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.

High enery ranged weapons are very expensive, not easy to manufacture and are not useful in close quarters cause they're generally quite unwieldy. Yep, they'll pierce through anything but they need to hit first.

My point is that there are certain technological limitations which might lead to how things are. In 40k it's possible to project a mighty armor-melting power field to a sword length and reliably chop things to death. Or alternatively, you could shoot a high-powered weapon like plazma or melta and it'd do the job too but it's either dangerous for the user and his mates or low rate of fire and range. Besides, this weapons need a significantly larger ammount of maintainence and ammunition.

Sometimes, you got to stick with a less powerful tool. There are numerous examples in real history. For example, officers in ww2 often used rifles whereas they had access to automatic weapons that are better. Why did they choose rifles? Cause if the enemy sees someone with an automatic weapon he knows - that's an officer.

Machinegun teams also preferred a less devastating machinegun (don't remember the pattern) to a more effective one simply cause it's lighter and easier to carry. You're not firing 99% of the time - you move around.

All i'm trying to say is that the most obvious solution is not always the best one.

And you have to hit in CC too, power weapons are rare and expensive and had to make, too. And of course they don't do well in close quarters, they're designed to make the idiot with his sword and pistol a few hundred of meters away doesn't reach you.

Need to clear houses and stuff? Carbines are a thing.

 Bobthehero wrote:
And you have to hit in CC too, power weapons are rare and expensive and had to make, too. And of course they don't do well in close quarters, they're designed to make the idiot with his sword and pistol a few hundred of meters away doesn't reach you.

Need to clear houses and stuff? Carbines are a thing.

Carbines are ap5 at best I'd rather have an ap3 stick if there's a space marine inside the house.

And it's easier to hit with a sword when the opponent is at arms reach rather than shoot with a rifle.

The point is that the dude with sword won't reach you.

Why not? Can't kill him with my carbine. He's wearing a freaking tank armor. All he needs to do is come straight at me waving a sword around and i'm running away screaming in fear. He doesn't even need to catch me - he's taken over a position. And i have way less attitude of staying there fighting to my death if i know that he might not just shoot my head off but instead swing a chainsword and here go my intestines lying around the place and i'm crawling on the ground trying to put them back in.

By carbine I am not talking about the Tau one, I am talking about compact version of tiles, like a hotshot carbine, ewhich punches through armor with.

And you act like you have a reliable chance of beating a SM in CC, yeah, right.

1 on 1 - no chances. But i've got some mates around here with me. 10 on 1 and i'll probably take my chances. If there's no option of running away or blasting him with artillery before he reaches me anywayz.

I don't need mates to play the targets for me, and if you're the only with a power weapon, the SM's probably smart enough to take you out first

I'll jump into this and start by saying that the 40k Fluff is goofy. Every aspect of it is silly. Techno-Barbarism though is a fantastic aesthetic though and as such makes for an interesting setting. But it is not a realistic setting. Not in the slightest.

Having said there there's plenty of good reasons to carry a melee weapon in any sort of scenario. I do a lot of leather working as part of my business and as such always have two and sometimes three knives on my person. These are not fighting blades; they're explicitly for skinning, peeling, stripping, puncturing, and cutting but because of that they're made tremendously well. Aside from work I've used to to eat, dig splinters out of my body, gut fish, cook with, prune flowers, snip threads, and shave. And those are just what the edged tools I wear on my person can be used for.

In the future, sure, you could use some fancy device to clear brush but machetes don't need batteries and bill hooks don't need fuel. Other people in this thread have made claims of melee weapon being silent or the whimsy of fixed bayonets or, appealing the setting, the savagery of a chainsword. And sure, those are all well and good but to me the whole point of "melee weapons"... the most common of which is simply the vague "Close Combat Weapon"... is simply to have something that isn't a gun or electronic device that can be used for utility work or bushcraft. That's not saying every soldier regardless of race or division in 40k needs to know how to survive in the wild but it's just useful to have on hand. This is why most real-world military groups still issue knives to their soldiers. Not exclusively for stabbing people but for cutting things. Food, vegetation, cloth, paper, tarps, opening bags, prying things, scratching marks into things, batoning through wood, personal hygiene, and on and on.

Swords can be scary and a sword being swung by a seven foot tall slab of man meat falling out of the sky can be absolutely terrifying. It's a shock and awe weapon. Looking beyond swords and other archaic implements though there's still plenty of good reasons for a soldier, when confronted with the horrors of unforgiving and alien worlds, would want to have a good knife or hatchet on hand.

Even if I were camping on earth, in my own country, I'd want a knife or hatchet on hand. Not to protect myself but to do things that human hands simply cannot do. If I were on a another planet you'd be damn right that I'd want a machete or something on hand. Because I don't know what the next day might hold but having firewood gives me an invaluable piece of mind.

 Dust wrote:
I'll jump into this and start by saying that the 40k Fluff is goofy. Every aspect of it is silly. Techno-Barbarism though is a fantastic aesthetic though and as such makes for an interesting setting. But it is not a realistic setting. Not in the slightest.

Having said there there's plenty of good reasons to carry a melee weapon in any sort of scenario. I do a lot of leather working as part of my business and as such always have two and sometimes three knives on my person. These are not fighting blades; they're explicitly for skinning, peeling, stripping, puncturing, and cutting but because of that they're made tremendously well. Aside from work I've used to to eat, dig splinters out of my body, gut fish, cook with, prune flowers, snip threads, and shave. And those are just what the edged tools I wear on my person can be used for.

In the future, sure, you could use some fancy device to clear brush but machetes don't need batteries and bill hooks don't need fuel. Other people in this thread have made claims of melee weapon being silent or the whimsy of fixed bayonets or, appealing the setting, the savagery of a chainsword. And sure, those are all well and good but to me the whole point of "melee weapons"... the most common of which is simply the vague "Close Combat Weapon"... is simply to have something that isn't a gun or electronic device that can be used for utility work or bushcraft. That's not saying every soldier regardless of race or division in 40k needs to know how to survive in the wild but it's just useful to have on hand. This is why most real-world military groups still issue knives to their soldiers. Not exclusively for stabbing people but for cutting things. Food, vegetation, cloth, paper, tarps, opening bags, prying things, scratching marks into things, batoning through wood, personal hygiene, and on and on.

Swords can be scary and a sword being swung by a seven foot tall slab of man meat falling out of the sky can be absolutely terrifying. It's a shock and awe weapon. Looking beyond swords and other archaic implements though there's still plenty of good reasons for a soldier, when confronted with the horrors of unforgiving and alien worlds, would want to have a good knife or hatchet on hand.

Even if I were camping on earth, in my own country, I'd want a knife or hatchet on hand. Not to protect myself but to do things that human hands simply cannot do. If I were on a another planet you'd be damn right that I'd want a machete or something on hand. Because I don't know what the next day might hold but having firewood gives me an invaluable piece of mind.

Yep. From a survivalist standpoint a hatchet/knife is a must - even for troops, I'd agree. As far as weapons of war goes, the utility your getting at seems like your saying that hatchet equals or is greater than a weapon of war? Some weapons are designed particularly to give you leverage in melee - which I'm sure you agree with. Some of these weapons are noticeably more effective in certain situations in melee, and I'd argue are different enough to consider as a real option - for a theatre that may have melee as a likely scenario. By all means take a hatchet, but something with more reach or leverage may also be consideration, even in addition to. I know pounds/ounces really add up in this case, but sometimes the benefit outweighs the inconvenience.

Heh something like a telescopic/collapsible bastard sword, that has quality edge and maintains good shape under great force would be a pretty convenient tool in a 40k situation, though the lack of mass would be weird perhaps (This is all if i were a guard peon). Could be used also for a number of extra survival utility operations perhaps too.

 kveldulf wrote:

I know pounds/ounces really add up in this case, but sometimes the benefit outweighs the inconvenience.

It never does. Because it's a graduating, compounding weight. Anyone can carry a 40lb bag and a rifle. Person in good shape could carry 60lbs without issue. Full day of marching... not an issue. What about two? What about a week? Lets make it a week in hot sun. You start hitting a point in which you start looking for any way to lighten the load and that's when you make sacrifices that you regret later.

But that just makes the process of issuing and designing travel, trail, and brush implements such an complicated affair. Because they're necessary tools, tremendously so, but all the necessity in the world doesn't matter if it's too cumbersome to deal with.

Heh something like a telescopic/collapsible bastard sword, that has quality edge and maintains good shape under great force would be a pretty convenient tool in a 40k situation, though the lack of mass would be weird perhaps (This is all if i were a guard peon). Could be used also for a number of extra survival utility operations perhaps too.

The biggest problem with a telescoping sword would be that the bulk of it would be hollow. This is why telescoping lightsaber toys break. One section gets dented in and then the whole thing can't collapse. It would be an effective weapon, sure. Extra weight on the tip would make it easy to swing and deliver proportionately more force. But it's a sword. Swords are great weapons, plenty versatile, but by their geometry they make better weapons than they do tools. It's difficult to find something that fits that perfect balance between the two that hasn't already been done before.



But we're not here to deliberate upon the ideal weapon for the 41st millennium. We're discussing whether or not melee weapons are still appropriate in the far future. But even now.... when we have real-time, global communication and unmanned aircraft and satellites and laser guided whatevers (some technology which has apparently been forgotten in 40k) we still have a demand for machetes, combat knives, entrenching tools, hatchets, wrecking bars, and mini-sledges. And I believe that to be the proof to the argument.

 Dust wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

I know pounds/ounces really add up in this case, but sometimes the benefit outweighs the inconvenience.

It never does. Because it's a graduating, compounding weight. Anyone can carry a 40lb bag and a rifle. Person in good shape could carry 60lbs without issue. Full day of marching... not an issue. What about two? What about a week? Lets make it a week in hot sun. You start hitting a point in which you start looking for any way to lighten the load and that's when you make sacrifices that you regret later.

But that just makes the process of issuing and designing travel, trail, and brush implements such an complicated affair. Because they're necessary tools, tremendously so, but all the necessity in the world doesn't matter if it's too cumbersome to deal with.

Heh something like a telescopic/collapsible bastard sword, that has quality edge and maintains good shape under great force would be a pretty convenient tool in a 40k situation, though the lack of mass would be weird perhaps (This is all if i were a guard peon). Could be used also for a number of extra survival utility operations perhaps too.

The biggest problem with a telescoping sword would be that the bulk of it would be hollow. This is why telescoping lightsaber toys break. One section gets dented in and then the whole thing can't collapse. It would be an effective weapon, sure. Extra weight on the tip would make it easy to swing and deliver proportionately more force. But it's a sword. Swords are great weapons, plenty versatile, but by their geometry they make better weapons than they do tools. It's difficult to find something that fits that perfect balance between the two that hasn't already been done before.



But we're not here to deliberate upon the ideal weapon for the 41st millennium. We're discussing whether or not melee weapons are still appropriate in the far future. But even now.... when we have real-time, global communication and unmanned aircraft and satellites and laser guided whatevers (some technology which has apparently been forgotten in 40k) we still have a demand for machetes, combat knives, entrenching tools, hatchets, wrecking bars, and mini-sledges. And I believe that to be the proof to the argument.

I don't think those are melee weapons, as you said, they're tools, designed primarily for purposes other than killing. Of course, you -can- kill with them, but you can also kill someone with a frying pan, and I wouldn't consider that a melee "weapon" either.

 Ignatius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And no, it really wouldn't be that heavy. Bolters would be quite manageable for a normal human to hold. .75 cal is very large relative to other modern calibers, but it would still be fine for a human or roughly human sized weapon to have a 30 round magazine. Even in a banana magazine format. It would just be a little wider than typical magazines, and the gun itself would be a little larger, but no more difficult than any LMG would be.

Wat. You've clearly never shot anything larger than 7.62mm or you'd realize how crazy that sounds. The M2A1 Caliber 50 machine gun is a whole third smaller than the supposed .75 cal of a Bolger but pretty much impossible to fire dismounted.

There are many types of .50 cal rounds. You are probably thinking a Bolter is a scaled up .50 cal BMG used by an M2. But really it would be more like a scaled up .50 cal Beowulf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_Beowulf



As you can see this .50 cal round isn't much larger than a 5.56. Scale that up to .75 cal and you could conceivably get 30 rounds in a manageable sized magazine. It would be fairly bulky in comparison, but that wouldn't be an issue for someone in power armor. Or just a particularly big dude.

The BMG has so much recoil because it has significantly more powder relative to the bullet, thats why its cartridges are wider than the bullet itself. You get a normal cartridge and its going to be less.

Its still going to kick like a mule, but it will be manageable.

Thought I'd add my 2 bits. There are 2 factors that would make sense to bring a melee weapon to a gunfight.
The quality of protection, if you have armour that negates the effects of ranged weapons then a blade skillfully inserted where the armour is weakest would be more effective, or the blunt force of a tenderizer can damage without even penetrating armour. Warhammer has plenty of very effective armour.
Also, almost every weapon ever invented requires ammo, and yhus in turn requires to be periodically reloaded. Next time you are faced with an extended firefight and you run out of ammo then I bet you had hoped you brought something better then the but of you rifle when your joined in melee. Again, warhammer on the fluff side is filled with these situations where supply of a munitions runs low.
War 40k is a setting that supports melee, it just does. Today, in our world the Concept is rather impractical. But don't try to deny the use of melee in 40k...besides, the emperor despises all who shun melee...shun to you.

Let the Emperor shun me then, centering your combat strategy on melee is stupid.

Warhammer has plenty of ranged weapons that can penetrate armor with ease, too.

That is true too, but how common are those weapons fluff wise? And how are those weapons handled, are they short barreled hand held guns that can easily moved around when orks overrun your position? Or is It a artillery/slow vehicle that requires carefully planning and placement? A sniper doesn't bring his 50cal in a building, so he pulls out a pistol or shotgun, a weapon that probably won't penetrating the armour of the spacrmarjne just around the corner. The setting supports melee.
Another factor I missed is speed. Melee wouldn't ever be an option in any 40k army if there w asnt a way to bring those power weapons into enemy lines. Drop pods, bikes, heavy transports, and hover craft, and tons of trucks justify melee.

And yes, you are forever shunned for not embraceing the glory of honorable melee.

Power weapons are rare as hell, too, why do people act like its not the case?

You can have different patterns of weapons to allow shorter barrels and what not. A sniper won't use his .50 cal to clear a building he's going to use a shortened assault rifle, called a carbine, shotguns are used for breaching and that's about it in modern armies, but more often than not, the snipers won't be the ones doing house clearing, because house clearing with so few people will end up with those few people dead, its going to be the job of the infantry to do it. And if you're about to clear a house with SM's in it, you might as well just call the artillery, because sending a sniper team with power weapons is going to far more expensive and generally end up with a dead sniper team.

As for method of transportation, its a waste to use them to fling your guys in the face of others, trucks are incredibly easy to destroy, bikes make you a bigger targer, hovercraft are also pretty rare and drop pods can be denied with enough anti air firepower.

Now if you used those things to simply drop your gunners in a safe position, you'd lose a lot less of them, reducing the amount of resources you're wasting.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And no, it really wouldn't be that heavy. Bolters would be quite manageable for a normal human to hold. .75 cal is very large relative to other modern calibers, but it would still be fine for a human or roughly human sized weapon to have a 30 round magazine. Even in a banana magazine format. It would just be a little wider than typical magazines, and the gun itself would be a little larger, but no more difficult than any LMG would be.

Wat. You've clearly never shot anything larger than 7.62mm or you'd realize how crazy that sounds. The M2A1 Caliber 50 machine gun is a whole third smaller than the supposed .75 cal of a Bolger but pretty much impossible to fire dismounted.

There are many types of .50 cal rounds. You are probably thinking a Bolter is a scaled up .50 cal BMG used by an M2. But really it would be more like a scaled up .50 cal Beowulf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_Beowulf



As you can see this .50 cal round isn't much larger than a 5.56. Scale that up to .75 cal and you could conceivably get 30 rounds in a manageable sized magazine. It would be fairly bulky in comparison, but that wouldn't be an issue for someone in power armor. Or just a particularly big dude.

The BMG has so much recoil because it has significantly more powder relative to the bullet, thats why its cartridges are wider than the bullet itself. You get a normal cartridge and its going to be less.

Its still going to kick like a mule, but it will be manageable.

I was tempted to get the Beowulf at one time Yea cartridge size would be more on part with it

It might be manageable to have a 30 round clip for a 7'6 dude in power armour - yes. It would be a bit rough for an average Jo - that's a ton of grain in a 30 round magazine.
We're talking about ~20 lbs magazines !!! Maybe the cartridge is lighter, or the bullet itself is lighter too? Yea, you think the desert eagle is hilarious in the field, a bolter in the guard would be worse.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Power weapons are rare as hell, too, why do people act like its not the case?

You can have different patterns of weapons to allow shorter barrels and what not. A sniper won't use his .50 cal to clear a building he's going to use a shortened assault rifle, called a carbine, shotguns are used for breaching and that's about it in modern armies, but more often than not, the snipers won't be the ones doing house clearing, because house clearing with so few people will end up with those few people dead, its going to be the job of the infantry to do it. And if you're about to clear a house with SM's in it, you might as well just call the artillery, because sending a sniper team with power weapons is going to far more expensive and generally end up with a dead sniper team.

As for method of transportation, its a waste to use them to fling your guys in the face of others, trucks are incredibly easy to destroy, bikes make you a bigger targer, hovercraft are also pretty rare and drop pods can be denied with enough anti air firepower.

Now if you used those things to simply drop your gunners in a safe position, you'd lose a lot less of them, reducing the amount of resources you're wasting.

The shotgun was a quick example, even your carbine won't penetrating marine armour.
Use artillery on the building? Wow, why did anyone in the history of war ever think to just blow up every building just because some badies are in it.....with every decision to use weapons that ca use mass colateral damage you have to consider risk over reward. If we went by your logic you have shown so far then the inquisition should exterminatus every planet that is being invaded.
And finally transport...by the fluff of 40k drop pods are highly effective, why would the astartes use them if they werent? In the recent montka book the astartes used pods to great effect on a highly defended tau world...and tau have probably the best anti air in the game. Bikes are mobile and with a skilled rider incredibly hard to shoot at. Hovercraft are common in 3 factions...it's basically the only transport of 3 factions (I'll see if you can guess them). And individual ork trucks are weak, no argument there, but do you have enough dakka to stop all the trukks (this time I'll give you a hint....u cant, there's too many, prepare to get cromped )
The logic of the setting justifies melee, of course this differs for each faction, but those that do melee have a way to justify it.

40k doesn't care about collateral damage unless it's planet wise, the Scion codex mentionned a drop pod assault (against Chaos forces, I think, or just rebels, either way, not Tau) that failed because of AA, same deal for the Siege of Vraks, and yes, there's plenty of firepower to destroy the trucks, but authors suck at armying and constantly underestimate the firepower the IG should put out, all in favor of the green morons

geargutz wrote:
Wow, why did anyone in the history of war ever think to just blow up every building just because some badies are in it.....

The difference is that, in the real world, we have this thing called collateral damage to worry about. Even "evil" armies in the real world are reluctant to blow up a building full of civilians to kill one enemy. But in 40k there is no such thing as civilians. You're going to exterminate everyone anyway, and killing them as collateral damage in an artillery bombardment just means you have fewer people to round up and execute once the battle is over. In 40k every faction, except maybe the Tau, is going to skip straight to "bomb the whole city into rubble and build a new one later".

And finally transport...by the fluff of 40k drop pods are highly effective, why would the astartes use them if they werent?

Because 99.99% of the time they're fighting against low-tier enemies with WWII level AA guns as their only air defense. Against networked SAM mobile sites like the Tau have or Eldar psychic laser AA tanks drop pods would be shot down effortlessly. Even in the real world we solved the problem of how to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles (which a drop pod is just a larger version of) 50+ years ago.

 Bobthehero wrote:
40k doesn't care about collateral damage unless it's planet wise, the Scion codex mentionned a drop pod assault (against Chaos forces, I think, or just rebels, either way, not Tau) that failed because of AA, same deal for the Siege of Vraks, and yes, there's plenty of firepower to destroy the trucks, but authors suck at armying and constantly underestimate the firepower the IG should put out, all in favor of the green morons

"All in favor of the green morons".....wow, you must be in denial, theres a reason why the orks have been a thorn in the empires side since they 1st took to the stars. I think your just sour that the fluff points to only 3 factions that will conquer the galaxy, and 2 of which are predominately melee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


The difference is that, in the real world, we have this thing called collateral damage to worry about. Even "evil" armies in the real world are reluctant to blow up a building full of civilians to kill one enemy. But in 40k there is no such thing as civilians. You're going to exterminate everyone anyway, and killing them as collateral damage in an artillery bombardment just means you have fewer people to round up and execute once the battle is over. In 40k every faction, except maybe the Tau, is going to skip straight to "bomb the whole city into rubble and build a new one later".

It's true, the imperium would rather blow up a world instead of save some civilians, you win the argument sir, I'll instruct the fleet to begin bombardment immediately!
And then the mechanicus stops you since that is a forge world that makes reAly important weapons...I'm sorry comander, your found wanting in your reasoning. We will be dropping to that planet and getting stuck in, fighting for every inch and building. You are relieved of command.

I am not sour, I just hate the orks, by far they're the worst aspect of 40k, absolutely everything from their model to their fluff disgust me, except the part where they used as fodder for the actually interesting faction to slaughter. And even then you could swap them with Chaos cultists or Nids and nothing of value would be lost, I don't care about winning 40k, noone will, because the time line has stopped. But I do care about the fact that whenever I interact with something 40k I'll have to deal with unfunny accent, the gakky humour and the eyesore that is their aesthetics.

 Bobthehero wrote:
I am not sour, I just hate the orks, by far they're the worst aspect of 40k, absolutely everything from their model to their fluff disgust me, except the part where they used as fodder for the actually interesting faction to slaughter. And even then you could swap them with Chaos cultists or Nids and nothing of value would be lost, I don't care about winning 40k, noone will, because the time line has stopped. But I do care about the fact that whenever I interact with something 40k I'll have to deal with unfunny accent, the gakky humour and the eyesore that is their aesthetics.

U hating orks, sure, I can accept that, but they are in the setting and are vital to it, but you can't change their importance with an opinion.

They're entirely unimportant to me, if I could, I wouldn't remove them from the game because it would be a dick move to the players. But if I could remove them and somehow make everyone forget about their existence I'd do it in a heartbeat

geargutz wrote:
It's true, the imperium would rather blow up a world instead of save some civilians, you win the argument sir, I'll instruct the fleet to begin bombardment immediately!
And then the mechanicus stops you since that is a forge world that makes reAly important weapons...I'm sorry comander, your found wanting in your reasoning. We will be dropping to that planet and getting stuck in, fighting for every inch and building. You are relieved of command.

You don't have to blow up the whole planet to kill marines with artillery. Leveling a building leaves the rest of the planet intact, and you were probably going to bulldoze that xenos/heretic abomination anyway to build a proper Imperial shrine where it stood.

And sure, the admech tell you the planet is important. Too bad the marines you're trying to kill smashed everything out of spite and left a nuke (or foul heretical sorcery that makes the nuke look kind and gentle) on a dead man's switch just in case you somehow won the battle. So you might as well kill them from a distance and save your own troops.

Orks remind me not to take the universe so seriously - I rather like em for that reason.

Sometimes us warhammer guys get too darn serious that we forget how to sit back and enjoy the 40k experiment for what it is: tolkien races in space. At least, it use to be more so.

One day squats hopefully come back.

 Peregrine wrote:

geargutz wrote:
It's true, the imperium would rather blow up a world instead of save some civilians, you win the argument sir, I'll instruct the fleet to begin bombardment immediately!
And then the mechanicus stops you since that is a forge world that makes reAly important weapons...I'm sorry comander, your found wanting in your reasoning. We will be dropping to that planet and getting stuck in, fighting for every inch and building. You are relieved of command.

You don't have to blow up the whole planet to kill marines with artillery. Leveling a building leaves the rest of the planet intact, and you were probably going to bulldoze that xenos/heretic abomination anyway to build a proper Imperial shrine where it stood.

And sure, the admech tell you the planet is important. Too bad the marines you're trying to kill smashed everything out of spite and left a nuke (or foul heretical sorcery that makes the nuke look kind and gentle) on a dead man's switch just in case you somehow won the battle. So you might as well kill them from a distance and save your own troops.

well, lets see here, that admek guy who deosnt want their machines destroyed still takes priority over you, if you think it deosnt then say goodbye to all those new shipments of vital tech, and dont expect to have a ship, vehicle, or lasgun ever to be repaired again.
there are important things in the setting, we cant just level a building while the important thing is inside it. your tactica is flawed, oh wait, you must be one of those guyz who only ever plays eternal war missions and not maelstrom..."oh noooo, i dont want to play to objectives, i want to be a pest and just shoot at you from way inside my deployment zone"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kveldulf wrote:
Orks remind me not to take the universe so seriously - I rather like em for that reason.

Sometimes us warhammer guys get too darn serious that we forget how to sit back and enjoy the 40k experiment for what it is: tolkien races in space. At least, it use to be more so.

One day squats hopefully come back.

oh, if only forum debates could be handled in the orky way, just a trot over to the nearest fight pit and a few teef missing later then we will see who's right.

geargutz wrote:
there are important things in the setting, we cant just level a building while the important thing is inside it.

And guess what: the enemy knows that too. The enemy is also not concerned about collateral damage as a result of killing you. That factory the admech wants to take back from the CSM? The CSM set a nuke on a dead man's switch in the basement, and if you somehow manage to kill them you set off the nuke and destroy the factory anyway. Everyone but the Tau (and the Eldar, in the rare cases where they're defending Eldar territory) should be using scorched earth tactics where any losing battle results in immediate use of WMDs to deny the objective to the enemy. It shouldn't be possible to take objectives intact, so you might as well destroy them from a distance without risking your troops.

Ye hate da orkses? But orkses lovez ye! Dat's why dey comin' for ye! Cuz dey lovez ye!