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.

So, many people laugh that super-advanced armies using things like melee weapons and horses are just part of the WH40K grimderp nonsense... But I think that there is actually one reason why such things could be useful in interplanetary setting.
Guns need ammo (including batteries), vehicles need fuel. So when waging war on the primitive planet, without acces to production infrastructure, swords and horses can be sometimes really useful.

Horses also require food, shelter and can react badly to combat situations. Transporation to the warzone can also be resources intensive - again you need to feed and house them - and clear up the mess!

They can be useful but they are not without their own issues

They are also an emergency food source as well.....

Melee weapons make sense for the same reason they have for most of human history- if armour/alien physiology is tough enough to reliably survive shooting and reach melee much of the time, melee will be a major factor in war to decisively take positions.

Horses are still great for warfare even today, they just aren't as good as motor vehicles in most cases. The issue with horses is they do need their own support infrastructure to function effectively. For example, WWI regiments often had as many vets for the horses as medics for the humans. These days, most of this infrastructure is gone so horses are hard to sustain en mass.

For primitive worlds where an infrastructure is present for horses/other local beast of burden, then they will be more straightforward to supply than motor vehicles. Otherwise, it depends on the logistics of the Imperial Guard units and attached supply formations.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Horses also require food, shelter and can react badly to combat situations. Transporation to the warzone can also be resources intensive - again you need to feed and house them - and clear up the mess!

They can be useful but they are not without their own issues

They are also an emergency food source as well.....

But it is easier to feed the horse with local plants (I assume that humanity fights for - or at least mostly for - planets which are able to sustain Terra-like life, indluding vegetation) than extract, refine and transport fuel.

Horses, especially modern horses and horses doing heavy work, tend to need diets supplemented with hay and hard feed. Grass alone isn't enough to sustain high-level activity and armies of horses can quickly exhaust the local grazing and turn it barren. Too much grass can also be unhealthy or even lethal for many modern breeds which require hay in their diet. Therefore supplying feed is generally required.

Now, 40k horses with all kinds of genetic and cybernetic tinkering (plus other non-horse mounts) may have completely different feed requirements. However, the mounts entirely living off the land will still only be possible for short periods of time or for very mobile units that constantly relocate to fresh pasture.

i think the logic behind horses is pretty minor. if the imperium can have the resources to feed massive guard regiments, they can have the resources to feed a smaller amount of horses. what really matters is: horses are cool. even just for single characters, it can really add a lot for a model's silhouette (lord solar's model isn't perfect, but i the horse is a great touch, for example)

i do wish horses were more common to 40k. i have some old metal genestealers on horses and no idea what to use them for

 Mr Morden wrote:
Horses also require food, shelter and can react badly to combat situations. Transporation to the warzone can also be resources intensive - again you need to feed and house them - and clear up the mess!

They can be useful but they are not without their own issues

They are also an emergency food source as well.....

What food and what shelter. If the avarge life span of an IG trooper, without a horse, is 2 min during a planet drop, then the need to worry about such things should be trivial. Plus if imperial are as smart with their animal personal, as much as they are with their troops and civilians, then those "horses" are running on an animal feed, similar to the one that is used nowadays. And that is mostly made out of grinded down animal bits. O

You're all going to debate & hash this topic for 20+ pages....

But in the end? The inclusion of melee weapons & horses (and other living mounts) comes down to this simple reason:

Rule of Cool.
Either model or imagination wise.

After that comes whatever amount of lore justification is needed to explain it in-universe.
But you know what? You don't need to read 1 sentence of the lore to appreciate a cool mounted model or one waiving somesort of melee weapon.

ccs wrote:
You're all going to debate & hash this topic for 20+ pages....

But in the end? The inclusion of melee weapons & horses (and other living mounts) comes down to this simple reason:

Rule of Cool.
Either model or imagination wise.

After that comes whatever amount of lore justification is needed to explain it in-universe.
But you know what? You don't need to read 1 sentence of the lore to appreciate a cool mounted model or one waiving somesort of melee weapon.

exactly! i'm not a warhammer fan because of my love of logistics. i want models that look cool and horses look cool. you could give just about any faction a horse unit or character and i would be here for it. tyranid warriors "riding" symbiotic creatures that happen to look like horses. space marines on equally generically modified horses. a sisters of battle calvary unit. eldar exodites on horseback. alien horses. mechanical horses. there are plenty of justifications, so the "why" doesn't matter so much as the aesthetic of it

Gedeon77 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Horses also require food, shelter and can react badly to combat situations. Transporation to the warzone can also be resources intensive - again you need to feed and house them - and clear up the mess!

They can be useful but they are not without their own issues

They are also an emergency food source as well.....

But it is easier to feed the horse with local plants (I assume that humanity fights for - or at least mostly for - planets which are able to sustain Terra-like life, indluding vegetation) than extract, refine and transport fuel.

That's a big if. 40k planets tend to be "Star Wars" planets in the sense that they seem to often consist of only 1 or 2 biomes, and those biomes are frequently of the "barren desert" or "aggressively poisonous/polluted" variety. When the fighting itself isn't just taking place inside massive hab blocks or manufactorum facilities. So saying that your regiment's "equipment" can be fueled with local vegetation is kind of like saying your regiment is well-equipped and trained for tundra fighting: nice if someone bothers to assign you to the right planet, but kind of pointless if you get sent to a planet of endless arid desserts.

That said, ccs has the truth of it. It's rule of cool. Primitive weapons and horses are "viable" in 40k because it's cool to see a guy with a lance on horseback charging a carnifex.

ccs wrote:
You're all going to debate & hash this topic for 20+ pages....

But in the end? The inclusion of melee weapons & horses (and other living mounts) comes down to this simple reason:

Rule of Cool.
Either model or imagination wise.

After that comes whatever amount of lore justification is needed to explain it in-universe.
But you know what? You don't need to read 1 sentence of the lore to appreciate a cool mounted model or one waiving somesort of melee weapon.

Also - 40K isn't sci-fi. It's space fantasy.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
...if you get sent to a planet of endless arid desserts.

Can't threaten me with a good time.

 Haighus wrote:
Melee weapons make sense for the same reason they have for most of human history- if armour/alien physiology is tough enough to reliably survive shooting and reach melee much of the time, melee will be a major factor in war to decisively take positions.

That basically stopped being true with the advent of every basic soldier being equipped with a fully automatic capable weapon.

If something can run through a hail of bullets, the knife on the end of your gun is not going to do any more damage than if you just carrying on shooting.

That may be so malus but there's nothing like the morale raising shout of "Fix Bayonets!"

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Melee weapons make sense for the same reason they have for most of human history- if armour/alien physiology is tough enough to reliably survive shooting and reach melee much of the time, melee will be a major factor in war to decisively take positions.

That basically stopped being true with the advent of every basic soldier being equipped with a fully automatic capable weapon.

If something can run through a hail of bullets, the knife on the end of your gun is not going to do any more damage than if you just carrying on shooting.

Firstly, point-blank shooting is absolutely included in 40k melee.

Secondly, melee generally allows for much better targeting of weak points in armour than shooting, unless you are ramming the muzzle of the firearm into said weakspots. At which point, adding a bayonet isn't a significant disadvantage and allows for continued offense in the press after exhausting the weapons magazine.

Thirdly, the enemy also gets a vote in your action, so they will be trying to prevent you hitting their weakspots whilst targeting your own (especially between similar opponents such as Chaos Marines vs Space Marines). Melee weaponry allows a more skilled or lucky combatant to overpower their opponent and make said weakspots easier to target (this is common in armoured fighting from the late medieval/early modern period). Firearms can be used for this too, but if they are not built with melee combat in mind they will be outmatched by dedicated melee weapons. Remember, a rifle with a bayonet is not a spear, it is much heavier and generally a slower, shorter, and worse melee weapon.

Finally, there is a morale element to a fighting force willing to look you in the face and hack you apart.

Horses are far from ideal when it comes to warfare. You can use them, but there were many good reasons why they were replaced by trucks at the earliest opportunity.

For one thing, horses need a hell of a lot of food, which needs to be transported with them. And while you might be able to scavenge some grass from the planet, this is by no means a guarantee. Indeed, it could easily backfire if the world you're on happens to have poisonous plants. Or parasites. Or diseases. Or really anything else that could affect the ability of the horse to function properly.

Then you've got the fact that horses are much more susceptible to injury. A truck can take fire and keep going. A horse that takes fire is far more likely to die, collapse, rear up and throw its rider/cargo etc.

You've then got to consider transport. You can't fold a horse up to save space on a spaceship or landing craft. They also need regular exercise, and to be constantly fed and watered. Meanwhile, trucks can be completely disassembled (or split into sections) for transport. They don't need to be fed or exercised along the way. Hell, they don't even need to breathe.

Put simply, you really wouldn't want to use horses in battle - especially when moving between worlds.

That said, I can see horses (or alien equivalents) being uses as a defensive force on many Imperial worlds. Not because they're optimal but because a lot of planets aren't well-supported by the Imperium and simply won't have enough trucks or other vehicles to cover all their needs.

 Haighus wrote:

Secondly, melee generally allows for much better targeting of weak points in armour than shooting, unless you are ramming the muzzle of the firearm into said weakspots.

The idea that melee allows better targeting of weak points is dubious at best. Apart from anything else, firing at range gives you multiple opportunities to hit an enemy's weak point. A guardsman trying to do the same in melee will get only one chance. Often not even that, given how many enemies can count on far superior reflexes and reactions.

If anything, you'd probably be better off just firing a lot of bullets and hoping to hit a weak spot by sheer weight of numbers. As the saying goes - "Ammo is cheap. Your life isn't."

Lastly, even if we accept the premise that melee is better for targeting weak-spots, you also have to remember that bayonet attacks are also vastly weaker than bullets. Thus, there's every chance your melee attack on a weak spot will still cause less damage than a bullet to the creature's armour would have. And just to reiterate, when you're in melee you absolutely have to kill or incapacitate your enemy with the first hit, or else it will do far worse to you.

 Haighus wrote:
At which point, adding a bayonet isn't a significant disadvantage and allows for continued offense in the press after exhausting the weapons magazine.

I can understand having bayonets as a morale-booster, so that troops might feel less helpless if their opponents close. However, they're not something you'd want to use except as an absolute last-resort.

 Haighus wrote:

Thirdly, the enemy also gets a vote in your action, so they will be trying to prevent you hitting their weakspots whilst targeting your own (especially between similar opponents such as Chaos Marines vs Space Marines). Melee weaponry allows a more skilled or lucky combatant to overpower their opponent and make said weakspots easier to target (this is common in armoured fighting from the late medieval/early modern period). Firearms can be used for this too, but if they are not built with melee combat in mind they will be outmatched by dedicated melee weapons. Remember, a rifle with a bayonet is not a spear, it is much heavier and generally a slower, shorter, and worse melee weapon.

The underlined part just sounds like even more of an argument for killing enemies at range. It's a hell of a lot easier to predict and parry swords and bayonets than it is bullets and lasers.


To be clear, I'm not opposed to swords in sci-fi settings. I just believe in being honest when it comes to the supposed justifications for such.

 Haighus wrote:
Finally, there is a morale element to a fighting force willing to look you in the face and hack you apart.

There are also cultural and historic reasons why some units or individuals may carry melee weapons, which often have little to do with the weapon's usefulness in combat.

For example, Japanese Kamikaze pilots all had special mounts in their cockpits so that they could carry a Katana with them, even though there wasn't the slightest chance they'd ever need to use it. But they all carried one nonetheless, because it was considered an important and honourable symbol for them.

Guard regiments are raised from all sorts of planets. A low tech feudal world still needs to pay its tithe. And if it can produce high quality mounted troops, the imperium can find a battlefield for them to fight and die on.

Could they spend the resources to retrain them? Yes. But it would throw away all of their history, heritage, culture, and unique skills. Assuming they even could be assimilated into more “modern” techniques without having to start from scratch. Better to leverage what they have.

And when you are already moving and feeding the volumes at the scale that the guard does, what’s a few horses? Any worse then ogryns?

But at the end of the day, rule of cool, space fantasy, etc, etc,….

 vipoid wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Secondly, melee generally allows for much better targeting of weak points in armour than shooting, unless you are ramming the muzzle of the firearm into said weakspots.

The idea that melee allows better targeting of weak points is dubious at best. Apart from anything else, firing at range gives you multiple opportunities to hit an enemy's weak point. A guardsman trying to do the same in melee will get only one chance. Often not even that, given how many enemies can count on far superior reflexes and reactions.

If anything, you'd probably be better off just firing a lot of bullets and hoping to hit a weak spot by sheer weight of numbers. As the saying goes - "Ammo is cheap. Your life isn't."

Lastly, even if we accept the premise that melee is better for targeting weak-spots, you also have to remember that bayonet attacks are also vastly weaker than bullets. Thus, there's every chance your melee attack on a weak spot will still cause less damage than a bullet to the creature's armour would have. And just to reiterate, when you're in melee you absolutely have to kill or incapacitate your enemy with the first hit, or else it will do far worse to you.

 Haighus wrote:
At which point, adding a bayonet isn't a significant disadvantage and allows for continued offense in the press after exhausting the weapons magazine.

I can understand having bayonets as a morale-booster, so that troops might feel less helpless if their opponents close. However, they're not something you'd want to use except as an absolute last-resort.

 Haighus wrote:

Thirdly, the enemy also gets a vote in your action, so they will be trying to prevent you hitting their weakspots whilst targeting your own (especially between similar opponents such as Chaos Marines vs Space Marines). Melee weaponry allows a more skilled or lucky combatant to overpower their opponent and make said weakspots easier to target (this is common in armoured fighting from the late medieval/early modern period). Firearms can be used for this too, but if they are not built with melee combat in mind they will be outmatched by dedicated melee weapons. Remember, a rifle with a bayonet is not a spear, it is much heavier and generally a slower, shorter, and worse melee weapon.

The underlined part just sounds like even more of an argument for killing enemies at range. It's a hell of a lot easier to predict and parry swords and bayonets than it is bullets and lasers.


To be clear, I'm not opposed to swords in sci-fi settings. I just believe in being honest when it comes to the supposed justifications for such.

 Haighus wrote:
Finally, there is a morale element to a fighting force willing to look you in the face and hack you apart.

There are also cultural and historic reasons why some units or individuals may carry melee weapons, which often have little to do with the weapon's usefulness in combat.

For example, Japanese Kamikaze pilots all had special mounts in their cockpits so that they could carry a Katana with them, even though there wasn't the slightest chance they'd ever need to use it. But they all carried one nonetheless, because it was considered an important and honourable symbol for them.

I agree with this from the perspective of Imperial Guard... but the thread wasn't just about the Guard. Guardsmen do generally prefer ranged combat and probably fire their lasguns in melee much more than they use the bayonet. For them, melee weapons are generally a back up used when gak hits the fan.

This applies much less to a Space Marine, who can reliably close with many enemy units and for whom melee becomes a much more useful tactic for clearing enemies from a position.

TBF, Astartes are also very often built on cultures of honour or martial prowess from primitive backgrounds.

They specifically recruit for that more naturalised killer instinct that humans from a stone age tribe, medieval kingdom, or underhive gang would have.

 Haighus wrote:

I agree with this from the perspective of Imperial Guard... but the thread wasn't just about the Guard. Guardsmen do generally prefer ranged combat and probably fire their lasguns in melee much more than they use the bayonet. For them, melee weapons are generally a back up used when gak hits the fan.

This applies much less to a Space Marine, who can reliably close with many enemy units and for whom melee becomes a much more useful tactic for clearing enemies from a position.

Eh, I partially agree.

It definitely makes more sense for Space Marines to carry and use melee weapons, as they have the strength to wield them effectively, and the armour to withstand some hits back. Plus they can afford melee weapons that are actually worth a damn.

That being said, I still don't think it makes sense for SMs to equip for melee combat over and above ranged combat. It's one thing to carry a sword or whatever so that you can still fight effectively if the enemy closes (or if you need to close with them). It's quite another to carry a sword at the expense of your gun.

It's quite baffling in fact that the far future has interstellar travel, giant mechs, super-soldiers . . . but apparently the ancient and mystical technology of 'a scabbard' was lost to the ages.

 vipoid wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I agree with this from the perspective of Imperial Guard... but the thread wasn't just about the Guard. Guardsmen do generally prefer ranged combat and probably fire their lasguns in melee much more than they use the bayonet. For them, melee weapons are generally a back up used when gak hits the fan.

This applies much less to a Space Marine, who can reliably close with many enemy units and for whom melee becomes a much more useful tactic for clearing enemies from a position.

Eh, I partially agree.

It definitely makes more sense for Space Marines to carry and use melee weapons, as they have the strength to wield them effectively, and the armour to withstand some hits back. Plus they can afford melee weapons that are actually worth a damn.

That being said, I still don't think it makes sense for SMs to equip for melee combat over and above ranged combat. It's one thing to carry a sword or whatever so that you can still fight effectively if the enemy closes (or if you need to close with them). It's quite another to carry a sword at the expense of your gun.

It's quite baffling in fact that the far future has interstellar travel, giant mechs, super-soldiers . . . but apparently the ancient and mystical technology of 'a scabbard' was lost to the ages.

It is kind of weird how few models with some sort of sword have a scabbard. In the case of marines, I guess they just generally maglock everthing to their hips or whatever.

I will nitpick the "at the expense of your gun" thing just slightly. While a ranged weapon of any sort has some obvious major advantages over, say, a combat knife, melee weapons do generally have the advantage of not running out of ammo. So if you're dropping an astartes on an island and telling him to kill all 2,000 heretics on the base there, or whatever, he's probably going to run out of bolter rounds before the job is 1% of the way done. Whereas a combat knife will last until you finally manage to wear it down to nothing, and a power sword seems to functionally have an endless power supply?

But that's an extremely niche situation. Plus a marine who can get that job done with a combat knife can probably also get it done with his bare hands. Plus marines generally prefer fast, short missions to long ones.

^To spin a bit OT on that, one of the things that always kinda bugged me is that the squad member with the heavy weapon doesn't also have a boltgun. I don't know how many missiles a Marine squad carries for the Launcher, but to only be able to engage at any respectable range with a Missile Launcher/Lascanon/whatever feels a bit silly.

To my knowledge, in modern day anybody who'd be carrying a Javelin or grenade launcher or whatever would be carrying some sort of rifle for standard duty in a firefight. The exception would be the soldier carrying the SAW because it's specifically intended to handle a similar class of targets as the rifles.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

It's quite baffling in fact that the far future has interstellar travel, giant mechs, super-soldiers . . . but apparently the ancient and mystical technology of 'a scabbard' was lost to the ages.

It is kind of weird how few models with some sort of sword have a scabbard. In the case of marines, I guess they just generally maglock everthing to their hips or whatever.

I think modelling restrictions, and how GW scales weapons are the guilty party in this area.
The primaris Bladeguard are one of the kits I think of for both holsters and scabbards and it looks... awful. They really highlight how ridiculously huge the weapons are, and simply devour space on the models.

Voss wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

It's quite baffling in fact that the far future has interstellar travel, giant mechs, super-soldiers . . . but apparently the ancient and mystical technology of 'a scabbard' was lost to the ages.

It is kind of weird how few models with some sort of sword have a scabbard. In the case of marines, I guess they just generally maglock everthing to their hips or whatever.

I think modelling restrictions, and how GW scales weapons are the guilty party in this area.
The primaris Bladeguard are one of the kits I think of for both holsters and scabbards and it looks... awful. They really highlight how ridiculously huge the weapons are, and simply devour space on the models.

Pretty much this. Most of the melee weapons wielded by marines are, from the base of the pommel to the end of their blade / head, almost the same height as the marine. So they’re basically 5-6 feet at minimum. This extends to everything else, guardsmen are also running around with swords that are 4-5 feet long on the short end. Plus standard guns that are as thick as their torso.