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.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:There also the fact that humans have no natural predators, barring micro organisms and parasites.

That's only because humans have consistently wiped out predators which prey on them, leading the remaining ones being very wary of targeting them.

And spitting poison is no way near the same level as a firearm.

You're right. The poison is more complex. lol. The firearm is the apex of human simplicity and a testament to our unevolved selves.

"So I got something over there I want to hit with this metal right?"
"Right."
"I could stick it to some wood and throw it."
"Yeah, but it needs to travel faster to hit harder."
"Ok, so then how about I launch the metal and stick with some string and a bow?"
"That's good, but that piece of metal could still go faster and hit harder."
"I got it! Let's put some of this stuff that burns and pops behind the metal, stick it in a combustion chamber and see what happens?"
"BRILLIANT!"

Still throwing pieces of metal at things to dumb or frail to avoid them. When instead we could've just made a sandwhich? lol

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

Broly wrote:
A single human with an assault rifle can kill dozens of tigers. A single tiger can kill dozens of humans without a ranged weapon.

A tiger against a prepared and ready man with a knife is unlikely to come out okay even if the man dies. A tiger against a dozen humans could simply be kicked to death. The main problem is the tendency for predators to ambush, prey on the weak and the fear of the prey. Take those out of the equation and it becomes much more even; though there will still be an advantage to the tiger if the person is unarmed.

I'd say mankind is dominant more due to the fact that we're intelligent, organised and capable of overcoming our fear on a much more consistent basis than other large animals. We learn what animals do what and so there are less unknowns to be wary of . A house cat can scare a bear up a tree because the bear doesn't know what it is. Without ranged weaponry we'd still be dominant.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:There also the fact that humans have no natural predators, barring micro organisms and parasites.

That's only because humans have consistently wiped out predators which prey on them, leading the remaining ones being very wary of targeting them.

And spitting poison is no way near the same level as a firearm.

True, but that was hardly due to firearms. That was more due to our intelligence and our ability to create tools to counter our weaknesses, such as spears, as you had already pointed out.

Oh, spitting poison is definately not as deadly as a gun. That statement was more of a counter to his statement that humans are the only ones with ranged weapons.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Oh, spitting poison is definately not as deadly as a gun. That statement was more of a counter to his statement that humans are the only ones with ranged weapons.

You, sir, have never been bitten by a Black Mamba, or a spit at by a Cobra for that matter. lol

Case in point: A gun can be deadly. It can also be completely ineffective if it never hits its target. Poison, on the other hand, comes in so many potent forms there can not possibly be cures for all of them, they attack the body in numerous and exotic ways, can be lethal and absorbed in nearly all forms matter can take (solid, liquid, gas).

On top of that, some poisons are so exotic that they cannot be replicated. Even worse is that a gun shot wound could be bound, treated and healed. A poisonous infection, less so, depending on the toxicity of the poison in question.

But you want the opinion of one in the know? Ask Nurgle what he thinks about firearms. XD

I know this is just being facetious, argumentative and possibly off topic, but I think it still stands. Simply put, poison is natures gun.

 TheRedWingArmada wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Oh, spitting poison is definately not as deadly as a gun. That statement was more of a counter to his statement that humans are the only ones with ranged weapons.

You, sir, have never been bitten by a Black Mamba, or a spit at by a Cobra for that matter. lol

Ah ha! Touche sir

 TheRedWingArmada wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Oh, spitting poison is definately not as deadly as a gun. That statement was more of a counter to his statement that humans are the only ones with ranged weapons.

You, sir, have never been bitten by a Black Mamba, or a spit at by a Cobra for that matter. lol

Case in point: A gun can be deadly. It can also be completely ineffective if it never hits its target. Poison, on the other hand, comes in so many potent forms there can not possibly be cures for all of them, they attack the body in numerous and exotic ways, can be lethal and absorbed in nearly all forms matter can take (solid, liquid, gas).

On top of that, some poisons are so exotic that they cannot be replicated. Even worse is that a gun shot wound could be bound, treated and healed. A poisonous infection, less so, depending on the toxicity of the poison in question.

But you want the opinion of one in the know? Ask Nurgle what he thinks about firearms. XD

I know this is just being facetious, argumentative and possibly off topic, but I think it still stands. Simply put, poison is natures gun.

You, Sir, have never been shot in the face.

Poisons can be deadly. Bleeding from a hole in your stomach made by a bullet is deadly too.

We should be lucky that animals use poison instead of guns.

Broly wrote:

 TheRedWingArmada wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Oh, spitting poison is definately not as deadly as a gun. That statement was more of a counter to his statement that humans are the only ones with ranged weapons.

You, sir, have never been bitten by a Black Mamba, or a spit at by a Cobra for that matter. lol

Case in point: A gun can be deadly. It can also be completely ineffective if it never hits its target. Poison, on the other hand, comes in so many potent forms there can not possibly be cures for all of them, they attack the body in numerous and exotic ways, can be lethal and absorbed in nearly all forms matter can take (solid, liquid, gas).

On top of that, some poisons are so exotic that they cannot be replicated. Even worse is that a gun shot wound could be bound, treated and healed. A poisonous infection, less so, depending on the toxicity of the poison in question.

But you want the opinion of one in the know? Ask Nurgle what he thinks about firearms. XD

I know this is just being facetious, argumentative and possibly off topic, but I think it still stands. Simply put, poison is natures gun.

You, Sir, have never been shot in the face.

Poisons can be deadly. Bleeding from a hole in your stomach made by a bullet is deadly too.

We should be lucky that animals use poison instead of guns.

This is true, otherwise typing this response would be considerably more challenging. lol

In terms of complexity though, a gun is a tube throwing metal at ridiculous speeds to inflict severe damage against squishy targets. An idiot proof weapon, more or less.

Poison, on the other hand, is one of the most complex, naturally occurring and virtually unstoppable chemical composition created biologically by living organisms. So which is more "complex?"

The bullet that is mass produced or the poison that cannot be produced except by a living being that produces said poison. Notice how the Tyranids do this too. XD In fact, they take it a step further and add acids, parasites and all other manner of organic weaponry that performs exceptionally better than any fire-arm to date. Case in point: You'll run out of ammo. So long as a Tyranid can eat, he's not running out of poison/acid. lol

Edit: Sorry. I forgot we were talking about lethality, not complexity. I have no idea how I made that leap. But anyways, the above is still in good standing. Poison, for all of it's naturalness, is far more devastating than a bullet. But I'm not about fission anyways, so let's go with Fusion: A bullet full of poison? Maximum lethality. lol

I like this thread a lot. So much human empowerment. Yes, we are all members of a powerful race. HUMAN BEINGS.

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
I like this thread a lot. So much human empowerment. Yes, we are all members of a powerful race. HUMAN BEINGS.

I for one welcome our Homo Sapien overlords.

Wait...

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

A tiger against a prepared and ready man with a knife is unlikely to come out okay even if the man dies. A tiger against a dozen humans could simply be kicked to death. The main problem is the tendency for predators to ambush, prey on the weak and the fear of the prey. Take those out of the equation and it becomes much more even; though there will still be an advantage to the tiger if the person is unarmed.

sorry thats total BS...

a tiger will OWN 12 unarmed men... absolutely, every time. even with a knife, you are royally fethed, you will subcumb to the tiger wounds long before the tiger notices its been shot/stabbed in most cases.

anyone who says different has watched too many rambo movies, and likely has NEVER hunted anything in their life... let alone with a knife... seriously, do not underestimate how much more durable most animals are then us pink monkeys.


FFS boar's are smaller then people, and can kill a person quite easily... and will win EVERY time in a unarmed fight...and they are just pigs with tusks... having a knife might help you, but even if you win your gonna be hurt, humans are delicate compared to most animals.

Heck I have seen a flipping MOOSE take out a half dozen dozen guys before they FINALLY got a cop with a gun, who emptied the whole clip at it (9mm isnt the best hunting round, but its 17+shots still) and had to reload and take it down with the 2nd mag... this is within 3-4 meters of the target too... so extremely close range to be missing/not disabling a >1 ton moose

and its not as simple, even with a gun, to just "shoot em before they get close"

shooting a moving target, is EXCEPTIONALLY hard, even for trained and experienced marksmen. look at the # of bullets fired to # of deaths in wars (ie In Vietnam, the average number of rounds used by a soldier was ~2200 bullets per kill)

once you are within 12 feet or so, its faster to stab/kick/punch someone then it is to draw+aim at a moving target, many cops practice this close quarters drill, just to instill in them, how deadly CC can be to those who can only fight at a distance.

one person trained and equipped for CC, will walk through many times his # of untrained/unequipped people in CC, the problem is not that CC is ineffective or impractical, its that getting CLOSE enough is HARD... cause they are shooting at you... in 40K where they can teleport/jump-pack/pop-out of a landraider right next to you, then OFC cc will play a role.

not to mention any environment (urban, heavy trees/jungle, basically anything thats not a "bowling ball" type terrain) will greatly assist someone who wants to get close.

melee will always have a place, always, and forever, just as ranged combat will be.

its not the predominant method, in real life, or 40k, but its there for a reason.

 easysauce wrote:

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

A tiger against a prepared and ready man with a knife is unlikely to come out okay even if the man dies. A tiger against a dozen humans could simply be kicked to death. The main problem is the tendency for predators to ambush, prey on the weak and the fear of the prey. Take those out of the equation and it becomes much more even; though there will still be an advantage to the tiger if the person is unarmed.

sorry thats total BS...

a tiger will OWN 12 unarmed men... absolutely, every time. even with a knife, you are royally fethed, you will subcumb to the tiger wounds long before the tiger notices its been shot/stabbed in most cases.

anyone who says different has watched too many rambo movies, and likely has NEVER hunted anything in their life... let alone with a knife... seriously, do not underestimate how much more durable most animals are then us pink monkeys.


FFS boar's are smaller then people, and can kill a person quite easily... and will win EVERY time in a unarmed fight...and they are just pigs with tusks... having a knife might help you, but even if you win your gonna be hurt, humans are delicate compared to most animals.

Heck I have seen a flipping MOOSE take out a half dozen dozen guys before they FINALLY got a cop with a gun, who emptied the whole clip into it (9mm isnt the best hunting round, but its 17+shots still) and had to reload and take it down with the 2nd mag.

and its not as simple, even with a gun, to just "shoot em before they get close"

shooting a moving target, is EXCEPTIONALLY hard, even for trained and experienced marksmen. look at the # of bullets fired to # of deaths in wars (ie In Vietnam, the average number of rounds used by a soldier was ~2200 bullets per kill)

once you are within 12 feet or so, its faster to stab/kick/punch someone then it is to draw+aim at a moving target, many cops practice this close quarters drill, just to instill in them, how deadly CC can be to those who can only fight at a distance.

one person trained and equipped for CC, will walk through many times his # of untrained/unequipped people in CC, the problem is not that CC is ineffective or impractical, its that getting CLOSE enough is HARD... cause they are shooting at you... in 40K where they can teleport/jump-pack/pop-out of a landraider right next to you, then OFC cc will play a role.

not to mention any environment (urban, heavy trees/jungle, basically anything thats not a "bowling ball" type terrain) will greatly assist someone who wants to get close.

melee will always have a place, always, and forever, just as ranged combat will be.

its not the predominant method, in real life, or 40k, but its there for a reason.

Yeah, a Hippo or Rhino will feth people up, and those are practically bullet proof. You need a big bullet for something like them.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
I like this thread a lot. So much human empowerment. Yes, we are all members of a powerful race. HUMAN BEINGS.

I for one welcome our Homo Sapien overlords.

Wait...

I'm heterosapien......

........

XD

- - - -

Melee is awesome. That is why it is so popular.' BANZAI!!! Playing the Space Marine videogame, I can never NOT be an assault/raptor. The jumppack is too much fun, sticking an axe in a guys face is priceless. If only the lag gods would feth off more often...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Yeah, a Hippo or Rhino will feth people up, and those are practically bullet proof. You need a big bullet for something like them.

Do not be afraid of the hippo nor the rhino my friend. A hippo gets nasty sunburns when it leaves it's watery home, so just stay clear of murky waters and you should be good. And as for the rhino, well, the only kind of rhino you ever would be so lucky to meet is the kind of rhino that has been turned into a piece of merchandise, courtesy of the local poacher.

Wait why are even talking about this in a thread about cc?

True or False: Wearing a mask on the back of your head will deter a tiger attack, since Tigers are ambush predators and will only attack from behind when the opportunity is most choice.

That aside though, anyone who thinks they're bad ass v. an animal (unarmed mind you)... go try it. XD

I am trained to the sword and I know animals are some scary mofo's, especially when forced to actions of desperation. Simply put, Man developed a much more manageable survival strategy that animals respect; Hide and if Uncovered, Fight.

Early man learned very quickly that the Jungles and Deserts were terrible places to be where he could die at the drop of a hat and for no reason, let alone to the panther or the buffalo. He also knew that sometimes, they just didn't care, and until Prometheus enacted his bastardization of the Luciferian Teachings and created the first Religion through the harnessing and control of fire, this is how man lives. Foraging by day. Avoidance by night.

Now a days, through that bastardization of the First Religion, Man fights amongst himself and no longer hides. The Fence grew, and now we're the only animals left on the planet, realistically speaking. Everything on this planet, including man himself, is at crisis because of these destructive behaviors and habits.

How does this tie into Close Combat? What I'm describing is why Close Combat even exists in the first place. Think about it: It Exists. Why? This is symptomatic of a greater mental disease that afflicts our species and it came with the illusion of intelligence, separation from the nature, and our constant (and often times fruitless) searching for "the meaning of it all."

Enough of my metaphysical, psycho-social, philosophy soap box though. lol.

It was relevant. XD

 easysauce wrote:

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

A tiger against a prepared and ready man with a knife is unlikely to come out okay even if the man dies. A tiger against a dozen humans could simply be kicked to death. The main problem is the tendency for predators to ambush, prey on the weak and the fear of the prey. Take those out of the equation and it becomes much more even; though there will still be an advantage to the tiger if the person is unarmed.

a moving target, is EXCEPTIONALLY hard, even for trained and experienced marksmen. look at the # of bullets fired to # of deaths in wars (ie In Vietnam, the average number of rounds used by a soldier was ~2200 bullets per kill)

once you are within 12 feet or so, its faster to stab/kick/punch someone then it is to draw+aim at a moving target, many cops practice this close quarters drill, just to instill in them, how deadly CC can be to those who can only fight at a distance.

one person trained and equipped for CC, will walk through many times his # of untrained/unequipped people in CC, the problem is not that CC is ineffective or impractical, its that getting CLOSE enough is HARD... cause they are shooting at you... in 40K where they can teleport/jump-pack/pop-out of a landraider right next to you, then OFC cc will play a role.

not to mention any environment (urban, heavy trees/jungle, basically anything thats not a "bowling ball" type terrain) will greatly assist someone who wants to get close.

melee will always have a place, always, and forever, just as ranged combat will be.

its not the predominant method, in real life, or 40k, but its there for a reason.

Yeah in the service you are taught about 'reactionary gap' which says if you don't have the gun already trained on a guy once they close to within 10-12 feet you need to switch to hand-to-hand combatives.

 easysauce wrote:

sorry thats total BS...

a tiger will OWN 12 unarmed men... absolutely, every time. even with a knife, you are royally fethed, you will subcumb to the tiger wounds long before the tiger notices its been shot/stabbed in most cases.

anyone who says different has watched too many rambo movies, and likely has NEVER hunted anything in their life... let alone with a knife... seriously, do not underestimate how much more durable most animals are then us pink monkeys.


FFS boar's are smaller then people, and can kill a person quite easily... and will win EVERY time in a unarmed fight...and they are just pigs with tusks... having a knife might help you, but even if you win your gonna be hurt, humans are delicate compared to most animals.

Heck I have seen a flipping MOOSE take out a half dozen dozen guys before they FINALLY got a cop with a gun, who emptied the whole clip at it (9mm isnt the best hunting round, but its 17+shots still) and had to reload and take it down with the 2nd mag... this is within 3-4 meters of the target too... so extremely close range to be missing/not disabling a >1 ton moose

and its not as simple, even with a gun, to just "shoot em before they get close"

shooting a moving target, is EXCEPTIONALLY hard, even for trained and experienced marksmen. look at the # of bullets fired to # of deaths in wars (ie In Vietnam, the average number of rounds used by a soldier was ~2200 bullets per kill)

once you are within 12 feet or so, its faster to stab/kick/punch someone then it is to draw+aim at a moving target, many cops practice this close quarters drill, just to instill in them, how deadly CC can be to those who can only fight at a distance.

one person trained and equipped for CC, will walk through many times his # of untrained/unequipped people in CC, the problem is not that CC is ineffective or impractical, its that getting CLOSE enough is HARD... cause they are shooting at you... in 40K where they can teleport/jump-pack/pop-out of a landraider right next to you, then OFC cc will play a role.

not to mention any environment (urban, heavy trees/jungle, basically anything thats not a "bowling ball" type terrain) will greatly assist someone who wants to get close.

melee will always have a place, always, and forever, just as ranged combat will be.

its not the predominant method, in real life, or 40k, but its there for a reason.

Did I ever mention to everyone here on dakka how I wrestled with a bear for 4 days and 5 nights? Lost both my testicles I did, but that was the day I counted myself as a true man.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

sorry thats total BS...

a tiger will OWN 12 unarmed men... absolutely, every time. even with a knife, you are royally fethed, you will subcumb to the tiger wounds long before the tiger notices its been shot/stabbed in most cases.

anyone who says different has watched too many rambo movies, and likely has NEVER hunted anything in their life... let alone with a knife... seriously, do not underestimate how much more durable most animals are then us pink monkeys.


FFS boar's are smaller then people, and can kill a person quite easily... and will win EVERY time in a unarmed fight...and they are just pigs with tusks... having a knife might help you, but even if you win your gonna be hurt, humans are delicate compared to most animals.

Heck I have seen a flipping MOOSE take out a half dozen dozen guys before they FINALLY got a cop with a gun, who emptied the whole clip at it (9mm isnt the best hunting round, but its 17+shots still) and had to reload and take it down with the 2nd mag... this is within 3-4 meters of the target too... so extremely close range to be missing/not disabling a >1 ton moose

and its not as simple, even with a gun, to just "shoot em before they get close"

shooting a moving target, is EXCEPTIONALLY hard, even for trained and experienced marksmen. look at the # of bullets fired to # of deaths in wars (ie In Vietnam, the average number of rounds used by a soldier was ~2200 bullets per kill)

once you are within 12 feet or so, its faster to stab/kick/punch someone then it is to draw+aim at a moving target, many cops practice this close quarters drill, just to instill in them, how deadly CC can be to those who can only fight at a distance.

one person trained and equipped for CC, will walk through many times his # of untrained/unequipped people in CC, the problem is not that CC is ineffective or impractical, its that getting CLOSE enough is HARD... cause they are shooting at you... in 40K where they can teleport/jump-pack/pop-out of a landraider right next to you, then OFC cc will play a role.

not to mention any environment (urban, heavy trees/jungle, basically anything thats not a "bowling ball" type terrain) will greatly assist someone who wants to get close.

melee will always have a place, always, and forever, just as ranged combat will be.

its not the predominant method, in real life, or 40k, but its there for a reason.

Did I ever mention to everyone here on dakka how I wrestled with a bear for 4 days and 5 nights? Lost both my testicles I did, but that was the day I counted myself as a true man.

Sir I do fear that you are lying. A guardsman always has balls of steel.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Well this thread was inevitably going to turn ridiculous, and well, here we are.

I do have to love the people trying to figure out rationalizations for it.

The reality is, the 40K tabletop game is not an accurate representation of the universe, and never will be. It's just a way to sell plastic toy soldiers that you can then use with a predetermined set of unrealistic limitations of equal forces, equal terrain, and alternating turns, and resolve these battles within a short time frame.

Hey, it's still more sensible than Marvel or DC street level or higher heroes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

I take it you haven't read much of the EU then. Grand Master 'FTL' Luke Skywalker be crazy.

Real life: Everyone shoots everyone else and they die

Warhammer 40k: Tries to make it interesting by including two different methods of fielding your army, combat or ranged. People complain that this is unrealistic.

You just have to ask yourself what you'd rather; Two armies sat across the table, blasting eachother to bits, or squads of super soldiers and space elves engaged in a glorious fight to the death..

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
Real life: Everyone shoots everyone else and they die

Warhammer 40k: Tries to make it interesting by including two different methods of fielding your army, combat or ranged. People complain that this is unrealistic.

You just have to ask yourself what you'd rather; Two armies sat across the table, blasting eachother to bits, or squads of super soldiers and space elves engaged in a glorious fight to the death..

Funny thing is that's how the game currently is right now lol

It's an extremely simple answer.... melee combat is much more awesome to write about, portray in the fluff and imagine than a pure shooting game.

40k follows the "rule of cool". That's pretty much the reason and space marines swinging chainswords is cooler than space marines sitting 200 yards away and shooting things.

Also, realistically if you have the ability to get in close and make their guns ineffective, which in the lore of 40k is much easier to do than in a modern day environment, why wouldn't you?

Not to mention if you actually had war on the scale that 40k does, melee is going to happen. There are too many bodies for it not too.

Or everyone sticks to pure artillery, one of the two.

 TheRedWingArmada wrote:
Case in point: You'll run out of ammo. So long as a Tyranid can eat, he's not running out of poison/acid. lol

But with lasgun (we're talking WH40K here after all) you'll never run out of ammo strategically as long as you have any source of energy down to common campfire. And tactically there's still question what is faster - eat-digest-refill_poison_gland or just pop fresh energy pack to your gun.

Why is melee combat so popular in 40K

'They're coming!!!'

dakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakka- click!

'Feth! They're still coming! Reload!'

"no time, sir. They're here."


Real world guns jam or run out of ammo, guys and girls. It does take some time to reload, during which the guy you were shooting has gotten a LOT closer.

Think of it as being like that time in a video game where you run dry just as something brutal is closing, and then get all pissed because a shotgun takes a few seconds to reload while you backpedal, but then realise that video games generally speed up the reload times

Most folk in 40K are either wearing flak vests/body suits that can turn away most small arms fire, or are bringing hundreds of their buddies/just soaking the hits.

Sticking them with something pointy might not help much either, but it's better than nothing, especially when they finally get to what they do best (eating your spleen/ripping off your skull).

 Ascalam wrote:
Why is melee combat so popular in 40K

'They're coming!!!'

dakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakka- click!

'Feth! They're still coming! Reload!'

"no time, sir. They're here."


Real world guns jam or run out of ammo, guys and girls. It does take some time to reload, during which the guy you were shooting has gotten a LOT closer.

Think of it as being like that time in a video game where you run dry just as something brutal is closing, and then get all pissed because a shotgun takes a few seconds to reload while you backpedal, but then realise that video games generally speed up the reload times

Most folk in 40K are either wearing flak vests/body suits that can turn away most small arms fire, or are bringing hundreds of their buddies/just soaking the hits.

Sticking them with something pointy might not help much either, but it's better than nothing, especially when they finally get to what they do best (eating your spleen/ripping off your skull).

Pretty much what I have been trying to argue. The fact that you still have to hit doesn't help matters either.

Personally I believe melee is so prevalent in 40k is due to the concept of medieval combat being romanticized. Of course you could shoot the guy with Bow or gun (or whatever). But literature and history always seem to promote the fantastical such as single handedly beating an opponent in 1 on 1 melee combat.


in short its bloody, gory, shiny, and "cool".

Gears of War is a good example (It is a very good game series. im not berating it). Its a 3rd person shooter but with the addition of being able to kill your opponent in an extreamly gruesome and spectacular way via chainsaw bayonet or smashing their skull into the ground with a loud splat that makes going into melee range very appealing, even though you could perfectly well just shoot the guy to death.

Its the same with 40k. Its more spectacular and flashy to envision a Space Marine or whatever character slashing and hacking his way through his foes rather then just shooting them flat out.

Sure there are army designed around shooting, but again, there is something romantic or "cool" about bayoneting a 12 foot demon to death or smashing an Orks skull in with a big hammer.

That and the blood, gore, and the notion that melee is often conceived as a last resort (in modern culture), adds to the ever present "grimdark" of 40k.

People confuse science fiction with science fantasy. Science fiction usually attempts to portray a possible future situation or setting, whereas science fantasy simply creates the setting using techno-babble to construct an exciting premise regardless of plausibility. Nothing wrong with either form, but 40K is firmly in the second camp.

Consider the space marines, a foundational aspect of 40K. They are shock troops meant to turn the tide in any battle. They don't wear camouflage...they want to be seen; up close and personal, causing fear in those who oppose them. They are here to kick in your door and deliver a beat-down on a very personal level. Be afraid! For a space opera, this is awesome. But if they realistically simply bomb you from orbit or shoot at you from 200 meters they become the same as any other soldiers with ranged weaponry. No, the game is about drama and high adventure, not actual battlefield simulations on what futuristic combat would resemble. Thank goodness!

Even now days after you force the enemy's aircraft to stay on the ground or be shot down, and you have total air superiority, you have to have ground troops to occupy, and to overwhelm the enemy positions. So lets say you use your air power to obliderate everything, the enemy may just dig in deeper where the oridance doesn't reach. Sometimes you don't want everything destroyed so you send in your ground forces.
You use all you can to win the fight yet it almost always ends up in a ground fight at the end.

I guess it would be similar in a far flung future environment too, remember, "War never changes."

A good quote to remember...

 amanita wrote:
People confuse science fiction with science fantasy. Science fiction usually attempts to portray a possible future situation or setting, whereas science fantasy simply creates the setting using techno-babble to construct an exciting premise regardless of plausibility. Nothing wrong with either form, but 40K is firmly in the second camp.

Consider the space marines, a foundational aspect of 40K. They are shock troops meant to turn the tide in any battle. They don't wear camouflage...they want to be seen; up close and personal, causing fear in those who oppose them. They are here to kick in your door and deliver a beat-down on a very personal level. Be afraid! For a space opera, this is awesome. But if they realistically simply bomb you from orbit or shoot at you from 200 meters they become the same as any other soldiers with ranged weaponry. No, the game is about drama and high adventure, not actual battlefield simulations on what futuristic combat would resemble. Thank goodness!

True, 40k belongs in the fantasy genre rather than the sci-fi genre.
Something is not sci-fi just because it is set in the future.
Or as Wikipedia says on the matter:

"In general, science fiction differs from fantasy in that the former concerns things that might someday be possible or that at least embody the pretense of realism. Supernaturalism, usually absent in science fiction, is the distinctive characteristic of fantasy literature. A dictionary definition referring to fantasy literature is "fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements." Examples of fantasy supernaturalism include magic (spells, harm to opponents), magical places (Narnia, Oz, Middle Earth, Hogwarts), supernatural creatures (witches, vampires, orcs, trolls), supernatural transportation (flying broomsticks, ruby slippers, windows between worlds), and shapeshifting (beast into man, man into wolf or bear, lion into sheep). Such things are basic themes in fantasy."

So basically, melee combat is so popular in the 40k universe because 40k is simply a fantasy world set in the far grimdark future. This is especially evident when you consider that many 40k races are basically the WHFB races set in the future.
Of course, since 40k's beginning, the two universes have become more distinct, but that does not change the fact that 40k's base is set in medieval-style fantasy, which explains the prevalence of melee combat.

It's funny that people try to pull out bad pop history/claims of personal badassery to justify a fantasy setting.

There is literally no good reason for 40k factions to be deploying melee-only troops. They do so because it's cool and iconic.

Resorting to melee combat when you're forced into close quarters, say in trench or urban warfare, that's one thing. But the idea of dudes with melee weapons and nothing else wading through bombers, gunships, artillery, mortars, crew-served weapons, and finally small arms fire to hit you with an axe? Lol. And in 40k we even go a step further and see friggin 10ft mechs, not only ork mechs but astartes and eldar ones, choosing to replace guns with axes and claws.

because when 40K was thought up they hadn't even dreamed about current weapons, and battle scenes are dull from a distance

but yea, in the grim dark future I will have a plethora of melee weapons just in case