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.

if you don't have a ccw (chainsword, powersword, etc.) you get -1 to weapon skill.

exeptions for: Dark Eldar warriors with their prickly guns (same with kroot), and most tyranids.

Why?

I say.. no. Reasoning? Armed Forces train to fight with the weapons they are issued. Infantry are trained to kill in CC with their rifles. So it's not in any stretch of the imagination to assume the same thing for 40,000 years from now.

The models that are placed on the battlefield (sans grots) are all trained soldiers. Fire Warriors, Guardsmen, Marines, SoB, Guardians, etc... They all spend months to years training in the art of killing, with everything they've got. So their weapon skill is there to represent the skill they have in CC with THAT WEAPON. Guardsmen have a 3 because they spend hours doing bayonet drills. Marines have 4 because they spend decades perfecting the art of killing with everything.

And keep in mind that just about everything has a base CC weapon. Marines have combat knives. Guardsmen have their bayonets. They all come equipped with something to fight with in close combat. So I think this suggested rule is just... wrong.

Posted By djones520 on 12/08/2006 5:42 AM
I say.. no. Reasoning? Armed Forces train to fight with the weapons they are issued. Infantry are trained to kill in CC with their rifles. So it's not in any stretch of the imagination to assume the same thing for 40,000 years from now.

The models that are placed on the battlefield (sans grots) are all trained soldiers. Fire Warriors, Guardsmen, Marines, SoB, Guardians, etc... They all spend months to years training in the art of killing, with everything they've got. So their weapon skill is there to represent the skill they have in CC with THAT WEAPON. Guardsmen have a 3 because they spend hours doing bayonet drills. Marines have 4 because they spend decades perfecting the art of killing with everything.

And keep in mind that just about everything has a base CC weapon. Marines have combat knives. Guardsmen have their bayonets. They all come equipped with something to fight with in close combat. So I think this suggested rule is just... wrong.

Ya... what he said...

Although I do think that 40k is a little close combat heavy for 38k years in the future anyway. Ask a WW2 vet how many times he faced off in close combat with an enemy and the answer will probably be none.

Then again Lieutenants and Captains are rarely at the front lines either, most don't fire a single shot in battle (unless it is a TERRIBLE situation that he and his boys are in)

Heck, who are we kidding, the MOST unrealistic thing about 40k is the idea that we are going to be around 38k years from now.

"powerfisting" nuff said.

Posted By djones520 on 12/08/2006 5:42 AM
I say.. no. Reasoning? Armed Forces train to fight with the weapons they are issued. Infantry are trained to kill in CC with their rifles. So it's not in any stretch of the imagination to assume the same thing for 40,000 years from now.

It's probably easier to get a killing blow with a 4ft long chainsword, sword, and other killamajig, than the butt of a gun, or a knife. (though the idea of a chainsword is ridiculous and unreal, but y'know, 40k is wacky)

that was my reasoning. Just popped into my head.

True, a chainsword will kill you good. But the butt of a rifle being swung like a baseball bat will kill you just as well. Just not in as bloody a manner.  Let us not forget the bayonet that is attached to the rifle as well.  Ever wonder why spear type weapons where so popular when CC was the only way things where done?  Because it was so easy to have untrained joe schmoe use it to punch through a quarter inch of steel armor.  A bayoneted rifle with a monomolecular blade is no joke.  Put it into the hands of someone who spends hours on end drilling with it in the most lethal manner to punch through anything, and it's an extremely deadly weapon.

And HappyPants, you'd be suprised just how often Company Grade Officers (Captains and Lt's) do end up fighting in combat.

Posted By djones520 on 12/09/2006 12:29 AM

And HappyPants, you'd be suprised just how often Company Grade Officers (Captains and Lt's) do end up fighting in combat.

Not really (the surprised part) but in 40k most armies end up having officers at the front of the battle killing off scores of enemy units. That is just not the way that it happens. More often they are at the back lines conducting the battle (basically the role that we take on when we play)

Yea but while he's swinging the chainsword slowly around, IG Joe has just shot him three times with said lasgun. Remember, CC is not just  HTH, but all kinds of assault including firefighting.

there ought to be an advantage for hth other than "two sticks, +1 attack", hence the -1ws for not carrying a weapon dedicated to close combat.

Also makes Dark Eldar a little better, and they need that help.

Would also make space marine tactical squads a little less "can do everything", as they'd be ws3 now. Ork ws4 would also mean "even without a choppa, he fights as well as an armed human"

Just seems silly that a guardsmen jabbing with his rifle butt has the same accuracy as same guardsmen swinging a chain sword. Also seems silly that every cc trooper has to be holding a sword in each hand to be a cc trooper. Though I guess sword/pistol is a pretty iconic Warhammer thing now.

What is silly about it? Said guardsmen jabbing with his rifle has had months, and months of training on jabbing with that rifle. He is extremely proficient with it. Whats so hard to understand about that?

If bayonets where inneffective weapons, don't you think they would have kept issuing swords to infantry since the advent of the rifle? Considering how much CC has been a staple of warfare up until the last century or so, it would make sense, wouldn't it?

And if you think a 200 year old, 8 ft tall giant, with super human speed, swinging his monomolecular combat blade (IE sharp ass sword) at you, only puts him on the same skill level as a 30 year old guardsman swinging a chain saw around, then somethings wrong man.

Posted By djones520 on 12/13/2006 11:48 AM
What is silly about it? Said guardsmen jabbing with his rifle has had months, and months of training on jabbing with that rifle. He is extremely proficient with it. Whats so hard to understand about that?

If bayonets where inneffective weapons, don't you think they would have kept issuing swords to infantry since the advent of the rifle? Considering how much CC has been a staple of warfare up until the last century or so, it would make sense, wouldn't it?

because a knife sticking out of a gun is lighter than carrying a whole sword, cheaper than a sword, and hand-to-hand is not as important as shooting in that era of warfare. The only situation where soldiers carried swords when everyone had guns I can think of, the Chinese Japanese war (started a few years before the european part of WWII). Chinese troops with dadao swords in raids could overwhelm Japanese using bayonets, though I've heard there were some dadao vs katana wielding officer duels before (don't have any proof though). Well that's if they could make it into hth range.

that a space marine can face off squarely with a smaller knife or bare fist against somebody with a chainsword shows how skilled they are. And the bonuses of being a power armored superhuman comes in having s4, t4 3+, i4, which are bigger advantages than just ws anyways.
 
So said guardsmen jabbing with his rifle has had months, and months of training on jabbing with that rifle. He is extremely proficient with it. Said knight world ccw armed guardsmen has had months, and months of training slashing, stabbing, cutting with his sword, he is extremely proficient with it. A gun with a bayonet is primarily for shooting, with some hth capabilities. A sword/chainsword was created for hth use, it is balanced for hth use, its entire purpose is for hth.

It could make that "take ccw+pistol" doctrine much more useful for guardsmen. It could make Dark Eldar warriors actually stand out as generalist assault troops.

I just think it'd be nice to have some hth variety beyond "get +1 attack".
points values would probably have to be reworked anyways, just a thought.

Kikkoman,

That is why the situation is called "Close Combat" instead of Hand to hand.

In modern warfare, with whatever you are armed with you don't do Hand to hand combat. Hand to hand combat was the style of Middle Age warfare with swords, spears cavalary, etc. Now we have guns, just like they have in 40k. Guns might have a maximum range but they don't have a minimum. You can kill a man standing hundred meters away or one with the same gun. And sadly a rifle is better than a sword in Close Combat, because you can still fire the gun but you can't shoot with your sword.

A chainsword or a powerfist might seem scary, and they do in the ruleset of Close Combat...but in reality pulling a trigger takes less time and energy than lifting an arm to swing a sword.

On another note, my Tau already suck in close combat. They have WS 2 and no close combat weapons. So unless you want to add a rule that lets me give up a round of CC to fire into your crazed 8ft tall space marine as he crashes into my line, I have to agree with the concensous here and say no.

I hate to keep beating a dead horse her, but does anyone own Dawn of war?? the intor movie what does it show???? it shows Marines charging and Orks counter charging with lots of shooting and flamers going( heavy bolter guy gets flamed pretty bad doesnt he) We see a Dread shooting and picking up a ork and tossing him and If i remember right the Sarge fires his bolt pistol and ten gets it thrown out of his hand by some Ork.
OK close combat invovlves hand to hand , hand toshooting Hence we have the two Inch rule Do you reallly think those gaurds men would strike thur there own lines (NO) ther going too shoot

thom
Former militarypersonel
acckkkkkkkk