Why is melee combat so popular in 40k universe?

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.

**StarTrotter**

Noir wrote:
troa wrote:

In short, beyond the "it's the game", it can make sense, it's plausible. It's not fact, it's fiction. Science fiction makes best guesses, and 40k is a mix of science and fantasy fiction(aspects just don't have as much scientific backing as much of modern sci-fi does). Close combat is not something relegated to fantasy, however, as another person claimed. It shows in numerous sci-fi settings, including well researched ones.

So you don't know how 40K started, Warhammer in space, they didn't even bother creation a new rules set. Until 3rd, but they never left behind the fantasy, CC, magic(psy), demons from hell, epic heros wade across the feild killing 100s or 1000s single handed, orcs, elfs, do I need to go on. Even Tau came in to being becouse "gaint robot were cool at the time", not becouse GW realised you should be shooting in the future. Becouse it is dumb to walk up to a 10ft human tank and hit it with a sword. Hell in 40K trained soilder, just now figured out you should shot the guys charging you (6th ed), so maybe everybody in the 40K setting were just to dumb until now.

Huh? Yeah the warhammer in space thing is true but what was going on at the end? Yes 40k is dumb. Developing a space marine seems so preposterously pointless when I'd rather have all those extra guardsmen. Logistics, ammo, etc all fail when you try to think of them realistically as 40k has never been realistic. It is grimdark, scifantasy. It has technology but so too does it have magic. You have Tau that detest close clombat (Kroot were supposed to deal with that) and then you have armies like Chaos Daemons, Tyranids, and Orks that one way or another can reach you and fight in cc by either weight of numbers or flickering between reality and the immaterium.

And no they have always known how to overwatch. It just so happens to be that most races (SM, Eldar, two of the four daemon gods and even then some of tzeentch being super fast, certain nids, etc) happen to be super fast some being so crazy good they can parry a bullet barrage out of the sky. In fact, if you think about it, the shooting phase is supposed to represent your overwatch in a way (because if we claim it shouldn't then let me ask you do you seriously believe that the two armies fight in such orginization all the time only fire at one unit, wait for the enemy to shoot them first before moving, randomly decide to fail charges even when really close etc).

In terms of why it is popular... Close combat still does occur in real life. Maybe not as frequently when swords were the thing but it still occurs (just look at the bayonet). Anyways, one must also realize that 40k doesn't work on the same logic as our world and follows the Rule of Cool! Many people like close combat. Look at Star Wars as an iconic example. In reality, it shouldn't really work against all the guns yet somehow it does.

**Spartak**

Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because, as others have said, the battlefield is not the same as it is today.

In Halo, for example, you are quite capable at charging around and pummelling many a foe to death. Your energy shields are not only capable of taking serious punishment, but also self-replenishment. Compare this to 'realistic' shooters, or even Halo on a much higher difficulty setting. You can't break cover under fire without dying. Melee is no longer viable. Your shields are no longer sufficient.

In modern combat, no soldier is capable of withstanding more than a couple of rounds, and is especially not capable of surviving against intense fire without cover. In 40k, various factors eliminate this - power armour, teleportation, innumerable and suicidal enemies that you will inevitably end up in close quarters with. As well as this, technology has made melee viable in the form of power weapons, sophisticated systems that are capable of ignoring most armour.

Another reason is efficiency. Bullets are very efficient, and do not do very much damage. They put small holes in just the right places to kill - which is perfectly deadly when you're fighting normal humans. Compare the damage done to a soft target with a bullet to a bladed weapon of any kind. It is not necessary to cleave a man in half to kill him. In real life, guns of any kind are deadly at extreme range (relative to melee) and even if they don't kill, a hit is almost guaranteed to incapacitate. Not true in 40k.

It is not that it's "fantasy sci-fi and it's to be interesting". Using the rules of the game, see how effective a unit of ten Guardsmen is at killing things in close quarters with chainswords out in the open with no cover. Now compare that to Assault Marines, suddenly leaping into a group and tearing them apart in seconds with lightning claws.

This is 100% dead on, could not agree more.

**Peregrine**

StarTrotter wrote:
And no they have always known how to overwatch.

No they haven't. In 5th you could have an assault unit go from out of LOS 18" away (which, at 28mm scale, represents over a hundred feet) to combat without ever getting shot at. Why? Because of the alternating turn structure where a unit acts once and then sits around doing nothing while all of the enemy units go through their move-shoot-assault sequence. It wasn't until 6th that GW decided to include at least a token element of reaction fire to represent the fact that your troops aren't just standing there waiting for the enemy to charge.

It just so happens to be that most races (SM, Eldar, two of the four daemon gods and even then some of tzeentch being super fast, certain nids, etc) happen to be super fast some being so crazy good they can parry a bullet barrage out of the sky.

That's just rationalizing to deal with the fact that you're playing with the turn structure of a 1980s fantasy game. The only reason you have to make up ridiculous excuses like "fast enough to parry bullets" is because 40k's obsolete turn structure doesn't allow for realistic reactions to events.

Look at Star Wars as an iconic example. In reality, it shouldn't really work against all the guns yet somehow it does.

The difference is that in Star Wars melee combat is a ceremonial thing between the special warrior monks and the other 99.999999999999% of the universe uses guns.

**Deadshot**

And who wins between the sword monks and the 99.99999%?

**Dakkamite**

kingleir wrote:
I remember hearing somewhere (no proof at hand, although im sure it was from cbc coverage of that kid on the bus) that at 22 feet a man with a knife can stab a person before they could draw their gun, aim and fire.
In modern times that would be pretty much the high end of effective melee range.
Take into account the speed at which a space marine can run and you are somewhere around 40 feet
Look around you, I bet there is something within 40 feet that could hide a space marine.

They did this in mythbusters, and it was something like ten feet.

Plus thats to 'draw' aim and shoot, with 90% of the time coming from draw. Soldiers generally wouldn't have their guns in their holsters when the choppa boyz come over the hill

Anyway, easy answer; melee combat works because Orks say it does.

**Peregrine**

Deadshot wrote:
And who wins between the sword monks and the 99.99999%?

The 99.999999%. Prequel jedi die just fine to guns when they're in full-scale battles, Luke in ROTJ only escaped with a hand wound because the shooter's aim sucked, etc. And that's with supernatural abilities including precognition, something the average screaming idiot with a sword in 40k doesn't have.

**Swabby**

I feel obligated to mention that space marines would probably be involved in quite a bit of ship to ship space combat, including boarding an repelling actions that would absolutely require close quarters non-projectile weaponry to effectively secure a vessel without accidental venting into space.

It isn't all fantasy or stupid

**Vaerros**

Swabby wrote:
I feel obligated to mention that space marines would probably be involved in quite a bit of ship to ship space combat, including boarding an repelling actions that would absolutely require close quarters non-projectile weaponry to effectively secure a vessel without accidental venting into space.

It isn't all fantasy or stupid

No ship a boarding action would be taking place in would have a hull that's vulnerable to small arms fire.

**Veteran Sergeant**

That, and Space Marines are void capable anyway.

Besides, even if something penetrates the outer hull, one would assume that ships have sealable compartments just like modern ocean going vessels have. Atmospheric venting isn't really as big of a deal (for Space Marines at least) as one might think unless the ship lacks safeguards.

The real thing with ship boarding actions is just how the Space Marines actually manage to move through these ships without tearing them to pieces destroying all the hatches and bulkheads.

But that's a whole different story altogether.

**Maniac_nmt**

Because those who wrote the game liked "lightsabers".

Same reason there are Titans. A 'Titan' is actually an incredulously idiotic weapon of war. It cannot hide, it's easy to hit, incredibly expensive to produce, etc. If technology existed that could build such a device that wouldn't crumple under it's own weight or sink into the ground due to it's massive weight, a couple gomers with future 'rpgs' could take it out with ease. If you can make one, you can easily make something much much cheaper to bust it.

However, it's "cool" to have big stompy 'robots' to fight with, so we have Titans and inane reasons they don't always get hopelessly annihilated with ease.

**Kain**

Maniac_nmt wrote:
Because those who wrote the game liked "lightsabers".

Same reason there are Titans. A 'Titan' is actually an incredulously idiotic weapon of war. It cannot hide, it's easy to hit, incredibly expensive to produce, etc. If technology existed that could build such a device that wouldn't crumple under it's own weight or sink into the ground due to it's massive weight, a couple gomers with future 'rpgs' could take it out with ease. If you can make one, you can easily make something much much cheaper to bust it.

However, it's "cool" to have big stompy 'robots' to fight with, so we have Titans and inane reasons they don't always get hopelessly annihilated with ease.

Titans dish out and tank firepower in the multi-kiloton to megaton level. The tech involved is OOMs more advanced than what goes into baneblades or leman russes.

Because tech was not lost or regained at the same level for everything not everything is up to the same standard.

**Melissia**

Kain wrote:
Orks, Cultists, Guardsmen, and Tyranids tend to have more soldiers than a Marine force, Loyal or Heretical, will have shots to fire at them. By an order of magnitude or so.

So Marines deploy surgicially to take out key points because one hundred Space marines vs one hundred million Orks in a straight fight won't end well.

A hundred marines vs a thousand Orks in a straight fight probably wouldn't end well for the Marines, either. The Orks would create too many SM casualties, so that even if they're wiped out to a Boy, they've won an effective victory-- the Orks can be easily replaced, the Marines can't. Even if all the Orks could do was kill a single squad of marines, that's a victory over the Marines in terms of expense needed to replace the 1000 Orks vs the 10 marines.

Now, 100 marines ambushing 1000 Orks, that'd end pretty damned well for the marines. Of course, 100 Kommandos ambushing 100 marines... that's an iffy proposition on either side.

**Psienesis**

... because sometimes a dude just wants to be driven closer so he can hit them with his sword. That's all there is to it. A dude and his desire to be driven closer to fulfill his desire to hit them with his sword.

**Deadshot**

Psienesis wrote:
... because sometimes a dude just wants to be driven closer so he can hit them with his sword. That's all there is to it. A dude and his desire to be driven closer to fulfill his desire to hit them with his sword.

Guys have needs too.

**PrinceRaven**

Vaerros wrote:
Swabby wrote:
I feel obligated to mention that space marines would probably be involved in quite a bit of ship to ship space combat, including boarding an repelling actions that would absolutely require close quarters non-projectile weaponry to effectively secure a vessel without accidental venting into space.

It isn't all fantasy or stupid

No ship a boarding action would be taking place in would have a hull that's vulnerable to small arms fire.

What about control consoles? I can't imagine shooting up the bridge would be in anyone's best interest.

**Musashi363**

The British actually performed a victorious bayonett charge in Iraq a few years ago. In reality, close combat does happen in real life but it is still done with guns. That being said, i still carried a big *** knife with me on both of my tours....for close encounters.

**Spetulhu**

Well, I guess a lot of it is from the guys at GW reading Dune when they were young. Feudal society, personal shields making a nuclear reaction with lasguns, honorable melee combat man vs man being considered state-of-the-art military technology.

Even in real life it's not unknown, just not the preferred method. Western powers happily use expensive missiles to take out one man. Terrorists use cheap bombs. And once in a while someone like the Brits or a ghurka soldier shows everyone what a real melee is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishnu_Shrestha

But that's pretty extreme, either against opponents who might not have real guns (like the train robbery) or guys who think shouting praises to their god is better than actually training shooting to hit targets.

**Roberkhan**

Hi, guys!

I love this kind of threads

Although I guess everything important has been already said, I would like to add a bit more, always from an in-background logic and setting aside "Rule of cool" or "GW=dumbasses" explanations:
What we see in WH40k tabletops is actually a microscopic action that we suppose is subsumed in some wider battle, war, narrative arc or whatever. It's the peak of the cream of the desperate decissive climax. That's why armies deploy suicidally close, why they get wipped out to a man (Ork, Eldar, whatever) and why galactic size heroes are there in huge numbers(What the hell is Ulthwe's most powerful psyker ever doing in a firefight? Wait! Is that Ghazgkull Thraka, side by side with Abbadon? Man, what a jolly meeting here, at planet Backwater Secundus!) Even Apocalypse battles are little more than skirmishes with a shocking concentracion of heavy gear.

So, 40k battles are by no means the normal 41st Millenium battle. In the normal 41st Millenium battle -if such thing exists-, space, aerial and artillery warfare should be decisive and make the bulk of the fighting. When it comes to the ground, most of the battle would take place between forces hundreds of meters or even kilometers away from each other. Probably, 41 Mil. forces move fast, hit hard and disperse quickly, as, unlike in WWII, massed armies under disputed air and space are cannon fodder. Casualties would be unsustainable even for Orks or IG. I imagine them, from IG to Tyranids, with a general doctrine closer to mid-Cold War doctrines. Not surprisingly, everybody is now capable of deploying lots of APCs.
Just for comparation, according to Steven Zaloga, between 60 and 80% of the casualties inflicted by the Red Army during WWII were produced by artillery fire (POWs not counted here). What we do with our little toy soldiers is what happens after all this kaboom has taken place.

Of course, there is also place in the galaxy for trench or static warfare: fortresses seem to be impervious to all but the most powerful artillery and air superiority is not always granted.
Anyway, according to size, to play "normal" battles in this background, we should use something between Battlefleet Gothic and Epic 40k. GW never really made it into the wargames realm, so, this comprehensive game simply doesn´t exist.

Beware, too, that many of these forces, Imperial ones included, as thalassocratyc forces in space (space=sea, obviously). Up in the thread, someone (sorry, cannot find it again for a proper quote) argued that Imperial logistics are closer to the XVIIth Century than to the XXIth C. That's true. Relatively small -yes, small- contingents deploy with great effort in order to seize strategic objectives. As in Guadalcanal: how many ships where used during the operation (many), how many pairs of boots actually fought on the ground (not too many) and how big was the goal (aerial dominion over a quarter of the Pacific!)? Proportions are shocking. Here in Spain, we have an old-fashioned expression: to put a pike in Flanders. We use it to describe enormous efforts or costs. It's because, during Religion Wars in the Netherlands (XVII C.), our king expended monstruous amounts of money, effort and time to put armed soldiers in, well, Flanders.
Moreover, as has been stated, lots of 41st Millenium fighting are not actual field battles, but boarding actions, explorations, insertions in choked enviroments (Hives!), small tactical actions with strategic significance that happen close and personal.

Adding this all, in the main picture, I don't even believe massed battling a la WWII to be so usual in the galaxy. I would expect most conflicts to be solved with a mix of air and artillery power and fast, critical encounters that, on occasions, become very close. If we accept that offensive firepower is not as effective as it is today for a number of reasons -armour, fields, poor quality of guns, resilience of many creatures, contempt of casualties, etc-, things start to make sense.

So, the thesis is already there: 40k is about the final, decissive clash in one of these battles. It's about the assault at Stalingrad's grain elevator, about the most savage charges at the Matinakau, about the assassination of Bin Laden! And, in this actions, "normal" -big guns and prudent distance- is set aside and everybody throws the kitchen sink at the opponent. If that means that a Sector Commander has to power-fistfight aliens, so be it!

Yeah, it's a bit idiotic, but you get the idea

Cheers!
Roberkhan

**Peregrine**

See, that would almost make sense if you went back to when 40k was an infantry-only skirmish game. But now when you have hordes of infantry, tank companies, enough air support to cover the table, etc, that explanation doesn't work so well.

**Roberkhan**

Peregrine wrote:
See, that would almost make sense if you went back to when 40k was an infantry-only skirmish game. But now when you have hordes of infantry, tank companies, enough air support to cover the table, etc, that explanation doesn't work so well.

That's where I come from, from good ole' "Man, you brought two tanks to a 1500 points battle?! You looney powergamer!" times

Anyway, two or three planes, some platoons and a fistful of tanks is, by XXth century standards, a very humble tactical force. It's still skirmish or commando level -reinforced company-, not even batallion size. It is, in fact, a very odd kind of combined-arms force, with a crazy concentration of heavy gear per actual soldier. A specialized ad-hoc force, I would say. And specialized ad-hoc forces are the ones that acomplish critical missions, where close combat is more probably happening.

BTW: Thanks for the repply, it's always nice to be a newbie and get some feedback.

**Maniac_nmt**

Kain wrote:

Titans dish out and tank firepower in the multi-kiloton to megaton level. The tech involved is OOMs more advanced than what goes into baneblades or leman russes.

Because tech was not lost or regained at the same level for everything not everything is up to the same standard.

You prove my point, somehow you can figure out how to build the computer program, gyros, metal components, weight distribution systems, etc but somehow we can't just drop a penny on it from orbit and it's a smoking crater (which is all it would really take, and being as big, slow, and short ranged as they are would be laughably easy even using modern technology, let alone even year 10, 20, 30, or 40k technology).

Basically you break the laws of physics, warfare, etc., and go with Titans work because they are cool, so lets figure out how we'll make them survive. There is a reason the US went to looking at the 'Star Wars' defense plan (basically satalite based systems that would effectively drop a penny on a target, obliterating pretty much everything), the Patriot Missle Defense system, etc. You cannot slap that much armor on anything of size and not eventually have it trumped by a better gun.

Look, I love Battletech. Nothing beats stomping around in an assault mech slapping PPC/Gauss fire on some poor unsuspecting shlub. It's fun, but totally impractical. Same with Titans, or running across the battlefield to bash someone with your gun instead of shooting them with it.

It's done because the writers and we the readers want to be able to do that, not because it's practical or would actually work.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Bayonet charges still occur, believe it or not. Account below.

Spoiler:

**Kain**

Maniac_nmt wrote:
Kain wrote:

Titans dish out and tank firepower in the multi-kiloton to megaton level. The tech involved is OOMs more advanced than what goes into baneblades or leman russes.

Because tech was not lost or regained at the same level for everything not everything is up to the same standard.

You prove my point, somehow you can figure out how to build the computer program, gyros, metal components, weight distribution systems, etc but somehow we can't just drop a penny on it from orbit and it's a smoking crater (which is all it would really take, and being as big, slow, and short ranged as they are would be laughably easy even using modern technology, let alone even year 10, 20, 30, or 40k technology).

Basically you break the laws of physics, warfare, etc., and go with Titans work because they are cool, so lets figure out how we'll make them survive. There is a reason the US went to looking at the 'Star Wars' defense plan (basically satalite based systems that would effectively drop a penny on a target, obliterating pretty much everything), the Patriot Missle Defense system, etc. You cannot slap that much armor on anything of size and not eventually have it trumped by a better gun.

Look, I love Battletech. Nothing beats stomping around in an assault mech slapping PPC/Gauss fire on some poor unsuspecting shlub. It's fun, but totally impractical. Same with Titans, or running across the battlefield to bash someone with your gun instead of shooting them with it.

It's done because the writers and we the readers want to be able to do that, not because it's practical or would actually work.

A penny at 7 m/s falls very short of a kiloton.

And it'd burn up in the atmosphere.

Not to mention that in 40k armor and firepower seem to be largely equal.

Or in some cases, durability wins out over firepower, Biotitans can take those kilo to megaton bomb blasts from titans and not only keep fighting, but go "Lol we stole our powers from wolverine" and heal right up.

From what we heard of the Crypt Stalker, the Necron titan equivalents flat out no-sell said kilo to megaton blasts.

This is also a setting where a single Psyker can split a planet in half with his mind when he goes coo coo for Chaos cocoa puffs. Realism has no place here, go play Mass Effect or something.

40k however, does manage to maintain a degree of verisimilitude.

**Psienesis**

You prove my point, somehow you can figure out how to build the computer program, gyros, metal components, weight distribution systems, etc but somehow we can't just drop a penny on it from orbit and it's a smoking crater (which is all it would really take, and being as big, slow, and short ranged as they are would be laughably easy even using modern technology, let alone even year 10, 20, 30, or 40k technology).

By the time a Titan is going for a walk dirtside, the Imperium has established space-superiority, and the kill-sats that would be capable of dropping said penny have all been destroyed or compromised.

There's also the fact that such technologies might no longer exist in the Imperium. Just because they have recovered (or maintained) the ability to create a Titan (though it takes them 100 years to construct it) does not mean they have maintained or recovered the technological knowledge required to build a killer satellite.

**White Ninja**

Warhammer 40k is not a Science fiction setting it is a High Fantasy setting in space. Some of the elements are very science based but most of the setting does not even try to explain itself as science. In a setting where ships can travel faster then light by breaking open holes in hell the argument that a marines armor could not possibly be powered seems silly. As for all the arguments that marines could not survive their armor stopping a tank round because of the G forces they outright say in the fluff that a normal human would die from going through the forces of a drop pod stopping.

**En Excelsis**

Peregrine wrote:
Blah Blah Blah...

Sorry, you made a lot of posts that I felt compelled to respond to and rather than listing a page and a half of what you said just to respond to it, I summed it up for you

It is endlessly amusing to me that you seem just intelligent enough to grasp the simpler concepts of physics, but you prattle off at keyboard like you are the definitive authority on the matter. The truth is, you've run off ahead of yourself and you've stopped making sense. Still, your arrogance is entertaining....

It bears mention that 40k is a Science-Fantasy game. It is important to understand the difference because Fantasy, Science-Fiction, and Science-Fantasy are not so closely related that they can be grouped together without some knowledge why we have different names for them. In the early days of Science Fiction novels, the authors were very often people of influence in the scientific community of their time. R.A. Heinlein, Halding, C.S. Lewis, H.G. Wells, to name a few. These men were not just writers but all of them were intellectual titans. They not only had considerable influence on the sciences during their lifetimes but even on into ours. As well, they also had a solid enough grasp on literature to present their fictions (which they knew were fictions) to readers in a desirable fashion. Their works were entertaining fiction that was grounded, however slightly, in a scientific understanding or perspective.

Fantasy as a genre is largely dismissive of the sciences. E.R. Eddion, J.R.R. Tolkien, & C.S. Lewis (again), all wrote books that are imaginative, profound, and entertaining without having to stop and address the sciences at every turn so their readers could rationalize the stories to themselves. Their works are fictional, plainly and simply. There is no need to discuss the probability of events in them, and no need to consider the weighty and sometimes intense concepts they bring forth such as Destiny, Fate, and the human ability to accept things that we cannot control.

And then you have Science-Fantasy. This genre takes all that is good about the others, and gives us ... well it gives us WH40k!. Parts of the universe are grounded in simple scientific truths, and parts are based solely on imagination. If you can grasp that than the story can fairly appeal to you. If you do not, than you will make the mistake of imposing scientific expectations on the story where it aught not be imposed. Or Visa Versa. This is what you are doing...

Except even if the armor is strong enough to stop an impact the person inside it isn't. The only benefit to a suit of power armor stopping a direct hit from a tank shell is that maybe you can hose out the remains of the wearer and give it to the next guy. Impact force alone is going to kill whatever is inside the armor, just like people figured out that the easiest way to deal with plate armor is to just hit it with a hammer until the guy inside is dead.

Power Armor is a vacuum sealed, pressurized space. It protects its wear from the impact by virtue of equalizing the pressure inside the suit. Which is redundant anyway since Space Marines' sweat seals them tightly enough that they can exist in the vacuum of space - see the Black Templars Codex for examples of the various organs and what they do. Unlike the medieval knights in your example who wore plates of thin metal on top of chain links and cloth, the Space Marines are wearing several inches of armor which absorbs and equalizes impacts. Those same medieval warriors could swing hammers at a Space Marine all day all they would accomplish is getting themselves thoroughly worn out.

Look up what happens when large caliber shells impact bunkers (oddly not liquefying the men inside).

**KingDeath**

Since spacemarines are so incredibly rare that they stoped making sense a long time ago, powerarmour doesn't even need to enter our considerations. Common bodyarmour technology in 40k is roughly comparable to today's bodyarmour technology, sufficient to offer some protection against small arms fire but one shouldn't expect too much of it. So, for most human armies close combat will be just as unusual as it is today. Regarding titans, it is best to see them as venerated idols of the machine god and not as sensible warmachines.

**Melissia**

Maniac_nmt wrote:
drop a penny on it from orbit and it's a smoking crater (which is all it would really take

That would only be true if the penny was traveling a non-insignificant fraction of the speed of light. Which gravity alone would be incapable of doing, and even magnetic weapons would have a hard time doing (once you get close enough to the speed of light, accelerating more starts to take more energy than you would be able to get if you freaking converted all the mass of the object in to energy directly with 100% efficiency). And with something as small as a penny, there's no guarantee that there'd be enough mass left upon impact to get through the void shields and armor to inflict significant damage.

I'm not arguing that walkers are the ultimate war machine, only that your example is nonsensical.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingDeath wrote:
Since spacemarines are so incredibly rare that they stoped making sense a long time ago, powerarmour doesn't even need to enter our considerations. Common bodyarmour technology in 40k is roughly comparable to today's bodyarmour technology

No. It's vastly, VASTLY superior to modern bodyarmor.

For less than the wieght of a single modern bulletproof vest, a full set of guard flak armor-- pauldrons, gauntlets, boots, kneeguards, breast and backplate, helmet, and so on-- protects the entire body, and does it against projected energy weapons as well as kinetic ones. And it does it while being far cheaper to produce than our best quality body armor by orders of magnitude.

Even if you're just arguing about protection, a simple flak vest is better than modern body armor because of the range of weapons it is capable of protecting against.

I mean FFS, it's capable of blocking a multilaser shot-- which itself is quite capable of taking down light vehicles-- and it requires something equivalent to a boltgun (a highly advanced, armor piercing two-stage munition which has the advantages of both a traditional gun and a rocket) or better to get through it.

**KingDeath**

Melissia wrote:

Even if you're just arguing about protection, a simple flak vest is better than modern body armor because of the range of weapons it is capable of protecting against.

I mean FFS, it's capable of blocking a multilaser shot-- which itself is quite capable of taking down light vehicles-- and it requires something equivalent to a boltgun (a highly advanced, armor piercing two-stage munition which has the advantages of both a traditional gun and a rocket) or better to get through it.

That multilasers are ap6 is a game mechanic, nothing more. In all pieces of fluff and the rpgs as well, flak armour provides protection against small arms but won't do much against heavy weapons like machineguns (it will stop an entire point of damage against heavy stubbers in FFG's games...), multilasers or bolters. So, while the technology itself may be more advanced, the amount of protection against basic weapons of the time/setting is more or less the same. You won't expect a piece of flak armour to protect against a heavy stubber round just like you won't expect a piece of modern bodyarmour to offer any serious protection against modern machineguns.

**Melissia**

If you want to use FFG, I'd point out that it's quite easy to survive a heavy stubber round while wearing guard flak armor in those games, even if it was a direct hit to the head. You couldn't expect to survive a direct hit from a heavy machinegun IRL, regardless of your body armor (it would go through and liquidate your brain).

So your comparison still breaks down.

Furthermore, modern body armor would provide no protection against directed energy weapons. Flak armor, in comparison, provides quite adequate protection against them-- as proven by its effectiveness against multilasers and lasguns.