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.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
If you think a knife puncture does more than large caliber or high velocity round you are sadly, sadly mistaken. lasguns are noted as being equal to autoguns which are compared to assault rifles in older fluff. Give me something like a .308 (7.62 NATO to you Euros) and the internal damage is going to be traumatic and incredibly more substantial than a glorified spork.

The argument utterly lacks merit.

You are conflating primary effects with secondary effects.

A rifle does do a great deal more damage than a knife, yes. . . TO A HUMAN. Why? Because a bullet, traveling at extremely high speed, creates a number of secondary effects which a blade does not. If a knife stabs into someone, it pushes muscle out of the way, cuts veins, etc. on a plane, inflicting a gash. Secondary effects are minimal.

A bullet, however, does some of that PLUS some other nasty things. Hydrostatic shock from the high-velocity impact is a major one, and that arguably kills more people than the bullet itself. Bullets commonly drag organic shrapnel behind them as they pass through the body, inflicting even more trauma. So yes, against a human a gun is better than a sword. No contest.

But I wasn't talking about humans, now was I? I was talking about Space Marines, Orks, and Tyranids. Space Marines, for instance, are quitre literally designed to resist all those secondary effects that gives a bullet its potency. Hydrostatic shock? Not an issue, for Space Marines. Their bones won't break under anything but a truly obscene force, making shrapnel a non-issue.

What does this mean? Basically, with the side-effects eliminated, all a small-arm can do to a Space Marine is make a little hole. THe wepaon that's so lethal to humans is relatively impotent against the superhuman. Blades, however, don't rely on secondary effects to do their damage. This means that against humans, where secondary effects are important, they are less powerful than guns, but against people who can ignore such secondary effects they become more effective.

Assuming for some reason the bullet can't puncture bone then
A hit in the neck will still blow a gaping hole in the neck anything with a head.
A hit in the arm will still blow a gaping hole in an arm and effectively make it useless.
A hit in the leg will still blow a gaping hole in the leg and egfectively make it useless.
A hit in the midsection will still blow a nice hole through you thank you very much.
All of this can be done 200 yards away and 600 - 800 times a minute.
Further a firearm is going to actually penetrate armor/bone more more easily than a pointy stick. A decent rifle, much less something a marine would have the capacity to shoot, is going to yield lbs per inch by orders of greater magnitude than something an ape with a sword could do. You just can't replicate that outside of something troll/big nid sized. But for humanoids, range weapons are where its at.


I think even in fluff the fact that the bugs are evolving to a true shooty force is indicative that even in flufftown, range weaponry is preferred.

Kilkrazy wrote:What, is no-one doing it?

What are they doing instead?

Shooting their lasguns?

Frazzled wrote:I think even in fluff the fact that the bugs are evolving to a true shooty force is indicative that even in flufftown, range weaponry is preferred.

It's pretty clear that shooting weapons are overwhelmingly more common; just look at the basic infantry of the different armies:

Nids - Termagaunt: Gun, Hormagaunt: Claws, Genestealer: Claws
Orks - Shoota Boys: Gun, Slugga Boys: Pistol and Knife, Grots: Gun/Pistol, possibly a Knife
Imperial Guard - Infantry: Gun, Veterans: Gun
Tau - Firewarriors: Gun, Kroot: Gun
Space Marines - Tactical Marines: Gun and Pistol, Scouts: Gun (sometimes Pistol and Knife), Some Variant Marines (BTs, BAs, SWs): Pistol and Chainsword
Chaos Marines - Chaos Space Marines: Gun, Pistol, and Knife (Berserkers lack the Gun, Thousand Sons (and Plague Marines?) lack the Pistol and Knife)
Daemonhunters - Stormtroopers: Gun, Grey Knights: Gun and Sword
Witchhunters - Stormtroopers: Gun, Sisters: Gun
Necrons - Warrior: Gun
Dark Eldar - Warrior: Gun
Eldar - Guardian: Gun, Dire Avenger: Gun
Chaos Daemons - Bloodletter: Sword, Daemonette: Claws, Plague Bearer: Knife, Horror: Fireballs
(Fluff only, now) Lost and the Damned - Traitors: Gun, Mutants: Knife, maybe a Gun or Pistol, Cultists: Knife, maybe a Gun or Pistol

Almost every army is based around infantry carrying some sort of assault rifle equivalent. A few have infantry with pistols and close combat weapons instead. Only the completely alien Tyranids and Daemons (or horribly underequipped mutants/cultists) have basic infantry without any ranged weaponry.

The reason there is melee combat and melee weapons in 40k is because everyone is TOTALLY GRIMDARK CRAZY. The only sane ones are the tau, who shoot their enemies from a distance. Most Space marines are recruited from iron age warriors into a warrior monk cult. Of course they have swords. Of course they try to run up to you and hit you with them because that's totally crazy and terrifying and those two things win battles even if they don't kill very many soldiers. Assault marines storm into your position with bolt pistols (effectively one handed uzis) and shoot you. Occasionally they chop you in half with a chainsaw-sword. Why? Because they like to (and once they're close to you they can kill you any one of a number of ways). Sure, marines could win a battle vs traitor guard by holding their distance and using superior armor and such. So what? The traitors outnumber them 1000 to 1 and the only way they can win to smash their most vital positions, decapitate their leadership, and break their will. That calls for assaults, and they might as well use swords along with their Uzis. And charging the enemy isn't that crazy if you have some speed or armor to give you more of a chance to make it. Weird but true - most of the Polish Cavalry charges in WWII actually succeeded. Look it up. Special melee weapons serve useful purposes - power swords cut through things with armor too tough for your bolter/uzi, and power fists put ridiculous giant funky fist holes in things too tough for bullets. Could these things be done more efficiently with Meltaguns? Probably, but where is the glory in that if you're a space viking? Orks can't shoot for crap and it looks like they have about 10 rounds per gun - so of course they need melee weapons. Guard carry rifles, but their officers carry melee weapons as symbols of rank, to feel cool, and tackle special foes up close. Hormagaunts? Well imagine being attacked by a swarm of super cheatahs on speed - sure it has shock value - probably more than ones slinking around shooting beetles at you.

On the nose.

If your enemy's armor can survive the bullet, but your vibrating/electrified sword can slice through the armor like butter, you're going to try to gut him like a fish.
There may be no reliable way to impart this "power weapon" effect into basic bolter roungs / lasgun shots.

Also, when you regularly face fearsome enemies that favor close combat, you have to adapt and be trained for close combat. Especially when you have no way to reliably avoid confrontation.
So Tyranids, Orks, to a degree Eldar/Dark Eldar/Daemons/Chaos Mortals... all favor close combat.

You can see the evidence that Imperial Guard are still strongly gun-oriented, with few close combat units outside of specialists... Your officers have swords because it's military tradition (many officers still are given swords for dress uniform in our world).
The close combat specialists in the IG are those humans from a civilisation that deals with close combat regularly. Catachans fight the jungle monsters (and the jungle itself) and the Rough Riders are traditionally close combat oriented on their home world.
The Space Marines of course have been trained well for hand-to-hand, but only their specialists have any exceptional skill and predominantly they are still a ranged army (special chapters are a different matter).

Look at the Tau, they are only now coming into a universe of close combat gribblies and having to learn to adapt... they were preserved within the warp storm and thus learned and evolved into a favor of ranged warfare.
When you only fight those that share similar technology, you eventually favor ranged combat as opposed to close combat brutality.

When you HAVE to deal with close combat brutality from your enemies, you begin to adapt against it. Tyranids and Orks especially favor close combat and (though they have ranged weaponry) will likely always have the bestial nature for hand-to-hand-to-claw combat. This forces other armies to adapt and fight it.

Eldar aspect warriors fight in close combat as tradition dictates it.
Dark Eldar are just sadistic and like seeing the expression on their opponent's face when they gut them.
Chaos Daemons and Mortals are similar in the sadism of Dark Eldar, but also have a primal connection (for mortals) to close combat. Chaos Daemons just like the physical feeling of rending flesh I would wager.

When your gun can't stop the 10 gribblies running at your face, you need to have a backup.

Not saying that close combat is the end all be all solution for every problem, I just think that both closecombat and ranged combat have their place. The factors in 40k just make close combat more viable.
Weapons&Armor
- This has been beaten to death by both sides so I am just goint to say that it is easier to pick out weak spot in armor in close combat because you can actually see them and decide where the [insert weapon] goes

Transportation
- I dont think that this has been mentioned.
- Transports are much better in 40k than in real life
- An ork trukk could be compared to todays trasports and that is phisically the worst transport in the game
- A Krak Missle could be compared to an RPG, only better, and it has a hard time doing even minor damage to Land Raider, BattleWAgons, Monoliths...
- Jumpacks allow assault troops to quickly and easily get behind enemy lines or behind terrain
- This diminishes the ranged advantage

Mentality
- Armies like Orks, Nids, and Chaos Daemons have a primal animalistic need to "crush dem umies" or "om nom nom" or "Blood for the Blood God"
- Armies like Space Marines and Eldar have regressed to the point where close combat is ritualize
- Armies like Chaos Marines, Necrons, and Dark Eldar use close combat to inspire fear in their enemies
- Armies like Tau and IG have had to adapt to this world of close combat although do not want to get close themselves

Physicallity
- It is no accident that all of the squishy armies *cough*Tau*cough*IG*cough* are the shooty ones
- However orks want to get into combat because they are not smart enough to shoot but they are strong enough to chop
- If you get your enemy in a position where he has to punch your 7" thick steel armor instead of shoot it you are doing somthing right
- Space Marines are strong enough and tough enough to over power most of their enemies in assault
- Eldar are extremely agile and can use that to their advantage in assault

It should be noted that if an enemy unit is too resilient to take down with ranged weaponry, it's probably also packing infinitely more firepower/killing-power than you are and by breaking cover and charging you're effectively throwing your life away, post-human or no.

"The Monolith! We destroy that and this is over--charge!"

>.>

Anti-armor, but damningly short-ranged weapons like fire pikes are a bit silly, imo. Infantry would have to give up the one advantage they have over armor, for the most part--utilization of cover. Only in the most claustrophobic of arenas would such weapons prove useful, and even then, the unit would be dangerously close to enemy armor when it, you know, explodes.

For certain units, namely Assault Marines and [insert nid unit here], who can quickly close large distances, melee combat can be very useful, but if we're talking about your average Guardsmen, Dire Avenger, Tactical Marine, then only in key circumstances would melee combat actually be preferred over the alternative.

Let's keep this about melee weapons as a whole, rather than examples of armies that wouldn't be using more than a bayonet in most circumstances. There is a reason some armies would have extensive use of melee weapons while others use almost none at all. They play to their respective strengths. I hate typing via cell phone, by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's keep this about melee weapons as a whole, rather than examples of armies that wouldn't be using more than a bayonet in most circumstances. There is a reason some armies would have extensive use of melee weapons while others use almost none at all. They play to their respective strengths. I hate typing via cell phone, by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Let's keep this about melee weapons as a whole, rather than examples of armies that wouldn't be using more than a bayonet in most circumstances. There is a reason some armies would have extensive use of melee weapons while others use almost none at all. They play to their respective strengths. I hate typing via cell phone, by the way.

In_Theory wrote:
If your enemy's armor can survive the bullet, but your vibrating/electrified sword can slice through the armor like butter, you're going to try to gut him like a fish.
There may be no reliable way to impart this "power weapon" effect into basic bolter roungs / lasgun shots.

While true, unfortunately you are arguing the exception against the rule. The comparison should be a lasgun/bolter/generic vs a CCW. Otherwise the comparison should be PW vs the Vindicare Shieldbreaker round.

In_Theory wrote:
Also, when you regularly face fearsome enemies that favor close combat, you have to adapt and be trained for close combat. Especially when you have no way to reliably avoid confrontation.

For the first part no, why meet your opponent on his terms? You meet him on yours, unfortunately the arbitrary rules of 40K ensure that you must meet your opponent in confined areas, namely a 6x4 table. Otherwise all a ranged army would do is constantly fall back while maintaining sustained fire. This in itself has created a bias toward H2H as the main influence of winning.

In_Theory wrote:
Look at the Tau, they are only now coming into a universe of close combat gribblies and having to learn to adapt... they were preserved within the warp storm and thus learned and evolved into a favor of ranged warfare.
When you only fight those that share similar technology, you eventually favor ranged combat as opposed to close combat brutality.

No, you favour the method that preserves your forces the best. You develop to your strengths, using the Tau, why develop a sword, when they can increase the RoF of a gun?

In_Theory wrote:
When you HAVE to deal with close combat brutality from your enemies, you begin to adapt against it. Tyranids and Orks especially favor close combat and (though they have ranged weaponry) will likely always have the bestial nature for hand-to-hand-to-claw combat. This forces other armies to adapt and fight it.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the rules favour H2H and so balance nods its' head in that direction. There are a series of artificial constraints placed on ranged weaponry right from the start, low ranges, high movement factors, game board, etc. All these things inflate the importance of melee over range, which is fine, it's a set of rules that we agreed to play by before the game starts, but it does not mean that I as a player agreed that it is a realistic or fair arbitration.

In_Theory wrote:
When your gun can't stop the 10 gribblies running at your face, you need to have a backup.

I would love to have claymores!

Andrew

In_Theory wrote:

You can see the evidence that Imperial Guard are still strongly gun-oriented, with few close combat units outside of specialists... Your officers have swords because it's military tradition (many officers still are given swords for dress uniform in our world).
The close combat specialists in the IG are those humans from a civilisation that deals with close combat regularly. Catachans fight the jungle monsters (and the jungle itself) and the Rough Riders are traditionally close combat oriented on their home world.
The Space Marines of course have been trained well for hand-to-hand, but only their specialists have any exceptional skill and predominantly they are still a ranged army (special chapters are a different matter).

When you HAVE to deal with close combat brutality from your enemies, you begin to adapt against it. Tyranids and Orks especially favor close combat and (though they have ranged weaponry) will likely always have the bestial nature for hand-to-hand-to-claw combat. This forces other armies to adapt and fight it.

Dark Eldar are just sadistic and like seeing the expression on their opponent's face when they gut them.
Chaos Daemons and Mortals are similar in the sadism of Dark Eldar, but also have a primal connection (for mortals) to close combat. Chaos Daemons just like the physical feeling of rending flesh I would wager.

Not to mention things like Chaos Daemons, Flayed ones, Many Nid units, and other specialised close combat troops mostly have a means of quite literally teleporting in the midst of these "shooty" armies. So just as those units who excel in melee but couldn't hit the broadside of barn with a cannon have found ways of adapting to fit their needs (deepstriking, etc) MOST shooty armies also give their units a basic hand to hand training, to deal with the inevitible truth that there is a good chance some ugly beast will be appearing right next to it ready to strike. Tau is the only real execption, as they train their troops to flee instead of fighting with fists, as fists are barbaric and primative (yet Farsight is a shining exception to this rule, and it is one of the reasons he is an outcast(e?) ). Because of this however, the space marines take their hand to hand training, and begin cleaving lines through the imperial guard (when forced to fight them) or other shooty army because while (assuming) bullets are as advanced as the armor and the various weapons one would use in close combat, the playing field (when talking ranged) is not as even for those who have less units (especially when those less units arent as good at shooting as those that outnumber them) and a gun can only hurt so many people per 'shot'. Cover is also not an issue for the marine that charges the line of 100 guardsmen (which with his strength and skill, he may be able to take all 100 with a powersword as opposed to the odds of him surviving wave after wave of fire) not to mention, he may be able to strike (quite literally) enough fear into those men to force them to withdraw (as watching 4 of your friends get cleaved in half by a single giant suit of armor is a bit more fearful then seeing someone get hit by a stray bullet)

If the world of Warhammer 40k were simply fights of Imperial Guard vs Imperial Guard (like todays modern warfare, for the most part) then yes, melee combats would be few and far between, be that as it may, that is not the universe the game takes place in... there are daemons, vastly scaling levels of technology, magic, genetically engineered supersoldiers (which if all you cared about was the accuracy of a rifle, why bother making the body so bulky and focus on physical strength), teleportation, and so many different variables that not only allow, but completely justify the amount of focus on knowing how to beat your enemy to a bloody pulp with only the barrel of a gun... Even in todays military, while hand to hand is certainly not the norm in the battlefield, martial arts(in some form) is still a standard traning procedure for almost all soldiers(ranging from fighter pilot to medic to navy seal)... Especially our Marines (coincidence?)

40K is just one tiny portion of the battle. Again, if you want to play combat in the 41st millennium, play EPIC. Fluff actually follows EPIC as well for major engagements. There's still the occasional HTH, but again, its occasional.

I always thought that the two systems worked more like...

40k 5th is the Battle

Epic is the War (or are the Turn/Time sequences the same as they are in Epic as they are in 40k)

A single Engage action in Epic is equivalent to a Warhammer 40k game.

So,loosely speaking of course, a 40K Campaign = an Epic Game?

Not really. A game of Epic is a battle. A game of 40k is also a battle. The former just happens to be a big battle that encompasses many smaller battles (and different kinds of engagements that wouldn't be feasible or entertaining to play out on a 40k board).

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:So,loosely speaking of course, a 40K Campaign = an Epic Game?

40K is a platoon level skirmish. For example a guard list might have 1-2 platoons of troops + support.

Epic is company level. A guard list might have 1-2 companies of troops + support.