: It won't outside of hilariously contrived circumstances. Either that, or these same people are being purposely contrarian.

Motorcycles aren't very effective except in niche roles in modern warfare either... most nations don't field motorcycle infantry. However, when we are talking about 40k... high-tech motorcycle RR has that certain something that makes it PALATABLE when put into the context of the setting. Horse RR IMO do NOT, unless there is something more there to justify them...

Furthermore, the original argument that generated this discussion is that if guard get new RR models, should they be motorcycle RR or horse RR? I am obviously of the opinion that they should be motorcycle RR because I think that it is less anachronistic and fits with the setting better. But the argument that we should get horse RR models because: "you can just convert motorcycle RR from marine bikes" is not a valid argument when I can just as easily say "you can just convert horse RR from fantasy models".

 Mmmpi wrote:
The one that happened in Iraq was successful in large part to the poor training of the defenders. In addition to that though, US troops have done room clearing with bayonets and tomahawks in the same area.

You really need to stop spreading this trash.


They're not running around COD style bayoneting everyone or hucking tomahawks around. They're isolated instances.

Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)

They make enough sense in the setting where a chainsaw is considered a viable weapon.

 Crimson wrote:
Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)

Again, you fail to understand what the equipment of the setting is actually capable of. Flak armor and lasguns are miles better than even modern guns and armor... chainswords can cut through power armor. There is a justified reason why those things work.

I con't believe people are fighting about the realism of using cavalry units in a game where a psychic being can do damage to a tank with their mind. An imortal great psycher made 20 sons stealing powers from literal gods in order to defeat said gods. But somehow horseback riding soldiers... that's the line? This is 40k, rule of cool applies 1000% to GW and its their game/world. want realism? go play bolt action or something

the question is why people liek them, they say why they think they are cool and get attacked for it?

w1zard wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)

Again, you fail to understand what the equipment of the setting is actually capable of. Flak armor and lasguns are miles better than even modern guns and armor... chainswords can cut through power armor. There is a justified reason why those things work.

Nonsense. Lasgun is barely better than modern rifles, it has same stats in the game than autogun, and chainsword certainly can't cut through power armour, its purpose is to rend flesh. And they have the bomb lances. If magic a scify word thrown in makes it all work for you, let's say they're armed with corbomite bombs. Yay, a viable scifi unit for W1zard!

'What the equipment of the setting is _fictionally_ capable of', I think you mean?

Guardsman are the best their planet has to offer, _then_ trained to peak Guard standards on their journey to the war.

Attilan horses are noted for their martial qualities, Catachan riding lizards similarly attributed.

I think this is justification enough in the _fictional_ setting we are discussing?

The Imperium has many ranged weapons capable of defeating power armor.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
The Imperium has many ranged weapons capable of defeating power armor.

Just look at the tabletop. A couple of plasma gun, melta gun, a few cannons here and there and suddenly, a few dozen Space Marine looks like something that can be handled. The same thing would go in 40K. Space Marines are only ever useful when they aren't caught in the open fighting against well armed forces. I don't remember the last time in Space Marine book where they fought an army of humans where one out of five had a anti-armor weapon and an armored vehicle for every 20-30 footsoldier. To give you an idea, in a hundred to one fight, that would mean about 20 anti-tank/anti-armor weapon and 3 tanks per Space Marine.

The setting works as form of legend told by supersticious people desperate to grasp at some hope. Nothing really make sense beside that.

Rough Rider also make sense in the context of desperation. Any army that is on its last leg will deploy cavalry. Hell they will deploy child soldiers, untrained people. Your mom, who jasn't practice any sport since she passed the age of 21 and is enjoying menopause could get physically qualified to be a front line trooper for as a war advances, physical requirements go down until they don't exist anymore beside "are you blind and do you have over 85% of your limbs?". In the best circomstances, Rough Riders are a circumstancial tool in a military arsenal useful. In the worst ones, they are what's left and you have to use them or you have to surrender.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I con't believe people are fighting about the realism of using cavalry units in a game where a psychic being can do damage to a tank with their mind. An imortal great psycher made 20 sons stealing powers from literal gods in order to defeat said gods. But somehow horseback riding soldiers... that's the line? This is 40k, rule of cool applies 1000% to GW and its their game/world. want realism? go play bolt action or something

the question is why people liek them, they say why they think they are cool and get attacked for it?

You know what is kinda funny about your statement? When I played Bolt Action, I actually did get a little upset at Polish Cavalry units because they were so good in the game and machine guns weren't very good to counter them. Too many people started to take them and the games got too far from my image of World War II a bit too often. I just can't see having an issue with cavalry in Warhammer 40k though. I just don't think the setting is that sci-fi. Nor do I want it do be. If I want a little more of a sci-fi game I would probably go with Mantic's Warpath. Last time I looked at Warpath, they were going way more sci-fi and less fantasy with that setting even though it still has many of the Tolkien tropes in it.

 Crimson wrote:

Spoiler:

w1zard wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)

Again, you fail to understand what the equipment of the setting is actually capable of. Flak armor and lasguns are miles better than even modern guns and armor... chainswords can cut through power armor. There is a justified reason why those things work.

Nonsense. Lasgun is barely better than modern rifles, it has same stats in the game than autogun, and chainsword certainly can't cut through power armour, its purpose is to rend flesh. And they have the bomb lances. If magic a scify word thrown in makes it all work for you, let's say they're armed with corbomite bombs. Yay, a viable scifi unit for W1zard!

Depends. Sometimes lasguns are described as powerful enough to sever limbs, but semi-auto only. Sometimes they're full-auto but not powerful enough for a single hit to be very effective at stopping a determined human attacker. Autoguns actually used to be slightly better at penetrating armor than lasguns (AP 6 vs AP -) before they gave them the same stats for the sake of simplicity.

Flak Armor I've generally seen described as not usually being able to stop direct hits from weapons but being useful protection against shrapnel (kind of like the name suggests).

I thought that chainswords used to have an armor penetration value in 2nd? I didn't start until 3rd, so that's before my time. They are described as being useful for chewing through armor, which is pretty absurd but that's how it works in-universe. Exactly like how cavalry charging tanks with bomb spears is fairly absurd but that's the way it works in-universe because the fluff says so.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I con't believe people are fighting about the realism of using cavalry units in a game where a psychic being can do damage to a tank with their mind. An imortal great psycher made 20 sons stealing powers from literal gods in order to defeat said gods. But somehow horseback riding soldiers... that's the line?

Yep.

FTL travel and psychic powers? Sure. Machine priests, laser guns, immortal god emperor, fine. Horse riding cavalry on a sci-fi battlefield with no/inadequate explanation? Nope, too far for me. People in this thread need to look up suspension of disbelief and why it is so important to storytelling. The setting explains all that other stuff pretty well.

How can you accept orks charging guns but not accept horses charging guns? Horses are probably tougher than ork boyz anyway. (horses weigh 1000+ lbs with larger breeds reaching 2000 lbs, and I don't imagine boyz being that large, though I could be wrong)
And on top of that, armoring horses is pretty easy in the grand scheme of things. Slap some plates on the horse and suddenly it's way tougher and scarier than a motorbike. Then we could always say that they're genetically enhanced horses to be faster, stronger and tougher with thicker skin, a bullet-proof skull and redundant organs. The lances could be "power lances" since that seems to work for you for some reason.
It really doesn't matter, since many of us just think mixing horses with high tech gear is awesome. Motorbikes just don't have the same appeal to me tbh.

Regardless, most of us seem to have no problem suspending our disbelief when it comes to Rough Riders.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
The one that happened in Iraq was successful in large part to the poor training of the defenders. In addition to that though, US troops have done room clearing with bayonets and tomahawks in the same area.

You really need to stop spreading this trash.


They're not running around COD style bayoneting everyone or hucking tomahawks around. They're isolated instances.

I never said they were. I said it happened, and more than once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
Again, I have no problems with in-setting justifications as to why horse mounted cavalry works. Powered horse armor, robo-steeds, whatever.

There are in-setting justifications as to why melee combat is a thing and it is good enough for me.

What I do have a problem with is people who want to have "plain jane" horses on the 40k tabletop with a totally straight face, and take umbrage when I point out that it's a stupid idea and there needs to be some justification behind it. Furthermore these same people seem to be laboring under the delusion that horses are used as anything but "better than nothing" beasts of burden in modern militaries, and seem to think a massed cavalry charge against tanks with RPG lances would work in real life. Protip: It won't outside of hilariously contrived circumstances. Either that, or these same people are being purposely contrarian.

Motorcycles aren't very effective except in niche roles in modern warfare either... most nations don't field motorcycle infantry. However, when we are talking about 40k... high-tech motorcycle RR has that certain something that makes it PALATABLE when put into the context of the setting. Horse RR IMO do NOT, unless there is something more there to justify them...

Furthermore, the original argument that generated this discussion is that if guard get new RR models, should they be motorcycle RR or horse RR? I am obviously of the opinion that they should be motorcycle RR because I think that it is less anachronistic and fits with the setting better. But the argument that we should get horse RR models because: "you can just convert motorcycle RR from marine bikes" is not a valid argument when I can just as easily say "you can just convert horse RR from fantasy models".

The problem is that you want us to accept your "Melee is fine" while rejecting our "horses are cool". As for the rest of that paragraph, you've already been told that's not the argument being made. Is there a reason you don't want to read the text being posted here? Are you trying to start a fight? And yet, there you are, trying to strawman people.

I agree motorcycles in 40K are rule of cool. So are horses. What you consider cool doesn't trump what I think is cool. I'm saying both options are fine.

I said convert from the Jackel kit. The GSC bike unit, not Space Marines. I've said it once in this thread, and twice in the IG wishlist thread. Ideally they would have both horses and bike kits, so people could have the option for cyber horses. But the limits of the previous argument was one kit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)

Again, you fail to understand what the equipment of the setting is actually capable of. Flak armor and lasguns are miles better than even modern guns and armor... chainswords can cut through power armor. There is a justified reason why those things work.

M-16's and AK-47's also shoot through power armor. A lasgun hits as hard as those two weapons. (See autogun.) A chainsword and a bayonet have the same ability to wound and defeat power armor. A bayonet in 40K (for the IG) is usually just a steel knife with a lug.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I con't believe people are fighting about the realism of using cavalry units in a game where a psychic being can do damage to a tank with their mind. An imortal great psycher made 20 sons stealing powers from literal gods in order to defeat said gods. But somehow horseback riding soldiers... that's the line? This is 40k, rule of cool applies 1000% to GW and its their game/world. want realism? go play bolt action or something

the question is why people liek them, they say why they think they are cool and get attacked for it?

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I con't believe people are fighting about the realism of using cavalry units in a game where a psychic being can do damage to a tank with their mind. An imortal great psycher made 20 sons stealing powers from literal gods in order to defeat said gods. But somehow horseback riding soldiers... that's the line?

Yep.

FTL travel and psychic powers? Sure. Machine priests, laser guns, immortal god emperor, fine. Horse riding cavalry on a sci-fi battlefield with no/inadequate explanation? Nope, too far for me. People in this thread need to look up suspension of disbelief and why it is so important to storytelling. The setting explains all that other stuff pretty well.

The problem is that you're projecting YOUR suspension of disbelief on the rest of us.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Spoiler:

w1zard wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Plain jane guardsmen with laser shootas work, so plain jane horses with bomb lances work too (and the sergeant can have a cool power sabre.)

Again, you fail to understand what the equipment of the setting is actually capable of. Flak armor and lasguns are miles better than even modern guns and armor... chainswords can cut through power armor. There is a justified reason why those things work.

Nonsense. Lasgun is barely better than modern rifles, it has same stats in the game than autogun, and chainsword certainly can't cut through power armour, its purpose is to rend flesh. And they have the bomb lances. If magic a scify word thrown in makes it all work for you, let's say they're armed with corbomite bombs. Yay, a viable scifi unit for W1zard!

Depends. Sometimes lasguns are described as powerful enough to sever limbs, but semi-auto only. Sometimes they're full-auto but not powerful enough for a single hit to be very effective at stopping a determined human attacker. Autoguns actually used to be slightly better at penetrating armor than lasguns (AP 6 vs AP -) before they gave them the same stats for the sake of simplicity.

Flak Armor I've generally seen described as not usually being able to stop direct hits from weapons but being useful protection against shrapnel (kind of like the name suggests).

I thought that chainswords used to have an armor penetration value in 2nd? I didn't start until 3rd, so that's before my time. They are described as being useful for chewing through armor, which is pretty absurd but that's how it works in-universe. Exactly like how cavalry charging tanks with bomb spears is fairly absurd but that's the way it works in-universe because the fluff says so.

The default minimum power for an acceptable lasgun for military use in the Great Crusade was 70% mortality from a single shot to the torso of an unarmoured human (it doesn't state if medical care was given). Considering the different mechanisms of injury compared to a bullet, I don't know how much can be inferred from this. As you point out, lasguns can also have a variable power-per-shot, so this standard may be intended to set a minimum power-per-shot with lasgun patterns like the Lucius pattern notably exceeding this with a lower fire rate.

Autoguns are supposed to be better than modern assault rifles, although how is not generally mentioned (I think there are some references to caseless ammunition, but most models have ejection ports). Given the Imperium has far superior materials tech to us now, this isn't surprising. Autoguns are not equal to modern general-issue assault rifles, at worst they are modern rifles made with wonder materials by todays standards.

Likewise, "flak" armour looks to be pretty effective against projectiles (capable of stopping the closest equivalent to modern day heavy machine guns in 40k- heavy stubbers), and carapace armour is very impressive. Current personal armour couldn't hope to stop a direct hit from a .50 BMG cartridge, yet flak armour can do just that.