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.

Ultimately, there may be situations in the fantasy-world of 40k where it's necessary to kill someone hand-to-hand (storming a spaceship or vital building, etc) but this would be a lot less common that shooting.

Leaving in-game statistics aside, the armour vs missile weapons thing seems false: a punch or sword strike (even from a 2-ton superman) couldn't possibly equal the kinetic energy or penetrating power of a modern assault rifle, let alone heavy ordnance.

There's also the practical side to range - whoever strikes first in any fight has a better chance of winning. Shooting at someone from 300m while he runs toward you with a sword definitely qualifies as striking first.

Someone brought up the use of combat knives and occassional bayonet use in modern combat. Bayonet charges are generally to scare the opposition away. It was like that in the napoleonic wars and I presume it stays the same: it's an expression of confidence and intent, the side being charged is supposed to break before the charge reaches them.

Combat knives are for when you tumble into an enemy trench and fall onto someone. If you are any further away than that, it's easier to shoot him. I've read a couple GW books where the portagonist carves through whole groups of people with a sword, and it's always struck me as ridiculous. Sure, you could surprise someone and stab him. Won't the man behind him immediately shoot you as you free your weapon?

Example of those points comes from WW1, when conservative commanders still expected a lot of bayoneting, and units went into combat with bayonets fixed. Not many bayonet wounds noted, lots of artillery, some machinegun and rifle wounds. The way to storm a trench that developed was mostly controlling firing lanes and creeping round over the top to use trench bombs (grenades).

Summary: close combat is a really bad idea. In the middle ages, yeah, missile weapons were slow-firing, broke relatively easily, required a lot of skill and training to really use, and not all could penetrate the armour of the time (since it was harder to pick out joints and weaknesses than up close). But not after the development of explosive projectile weapons (and energy weapons as far as 40k is concerned). Once you're literally hugging your opponent, stabbing/bludgeoning/biting becomes an option, but you should probably have shot him already.

I suppose the only real proviso is that some 40k melee weapons are supposed to be unstoppable - I can see that if you had a pistol and a powerfist, and were being charged by something massive and angry, you might need to punch the sucker. Even then, I'd be frantically shouting for the platoon meltagunner.

Nice post, that is what I was hoping for. Let me see if I can form a rebuttal.

First of all, it seems that people are interpreting my statement that defensive technology has outpaced ranged offensive technology as a statement that armor makes you invincible. That was not my intent.

I am merely observing that armor has reached the point where is can repulse small arms fire, and even some heavy weapons fire, with a certain degree of reliability while maintaining the necessary levels of maneuverability to be used in military conflicts. In the modern world armor is, at best, an unreliable aid. It cannot reliably repel small arms fire, though it is very effective against melee weaponry. Due to this small arms dominate the modern battlefield.

Kilkrazy wrote:
That’s not to say that melee weapons ever became obsolete in medieval times. It was not until gunpowder weapons became able to defeat any conceivable plate armour that melee started to vanish from the battlefield. Which is the point the OP is making, and the idea of invincible armor would indeed make missile weapons disappear.

I have a problem with the idea of the invincible armor making melee mandatory for various reasons.

1. No armour is ever invincible because of the need for joints to allow the wearer to move.

True, but if you have to target joints you have a small arms nightmare. It's why knights were so effective. We used to do a training game in fencing where you could only hit certain points on the body. It is a nightmare. Similarly true for small arms fire. If you can only aim at the joints of a moving target, the chances of you disabling a force of any moderate size is minuscule. An alternative is necessary.

2. Concussion would still disable the occupant without needing to penetrate.

Excellent point. It is possible that advanced armor would have a way of countering this to some extent, but it is debatable weather they could overcome it to the degree necessary.

3. An energy shield type of armour suffers from issue 2 and also needs some kind of way to absorb and ‘sink’ the energy of weapons hitting it.

True, but if energy shielding is used you can assume they have found a way to handle that with advanced energy storage and alloys. To me it is like arguing that some sort of suspension would be necessary for off road vehicles to be practical. It is true, but more points out a technical requirement than disproves a possibility.

I would note that this seems to apply to space marine armor as well. It seems to have some method of countering and dispersing kinetic and thermal energy.

4. Mechanically operated weapons do not rely on muscle strength so they are always capable of discharging greater force onto the target than weapons swung by hand. Even if you have power armour, you could use the same resources to build a better rifle which gives the advantage of range.

True. However most melee weaponry used in 40k does not rely on muscle strength, but instead mechanical operations. The chainsword, force weapons, and power weapons that dominate all seem to rely on mechanical means to puncture armor. The human is there as a vehicle for the necessary machinery and to put it in contact with the target, not to lend strength.

5. I don’t see why a hand swung weapon can be coated in ‘Unobtainium’ which penetrates the invincible armour, and bullets can’t be. For example, chainswords might have a monofilament coated blade. Isn’t that what Eldar shuriken guns fire?

I don't think that the 'unobtainium' is the only factor at work here. You have the machinary to consider. A force weapon/power weapon/chainsword isn't powerful because it is made of adamite, or whatever else. It either because of the psykers physical contact or the machinery. It would be prohibitively expensive, and perhaps impossible to make a "power bullet", with power weapons already as coveted as they are. In the case of a chainsword you need something there to hold the blade in place. I can't imagine it being done at range.

6. 40K has various examples of light missile weapons which can easily penetrate any reasonable thickness of armour -- meltagun, meltabomb and EMP grenade.

The things you have listed are expensive, rare, and inappropriate for infantry combat. Melta guns are expensive, rare, short range, and heavy weapons. You cannot arm an entire army with them and have an effective force. Melta-bombs are anti-vehicle, probably not very effective against chaos marine or ork charges, and EMP grenades are non-lethal.

Finally you still have the issue of enemies who WANT and CAN get into melee. Kornites, Orks, and Tyrannids all make melee a very real and dangerous possability which must be accounted for.

Second post:

SWPIGWANG wrote:Personally, if I'm some uber life form with invulnerable armor and uber senses, I'd snipe my opponent at maximum range before they can spot me rather than trying to beat demo charges by slicing them.

This is unrealistic. There is a reason battlefields have never been dominated by sniper weaponry. It has its use, but you can't make a battle out of sniping. Especially in the case of orks or tyranids.

40k would be totally different people start shooting battlecannon shots or masses of melta into a melee. It is plain absurd for super elites with armor that is invulnerable at range to get in so close so they can get rapid fired by plasma and melted by walls of flamer shots.

There is good reason heavy weapons have never dominated close range combat. They are expensive, unwieldy, and require lots of backup. By your logic all we need today are heavy weapons, artillary, and sniper rifles. Yet small arms are still the largest presence on the battle field, and account for more deaths than all other weapons combined. However in 40k small arms are not effective against many armored enemies, while melee weapons are. They help fill the same niche as small arms.

If I have terminator armor and have to kill some guardsman, I'd take a longlas....as I can kill guardsman all day and laugh at the ineffectual counter fire from anything smaller than a easily neutralized lascannon battery. No point walking into demo charge range....

Oh yea. Nothing but a lascannon...or a Leman Russ, or a Melta gun, or a basalisk. Sniping is not an effective tactic as you think. The space marines/tyranids/orks/eldar cannot afford to let the guard/tau bring their heavy weapons to bare. And again, what do you do when that horde of tyrannids/orks breaks through your defenses?

If armor is truly immune to ranged weapons, the logical strategy is to stay as far as possible to use the immunity!

That...doesn't make sense. Anyways, I did not say armor was immune to ranged weaponry, but resistant to small arms fire. mid to heavy weaponry is just as dangerous as ever, and staying at range is just inviting them to bring it to bear.

If any one is suppose to charge, it ought be guardsman carrying short ranged but powerful weapons like demo charges that is necessary to toast a marine since they can't exactly fire lascannons from the shoulder and static weapons have many limits and is vulnerable to artillery and "tactics". However they have lemans so they don't really need to do that either.

But as mentioned, they can't. Too squishy. Getting into close range with a close combat beast when you are squishy is a bad idea.

And you're right. They don't need to do that. They have Leman Russ's that can toast the space marines. So obviously the space marines do NOT want to stay at range and allow the guard to bring their heavy weapons to bear. Normally this is where small arms come in. Short range firefights negate the effectiveness of heavy armor. But even then, as you have noted, melta guns and demo charges can make short work of marines, plus they are outnumbered dozens to one. Against foes like the guard and tau long and mid range are a death warrant for the marines, orks, and tyranids. But if a marine can close range the guard/tau cannot bring heavy weapons to bear, use massed small arms to take them down, or fight effectively in hand to hand. It is a win/win for the marine. In close combat a marine is worth dozens of guardmen. It negates all those tactics you just espoused, in the marines favor.

Orks and Nids: since anything they have touched is inevitable infested and needs to be burned completely, the logical way to deal with them is throw deathstrikes at them until they go away, and that is only when you can't lance strike the thing....

Your premise here is flawed. Everything they touch does not need to be destroyed. There are any number of instances where the imperium wants their planets back reletively intact. Factories and hives are not leveled when they are invaded. They may be cleansed with fire, but for the most part they try to keep them intact. And you are assuming the orks/tyranids are just going to sit in place and let you bombard them, and that you will aways have air superiority. This is simply not the case, and in the case of the space marines, it is almost certainly not. They will attack you at your base, and there is a good chance melee combat will ensue, especially in a city setting. Your tactic of scorched earth is not feasible for every situation.

Nuclear weapons are infinitely lower tech and replaceable than a spacemarine, considering how we can build masses of them with our tech base that can't even build a lasgun equivalent. Considering the absurd energies warships use, high energy sources are in no way scarce to the waring races.

Again, scorched earth is not often an option. You can't nuke a place you are trying to reclaim.

And if you really need to deal with charging loons, the better idea is to just crush them under the treads of your tank. Bipedal movement makes it unlikely they they can evade a tank ramming down them at 40+mph. We all know what happens when the silly dude tries to use a sword against an APC (even if the sword is a power sword) let alone one with multiple flamers shooting out of it.

Do you know what the biggest danger to modern armor is? Infantry. That is why EVERY piece of armor has a contingent of infantry with it. An armored charge against light infantry, especially in an urban setting, is a death warrant. Sorry if this isn't sounding as respectful as my response to the last post, but all of these tactics have been soundly disproved in modern warfare.

Infantry still has a place for a reason. The main difference between 40k and today is advanced personel armor and melee weaponry. Light infantry still has to support heavy weapons and armor, and is the main weak point of an army. For the space marine getting in close an personal is far preferable to mid and long range combat the tau and guard can bring their heavy weapons to bear.

Your tactics assume you will always be on the offensive, never fight in urban, space, or otherwise enclosed spaces, always be free to use scortched earth tactics, always have air superiority, and that you opponents that prefer hand to hand will sit in place waiting for you to get you heavy weapons in place, and that you will never be caught by suprise.

Obviously the situation reverses itself against the orks/nids, but in that case you are always happy to have a few capable CC units to back you up when they inevitably close range.

There are severe historical failings here. Middle Eastern (aka Syrian and Turkish) bows had no problem dealing with European armor. The only difficulty was they were relatively expensive and required substantial skill in their use. The heavily armored European knight survived only when he stayed in Europe.

But frankly that’s not relevant to the issue. Absent power weapons, the usual smedge of edged and blunt weapons do not have the capacity to penetrate heavy armor like a range weapon. Lets use the actual 40K weaponry:

Hand weapons.
-edge weapons or other CCs
-power weapons.

Non-power weapons do not have the kinetic energy to equal current hand held ballistic weaponry, not to mention heavy caliber items. Then you get into the fun stuff-armor piercing rounds and 40K special weaponry. It just defies physics. Now if everyone were banging around with power weapons that’s one thing. Else the range weaponry-even stinking bows, are going to be better.

]

Frazzled wrote:There are severe historical failings here. Middle Eastern (aka Syrian and Turkish) bows had no problem dealing with European armor. The only difficulty was they were relatively expensive and required substantial skill in their use. The heavily armored European knight survived only when he stayed in Europe.

But frankly that’s not relevant to the issue. Absent power weapons, the usual smedge of edged and blunt weapons do not have the capacity to penetrate heavy armor like a range weapon. Lets use the actual 40K weaponry:

Hand weapons.
-edge weapons or other CCs
-power weapons.

Non-power weapons do not have the kinetic energy to equal current hand held ballistic weaponry, not to mention heavy caliber items. Then you get into the fun stuff-armor piercing rounds and 40K special weaponry. It just defies physics. Now if everyone were banging around with power weapons that’s one thing. Else the range weaponry-even stinking bows, are going to be better.

]

Agreed, which was my point. The only weapons capable of reliably piercing armor are expensive and require significant skill. This is also true for the armor piercing rounds in 40k, very expensive and very rare, and only useful in specialized circumstances (MEQs). The armies that use melee have good reason. It is a force equalizer for marines against guard/tau, the orks have the numbers and brute strength that if they can enter melee they can win, and for the tyranids...well thats obviouse.

You are right, regular weapons are not good at piercing armor, which is why force weapons/power weapons/chain weaponry dominates close combat, because they can.

Are you saying that it takes less skill to hit someone with a sword than to hit them with a plasma rifle blast?

If yes, the plasma rifle guy can get about six shots at the sword guy before he can get into sword range and have a chance of a hit. That probably balances.

The argument is not about whether power/blah/etc weaponry dominates close combat. It is about how likely close combat would ever be when the enemy can shoot you from a distance.

Well there's both parts. We're missing the fundamental fact pattern here. Melee weapons doe not have the kinetic abilities to penetrate like range weaponry.

A guy with a crossbow is going to penetrate deeper armor than a shmuck with a sword.

A guy with a .308 is going to make mincemeat of armor vs. a guy witha sword, plus he can do it at 600 yards.

The 40L equivalents are the same.

If you're saying no armor, then the guys with the guys win 99 out 99 times.

We need to look at the troops as a whole. What troops are primarily close combat based?

Many Orks are. However Orks have good reasons to specialize in close combat. They're far less vulnerable to piercing weapons than a human due to having a ton of redundant organs. Breaking bones and tearing muscle is better for them. They can also close with ranged troops better because of this. They have a significant cultural connection to close combat weapons, as close combat is how they usually establish leadership. Orks also have masses of troops; with everyone in your population fighting you can't afford to equip them too expensively. Shootas need a steady supply of ammo to continue their most useful function, while choppas can be used without this concern.

Tyranids are another big one for close combat. There's not too much to say about them; with ranged weapons that consist of worm shooters an emphasis on close combat just makes sense. This goes likewise for Daemons.

Imperial Guard are primarily a shooting force, as are Tau, Necrons, and Sisters of Battle.

The Eldar are more shooting based then not; their close combat specialists primarily consist of troops equipped with power weapons and used for scare tactics (Banshees), heavily armored shock troops sent in to engage hordes of enemies with chainswords (Scorpions), and sort of cult based around extreme agility and showmanship (Harlequins). Eldar can most likely dodge bullets to a decent degree (or Veil of Tears themselves, or ride in a skimmer) so they're going to have some resilience to ranged weaponry because of that.

The Dark Eldar are always a little silly. Wyches are another agility cult, much like the Harlequins. Incubi are similar, and their primary role is to guard someone against assaults. The Warriors do use ranged weapons although using them in close quarters makes more sense when they're trying to kidnap people.

This leaves the big one mentioned; Space Marines. But even the Space Marines are primarily armed with bolters. Assault marines engage more quickly than most other marines; presumably it's difficult to use a bolter in mid-air, so they are going to end up engaging close no matter what they use. Honorguard and Captains and such are usually equipped with power weapons. Vanguard are beefed up assault marines. Scouts are often equipped for close quarters combat due to their infiltrating ability.

Chaos Marines are similar to regular marines in these regards, with the obvious exception of things like Berserkers and Daemon Princes.

Orkeosaurus makes several good points, and I agree with him whole-heartedly. While many of you are busy comparing 40k to modern times, which is hard to do because of the 38,000 year difference, he is busy with looking at the situation of 40k itself.

I feel that anyone who argues that the strength of the user precludes the use of combat weapons are not getting the part that the weapon itself plays. power weapons do not need very much if any kinetic force. chainswords are either for facing humans or human equivalents, in which case they just need to get the blade tips in the flesh and then rev the chainsword, using its bite to rearrange the internal organs, or wielded by those strong enough to be able to power them through most types of armor (obviously terminator armor would stop most if not all close combat weapons from the front).

these weapons all have their strengths and weaknesses, as all weapons do. lasguns have plentiful ammo and are plenty good against IG and similarly light opponents, but have no effect whatsoever against heavily armored opponents such as SM. bolters, however, are effective against anything up to lightly armored vehicles such as transport trucks (do not confuse with apc's, which they are not effective against) but suffer from a lack of such plentiful ammo and are hard for the imperium to make in significant numbers (i.e. they are not able to equip the entire IG with bolters). does this mean that lasguns are of less use than bolters? there cannot be a definite answer for this, because it all depends on the situation

power weapons are expensive and very rare, but extremely powerful and able to cut through any armor with ease. chainswords are more common, but are less powerful and can jam occasionally from excess amounts of gore and armor (which some of you seem to forget can just as easily happen to modern weapons, and does not preclude that weapon from being useful).

You don't need heavy weapons to kill marines at close range. All you need to do is the pull the pin to your ammo load.

A standard human being is squishy and weak, but even he can carry around a demo charge that by weight and volume is equal to a 8" shell which scales to a basilisk shot. It would be absurd to send in your super elites to get hit by a demo charge with against squishy human it fights.

If that is insufficient, even with with crap-tastic modern technology, low yield nuclear weapons still fits a backpack. (with variable yields means it doesn't have to destroy everything either) I bet you don't want your marines fighting that either.

Look at it this way, it takes a bloody 60ton tank to kill a marine at range, but it takes only a guardsman with a properly aimed melta guns to kill at close range. The imperial guard has more melta/plasma/democharge than lemans and even at close range, the lemans can still shoot at you. And don't tell me demo charges are rare, arcane technology since it is just a big bundle of explosives used enmass by artillery all the time. Heavy weapons don't really have minimum range issue when it is positioned behind the front. Besides, when it is something like a leman, its just going to hit reverse gear and shoot at the charging loons without getting caught by something on foot.

There is no logical reason to move your army from a range where only the biggest weapon can hurt you, to one where everyone suicidal enough can.

There is no hand to hand combat, there is hand to BIG BOOM SUICIDE BOMBER COMBAT. The best melee range weapon isn't some fancy sword, it is the biggest boom that you can fit in on the cheapest package.

It is difficult at range to hit things with this big explosive package, requiring massive vehicles, smart scouting, fine aim and some luck. It is not hard at all when your opponent stuck his chainsword in your gut.

-------------
And no, you are wrong. Heavy weapons dominate fire fights if they can be applied, and when an artillery battery can cover a 50km radius, they are actually easier to apply than rifles that cover a 300meter range. Just because you are chopping up some cannon fodder does not mean that your opponent is not shooting heavy weapons at you. Your opponent is ALWAYS shooting heavy weapons at you if they have any. Since heavy weapons would logically be positioned some distance behind the front and you'd have to slice a ton of people to get there.

The limitation of heavy weapons is that it can't kill what it can't see. aka snipers. If you are up at point blank range than everyone can see you and everyone can shoot at you are you are very likely to be very dead very quickly.

-----
The reason why tanks are bad in urban fighting is because Tanks rely on ARMOR, and ARMOR IS USELESS AT CLOSE RANGE. It has nothing to do with their weapon and everything to do with their protection.

At long range, tanks are immune to just about everything while at short range, some random infantry with a demo charge, molotov cocktail, magnetic mines, short ranged cheap RPGs, what not all can kill a tank. Only a tank or very heavy weapons kills a tank at long range, but everyone kills tanks at close range.

A space marine with heavy armor is more like a tank than a guardsman.
---------------------------------------------

Obviously the situation reverses itself against the orks/nids, but in that case you are always happy to have a few capable CC units to back you up when they inevitably close range.

The logical strategy is to do the mech tau thing. Run away if they get too close and keep shooting. If your troop is cheap and weak, just give them suicide demo charges since that'd kill more than trying to use a pointy stick against a monsterous creature. (and cheap too) If your troop is like the space marines, they may want melee weapons for self defense, but never, ever should those troops try to charge into close combat when it can still shoot or run away.

SWPIGWANG wrote:There is no logical reason to move your army from a range where only the biggest weapon can hurt you, to one where everyone suicidal enough can.

Except, ya know, to actually accomplish your mission.

Dying is a bad way to accomplish your mission.

Consider this tactical situation: You and a squad of battle brothers needs to kill some traitor guard. Now you know that the traitors have lemans and lascannons in his army. What do you do?

So you get into range in cover. You know that battlecannons and lascannons are direct fire weapons and shoot at you only when it can see you.

Lemans are big and loud, lascannons is big and immobile so you with your enhanced sense you can probably know where all of them are, and when you pop your head out of cover you can make sure that they never have line of sight to you, or that you are doing it so fast that they never get the chance to aim, which takes a while at long range. So you can pop-up, shoot some traitors, and put your head down and relocate before they can do anything about you. Finally, when all the screening guardsman are dead, you can sneak up flanking the tanks and heavy weapons with your own missile launcher with a single shot and kill them before they can shoot.

----
So what happens when you fight like a idiot and charge that formation with melee weapons? Well, to get into close range means you have to break cover so those lascannons and battlecannons shoot at you. Then when you get close close to the front row of traitors, they'd likely be smart enough to run to a spot where the battlecannons will get a perfect shot. Then they will use whatever meltaguns and plasmagun and democharges on you. When you do get close enough to chop, the suicidal cultists will set off bundles of krak grenades and point blank demo charges. Assuming you survived that and kill the screen while lascannons and battlecannons are shooting at you, then they will shoot some more before you can get to them as they are behind the front. After you run towards them and maybe chop up some lascan gunners, the leman is going to go into reverse and shoot more battlecannons and you and keep at it until you died.

I don't know how many battlecannon shots you'd take to the face with the plan, but in any case that is not a very good plan.


If you opponent is really squishy, why not kill them before they can even shoot?

Very well-made(although a bit comical and occasionally over-the-top) points, SWPIGWANG(odd having to type that name out...).

Take into account that melee isn't as common in 40k as it's made out to be. The most common fight is between orks and guard, if the orks actually got in melee as often as they are portrayed as the guard would collapse. For every tabletop battle there is a thousand cases of guardsmen mowing down orks thinking how crazy they must be.

Also remember that the melee units are still shooting, those orks are shooting at you the whole time they are charging at you. Marines are a shooty army, they just have a few melee specialists. (assualt terminators) Tacticals will mainly shoot, the melee is an attack of opportunity.

Cultural preferances are important too, the imperium prides its heroic charges, martyring duels, and valient last stands even if they're not neccesary. Orks like the fun of it, tyranids fight all natural, chaos is insane and loves bloody tatics, and it's hard to decipher the alien minds of the eldar and why they fight close.

On the other hand unlike the tabletop where battles are fought an fields, a large number of battles are fought indoors. Ships, hives, ruins, and such are common; and melee is more sensible there unlike tables which due to playability reasons are flat.

They are fighting over something, not just to fight. (unless they're orks) Those 10000 year old machines are delicate, the hive will collapse underneath you if you use too many explosives, the shrine can't get damaged but blood is washable, and basically gw has made a setting that prohibits using many of the ranged weapons that would end the fights instantly. If you could call the artillery you have, the waiting airstrike, or the strike cruiser than you could blow them up from afar. If you could use the armor peircing weapons that stop marines power weapons would lose importance, but the collateral damage would upset the machine spirits.

There are reasons for and against melee in 40k, its just the storys focus on the times where melee is usefull. (love this topic)

@SWPIGWANG

"Kill these traitors whenever you feel like it" isn't a Space Marine objective. Time matters, it matters more for them than it does for most other forces. You can't ignore this and try and argue for extended guerrilla tactics in every circumstance, it's absurd.

In any case, it sounds like you're talking about Tactical Marines, who are usually equipped with bolters. Marines aren't commonly equipped with nothing but chainswords and pistols if they don't have jump packs or bikes. Those that are equipped with those things are usually going into some sort of situation where close quarters fighting is expected. Not charging into a guard platoon. In fact, that's not something the marines really specialize in no matter what their equipment, they're supposed to be a spearpoint.

I mean, if this is a complaint about Space Wolf Bloodclaws or something specifically I see your point, but it doesn't sound like you're describing any actual Space Marine units. Assault Marines would ignore most of your problems, the mission you described isn't one where close combat scouts, assault terminators, or honorguard are sent; what are you trying discredit?

The point isn't that melee or close combat never happens. It happens even now.

The point is:
1. If you have a gun, it is best to use it as much as you can. Even if the enemy is just a few inches away from your sword's reach, you still shoot them! Keep shooting and don't ever stop until the opponent is very dead! In addition, always bring a gun if you can since they are handy things.
2. Armor does not make getting close a good idea from a killing perspective. It makes sense for the side with weak guns to get close to the enemy (since close range means they can use meltas and likes), not the side with armor and strong weapons.
3. Pointy stick variants are not particularly good close close combat weapons compared to explosives, flamers and short ranged guns until the last half meter.

Given the standard 40k mission of two armies stumbling upon each other in the middle of nowhere with only moderate cover, trying melee isn't a good idea in most cases. Just look at how mech-whatever's shoot and move back 6" strategy to get an idea of what happens.

---
Sure, if you are fighting in a space hulk, inside a hive or off a boarding torpedo, it is nice to have a melee weapon just in case someone pops out of a corner or a roof. That does not mean you should stop trying to shoot the hell out of the opponent all the time every time.

Melee weapons is not the ideal weapon for killing, ever. It is used only useful when the situation, environment or mission demands it.

The obvious point that makes the melee-over-shooty argument fall like a card house in a tornado is the fact that the imperial guard are issued with lasguns as standard armament and NOT chainswords.
And all armies are armed for the most effective killing power possible in regarding to logistical, numerical and expense aspects.

If the melee weaponry in the 40k universe were so awesome and so much more powerful then shooting weapons then both guard AND marines would be armed with melee weapons over shooty weapons but as is now the standard non specialist gear consists of a lasgun or a bolter.

In the extremely rare circumstances that an army is expected to be only in very close fighting in a visibility impaired environment or in tight confines like a space hulk the weapons of choice are STILL a lasgun or a bolter.

Even the specialist troops like space marines that are actively seeking out melee or are to be used in melee friendly missions STILL carry a bolter or stormbolter or even more powerful shooty weapons like combi or plasma guns/flamers.

The argument that melee weapons in the 40k are oh-so much more powerful then their shooty counterparts because some perceived weakness of personal armour to shooty and not melee weapons is thus pretty much null and void.
Only xenos races that cannot, are crap at or simply hell-bent prefer melee warfare are issued melee weapons over shooty ones.

SWPIGWANG wrote:The point is:
1. If you have a gun, it is best to use it as much as you can. Even if the enemy is just a few inches away from your sword's reach, you still shoot them! Keep shooting and don't ever stop until the opponent is very dead! In addition, always bring a gun if you can since they are handy things.

I don't know that this is universal. A pistol only holds so many rounds (or may have other issues, like overheating plasma), and as I mentioned before there are enemies that are a lot more resistant to bullets than they may be to something like a chainsword (due to not having the vital organs that need to be pierced/not going into shock for whatever reason).

I agree on always bringing a gun of some sort, unless you're some sort of extreme specialist (Assault Terminator) or non-standard troop (Genestealer). The versatility is too much of benefit to justify another exclusively close combat weapon.

2. Armor does not make getting close a good idea from a killing perspective. It makes sense for the side with weak guns to get close to the enemy (since close range means they can use meltas and likes), not the side with armor and strong weapons.

I would agree in general, the exception would be things like tanks and heavy weapon teams and such.

However, I think the issue here is that while heavy armor is no reason to seek out close combat in itself, it is a reason to seek out many situations that would put you into close combat; for instance, going into hostile environments with poor visibility, assaulting a particular bastion, boarding actions, things like that.

3. Pointy stick variants are not particularly good close close combat weapons compared to explosives, flamers and short ranged guns until the last half meter.

A Space Marine with a chainsword should have at least a good two meters around him in which he can kill with the melee weapon; but I agree with the general sentiment, as it goes back to the idea of having a gun of some sort with you even going into close combat.

Actually, IG use lasguns cuase that is what they're given. They're cheap for a reason y'know.

@Pyriel:

I'm not entirely sure what the point of your post is. The OP was a defense of the game's current presence of melee weapons/troops, not a call for making them more common, or declaring that it's unrealistic for ranged combat to be used as much as it is.

Citing the current prevalence of ranged weaponry in the game is pointless when he's only arguing for the status quo.

I know, sorry if it came out as something else.
Just wanted to say there is a reason they are issued lasguns and not chainsaws (both apparently almost equally common) or metal swords in that "universe".

As for the TT aspects of the fluff, well, its all pretty much out of scale, unrealistic and totally insane

Actually, chainswords are typically only issued to close-combat troops (assault marines), low-level officers (Lieutenants and captains), or commissars. i do not know where you get metal swords, unless you mean power swords, but thats another can of worms. what I mean to say is that chainswords are nowhere near as common as a lasgun with a bayonet on it.

That is true and the question is why.

We don't know if chainswords are complex and expensive, or unreliable, or are reserved as a status symbol, or if they just aren't really much use.

Ok, going back to what Orkeosaurus said, I think some people may be missing the point. This is leading to strawman attacks, weather intentional or not.

First I'll state that this was NEVER about melee being the best tactic, or even applicable to most situations. As Orkeosaurus mentioned, it is more about the status quo and the fact that it makes sense that it is utilized to the limited extant it is. There is a reason I don't have very many assault troops in my army, but they have their place.

Going from the top.

I-Bounty-Hunt-the-elderly, you are correct about a true hand to hand weapon not being effective compared to missile weaponry. But you missed the point that the typical assault weapon is NOT a true hand to hand weapon, but in fact, a hand held machine that the user is bringing into contact with an ememy, i.e force weapons, chainswords, and power weapons. The users strength and kinetic abilities have nothing to do with their effectiveness.

You are correct about range...but this is a strawman. You would never use this kind of specialized tactic against an enemy you had to charge at range head on. You're correct about the use of combat knives at bayonets, but again, a strawman. That is why most marines only carry combat knives. For the typical troops, yes, melee weapons make no sense.

Frazzled, same point about kinetic abilities. Not how these weapons work. They are hand held machines, not traditional melee weapons.

Lets drop the kinetic energy thing, as gundammerc said, the strength of the user has no effect on the effectiveness of the weapon.

SWPIGWANG
Again, these are mostly strawman. You are right in almost every instance, but still not RIGHT because it does not actuallly address the point I am trying to make.

You're talk of suicide rushes is for the most part non-applicable. Yes close combat is a bad idea against suicidal enemies, but that is not the nature of most enemies, but most enemies you face are not of that nature, and you would not use these units against that type of enemy. A guardsman defending a bastion, a taut backing up a tank, or an artillary crew is not going to demo charge himself. Low yield nuclear technology...well that is just silly. That is not going to be used in traditional warfare. I can just see you letting loose a pie plate in the middle of your own lines because an assault squad reached them.

You are right, it would be dumb to charge melta carrying infantry pointing it at you. This is not the situation you would use melee. Youre right, assaulting a lemen is dumb. You're right, tanks are invincible at range. You're right, covering ground against a foe and letting them shoot at you is suicide. You're right, heavy weapons DO dominate fire fights when they can be applied. You're right, if you are allowed to just destroy an entire area, it is a fantastic idea. And you are right, if you can just withdraw and reposition, it is a good thing to do when people get to close for comfor.

And none of that addresses the point at hand. The suicide thing is just silly, that is not how armies work, now or in the future (ok, some chaos and orks). Despite what you say, most armies will NOT unleash heavy weapons fire into their own lines except in the most extreme circumstances. Due to a marines menuverability he is NOT like a tank at close range, but heavy infantry.

You're tactics do not help in close combat, space ship combat, fortified position rapid assault, recapturing a city, or clearing out an artillary nest.

Running not always an option, suicide is rarely an option, giving your heavy weapons a great field of view of all your enemies is rarely on option.

So, back to my original point: in defense of melee in 40k.

Melee units have their place. The funny thing is, at least in this case, the game mechanics match how reality would probably work pretty well.

If the enemy has small arms and is trying to hold a defense, armored assault units are effective.

If you are within close range of an artillary position, assault units are effective.

If heavy weapons have been brought to bare on a position and you can get assault units to the heavy weapons, assault units are effective.

If you can, oh i don't know, drop out of space into the middle of an enemy artillary line instead of foot slogging it, assault units are effective.

If you commonly face foes who use melee, it makes sense to have someone with close combat weapons in you're squad. Not to fight off a charge, you're doomed in that case, but to handle the one or two who make it through so they don't make a mess of you're lines.

Yes, it is a niche thing, unless cultural bias makes it otherwise.

And really, that was the point. It has it's place and there are reasons that it is not automatically stupid. Heavy armor and advanced close combat weaponry make it a useful tactic for certain situations that can otherwise be difficult to deal with.

I see what you mean about complex and powerful melee weapons (chainswords, powefists etc) that would have similar destructive potential to a high-powered firearm. Fair enough.

I also realise what you're saying about the use of melee weapons in certain situations where circumstances throw the combatants right up next to each other. I recognise that we're talking about situations where long range combat and heavy ordnance has been taken out of the equation.

Bearing these things in mind, I am still saying that a melee weapon is never really better than a gun. If I were a space marine boarding a space hulk, I would take my bolter. I would take a bolt pistol as well. I would take lots of grenades. I would take a long, heavy, sharp knife as a last-resort weapon. I would not encumber myself with a chainsword, because there is almost no imaginable situation where I'd be far and close enough from an opponent to swing the damn thing at him without being able to use my bolter instead. And firing a bolter would be quicker/easier/safer than swinging a chainsword.

Yes, small arms run out of ammunition during protracted close-quarters fighting. This is dealt with by good reloading drills, close support and leapfrogging by the other members of your squad, and carrying as much ammo as possible.

Again: small-arms (plus grenades) are the best thing up close - melee weapons are just a last resort.

There is only one exception I can imagine to this rule - something that is so superhuman/protected/unnatural that you need a power weapon/power fist/thunder hammer etc to kill it. Even then, wouldn't those tools be competing with melta and plasma weaponry?


<This whole post is sort of similar to what I said above, but I hope I made it more clear, and explained the context a bit better. We're all sort of going in circles and following our own trains of thought to a certain extent here. Nonetheless, I stand by my beliefs!>

The question isn't whether melee weapons can be effective, but whether they are the MOST effective option. Given the strength and dexterity of marines, they can just throw rocks at guardsman and kill them. 200mph fastball to the head? ouch.

Why is melee generally a bad idea even if you have all the advantages? Well, for a number of reasons:
1. Its slow. Bullets and lasbolts (and even rocks) travel faster than you can run, and it takes one short controlled burst to chuck 3d the opponent. Lets not get into how quick area effect weapons can kill a lot of stuff. Even if you are close to the enemy already, the flamer kills faster than pointy stick variants in most cases.

2. It is terrain dependent. If there is some difficult or impassible terrain between you and the opponent, it doesn't work. God bless you if you have to cross a mine field along the way. I can just hear the laugher of some tau firewarriors on the second floor against a bunch of melee weapon only bikers....

3. It leaves you vulnerable. Since melee range is so short, it is hard to hide or find cover doing it, unlike someone popping off a shot at 2 kilometers away.

4. It lets the enemy run away. If your opponent is of the same speed or faster than you and don't want to get into melee, you can't make it happen. However you can still shoot them since it is hard to outrun a bullet.

Of course, warriors of the future can carry both a gun and a uber sword. However it would take a very stupid warrior to not carry a gun since there are situations where you just plain can not melee at all. Even with a uber sword and a crappy gun, in most situations it is a good idea to shoot the gun first and use the sword only if the opponent is not dead after all that shooting.

Not having a gun is also quite dumb unless you are the poorest of chaos cultists. Lasgun is cheap and I'm sure guns litter the battlefield after battle as well. I'm sure most folks can get better guns.

In all the situation you've listed, none of the melee options is better than shooting options. So you get a clear line of sight to the enemy artillery/heavy weapon. A smart commander fires a missile or a ton of bolts into their position. A dumb one try to slice it up, spending a lot more time since rockets move faster than bipedals running. So the enemy is in a fortress? You shoot a hole in the fortress and in goes the flamer/bombs/etc....unless they've got power armor, they get neutralized without you walking into a potential booby trapped room. So you get to deep strike into close range of the enemy? Why not fill the drop pod with demolisher shells and land with half a dozen S10AP2 hits? No troops is risked and the enemy can't be more dead. Or you can do the stenguard thing, which kills the target dead as soon as they open the hatch door as opposed to waiting for a firm footing for a run.

--------
As for suicide bombings and sending artillery into one's own force, it has happened even in this not particularly violent world. In the grimdark universe that is wh40k, one would expect it to be rather common, considering how shooting your own troops to "motivate them in near certain death missions" is a not uncommon tactic, and purging entire forces because of contact with possible corruption is also known. Life is cheap in grimdark settings....wussy ways of fighting need not apply. (unless you are emo-dar, but they just run away anyways)

Although we're all standing in the same room shouting very loudly, and no 2 people in this discussion are really talking about exactly the same point, I think SWPIGWANG agrees with me.

And I agree with the both of you.

The reason why melee weapons are in 40K is because of rule of cool. The reason why they work is that there are factors designed into the game system, such as the range of guns versus troop movement speed, which make them work.

It doesn't need a logical 'fluff' explanation and it's very hard to make a convincing one.

There's too much concern with the melee weapons alone; you have to look at the melee equipped troops as a whole. You can't compare chainswords to bolters, you have to compare chainswords and bolt pistols to bolters (and bolt pistols). Then you have to look at the units that are actually equipped with the former, which is often jump pack squads or bikers.

The question isn't "should tactical marines be equipped with dual chainswords?" as much as it is "should assault marines have bolters/have two bolt pistols/be replaced with more tactical marines?"

Ok, my closing points, then I will let other people have the last word.


Bounty: You are correct about just about all of that. Heck, I wont even say lets agree to disagree, because I'm more taking a stand for a debatable viewpoint than expressing my own.

I'll point to Orkesauruses point that the assault loadout typically carries a pistol and a chainsword, and I think that is a valuable observation. Because you are right, for the closes combat you would not want to have only a melee weapon in 90% of circumstances.

That said, I still think the use of a melee weapon in conjunction is justified. The supterhuman/protected/unnatural things that require heavy weapons are common, and an assault team will not have the luxury of heavy weaponry. There is a reason the guard doesn't use assault squads and the marines do. There is also use in tying up enemy lines. The chainsword, at the very least, would be essential for keeping assault troops from being mobbed, and making the immediate area around an assault troop very dangerous, helping him complete his mission, while allowing them to charge towards concentrations of troops with near impunity. But you are probably right, assault troops probably use their pistols more than their swords, except against certain enemies (orks and nids).

I will also again note that the presence of orks, nids, and khornites makes it wise. Without a melee weapon an assault troop could not assault, as even pistols have a minimum effective range. Carrying a melee weapon is as much a safeguard as it is a weapon.

SWPIGWANG I do agree with you about most of those cases. Usually not the most effective option, and I don't know that we disagree all that much, though I think a bit.
You're right on most every point: it is slow, terrain dependant, and unsupported leaves the unit vulnerable after the initial attack. The point was never that it trumps ranged weaponry in most situations. You are also right that not having a gun is stupid, and I never supported that situation.

And it does let the enemy run away, though that is not necessarily a bad thing. First of all, typically, if a melee gets their enemy to run, they have won. Moral is broken, and they will inflict horrendous casualties on the fleeing unit. The sweeping advance rule in 40k exists because that is how things typically turned out in real life. Secondly, if you are assaulting a fortified position and they run away...good. Hunker down and hold it now that you have opened a window for the real troops.

Unfortunately your tactics are just as situational. being able to get a clear line of site and fire a ton of missiles is not always an option, and fighting entrenched enemies with bolter's ensures you will lose more troops than your enemies, that is just basic tactics. You don't always have air superiority, you can't always blow everything to kingdom come. You cant always drop in demolisher shells. You're tactics are valid, but just as situational, and it feels like you try to purposefully misinterpret my points and put words in my mouth.

Finally, sending suicide tactics and hitting your own lines with your artillery is not uncommon because of some "sanctity of life" thing. It is because it is a bad idea. You want to hold your line or capture valuable targets. Otherwise you don't need ground troops, just orbital bombardment. It is just...bad strategy. Destroying your own troops and defenses is a recipe for defeat. There are times where it would be in your best interests, but that is rare. Usually it is better to fall back and try to retake it. Scortched earth is rarely an acceptable strategy in the long run. Though like all the other strategies espoused here, it occasionally is (like...every time Russia is attacked).

So in closing, my point? Assault troops equipped with melee weapons have a place, specifically due to their armor, jump packs, drop pods, advanced melee weaponry, the types of enemies they face, and because they are ideal for certain situations. Not all situations, or even for most (again, why my army is fairly light on assault troops). It is the same reason you don't make an army out of all tanks, artillery, or heavy weaponry. Despite their strengths, they just don't address every situation.

But there are enough situations where it is justified, and due to the technology involved, it is not as fantastical as some claim.

Ok, those are my closing remarks. If the debate continues I might still comment, but I my points are out there as clear as they can be, so I won't post any more rebuttals. Someone else can have the last word.

Hope that was fun for others. I love a good debate.

One thing, SWPIGWANG, you have a lot of good points, and I appreciate that. But you might want to watch out for those strawman attacks. It comes across as aggressive when it feels like you are putting words in peoples mouths, and can get people riled up .

Again, just to clear things, I'm a big fan of the socratic method. I find a good debate very enlightening, though the views expressed by me may not represent my views. It would have been fun to see if I could convince myself the other way too.

I'm looking forward to starting another of these on technology. I hope there is as much thoughtful input.

I just want peole to realise that modern day CQC is actually around 5 metres.

This is where pistols (magnums, USPs, Desert Eagles, etc.), and compacts (Uzi, Mac 11, Glock 18, etc.) all become useful.

Melee combat in 40k is not just fought with melee weapons (despite the name), it is a mixture of hand-to-hand brutality, and short range spraying with fire-arms.

Like it was mentioned earlier, you are going to want to snap off that last shot, but then it's time to smack your opponent between the eyes with your rifle, then bring it up to shoulder again to obtain a new target.

This is why weapons designed for CQC are small and light, for freedom of movement and to allow the user to use them in a cramped, confined area. Longer ranged weapons like assault rifles, sniper rifles, etc. are big and heavy, so that if melee combet does arise, they make a handy bludgeon.

Just remember that defenders can counter-charge, and a good 2-3 metres can be covered with a good blood lust-fuelled lunge.