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.
JNAProductions wrote: Suppression doesn't equal being scared-a Space Marine, despite not being afraid, is sure as hell going to stick to cover when facing down twenty Lascannons.
And why is "Melee being usable" too unrealistic for you, but Space Marines, Space Elves, Space Mummies, Space Fungus Soccer Hooligans, and all that other stuff not?
It's an interesting idea. Maybe tie it to leadership to give the stat some actual utility. fearless things like a bug can chose to embrace the bullets and suffer no penalty. Disciplined things like a custodian or a marine can embrace the bullets on a 2+ - roll of a 1 they are suppressed and cant over-watch. For guardsmen who are less disciplined on a 1 or 2 can't overwatch.
That sounds like an incredibly minor thing.
I'd much, MUCH rather see Suppression implemented similarly to Maelstrom's Edge, where it actually has an impact on the game.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Xenomancers wrote: Supression could be a neat feature but suppression doesn't work against tanks and titans and aircraft. It really shouldn't work on armored super soldiers that literally have 0 fear of being shot. Or a hive mind controlled warrior that has no concept of fear. (also even more silly considering this is a thread about removing over-watch then you talk about suppression - dudes afraid to stick their head up because they are getting shot at but dudes are totally fine running at an opponent with a gun with an axe as they shoot them? It's just unrealistic)
Go tell a tanker that it's impossible to suppress a vehicle with rounds ricocheting off its hull and see what they tell you.
Suppression isn't just fear, it's also forcing the enemy to respond by maximizing their ability to survive incoming fire. When a tank hears machine gun rounds pinging off the hull, they have no idea if there's an ATGM lining up too. Even the most disciplined or fearless of troops will respond to overwhelming firepower by maximizing their own survivability. They don't have the omniscience that a wargame commander does to say just keep advancing, they don't have any guns that can penetrate our armor.
Xenomancers wrote: We have visual concealment abilities -they aren't super well distributed but they are almost always better used on a shooting unit to give advantage against another shooting unit.
No we don't. We have a bunch of scattered -1-to-hit abilities that are wholly automatic and require no skill or foresight to use. A tiny handful of units (eg Leman Russes) have elective abilities to gain such a bonus at the expense of shooting.
The passive abilities are useful to gunlines because these abilities generally don't inhibit their ability to shoot at all. If players had the ability to deploy LOS-blocking smoke, no sane gunline would be dropping smoke in front of their own position.
Both of which are bespoke unit abilities that do not apply to conventional units. You do not need to be a specialist to flank the enemy and approach from concealment.
Not enough of it, on most boards- but what's relevant is that you stated that melee must have a longer threat range than ranged fire for it to be useful. This is mechanically untrue, provided the board provides the geometry to situationally limit the effective range of fire such that a melee unit can get close enough.
Xenomancers wrote: Range is better than melee do to the fact....range is better than melee. You have to invent an unrealistic scenario where it is not better.
You mean a scenario like a completely over-the-top, disconnected-from-reality, exaggerated sci-fi setting where people are running around in magical immune-to-bullets armor and scientific plausibility has gone completely out the window?
I mean you don't see me arguing that bayonets > machine guns in the modern era, now do you?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/12/06 18:14:46
JNAProductions wrote: Why can't a hyper-specialized alien predator that's virtually invisible due to chameleonic skin sneak its way close to a commander, then gank him?
Because we're playing an army game, not a skirmish game. This can happen, sure, but has basically no impact on the outcome of the battle (except a point for Slay the Warlord). Again, this is a designer thing, but it's also a game-scale thing. This would be much more meaningful in a smaller game where the commander actually does meaningful things.
I mean, sneaking up on a farseer, or a chapter master, or a cryptek, or any other characters that provide buffs does have a pretty big impact on a game.
I don't disagree, and if it has that kind of impact, certainly. But when people say "melee should be viable" they mean "why can't I charge across No Man's Land armed only with an axe and the sound of my voice?". But yes, this should be do-able and have proportionate impact on the battlefield (whether the designers allow it to or not). But this isn't the kind of melee we're talking about when we ask if 5 Space Marines can fall back from 50 mutants or whatever.
Xenomancers wrote: Range is better than melee do to the fact....range is better than melee. You have to invent an unrealistic scenario where it is not better.
You mean a scenario like a completely over-the-top, disconnected-from-reality, exaggerated sci-fi setting where people are running around in magical immune-to-bullets armor and scientific plausibility has gone completely out the window?
I mean you don't see me arguing that bayonets > machine guns in the modern era, now do you?
My reply to this is earlier in the thread:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Because I'm not talking about "realism" from a "this is our universe and must follow physics" sense, but rather "immersion" or "sensemaking". One might say "realism within the setting."
It's a setting with tanks, aircraft, and machine-guns. These are all things that exist. Either they are effective, in which case, melee doesn't make sense (because an effective machine-gun will always beat an effective sword), or they are not effective, so why do the factions bother having so many? Because they think they look cool?
It's a problem with the designers, as I've mentioned. They want the game to look like the early 20th century in space, with WAR, but have some armies fight like it's the 9th Century, and have both those things be balanced and workable.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/06 18:26:20
I like the idea of rolling under your LD score to fall back, with monsters and walkers getting to roll 3D6 and discarding the lowest. Then everyone gets to try and hit you at their WS-1.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I like the idea of rolling under your LD score to fall back, with monsters and walkers getting to roll 3D6 and discarding the lowest. Then everyone gets to try and hit you at their WS-1.
Do you mean rolling 2d6? For the regular guys.
And for monsters/vehicles, do you mean discarding the HIGHEST? Since you're trying to roll under.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/06 18:35:04
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
It really comes down to this fact. Range is better than melee do to the fact....range is better than melee. You have to invent an unrealistic scenario where it is not better.
That's like saying being stronger is better. Of course it's better, sans cost. But it's not always better for the cost.
Consider Alexander the Great. Of all his battles, in only one did his ranged forces play a significant role. Because, while range is better, it was not cost effective (in those days) to do so. So the heavy lifting in his battles was done by "melee units" - phalanx and heavy cavalry.
Melee outperformed ranged for the vast majority of human history. While there were some cultures and scenarios before the proliferation of firearms where ranged weaponry was celebrated, they were the exception not the rule. It's only since crossbows/guns and economic advances (that made producing such arms in sufficient volume viable) that our tech allowed us to punch strong enough easily enough and far enough compared to competing technologies to change that.
It's entirely possible (but unlikely) that tech could progress in such a way to change that.
It takes resources and incurs costs to cause action over distance. Weapons are bound by those inefficiencies, too.
This is just kind of an aside for me, but I find it annoying that there are very few ranged daemons. I understand it is because they share a range with Sigmar, but it would be super interesting to have daemons that are meshes of warp flesh and machine. Just doing a casual glance through the daemon range, and basically everything just has a sword or a claw with just a few exceptions. I dunno, maybe its just me, but I'd rather see a group of blood letters wielding hell forced hand canons suppressing the enemy while the melee units charge in than just a melee blob.
Like, I don't see a reason they couldn't give them ranged options/profiles. Like they're shooting warp Beams from their eyes or Kamehameha-ing stuff?
It really comes down to this fact. Range is better than melee do to the fact....range is better than melee. You have to invent an unrealistic scenario where it is not better.
That's like saying being stronger is better. Of course it's better, sans cost. But it's not always better for the cost.
Consider Alexander the Great. Of all his battles, in only one did his ranged forces play a significant role. Because, while range is better, it was not cost effective (in those days) to do so. So the heavy lifting in his battles was done by "melee units" - phalanx and heavy cavalry.
Melee outperformed ranged for the vast majority of human history. While there were some cultures and scenarios before the proliferation of firearms where ranged weaponry was celebrated, they were the exception not the rule. It's only since crossbows/guns and economic advances (that made producing such arms in sufficient volume viable) that our tech allowed us to punch strong enough easily enough and far enough compared to competing technologies to change that.
It's entirely possible (but unlikely) that tech could progress in such a way to change that.
It takes resources and incurs costs to cause action over distance. Weapons are bound by those inefficiencies, too.
Which gets back to my comment with regards to the designers. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a world that resembles the industrial or even post-industrial modern earth (Tanks, aircraft, artillery, mechanized warfare, etc), but then they also want people to be able to fight like it's the 9th century (or 2-400 BC if that floats your boat).
I can conceive of a universe where melee dominates (see, Dune), where things like aircraft and mechanization are used to get melee troops where they need to be on the front line, but because of [plot element], only melee can do the killing. But this setting looks nothing like 40k - it'd never give birth to the Fire Prism, or the Basilisk, or even the humble lasgun or bolter - at least, they wouldn't currently exist. In fact, this is exactly the plot of Dune; personal shields rendered such weapons ineffective or outright counterproductive (lol laser blast causing nuclear explosion), so it really did come down to the knives. Guns are considered obsolete relics.
I can, alternatively, conceive of a universe where guns dominate (see, most "modern [but in the future]" settings). Tanks looks like tanks, with cannons and treads, designed to engage and defeat the enemy with direct fire. Aircraft use air-to-ground weapons, even cannons or machine-guns, and the average trooper is armed with a man-portable ranged weapon. Artillery, whether orbital or ground-based, still plays a big role in fights.
I cannot conceive of a universe where tanks can be tanks, artillery is useful, guns are effective, but somehow entire armies manage to be based around melee as a core build component. And that's what the designers are trying to do here.
Even Aliens, where the xenomorphs are essentially daemons that can pop out of [nearby] at will and nearly undetected, shows a small number of ranged foes killing a much larger (a seriously large) amount of melee foes before being overwhelmed and succumbing, once ammunition and options are depleted.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/06 18:50:20
It really comes down to this fact. Range is better than melee do to the fact....range is better than melee. You have to invent an unrealistic scenario where it is not better.
That's like saying being stronger is better. Of course it's better, sans cost. But it's not always better for the cost.
Consider Alexander the Great. Of all his battles, in only one did his ranged forces play a significant role. Because, while range is better, it was not cost effective (in those days) to do so. So the heavy lifting in his battles was done by "melee units" - phalanx and heavy cavalry.
Melee outperformed ranged for the vast majority of human history. While there were some cultures and scenarios before the proliferation of firearms where ranged weaponry was celebrated, they were the exception not the rule. It's only since crossbows/guns and economic advances (that made producing such arms in sufficient volume viable) that our tech allowed us to punch strong enough easily enough and far enough compared to competing technologies to change that.
It's entirely possible (but unlikely) that tech could progress in such a way to change that.
It takes resources and incurs costs to cause action over distance. Weapons are bound by those inefficiencies, too.
That is not entirely accurate. Range has always outperformed melee. Range required skills though. Range weapons are often more expensive to utilize and less available so you couldn't arm you whole force with ranged weapons. As soon as ranged combat was affordable for your whole force melee because outclassed except in the case of Calvary where speed of the horse and ROF of the weapons of the time created an interesting situation - however it was really only useful for surprise attacks and to chase down retreating armies which are shooting you a lot less. As soon as the machine gun was created melee became suicide. There is just no getting around that. Which I think the game pretty much represents that pretty well. The best melee units are the fast ones. Dudes walking up the field to hit with swords...that idea just needs to die.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/06 18:53:58
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Unit1126PLL wrote: Which gets back to my comment with regards to the designers. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a world that resembles the industrial or even post-industrial modern earth (Tanks, aircraft, artillery, mechanized warfare, etc), but then they also want people to be able to fight like it's the 9th century (or 2-400 BC if that floats your boat).
I can conceive of a universe where melee dominates (see, Dune), where things like aircraft and mechanization are used to get melee troops where they need to be on the front line, but because of [plot element], only melee can do the killing. But this setting looks nothing like 40k - it'd never give birth to the Fire Prism, or the Basilisk, or even the humble lasgun or bolter - at least, they wouldn't currently exist. In fact, this is exactly the plot of Dune; personal shields rendered such weapons ineffective or outright counterproductive (lol laser blast causing nuclear explosion), so it really did come down to the knives. Guns are considered obsolete relics.
I can, alternatively, conceive of a universe where guns dominate (see, most "modern [but in the future]" settings). Tanks looks like tanks, with cannons and treads, designed to engage and defeat the enemy with direct fire. Aircraft use air-to-ground weapons, even cannons or machine-guns, and the average trooper is armed with a man-portable ranged weapon. Artillery, whether orbital or ground-based, still plays a big role in fights.
I cannot conceive of a universe where tanks can be tanks, artillery is useful, guns are effective, but somehow entire armies manage to be based around melee as a core build component. And that's what the designers are trying to do here.
Even Aliens, where the xenomorphs are essentially daemons that can pop out of [nearby] at will and nearly undetected, shows a small number of ranged foes killing a much larger (a seriously large) amount of melee foes before being overwhelmed and succumbing, once ammunition and options are depleted.
Have you seen Edge of Tomorrow? That film features both a relatively conventional force and practical close combat against an asymmetric foe.
Having actual aliens and sci-fi technology in the setting makes this a lot easier than trying to shoehorn melee in amongst otherwise conventional, modern combatants.
That's nonsense. The Greeks weren't relying on formations of heavy infantry because they couldn't afford more slings, or because it took more time to train slingers than professional line infantry. You have to get up to the Thirty Years War for infantry combat to be dominated by missile weaponry, and even then they required melee-armed pikemen for mutual support against heavy cavalry. Even in the American Civil War, massed bayonet charges were more effective as decisive action than ranged fire. You have to get up to WW1 for fire superiority alone to be decisive.
Melee combat has occurred literally a century after the invention of the machine gun- under specific circumstances, which 40K makes no attempt to replicate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/06 19:00:56
catbarf wrote: Have you seen Edge of Tomorrow? That film features both a relatively conventional force and practical close combat against an asymmetric foe.
Having actual aliens and sci-fi technology in the setting makes this a lot easier than trying to shoehorn melee in amongst otherwise conventional, modern combatants.
I have not, but it sounds like a good movie. I do remember it.
Unfortunately, 40k's designers didn't take this tack, and so once again the blame for the melee-shooting clusterfeth falls squarely on their shoulders.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Which gets back to my comment with regards to the designers. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a world that resembles the industrial or even post-industrial modern earth (Tanks, aircraft, artillery, mechanized warfare, etc), but then they also want people to be able to fight like it's the 9th century (or 2-400 BC if that floats your boat).
I can conceive of a universe where melee dominates (see, Dune), where things like aircraft and mechanization are used to get melee troops where they need to be on the front line, but because of [plot element], only melee can do the killing. But this setting looks nothing like 40k - it'd never give birth to the Fire Prism, or the Basilisk, or even the humble lasgun or bolter - at least, they wouldn't currently exist. In fact, this is exactly the plot of Dune; personal shields rendered such weapons ineffective or outright counterproductive (lol laser blast causing nuclear explosion), so it really did come down to the knives. Guns are considered obsolete relics.
I can, alternatively, conceive of a universe where guns dominate (see, most "modern [but in the future]" settings). Tanks looks like tanks, with cannons and treads, designed to engage and defeat the enemy with direct fire. Aircraft use air-to-ground weapons, even cannons or machine-guns, and the average trooper is armed with a man-portable ranged weapon. Artillery, whether orbital or ground-based, still plays a big role in fights.
I cannot conceive of a universe where tanks can be tanks, artillery is useful, guns are effective, but somehow entire armies manage to be based around melee as a core build component. And that's what the designers are trying to do here.
Even Aliens, where the xenomorphs are essentially daemons that can pop out of [nearby] at will and nearly undetected, shows a small number of ranged foes killing a much larger (a seriously large) amount of melee foes before being overwhelmed and succumbing, once ammunition and options are depleted.
Have you seen Edge of Tomorrow? That film features both a relatively conventional force and practical close combat against an asymmetric foe.
Having actual aliens and sci-fi technology in the setting makes this a lot easier than trying to shoehorn melee in amongst otherwise conventional, modern combatants.
That's nonsense. The Greeks weren't relying on formations of heavy infantry because they couldn't afford more slings, or because it took more time to train slingers than professional line infantry. You have to get up to the Thirty Years War for infantry combat to be dominated by missile weaponry, and even then they required melee-armed pikemen for mutual support against heavy cavalry. Even in the American Civil War, massed bayonet charges were more effective as decisive action than ranged fire. You have to get up to WW1 for fire superiority alone to be decisive.
Melee combat has occurred literally a century after the invention of the machine gun- under specific circumstances, which 40K makes no attempt to replicate.
That movie was dope. However - I seem to remember that they needed about a million "retries" to make their strategy work. Plus everyone had a heavy machine gun and an armored power suit and they were fighting against an enemy that could literally travel through time and keep failing until they win.
Your opinion on the effectiveness of bayonet charges in the civil war really says a lot. You are talking about the war that everyone learned that melee doesn't work anymore. Entire divisions died trying to charge gunlines. The most bloody battles ever fought in the history of man kind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/06 19:21:46
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
It really comes down to this fact. Range is better than melee do to the fact....range is better than melee. You have to invent an unrealistic scenario where it is not better.
That's like saying being stronger is better. Of course it's better, sans cost. But it's not always better for the cost.
Consider Alexander the Great. Of all his battles, in only one did his ranged forces play a significant role. Because, while range is better, it was not cost effective (in those days) to do so. So the heavy lifting in his battles was done by "melee units" - phalanx and heavy cavalry.
Melee outperformed ranged for the vast majority of human history. While there were some cultures and scenarios before the proliferation of firearms where ranged weaponry was celebrated, they were the exception not the rule. It's only since crossbows/guns and economic advances (that made producing such arms in sufficient volume viable) that our tech allowed us to punch strong enough easily enough and far enough compared to competing technologies to change that.
It's entirely possible (but unlikely) that tech could progress in such a way to change that.
It takes resources and incurs costs to cause action over distance. Weapons are bound by those inefficiencies, too.
That is not entirely accurate. Range has always outperformed melee. Range required skills though. Range weapons are often more expensive to utilize and less available so you couldn't arm you whole force with ranged weapons.
Training, costs, and logistics are all part of why melee outperformed ranged. But the contemporary ranged soldiers (slingers) were cheaper and required less training than a member of the phalanx Alexander's day. The core of his force was made up of more heavily trained and more costly equipped soldiers. Because phalanxes outperformed slingers.
As soon as ranged combat was affordable for your whole force melee because outclassed
A throwing spear was a lot cheaper than a pike or footman's spear.
For the cost of a hoplite's equipment, and for a fraction of his training, you could get someone to chuck a stone or shoot a bow rather well. And equip them. The phalanx still dominated that world's warfare.
Dudes walking up the field to hit with swords...that idea just needs to die.
For a human, limited to physical means, in the modern technological world, sure. But not for most of human history. And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
Bharring wrote: And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
But a world where that was effective probably wouldn't still be using M1 Abrams-style tanks, MV-22-style aircraft, or M109-style artillery. It probably wouldn't see many soldiers equipped with rifles and heavy weapons.
But Warhammer 40k has those things, and therefore isn't that world.
Bharring wrote: And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
But a world where that was effective probably wouldn't still be using M1 Abrams-style tanks, MV-22-style aircraft, or M109-style artillery. It probably wouldn't see many soldiers equipped with rifles and heavy weapons.
But Warhammer 40k has those things, and therefore isn't that world.
Warhammer has those things and many, many other things. Like highly effective personal body armor, and alien ships to board.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Unfortunately, 40k's designers didn't take this tack, and so once again the blame for the melee-shooting clusterfeth falls squarely on their shoulders.
In 40K, basically everyone is wearing armor that could plausibly be justified as reducing the lethality of missile weapons, along with Dune-style technological justifications (eg power weapons) for melee being comparatively effective.
Xenomancers wrote: Your opinion on the effectiveness of bayonet charges in the civil war really says a lot. You are talking about the war that everyone learned that melee doesn't work anymore. Entire divisions died trying to charge gunlines. The most bloody battles ever fought in the history of man kind.
Longstreet took out over a third of the Union army with a decisive charge at Chickamauga. At Spotsylvania Hancock led a bayonet charge to break through Lee's line. Wright's breakthrough at Petersburg. Little Round Top. Jackson at Chancellorsville. Gaine's Mill. If you're actually interested in learning about the ACW and not parroting garbage pop-history analysis, pick up a copy of Paddy Griffith's The Civil War.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/06 19:34:18
Bharring wrote: And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
But a world where that was effective probably wouldn't still be using M1 Abrams-style tanks, MV-22-style aircraft, or M109-style artillery. It probably wouldn't see many soldiers equipped with rifles and heavy weapons.
But Warhammer 40k has those things, and therefore isn't that world.
Warhammer has those things and many, many other things. Like highly effective personal body armor, and alien ships to board.
Yes, but if that personal body armor were truly effective against guns, then the armies would throw out the guns - after all, no use carrying around useless heavy junk. See Dune for a universe where personal protection exceeds the capability of man-portable ranged weapons - which promptly become legacy relics.
As for boarding alien ships - that's not the typical type of tabletop battle people are thinking of when they say "ranged is better than melee" because I suspect it isn't as true in such tight terrain.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/06 19:32:54
Bharring wrote: And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
But a world where that was effective probably wouldn't still be using M1 Abrams-style tanks, MV-22-style aircraft, or M109-style artillery. It probably wouldn't see many soldiers equipped with rifles and heavy weapons.
But Warhammer 40k has those things, and therefore isn't that world.
What about a universe where the vast majority of engagements were fought like WWI/WWII? And in only isolated circumstances, there were these factors that changed the equation?
Couple that with, most of the time that "these factors" were involved, they were hushed-up by a shadowy galaxy-spanning governmental organization?
Couple that with an Imperium who's logistics are in deep decay, and whos administration is a byzantine burocratic hellscape (sometimes literally)?
Couple that with an understanding that any improvement, adaption, or other change could result in damnation of everyone involved, and destruction of entire worlds?
In such a universe, the Imperium's forces would be mostly styled like WWI/WWII forces. Their foes, not so much.
Bharring wrote: And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
But a world where that was effective probably wouldn't still be using M1 Abrams-style tanks, MV-22-style aircraft, or M109-style artillery. It probably wouldn't see many soldiers equipped with rifles and heavy weapons.
But Warhammer 40k has those things, and therefore isn't that world.
What about a universe where the vast majority of engagements were fought like WWI/WWII? And in only isolated circumstances, there were these factors that changed the equation?
Couple that with, most of the time that "these factors" were involved, they were hushed-up by a shadowy galaxy-spanning governmental organization?
Couple that with an Imperium who's logistics are in deep decay, and whos administration is a byzantine burocratic hellscape (sometimes literally)?
Couple that with an understanding that any improvement, adaption, or other change could result in damnation of everyone involved, and destruction of entire worlds?
In such a universe, the Imperium's forces would be mostly styled like WWI/WWII forces. Their foes, not so much.
I don't quite get your point?
If the vast majority of engagements are fought like World War I / World War II, but in some other isolated circumstances melee became important, then I'd expect ranged fire to be generally dominant, except in some other isolated circumstances.
IOW: "shooting is overpowered because melee only works in some other isolated circumstances"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/06 19:35:33
Bharring wrote: And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
But a world where that was effective probably wouldn't still be using M1 Abrams-style tanks, MV-22-style aircraft, or M109-style artillery. It probably wouldn't see many soldiers equipped with rifles and heavy weapons.
But Warhammer 40k has those things, and therefore isn't that world.
Warhammer has those things and many, many other things. Like highly effective personal body armor, and alien ships to board.
Yes, but if that personal body armor were truly effective against guns, then the armies would throw out the guns - after all, no use carrying around useless heavy junk. See Dune for a universe where personal protection exceeds the capability of man-portable ranged weapons - which promptly become legacy relics.
As for boarding alien ships - that's not the typical type of tabletop battle people are thinking of when they say "ranged is better than melee" because I suspect it isn't as true in such tight terrain.
No no, that's not how it works. The guns are ALSO still useful, because there is such a high variety of target types, environments, etc. The body armor doesn't make the wearer impervious as the Dune shields do, the body armor offers great protection against common small arms that (often less or unarmored) foes have. So, guns are still useful because you want to kill unarmored stuff at range, but power swords/fists are also useful because there is a bunch of stuff wearing armor that's really effective protection against YOUR guns. The point is that there's enough variety that having access to both is useful.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but if that personal body armor were truly effective against guns, then the armies would throw out the guns
Why is it so binary? Surely there's a point where missile weaponry is generally effective, but not the sole weapon on the battlefield?
During the Thirty Years War (and in the same era, the English Civil War), most arquebusiers kept swords as personal weapons. Despite the utility of firearms, it was not uncommon for them to be caught in melee. There existed a relative parity of missile and melee weapons.
In fact, we already live in an era where body armor is becoming effective against guns- modern body armor can stand up to 5.56/5.45 projectiles, especially at longer distances, which is why the US is currently procuring a new caliber (likely 6.5/6.8mm) to re-equip troops. That means heavier weapons, heavier ammunition, and greater recoil, all reasons why we ditched the 7.62s in the first place.
This isn't going to lead to melee combat anytime soon, but the point is that the reaction to incremental improvement in personal survivability is rarely a complete overhaul of the weapons in use. There's a gradual shift and degrees of utility.
Bharring wrote: And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
But a world where that was effective probably wouldn't still be using M1 Abrams-style tanks, MV-22-style aircraft, or M109-style artillery. It probably wouldn't see many soldiers equipped with rifles and heavy weapons.
But Warhammer 40k has those things, and therefore isn't that world.
What about a universe where the vast majority of engagements were fought like WWI/WWII? And in only isolated circumstances, there were these factors that changed the equation?
Couple that with, most of the time that "these factors" were involved, they were hushed-up by a shadowy galaxy-spanning governmental organization?
Couple that with an Imperium who's logistics are in deep decay, and whos administration is a byzantine burocratic hellscape (sometimes literally)?
Couple that with an understanding that any improvement, adaption, or other change could result in damnation of everyone involved, and destruction of entire worlds?
In such a universe, the Imperium's forces would be mostly styled like WWI/WWII forces. Their foes, not so much.
I don't quite get your point?
If the vast majority of engagements are fought like World War I / World War II, but in some other isolated circumstances melee became important, then I'd expect ranged fire to be generally dominant, except in some other isolated circumstances.
IOW: "shooting is overpowered because melee only works in some other isolated circumstances"
What's to say that, as far as IG is concerned, that's not the case?
Most of their engagements are probably WWI/WWII style. But they're lopsided engagements, and not the ones we play out on the battlefield.
Marines are super rare, compared to Guardsmen. Most Guardsmen engagements would not see even a single Marine.
Traitor Marines are rarer still.
Custodes, almost unheard of.
Most Guard engagements would be against rebels, PDFs, and annexed colonies.
Most Guard engagements against Orks look a lot like WWI/II, in that Guard do best with ranged weapons. The difference is that Orkz will often overwhelm them anyways. Shifting to melee weapons would actually make things worse for the Guard.
Same story for Nids or Necrons - shifting out of WWI/WWII fighting styles won't actually help them.
Even if Guard did have to worry about going up aginst Orkz or Nids or (traitor) Marines on a regular basis, what would change? Melee might have an advantage in those fights, but only because of the Ork or Nid or Marine - a Guard with a Lasgun might be ineffective, but a Guard with a sword is even *worse*. So you could kit and train your Guardsmen to fight the "normal" fights better, or you could kit and train your Guardsmen to lose the "rare" fights worse - not much of a choice.
Bharring wrote: And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
But a world where that was effective probably wouldn't still be using M1 Abrams-style tanks, MV-22-style aircraft, or M109-style artillery. It probably wouldn't see many soldiers equipped with rifles and heavy weapons.
But Warhammer 40k has those things, and therefore isn't that world.
Warhammer has those things and many, many other things. Like highly effective personal body armor, and alien ships to board.
Yes, but if that personal body armor were truly effective against guns, then the armies would throw out the guns - after all, no use carrying around useless heavy junk. See Dune for a universe where personal protection exceeds the capability of man-portable ranged weapons - which promptly become legacy relics.
As for boarding alien ships - that's not the typical type of tabletop battle people are thinking of when they say "ranged is better than melee" because I suspect it isn't as true in such tight terrain.
No no, that's not how it works. The guns are ALSO still useful, because there is such a high variety of target types, environments, etc. The body armor doesn't make the wearer impervious as the Dune shields do, the body armor offers great protection against common small arms that (often less or unarmored) foes have. So, guns are still useful because you want to kill unarmored stuff at range, but power swords/fists are also useful because there is a bunch of stuff wearing armor that's really effective protection against YOUR guns. The point is that there's enough variety that having access to both is useful.
But that's how "ranged combat" (generalized) works. Like, we have tanks impervious to small arms in the Modern Era, but you don't see troopers getting out their power-fists because the rifles don't work. You just see them getting more gun.
Somebody impervious to your rifle is the responsibility of your squad's grenadier. Someone impervious to your grenadier and your rifle is the responsibility of your squad's rocketeer. Someone impervious to your grenadier, your rifle, and your rocket launcher is probably important enough to be on the radar of your platoon leader, at which point he becomes a target for crew served weapons like lascannons and ATGMs. If those can't hurt him, then your own armored transports and tanks will have a go - because at this point, he's big enough to get the notice of your company commander. If that doesn't work, you'll need support from the battalion artillery units...
Ranged combat won't suddenly become melee combat simply because some of the combatants are more resistant to bullets than you expected. Your bullets have to literally be unable to stop them, which is rarely the case in 40k canon. Lasguns kill space marines. Lascannons kill land raiders. Artillery barrages/airstrikes kill baneblades, and tank companies kill titans.
To wrap that up, even if "Shooting is overpowered because melee only works in some other isolated circumstances", we'd see something like what we see in 40k. Most "normal" factions are built and fight as if they're in a shooty war. Those factions that leverage the "isolated circumstances" are likely built and fight with melee in mind.
Bharring wrote: What's to say that, as far as IG is concerned, that's not the case?
Most of their engagements are probably WWI/WWII style. But they're lopsided engagements, and not the ones we play out on the battlefield.
Marines are super rare, compared to Guardsmen. Most Guardsmen engagements would not see even a single Marine.
Traitor Marines are rarer still.
Custodes, almost unheard of.
Most Guard engagements would be against rebels, PDFs, and annexed colonies.
Most Guard engagements against Orks look a lot like WWI/II, in that Guard do best with ranged weapons. The difference is that Orkz will often overwhelm them anyways. Shifting to melee weapons would actually make things worse for the Guard.
Same story for Nids or Necrons - shifting out of WWI/WWII fighting styles won't actually help them.
Even if Guard did have to worry about going up aginst Orkz or Nids or (traitor) Marines on a regular basis, what would change? Melee might have an advantage in those fights, but only because of the Ork or Nid or Marine - a Guard with a Lasgun might be ineffective, but a Guard with a sword is even *worse*. So you could kit and train your Guardsmen to fight the "normal" fights better, or you could kit and train your Guardsmen to lose the "rare" fights worse - not much of a choice.
So where are you going with this argument? Because when the rubber hits the road and the lore hits the tabletop, to make this happen you have to:
1) Either give the Guard ammunition limits, or make the orks and nids outnumber them so drastically that the world's plastic supply will be strained as ork and nid players try to buy enough models to make an army.
2) Make Necrons and Traitor Marines effectively immune to shooting (which gets back to the Dune syndrome - players will pay as little as possible in the weapons that can't hurt them, and as much as possible in the weapons that can. So shooting is, still, OP - unless you say that no weapon can hurt them, or cost those weapons so prohibitively that the Traitor Marines and Necrons outnumber the Imperial Guard!).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I like the idea of rolling under your LD score to fall back, with monsters and walkers getting to roll 3D6 and discarding the lowest. Then everyone gets to try and hit you at their WS-1.
Do you mean rolling 2d6? For the regular guys.
And for monsters/vehicles, do you mean discarding the HIGHEST? Since you're trying to roll under.
I sometimes type too fast for my mind. Yes that's what I meant. Hey at least you got my RAI!
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Bharring wrote: To wrap that up, even if "Shooting is overpowered because melee only works in some other isolated circumstances", we'd see something like what we see in 40k. Most "normal" factions are built and fight as if they're in a shooty war. Those factions that leverage the "isolated circumstances" are likely built and fight with melee in mind.
Right, but current 40k, melee is underpowered (or so the complaint goes, ref: this thread). So clearly only functioning in "isolated circumstances" isn't good enough for Melee players, and to be fair, they have a point - lots of 40k art and fluff depicts open field battles fought like they're the Battle of Cannae.
Bharring wrote: And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
But a world where that was effective probably wouldn't still be using M1 Abrams-style tanks, MV-22-style aircraft, or M109-style artillery. It probably wouldn't see many soldiers equipped with rifles and heavy weapons.
But Warhammer 40k has those things, and therefore isn't that world.
Warhammer has those things and many, many other things. Like highly effective personal body armor, and alien ships to board.
Yes, but if that personal body armor were truly effective against guns, then the armies would throw out the guns - after all, no use carrying around useless heavy junk. See Dune for a universe where personal protection exceeds the capability of man-portable ranged weapons - which promptly become legacy relics.
As for boarding alien ships - that's not the typical type of tabletop battle people are thinking of when they say "ranged is better than melee" because I suspect it isn't as true in such tight terrain.
No no, that's not how it works. The guns are ALSO still useful, because there is such a high variety of target types, environments, etc. The body armor doesn't make the wearer impervious as the Dune shields do, the body armor offers great protection against common small arms that (often less or unarmored) foes have. So, guns are still useful because you want to kill unarmored stuff at range, but power swords/fists are also useful because there is a bunch of stuff wearing armor that's really effective protection against YOUR guns. The point is that there's enough variety that having access to both is useful.
But that's how "ranged combat" (generalized) works. Like, we have tanks impervious to small arms in the Modern Era, but you don't see troopers getting out their power-fists because the rifles don't work. You just see them getting more gun.
Somebody impervious to your rifle is the responsibility of your squad's grenadier. Someone impervious to your grenadier and your rifle is the responsibility of your squad's rocketeer. Someone impervious to your grenadier, your rifle, and your rocket launcher is probably important enough to be on the radar of your platoon leader, at which point he becomes a target for crew served weapons like lascannons and ATGMs. If those can't hurt him, then your own armored transports and tanks will have a go - because at this point, he's big enough to get the notice of your company commander. If that doesn't work, you'll need support from the battalion artillery units...
Ranged combat won't suddenly become melee combat simply because some of the combatants are more resistant to bullets than you expected. Your bullets have to literally be unable to stop them, which is rarely the case in 40k canon. Lasguns kill space marines. Lascannons kill land raiders. Artillery barrages/airstrikes kill baneblades, and tank companies kill titans.
Your bullets don't need to be literally unable to stop them. The slings and arrows of the dark ages were literally able to stop a contemporary solider. But they were practically or feasibly unable to stop them. So slings and arrows were used *in conjunction with* other forms of warfare.
In WW2, it didn't take a particularly heavy rifle to take down an aircraft. But rifles weren't a useful way to take down an aircraft. So they used other tools to take down aircraft. But they didn't throw away their rifles.
The imperial guard is ranged dominant and so is the Tau. They are the only 2 "normal" armies and behave as such.
99% of the imperiums battle is fought ranged but those engagement arent that interesting. All the factions with serious melee component have factors that reduce the lethality of normal ranged weapons. But in a typical battle for the Imperial Guard their lasguns work. When they fight power armor or tougher is a tiny minority of their engagements.
Space marines are mostly close ranged combat but they also engage close and have massive armor not available to the common soldiers. Eldar are faster and orks or demons sturdy enough that small arms fire isnt a danger unless massed.
Even though some enemies can shrug off the fire from a squad or two of guardsmen most cant and even space marine armor could succumb under a critical mass. Most fighting in the 40k universe is more "boring" than what we see on the table top so weak weapons like lasguns wouldnt be abandoned just because space marines can shrug it off.
Orks, Tyranids and some times demons comes in such numbers that even though ranged weapons are effective and cause huge casualties the horde just wont stop and sooner or later they will get in close combat no matter what you shoot them with. In a 40k game we might have 100-200 models of orks or tyranids fighting sub 100 models from the other faction. Sure in the lore the orks or tyranids would have 0 chance with those numbers but the game is an abstraction and if you instead treat the 150 orks as 1500 against the 60 marines then it makes more sense if it ends with close combat. The power armor can withstand the orks shooting but 60 marines cant kill 1500 orks before they get close and in melee orks insane strength can come into play.
Looks like I made exactly the same post as Bharring but written more slowly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/06 19:56:04
Bharring wrote: And there are plenty of possible developments that could change that.
But a world where that was effective probably wouldn't still be using M1 Abrams-style tanks, MV-22-style aircraft, or M109-style artillery. It probably wouldn't see many soldiers equipped with rifles and heavy weapons.
But Warhammer 40k has those things, and therefore isn't that world.
Warhammer has those things and many, many other things. Like highly effective personal body armor, and alien ships to board.
Yes, but if that personal body armor were truly effective against guns, then the armies would throw out the guns - after all, no use carrying around useless heavy junk. See Dune for a universe where personal protection exceeds the capability of man-portable ranged weapons - which promptly become legacy relics.
As for boarding alien ships - that's not the typical type of tabletop battle people are thinking of when they say "ranged is better than melee" because I suspect it isn't as true in such tight terrain.
No no, that's not how it works. The guns are ALSO still useful, because there is such a high variety of target types, environments, etc. The body armor doesn't make the wearer impervious as the Dune shields do, the body armor offers great protection against common small arms that (often less or unarmored) foes have. So, guns are still useful because you want to kill unarmored stuff at range, but power swords/fists are also useful because there is a bunch of stuff wearing armor that's really effective protection against YOUR guns. The point is that there's enough variety that having access to both is useful.
But that's how "ranged combat" (generalized) works. Like, we have tanks impervious to small arms in the Modern Era, but you don't see troopers getting out their power-fists because the rifles don't work. You just see them getting more gun.
Somebody impervious to your rifle is the responsibility of your squad's grenadier. Someone impervious to your grenadier and your rifle is the responsibility of your squad's rocketeer. Someone impervious to your grenadier, your rifle, and your rocket launcher is probably important enough to be on the radar of your platoon leader, at which point he becomes a target for crew served weapons like lascannons and ATGMs. If those can't hurt him, then your own armored transports and tanks will have a go - because at this point, he's big enough to get the notice of your company commander. If that doesn't work, you'll need support from the battalion artillery units...
Ranged combat won't suddenly become melee combat simply because some of the combatants are more resistant to bullets than you expected. Your bullets have to literally be unable to stop them, which is rarely the case in 40k canon. Lasguns kill space marines. Lascannons kill land raiders. Artillery barrages/airstrikes kill baneblades, and tank companies kill titans.
You are stuck on the notion that life is precious and we're only talking about humans fighting humans in roughly symmetrical warfare. 40K isn't bound to that. Life is not precious, armies have wildly different equipment and oftentimes you're having to fight gorillas or lion equivalents that have human intelligence or better. Like, the IG fight as you say they do, more or less. But Tyranids? Orks? They don't follow the same rules. Likewise, Space Marines have the very particular job of boarding spacecraft and defenses, as well as bully renegade human factions. They function on a different doctrine than a "normal" army. They'll fight in CC to conserve ammunition and keep the battle momentum up.
