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.

Watched an interesting video recently where Mr Matt talks about advantages and disadvantages of melee weapons vs firearms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKHdJfnM9rA

What do you think? Maybe all that swords have a real appeal in 40k.

No, they're still dumb.

It's been justified that defense has outpace offensive output, sorta like dune

Melee weapons make a little bit of sense for marines since they've picked a ranged weapon that is less effective at short range (since boltgun rounds are rocket propelled they won't be at maximum velocity until some distance after leaving the muzzle).

Of course, a better gun makes more sense than a chainsword and (virtually) all of the other weapons in the setting don't have this issue.

Boltguns are also dumb, though.

Melee weapons will always have a place in warfare.

They're silent, don't require ammunition, stealthy, quick to use, ideal for covert operations etc etc.

On top of that Daemons are harmed by melee weapons more than by ranged weapons (due to symbolism - it's in the fluff).



Melee weapons likely wouldn't be the main weapons, but they will have a purpose.

"On top of that Daemons are harmed by melee weapons more than by ranged weapons"

Except they aren't.

Martel732 wrote:
"On top of that Daemons are harmed by melee weapons more than by ranged weapons"

Except they aren't.

Actually, I think that is touched on in the fluff? In one of the HH books, Know No Fear, I think?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"On top of that Daemons are harmed by melee weapons more than by ranged weapons"

Except they aren't.

Actually, I think that is touched on in the fluff? In one of the HH books, Know No Fear, I think?

In the crunch it's not true. The fluff means nothing. The best anti-demon weapon is the scatterlaser. Here, make 200 saves. Can't? I guess back to the warp with you. If the Imperium fielded mass multilasers, they'd be 3/4 as good as the Eldar.

The fluff means plenty to a lot of people. Personally that's what keeps my interest, also why would the imperium use scatter lasers a xenos weapon.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Melee weapons will always have a place in warfare.

They're silent, don't require ammunition, stealthy, quick to use, ideal for covert operations etc etc.

Not so much with a chainsword... And there are exceptionally few situations where a melee weapon is more useful than a suppressed firearm (but the firearm is more useful in many situations).

 Wulfmar wrote:

On top of that Daemons are harmed by melee weapons more than by ranged weapons (due to symbolism - it's in the fluff).

There is that. If you're fighting a different alien race every week then I guess it pays to keep your weapon options versatile.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The fluff means plenty to a lot of people. Personally that's what keeps my interest, also why would the imperium use scatter lasers a xenos weapon.

Because they work. And winning matters. That said, they have the multilaser, they are just idiots about not fielding enough of them. Personally, I think the IG should have at least 20 multilasers per list.

When I set up my models, the BA fluff doesn't matter. The BA crunch does. And in the crunch, the BA can't beat anyone regardless of what the fluff claims. Fluff = meaningless.

Shielding to projectiles could become so good that melee weapons become the way to bypass shielding.

Well considering the modern day, biological enhancements and bio-mechanical enhancements could potentially make melee weapons more valuable as you can stop or deflect missiles/rounds/etc, and CC skill becomes the modus operandi of arms.

If you consider that an age of human warfare similarly takes place in the near future, say 2000 years from now, and those enhancements and abilities were lost, it could very well be that a large number of power swords and chainswords and other CC weapons would be left over from that age.
The Imperium may just be using what's available, in a way that's unintended from it's original purpose.

The mass number of chainswords and power weapons may also be left overs from the iron men, who with mass numbers and superhuman capabilities, would have no reason to fear CC over modern firearm-based combat.

My 2 pence.

If you take a look at medieval times with plate armour, when ordinary ranged weapons were drastically less effective, it took melee weapons in order to have any real chance of scoring a kill.

It would be easier to aim for weak points in armour, and a proper melee attack will have more force than a projectile.

Now with modern guns it is a bit different obviously but assuming ranged and defense technology is balanced, the advantages of melee come back to being a major factor.

The other aspect is that it is very difficult to kill someone charging at you with a melee weapon, there are many videos on YouTube about this. If your weapon is ready and already aiming at the target down range you will have a good chance, if you need to bring a weapon up and aim it would be 50/50, and if they weapon was hostered the charging attacker almost always wins within 30 feet.

Martel732 wrote:
"On top of that Daemons are harmed by melee weapons more than by ranged weapons"

Except they aren't.

If people are going to quote me - don't mis-quote by chopping out ESSENTIAL parts of what I said.


ITS IN THE FLUFF.

Suddenly the WHOLE meaning of what I said changes ffs

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Melee weapons will always have a place in warfare.

They're silent, don't require ammunition, stealthy, quick to use, ideal for covert operations etc etc.

Not so much with a chainsword... And there are exceptionally few situations where a melee weapon is more useful than a suppressed firearm (but the firearm is more useful in many situations).

Aye for this bit I remember reading (I think it was one of the HH series) that the chainswords are more about horrifying the enemy by the brutality of the Imperial armoury - it's a psychological weapon to break their spirits when they see the mess they make of their fellow soldiers.

If someone can remember the book - I believe it was a scene where marines are charging through a palace to kill a planetary leader pretending to be the Emperor (I *think* I may be getting the plots mixed here)

 Wulfmar wrote:
the chainswords are more about horrifying the enemy by the brutality of the Imperial armoury - it's a psychological weapon to break their spirits when they see the mess they make of their fellow soldiers.

Chainswords: For horrifying* your enemies!!!
*May not apply to Other Space Marines, Necrons, Chaos Daemons, Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids or humans/Tau/Eldar of strong constitution.

 Mantorok wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
the chainswords are more about horrifying the enemy by the brutality of the Imperial armoury - it's a psychological weapon to break their spirits when they see the mess they make of their fellow soldiers.

Chainswords: For horrifying* your enemies!!!
*May not apply to Other Space Marines, Necrons, Chaos Daemons, Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids or humans/Tau/Eldar of strong constitution.

Y'know, you should read the Black Library books - there's thousands of races in the galaxy who are terrified by them - including humans.

The use of chainswords for psychological reasons is also the same as why the marines use their Boltgun rounds on human soldiers - when other ammunition is equally effective and less costly - It's the dramatic mess they make to horrify the enemy and make the statement they stand no chance (again referring to stuff in the books)

 Wulfmar wrote:

 Mantorok wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
the chainswords are more about horrifying the enemy by the brutality of the Imperial armoury - it's a psychological weapon to break their spirits when they see the mess they make of their fellow soldiers.

Chainswords: For horrifying* your enemies!!!
*May not apply to Other Space Marines, Necrons, Chaos Daemons, Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids or humans/Tau/Eldar of strong constitution.

Y'know, you should read the Black Library books - there's thousands of races in the galaxy who are terrified by them - including humans.

The use of chainswords for psychological reasons is also the same as why the marines use their Boltgun rounds on human soldiers - when other ammunition is equally effective and less costly - It's the dramatic mess they make to horrify the enemy and make the statement they stand no chance (again referring to stuff in the books)

Its true that I haven't read that many books outside of the codexes.
I've read the first Night Lords Soul Hunter book and an Imperial Fist book Sons of Dorn, but there are SO MANY BL books.
Besides I'm still trying to finish the LoTR books, and I'm not even halfway through the first audiobook, which is 19 hours.

Anyways, I was making more of a statement from a tabletop perspective.
I can't imagine that too many 40K armies would be that scared of chainswords, but I suppose that's just the narrow view of the universe that the TT is given.
Though the other races are most likely to insignificant to be their own codex, especially if they're scared of chainswords.

Martel732 wrote:
Boltguns are also dumb, though.

Out of curiosity, why do you even play this game? You clearly dislike the setting, and you also (though understandably) hate the rules.
So why do you play a faction that uses both bolt guns and CC weapons? You play BA, do you not?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Boltguns are also dumb, though.

Out of curiosity, why do you even play this game? You clearly dislike the setting, and you also (though understandably) hate the rules.
So why do you play a faction that uses both bolt guns and CC weapons? You play BA, do you not?

Yeah, I chose them in 1994. I thought their fluff was cool at the time. And I'm way too cheap and dislike GW way too much to do a second list. This where I realize that I'm the pariah in the wasteland, as almost every poster on here has more than one list.

I like the story of the BA, but now the crunch invalidates everything ever written about BA. Good job, GW. BA can't fight their way out of a paper bag now.

Melee weapons have a place, but armies should not be built around them.

EDIT:

I should say, armies that -are- built around punching your opponent to death should expect to lose.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Melee weapons will always have a place in warfare.

They're silent, don't require ammunition, stealthy, quick to use, ideal for covert operations etc etc.

Indeed. After all, nothing is more stealthy than a jump pack
On a serious note, the idea of melee weapons in the setting never bothered me.
Sometimes walking up to someone and stabbing them in the eye is more effective then shooting them out of cover.
Its not as if everyone is dedicated for melee anyway. There's only a handful of units in the game who are supposed to engage in CC.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Melee weapons have a place, but armies should not be built around them.

EDIT:

I should say, armies that -are- built around punching your opponent to death should expect to lose.

This offends Khorne greatly.
Gork and Mork agree.

The arguement of unlimited ammo advantage of melee weapons over firearms is pretty convincing in reality of 40k.

In modern day you need like 1-2 good hits to incapacitate a foe. But how hard is it to get those hits? Even the best shooters won't go for 1 bullet for one casualty ratio. Actually, statistics shows that you need a shockingly large ammount of bullets to kill someone.

Don't know if it's some confirmed information but have seen it in many places.

In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier.

That most likely includes machine guns that are primarily used not for killing but for pinning enemy soldiers to allow your own assault teams advance forward. Even if it's 100 times higher than numbers for hand guns...it's still some awful lot of ammunition. In fact, most casualties were caused by artillery.

And that's shooting at puny umiez. Yes, umiez tend to hide well but imagine you're facing a freaking swarm of tyranids or a horde of orks. Heck, even imperial guardsmen with bayonetes. You'll inevitebly end up in close quarters and out of ammo or with no time to reload.

Another arguement that convinces me is that it's possible to do cumulative damage with melee weapons. You can hit the same spot many times. Whereas it's very unlikely that you hit the same spot of a moving target with a ranged weapon - be it far away or up close. And it does matter against things that don't go down to one hit like umiez do.

 koooaei wrote:
The arguement of unlimited ammo advantage of melee weapons over firearms is pretty convincing in reality of 40k.

In modern day you need like 1-2 good hits to incapacitate a foe. But how hard is it to get those hits? Even the best shooters won't go for 1 bullet for one casualty ratio. Actually, statistics shows that you need a shockingly large ammount of bullets to kill someone.

Don't know if it's some confirmed information but have seen it in many places.

In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier.

That most likely includes machine guns that are primarily used not for killing but for pinning enemy soldiers to allow your own assault teams advance forward. Even if it's 100 times higher than numbers for hand guns...it's still some awful lot of ammunition. In fact, most casualties were caused by artillery.

And that's shooting at puny umiez. Yes, umiez tend to hide well but imagine you're facing a freaking swarm of tyranids or a horde of orks. Heck, even imperial guardsmen with bayonetes. You'll inevitebly end up in close quarters and out of ammo or with no time to reload.

Another arguement that convinces me is that it's possible to do cumulative damage with melee weapons. You can hit the same spot many times. Whereas it's very unlikely that you hit the same spot of a moving target with a ranged weapon - be it far away or up close. And it does matter against things that don't go down to one hit like umiez do.

Yeh, I remember having to resort to melee a lot in Space Marine, as you can only carry so much ammo.
Also keep in mind that its easier to reach a weak point with a melee weapon.
With a knife one can stab under the ribcage and into the heart.
With a gun you have to go through the ribcage. Fine if the target is human, but its some alien with tougher bones? Much harder.

I think there is a big issue where some people have read the fluff, others are relating it to the real world (and both have more in common) - and then some are basing it on literal tabletop rules which are, let's face it, as complete odds with the previous two (where Space marines are weak compared to normal humans and die in droves and cover means nothing because all weapons ignore it and everyone is practically a hero as leadership is so high / everyone has some rule to negate it)

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Melee weapons will always have a place in warfare.

They're silent, don't require ammunition, stealthy, quick to use, ideal for covert operations etc etc.

Indeed. After all, nothing is more stealthy than a jump pack
On a serious note, the idea of melee weapons in the setting never bothered me.
Sometimes walking up to someone and stabbing them in the eye is more effective then shooting them out of cover.
Its not as if everyone is dedicated for melee anyway. There's only a handful of units in the game who are supposed to engage in CC.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Melee weapons have a place, but armies should not be built around them.

EDIT:

I should say, armies that -are- built around punching your opponent to death should expect to lose.

This offends Khorne greatly.
Gork and Mork agree.

Khorne cares not from when the blood flows - charging to your death and bleeding out in front of enemy gunlines is just as worthy praise to Khorne as shooting the enemy yourself. Swords aren't mandatory.

Gork is brutal, yes, but cunning - cunning enough to know that charging entrenched positions with machine guns and artillery fire zones is full of stupid.
Mork is cunning - cunning enough to know that.... well you get the point. And also he is brutal.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Melee weapons make a little bit of sense for marines since they've picked a ranged weapon that is less effective at short range (since boltgun rounds are rocket propelled they won't be at maximum velocity until some distance after leaving the muzzle).

Of course, a better gun makes more sense than a chainsword and (virtually) all of the other weapons in the setting don't have this issue.

Bolters are a two-stage munition. They have a standard powder propellant before the rocket kicks in. The bolt-round is lethal at the muzzle.

Need justification? Go watch Aliens. Pay particular attention to Lt. Gorman's panic when it's pointed out to him that his platoon are in the coolant facility for the reactor.. and his subsequent order to NOT USE GUNS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

In regards to the Imperium the Imperial Guard do not make extensive use of close combat troops. Space Marines on the other hand do, but *Space* Marines are so named because a big part of their raison d'être is boarding spaceships where there are going to be lots of instances like the above.

Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?