PDA

View Full Version : A mini-rant on people who complain about CC



Dinosaurus
26-11-2007, 06:34
I've noticed a lot that people, especially people on these forums, complain about how it doesn't make sense that CC is effective in the far future of the 41st millenium. The whole point of the Warhammer 40k universe is that it's gothic, grim and very anachronistic, that's why you have what are essentially knights in space running around painting prayers on their gleaming armour and using holy relics. Or WW1 siege forces riding around with lances. It's the stark contrast between the old and the new (like the fact that those lances explode on contact with the enemy, or that those knights are wielding crackling power swords and chainsaws as weapons) that makes the flavour of the game. If everyone sat around and shot high tech super-lasers then 40k would be exactly like every other sci-fi universe, and frankly, it wouldn't be the warhammer universe anymore.

Qualdinesh
26-11-2007, 06:39
Dinosaurus, you make a great point about CC, heck why stop at getting rid of CC and why not just take it all the way back to orbital bombardment, level the planet and a flip a coin for the winner :D

As much as I hate having my poor Guadrian Defenders assulted, rest their pointy hats, the game wouldn't be as fun with out the CC.

big squig
26-11-2007, 06:53
I don't see why people always view CC has nothing more than fist fights. I've always seen it as that AND a really chaotic mixed firefight.

That and you're right. Marines are heavy armored superhumans. CC makes a lot more sense then.
Also, I tend to think of 'assault' in 40k as that 12" spot where rapid fire and charges happen.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 06:55
Strictly speaking, CC in a the wartorn far distant future IS ridiculous. Then again, so are SOOO many elements.

At a certain point you kind of have to just take it for what it is and enjoy it.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 06:58
How is close combat ridiculous. Hell we still get into close combat in modern warfare. I assure you, close combat would be even more prevalent where half your enemies are screaming alien thugs, clawed insectile monstrosities, or blood crazed lunatic cultists.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 07:01
How is close combat ridiculous. Hell we still get into close combat in modern warfare. I assure you, close combat would be even more prevalent where half your enemies are screaming alien thugs, clawed insectile monstrosities, or blood crazed lunatic cultists.

Close combat in modern warfare is generally very brief, very nasty, and something people in war like to avoid - most soldiers will break and run from close combat. Its a very different thing to shoot someone than it is to stab someone and watch them die in front of your eyes.

But as for the reason why it is TRULY ridiculous: if you look at the way combat really transpires in real life, those clawed insectile monstrosities, cultists, and alien thugs would have been shot down before they got in close enough to engage. The degree of firepower that can be put out by a modern army is just insane: they can sweep an area clean with machine gun fire, automatic rifles, artillery, etc etc etc.

ALL real life armies are gunline armies.

big squig
26-11-2007, 07:07
Close combat in modern warfare is generally very brief, very nasty, and something people in war like to avoid - most soldiers will break and run from close combat. Its a very different thing to shoot someone than it is to stab someone and watch them die in front of your eyes.

More the reason to send fearless superhuamns in armor immune to small fire and stab wounds into combat with panicky enemies. Especially if those armored superhumans worship chaos and so have blades and spikes and chainsaws and crazy demonic screaming armor and jump packs.

Shooting at something like that with your big **** gun is a lot more settling than having that chaos marine up in your grill sawing your friends in half.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 07:09
More the reason to send fearless superhuamns in armor immune to small fire and stab wounds into combat with panicky enemies. Especially if those armored superhumans worship chaos and so have blades and spikes and chainsaws and crazy demonic screaming armor and jump packs.

And in real warfare those 7 feet tall monstrosities with gaudy colors and spikes would be shot down half a mile away from the place they are trying to attack.

This whole "omg! teh space marinz are teh heros!" thing wouldn't pan out in the real world. Bigger dude just means bigger target.

Qualdinesh
26-11-2007, 07:13
The degree of firepower that can be put out by a modern army is just insane: they can sweep an area clean with machine gun fire, automatic rifles, artillery, etc etc etc.
.

But once all that is done you still need to move troops in to occupie the place and you never know if something made it though all that firepower waiting to stike as soon as you move in. As unlikely as it is.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 07:15
Close combat in modern warfare is generally very brief, very nasty, and something people in war like to avoid

Someone attempting to kill you is something people in war like to avoid. Thats why if you get a 8 foot superhuman or a massed horde of hormagaunts you provide such an excellent scare factor, thus close combat can easily be more desirable.



- most soldiers will break and run from close combat. Its a very different thing to shoot someone than it is to stab someone and watch them die in front of your eyes.

Break and run? No, thats not true. I've known too many soldiers who have killed people with their knives or side arms right up next to each other. It may certainly shock and disorient someone, but its not going to make trained soldiers forget all their discipline and run away screaming.



But as for the reason why it is TRULY ridiculous: if you look at the way combat really transpires in real life, those clawed insectile monstrosities, cultists, and alien thugs would have been shot down before they got in close enough to engage.
You'll note thats generally what happens except theres too many to kill before they get to you. Thats kind of the entire point. In 40k the number is reduced for practicality. If tyranids were in a realistic scenario according to their fluff, they'd outnumber guardsmen 10 to one or more with just the basics. If they didn't they generally got gunned down and slunk away.



The degree of firepower that can be put out by a modern army is just insane: they can sweep an area clean with machine gun fire, automatic rifles, artillery, etc etc etc.

The degree of firepower put out by a modern army is dwarfed by the number of organisms in a tyranid assault (and their own firepower providing cover) or the number of orks in a Waaagh! 40k is toned down for a playable game. Moving, hell producing a million models for one army wouldn't be feasible.


ALL real life armies are gunline armies.
Thats not true. They are not gunlines. Armies are far too large to even provide a single overriding factor. You won't ever see all the British or American/any other largish power's forces deployed in one area at all.

Squads, and platoons vary their tactics based on their objectives and their situation.

big squig
26-11-2007, 07:22
And in real warfare those 7 feet tall monstrosities with gaudy colors and spikes would be shot down half a mile away from the place they are trying to attack.

This whole "omg! teh space marinz are teh heros!" thing wouldn't pan out in the real world. Bigger dude just means bigger target.

Well, cosidering that a 40k marine could prolly take most modern firepower to the chest and keep going (I mean, a titan can step in a terminator and the term will just get up and walk it off) I doubt the marines are too worried about being shot at.

Also, marines tend to drop-pod down on anything they want...so say goodbye to all your long range firepower, and say goodbye to your infantry as marines fall from the sky at 9.8 meters/second.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 07:29
Someone attempting to kill you is something people in war like to avoid. Thats why if you get a 8 foot superhuman or a massed horde of hormagaunts you provide such an excellent scare factor, thus close combat can easily be more desirable.

They wouldn't be that scary when you can shoot them from 5 miles away.



Break and run? No, thats not true. I've known too many soldiers who have killed people with their knives or side arms right up next to each other. It may certain shock and disorient someone, but its not going to make trained soldiers forget all their discipline and run away screaming.

Anecodotal evidence! Yeah!

Its not a universal thing. Close combat DOES happen in war - occasionally. It usually happens by accident, or when one side suprises the other.

In old style warfare, the idea was to advance against the enemy so that you could engage them with bayonets, and scare them away. Generally, a huge block of men would go forward, with their bayonets attached, and try to make it through the hail of musketfire, and then, if they made it to enemy lines, the enemy would usually run instead of getting bayoneted.




The degree of firepower put out by a modern army is dwarfed by the number of organisms in a tyranid assault (and their own firepower providing cover) or the number of orks in a Waaagh! 40k is toned down for a playable game. Moving, hell producing a million models for one army wouldn't be feasible.

You're being a bit biased here - Imperial Guard armies are supposed to be very very very large. The Guard isn't usually outnumbered in combat, or at least never to the extent that the Space Marines are.

And I really don't get why you believe that the number of Tyranid organisms or Orks is greater than the firepower of a modern army? Automatic rifles on every man? Machine gun enplacements? Fortifications? Tactical nuclear weapons? Air to Land Missiles from Helicopters and such? If Orks and Tyranids used no other techniques than forward into CC, they would get fried, and die, hardcore.

One of the big differences between 40k and real life is that, when you get hit with a bullet, you are either greviously wounded, or you die. It doesn't matter if it is a super magic evil bullet, a heroic bullet, whatever, if its a bullet, it will kill you. Armor doesn't really exist that will reliably stop high powered rifle shells, etc etc


Thats not true. Are not gunlines, gunlines don't work anymore. Armies are far too large to even provide a single overriding factor. You won't ever see all the British or American forces deployed in one area at all.


What the hell are you talking about? When I say gunline I mean armies never make it their goal to engage in hand to hand combat. Ever. Why would they?

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 07:31
Well, cosidering that a 40k marine could prolly take most modern firepower to the chest and keep going (I mean, a titan can step in a terminator and the term will just get up and walk it off) I doubt the marines are too worried about being shot at.

They can still be brought down by lasguns. And, IRL, the lasgun would fire like 30 rounds a minute, which means even the Space Marines armor would be toast.

But, there are so few Space Marines that they could probably be reliably targeted with anti-tank shells and such, meaning that they are really really toast, regardless of their fancy armor.


Also, marines tend to drop-pod down on anything they want...so say goodbye to all your long range firepower, and say goodbye to your infantry as marines fall from the sky at 9.8 meters/second.

Right, because they are usually depicted drop podding directly into combat, and not heroically charging into combat against enemy fire. :rolleyes:

big squig
26-11-2007, 07:39
First of all, you can't make any assumptions based off of 40k. You have to look into inquisitor where the game actually reflects how it's supossed to be instead of abstracting everything. And if you have ever played INQ, you will know that a lasgun can not take down a marine. Nor can a grenade, a flamer, a rifle, or any CC weapon that's not a power sword.

Also, marines drop-pod into combat and fire fights all the time. That's the point.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 07:40
They wouldn't be that scary when you can shoot them from 5 miles away.

Five miles away you won't even see them with most weapon systems. Not every battle takes place in a nice grassy meadow. Theres smoke, dust, sun-glare, terrain, all that can prevent you from detecting them until they get up to you.



Anecodotal evidence! Yeah!

Its not a universal thing. Close combat DOES happen in war - occasionally. It usually happens by accident, or when one side suprises the other.

In old style warfare, the idea was to advance against the enemy so that you could engage them with bayonets, and scare them away. Generally, a huge block of men would go forward, with their bayonets attached, and try to make it through the hail of musketfire, and then, if they made it to enemy lines, the enemy would usually run instead of getting bayoneted.

This isn't old style warfare anymore, is it. We don't fight in massed blocks of men anymore. Battle today is much more organic and fluid. No one endevours close combat today because theres not tons of benefit to be gained from it. When were talking tyranids and Space marnies theres alot of benefit, when were talking orks, its because they like it.




You're being a bit biased here - Imperial Guard armies are supposed to be very very very large. The Guard isn't usually outnumbered in combat, or at least never to the extent that the Space Marines are.

I'm not being biased, in the tyranid fluff its generally the same thing over and over, tons of tyranids whittling down the guard and finally overwhelming them. Add in that a gaunt can match a guardsman in close combat it makes it even worse for them.



And I really don't get why you believe that the number of Tyranid organisms or Orks is greater than the firepower of a modern army? Automatic rifles on every man? Machine gun enplacements? Fortifications?

All of which require *ammunition*. As soon as a group gets isolated and cut off by the masses you see in fluff they run dry fast. Add into this the inaccuracy present in normal human operation of weapons and the sheer numbers against them you put too much faith in them. They're certainly capable of killing alot, but its a drop in the pond compared to the numbers were talking about.



Tactical nuclear weapons?

Right, cause we love nukin' our own guys. If its come down to nukes its obvious that all the other modern weapons haven't done well enough.


Air to Land Missiles from Helicopters and such? If Orks and Tyranids used no other techniques than forward into CC, they would get fried, and die, hardcore.

Missiles from helicoptors hardly makes up the bulk of any armies firepower. Modern armies have relatively few aircraft despite what people think of there just being some sort of an endless stream. Even with all this there are still forces from modern armies being cut off and overwhelmed in a variety of situations with all these weapons.



One of the big differences between 40k and real life is that, when you get hit with a bullet, you are either greviously wounded, or you die. It doesn't matter if it is a super magic evil bullet, a heroic bullet, whatever, if its a bullet, it will kill you. Armor doesn't really exist that will reliably stop high powered rifle shells, etc etc

Modern armor does exist to some degree that will. Were not even talking modern armor, were talking sci-fi armor. Hell, even US troops are complaining their rifles don't have the stopping power to reliably take down enemies now.



What the hell are you talking about? When I say gunline I mean armies never make it their goal to engage in hand to hand combat. Ever. Why would they?
Not modern armies, no. Theres no point. Tyranids, Space Marines, and Orks are not modern armies and they work on different premises. Tyranids are superior in hand to hand than in shooting, thus they go for close combat, same with orks. Space marines use hand to hand for its shock value and because its often more convienent to just pick that cultist up and break him in half than to shoot him at 2 feet.

Profiron
26-11-2007, 07:41
How do bolters work? I mean if they explode to any appreciable degree the bullets must be huge. This means less ammo per clip, which means marines run out of ammo quickly. Which would make cc more tactically viable.

Remember, ranged weapons require ammunition, and ammunition runs out. Also a lot of enemies in the future have much more refined armors made from advanced alloys that cover the entire body. While I have no answer as to why a melee weapon would have more success penetrating such theoretically advanced armor, it's still something to consider.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 07:43
They can still be brought down by lasguns. And, IRL, the lasgun would fire like 30 rounds a minute, which means even the Space Marines armor would be toast.

Fluff wise, nope. They tend to just get ignored until their armor is breached by something else and they get shot through it.



But, there are so few Space Marines that they could probably be reliably targeted with anti-tank shells and such, meaning that they are really really toast, regardless of their fancy armor.

I doubt it, anti-tank weapons tend to fire by tank sized heat signatures or laser tracking, which isn't going to function the same on a space marine, especially one being as mobile as a man. Marines would be better defeated by utilizing weapons designed to drop light vehicles than anti-tank. Those tend to have higher rates of fire.


How do bolters work? I mean if they explode to any appreciable degree the bullets must be huge. This means less ammo per clip, which means marines run out of ammo quickly. Which would make cc more tactically viable.

Bolters are .75 caliber according to most sources, they fire exploding rounds that detonate a second after impact (which generally means after penetration). They supposedly carry 30 rounds in a standard bolter, they must be made of suspendeddisbeliefium or some such. Anyhow, thats why they're designed for quick strikes and quick withdrawls.



Remember, ranged weapons require ammunition, and ammunition runs out. Also a lot of enemies in the future have much more refined armors made from advanced alloys that cover the entire body. While I have no answer as to why a melee weapon would have more success penetrating such theoretically advanced armor, it's still something to consider.
Well simply put a melee weapon has alot of time to work on someone vs a bullet. A bullet flies until it hits something and it goes generally, where you aim it. A knife can be shoved in at angles a gun couldn't manage at range, IE right up under the armpit of a standing man.



Right, because they are usually depicted drop podding directly into combat, and not heroically charging into combat against enemy fire. :rolleyes:
Yes, they are. Take a peek at the space marines in the back of the Apocalypse rule book dropping right into the heart of a tyranid swarm (I think that suicidal, but they do).

mistformsquirrel
26-11-2007, 07:48
This whole "omg! teh space marinz are teh heros!" thing wouldn't pan out in the real world. Bigger dude just means bigger target.

And 40k is about as far removed from reality as we can get. So the point is kinda moot.

Vaktathi
26-11-2007, 07:52
Warhammer CC isn't realisitic at all in a real life context, but then not much in Warhammer 40,000 is.

Yes CC is ridiculous in the context of a far future war to the extent that it appears in WH40k (No army in the modern world has dedicated hand to hand fighting units). Close combat today happens as a result of close range firefights and confined spaces where rifles cannot be brought to bear efficiently and troops suddenly find themselves in that position, not axe waving fanatics or units of men leveling bayonets and charging at machine guns (that kinda quit working in 1914).

With satellite imaging and detection, radar, anti-aircraft artillery and missiles that can knock targets out of the sky dozens of miles away, rader & satellite guided artillery fire and counterbattery fire, tanks that can move up to 50 miles an hour and still hit a moving target they can't see thats miles away with an almost certain chance of killing it, Night vision equipment that allows soldiers and pilots to see in the night just as in the day if not better, aircraft and helicopters capable of knocking out entire armored columns and providing pinpoint ordnance delivery, bombs capable of hitting a bunker from 50,000 feet in the air and tunneling to detonate and kill anything inside them, all available today, I really don't see where even the Space Marines would stand against a modern western military, much less have something like Khorne Berserkers trying to kill everything with a chainaxe being anything resembling effective.

The kind of CC that 40k has just simply doesn't work in real life. But Warhammer 40,000 isn't so much a Sci-Fi setting as a High Fantasy universe with a scifi feel.

Trying to tie 40k to real life doesn't work. For instance, an Autocannon or Krak grenade may not be capable of breaching a Space Marines armor, but they would be fully capable of pulping every organ, smashing even a Space Marines skeletal structure, and bursting the circulatory system of said space marine inside his armor and leaving the Marine a broken and mashed lump. Likewise a Skimmer would probably be thrown through the air and terminally crash from near-miss heavy ordnance shot, or smashed into the ground from the velocity of the shell even from a hit that didn't breach the armor. A meltabomb will do just as much if not more damage to a skimmer than a non-skimmer (not just a "glancing" hit). A Chainsword would be in fact a terrible weapon, imagine it getting caught on an ammo belt of some poor Ork and the chain snapping back into the face of that poor IG sergeant. Tanks are in fact capable of firing their main weapons and secondary anti-infantry weapons simultaneously and at different targets. These reasons and many more is why comparing WH40k to real life doesn't work.

Without the close combat that 40k has it wouldn't be Warhammer 40,000. It's as simple as that, stop trying to think on how realistic it is.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 07:54
Five miles away you won't even see them with most weapon systems. Not every battle takes place in a nice grassy meadow. Theres smoke, dust, sun-glare, terrain, all that can prevent you from detecting them until they get up to you.

Radar detection, air and armored reconnaisance




This isn't old style warfare anymore, is it. We don't fight in massed blocks of men anymore. Battle today is much more organic and fluid. No one endevours close combat today because theres not tons of benefit to be gained from it. When were talking tyranids and Space marnies theres alot of benefit, when were talking orks, its because they like it.

The question is not really - is there benefit for Space Marines, the question is: Could they GET into close combat to begin with. I say no. They would be blasted or shot before they could even get close.

Tyranids would only be successful in close combat if they were literally swarming over an entire planet, which, legitimately in the fluff they often are.

Orks are dumb - they lose most of the time anyway. That is because they are stupid and often try to engage in close combat, when most of the times it just equates to them getting shot to pieces. They demonstrate this in 15 Hours.




I'm not being biased, in the tyranid fluff its generally the same thing over and over, tons of tyranids whittling down the guard and finally overwhelming them. Add in that a gaunt can match a guardsman in close combat it makes it even worse for them.

Actually, most of the Guardsmen vs. Tyranid fluff I have seen has been the Guardsmen using fortified strongpoints and round after round of lasgun fire to stop the Tyranids. Which makes sense.


All of which require *ammunition*. As soon as a group gets isolated and cut off by the masses you see in fluff they run dry fast. Add into this the inaccuracy present in normal human operation of weapons and the sheer numbers against them you put too much faith in them. They're certainly capable of killing alot, but its a drop in the pond compared to the numbers were talking about.

Yes, but when did we agree that the army in question was encircled? Any encircled army has a major issue to begin with.


Right, cause we love nukin' our own guys. If its come down to nukes its obvious that all the other modern weapons haven't done well enough.

Well, if millions of rounds of live ammunition can't stop them, then its better to use nukes and threaten our own soldiers than to give up to certain defeat.


Missiles from helicoptors hardly makes up the bulk of any armies firepower. Modern armies have relatively few aircraft despite what people think of there just being some sort of an endless stream. Even with all this there are still forces from modern armies being cut off and overwhelmed in a variety of situations with all these weapons.

The amount of firepower that Helicopters or Bombers could lay down on armies that engaged out in the open would be horrific. Its not the numbers that matter as much as the firepower.



Modern armor does exist to some degree that will. Were not even talking modern armor, were talking sci-fi armor. Hell, even US troops are complaining their rifles don't have the stopping power to reliably take down enemies now.

Yes, but we are also talking about the far distant future. You're saying that armor is going to advance to such a point that future weapons won't be able to penetrate it with ease. Highly unlikely.

Its not necessarily that close combat is HORRIBLY unrealistic WITHIN the 40k universe (although honestly it is to a certain extent), but if you EXTRAPOLATE current trends in warfare out 40,000 years, or even look at warfare today, close combat would likely not be a prominent feature.

That is why it is unrealistic.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 07:56
Yes, they are. Take a peek at the space marines in the back of the Apocalypse rule book dropping right into the heart of a tyranid swarm (I think that suicidal, but they do).

So one picture constitutes "usually"? Usually marines look like they are fighting a pitched battle from the Napoleonic era. Because that is 40k. Its unrealistic, but we love it that way.

stonehorse
26-11-2007, 08:00
The funnist thing about 40K is that a guy charging with 2 Swords can kill more than a guy armed with a semi-automatic rifle.

From what I know of modern warfare I can safely say it is just plain silly to try and compare the way battles are fought in 40K to how they work in real life.

Remember 40k is:

a) A game of abstracts.
b) Not Sci-fi, but rather Science Fantasy. Sure some elements are Sci-Fi, but the overall thrust of 40K is Fantasy in space.

Adept
26-11-2007, 08:10
And in real warfare those 7 feet tall monstrosities with gaudy colors and spikes would be shot down half a mile away from the place they are trying to attack.

What, when they're still in their drop pods?

And what are you proposing? That the concentration of anti-armour weaponry in a 'real life' force is sufficient enough to slow or stop a Marine advance in the few seconds you have between spotting them and them turning you into pink mist? Because your automatic rifles and machine guns aren't going to do squat...

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 08:15
What, when they're still in their drop pods?

No...the other 99% of campaign time when they AREN'T in their drop pods.

Flak and anti-aircraft guns will do just fine in destroying their drop pods.


And what are you proposing? That the concentration of anti-armour weaponry in a 'real life' force is sufficient enough to slow or stop a Marine advance in the few seconds you have between spotting them and them turning you into pink mist? Because your automatic rifles and machine guns aren't going to do squat...

Its established well enough that the equivalent of small arms and machine guns CAN hurt marines.

But...as I said, the only time actual hand to hand combat would likely be successful for the Marines would be if they could achieve complete tactical suprise, and deploy very very very quickly.

This is also assuming of course that the enemy commander is a complete ***** who doesn't know he is facing Space Marines and so hasn't brought along heavy weaponry such as Bazookas.

big squig
26-11-2007, 08:16
Honestly, what reason is there in holding space marines back and out of close firefights and combats? No handheld firepower is going to hurt them unless it can produce the heat of a star. In the fluff, the only handheld weapons that can hurt a marine are bolters (which are designed to pop power armor) meltas, and plasmas. armed with anything else and you might as well have a nerf gun.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 08:17
Radar detection, air and armored reconnaisance

Radar is blocked by terraiun, air is blocked by weather in some cases and in other cases ints simply intercepted. Armored reconaissance-Carnifex.




The question is not really - is there benefit for Space Marines, the question is: Could they GET into close combat to begin with. I say no. They would be blasted or shot before they could even get close.

Well your refusing to take into account where fighting takes place today. If people still get into close combat when trying to avoid it and with weapons that kill them easier than a space marine, you somehow find it impossible a soldier could kick down a door and find a space marine on the other side hiding out, doing recon, or something else?



Tyranids would only be successful in close combat if they were literally swarming over an entire planet, which, legitimately in the fluff they often are.

Bull, the entire forces of a planet are not going to be in one area. They simply need circumstances in their favor to reach it, whether by suprise and ambush, overwhelming numbers in a location, or unexpected meetings on the other side of a door.




Orks are dumb - they lose most of the time anyway. That is because they are stupid and often try to engage in close combat, when most of the times it just equates to them getting shot to pieces. They demonstrate this in 15 Hours.

In 15 hours they've been there for 10 years and the imperials with all their shooting still had not dislodged them. There are so many ork held worlds even on the door step of terra that disproves your statement. Hell, in 15 hours the very end was the orks practically overrunning all the Imperial positions.



Actually, most of the Guardsmen vs. Tyranid fluff I have seen has been the Guardsmen using fortified strongpoints and round after round of lasgun fire to stop the Tyranids. Which makes sense.

Which ends up with them being whittled down and annihilated. Case in point the fluff story in the Tyranid codex with Coyle and the imperial fortress being overrun after seige.



Yes, but when did we agree that the army in question was encircled? Any encircled army has a major issue to begin with.

Your misusing the word army. An army is a massive number of people. We don't fight with armies in 40k. We use anywhere from platoons to companies. (A head quarters and several platoons, platoons being a head quarters and several squads). Even the biggest games might only reach a regiment in size.

So your talking about squads or platoons being encircled and overrun. Hell it happened in Somalia.



Well, if millions of rounds of live ammunition can't stop them, then its better to use nukes and threaten our own soldiers than to give up to certain defeat.

We used millions of live rounds in the battle of the bulge, doesn't mean we should nuke them.



The amount of firepower that Helicopters or Bombers could lay down on armies that engaged out in the open would be horrific. Its not the numbers that matter as much as the firepower.

Of course the numbers matter. If you could lay waste to an armoured column of 10 tanks, with a plane, it would matter if they had 30 armored columns of 10 tanks each, not to mention air cover and ground based Ack ack.



Yes, but we are also talking about the far distant future. You're saying that armor is going to advance to such a point that future weapons won't be able to penetrate it with ease. Highly unlikely.

When your taking 40k vs modern guns, yes. We certainly have guns I'd believe are capable of penetrating that armor, but a 5.56 out of an M16 isn't one of them.



Its not necessarily that close combat is HORRIBLY unrealistic WITHIN the 40k universe (although honestly it is to a certain extent), but if you EXTRAPOLATE current trends in warfare out 40,000 years, or even look at warfare today, close combat would likely not be a prominent feature.

That is why it is unrealistic.
Thats a long jump of logic there. The current trend indicates combat will be increasingly based in cities and close quarters where close combat will be more prevalent than ever.


No...the other 99% of campaign time when they AREN'T in their drop pods.

Flak and anti-aircraft guns will do just fine in destroying their drop pods.

Believe it or not anti-aircraft guns do not cover 100% of the planets surface.



Its established well enough that the equivalent of small arms and machine guns CAN hurt marines.

The accounts of this are rare, and generally deal with previous damage to the marines armor from something bigger.



But...as I said, the only time actual hand to hand combat would likely be successful for the Marines would be if they could achieve complete tactical suprise, and deploy very very very quickly.

Uh, thats kind of what marines are all about.



This is also assuming of course that the enemy commander is a complete ***** who doesn't know he is facing Space Marines and so hasn't brought along heavy weaponry such as Bazookas.
Hah, bazooka, I haven't heard that in a long time. Its not as easy as you might think to shoot someone with a shoulder launched missile while hes running around. And considering its marines, probably running around in the dark after hes dropped out of the sky and taken you by suprise.


So one picture constitutes "usually"? Usually marines look like they are fighting a pitched battle from the Napoleonic era. Because that is 40k. Its unrealistic, but we love it that way.
Marines are described in fluff as dropping into or behind enemy lines. The picture simply supports that.

Your entire argument seems to be based on the assumption that regardless of any other circumstances there will always be the right weapons with enough ammo in the right places at all times to counter any threat if its in close combat, which is ridiculous.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 08:18
In the fluff, the only handheld weapons that can hurt a marine are bolters (which are designed to pop power armor) meltas, and plasmas. armed with anything else and you might as well have a nerf gun.

There are instances in the fluff of concentrated hails of lasgun fire bringing down, or at least critically wounding marines. Wasn't there some fluff story were a lasgun blast blew off some marine's head? :p

The_Outsider
26-11-2007, 08:18
Remember, 40K (even with abstracts taken into account) represents a different style of warefare to what we have today.

Things like berzerkers, mariens of any flavour, orks and tyranids are enarly (or are0 fearless - so running into gunfire doesn't phase them at all.

That within itself is demoralising to the other side, it can easily make a guardsmen reflect on the situation and be overcome with sock at how (for the sake of the example) orks run just to get cut down but they keep coming.

Marines work this by not dying and representing an unstoppable force that will not stop until your are crushed and broken.

big squig
26-11-2007, 08:18
A bazooka prolly could harm a marine...maybe even kill him. But after that one hit, you still have 9 or more coming your way. You better be able to reload really really fast, or be willing to arm everyone with bazookas.

big squig
26-11-2007, 08:20
There are instances in the fluff of concentrated hails of lasgun fire bringing down, or at least critically wounding marines. Wasn't there some fluff story were a lasgun blast blew off some marine's head? :p
If there was, it would be a one in a trillion shot. Not exactly something you base a strategy off of.
Honestly, lets play INQ. You can have 100 guardsmen with lasguns, and I'll take one marine with a bolter. I promise you, I will win.

Adept
26-11-2007, 08:21
The amount of firepower that Helicopters or Bombers could lay down on armies that engaged out in the open would be horrific. Its not the numbers that matter as much as the firepower.

And after anything even resembling an airfield has been obliterated from orbit?


You're saying that armor is going to advance to such a point that future weapons won't be able to penetrate it with ease. Highly unlikely.

Why so?

For thousands of years in our own history, the ranged weapon (javelin, bow, sling, musket, etc) lacked the range, power and rate of fire to penetrate armour to the extent that was required to make close combat an untenable option. Currently, we are unable to make armour that reliably resists the weapons we use today.

In 40,000 years, a lot has changed, and the balance of power has once again swung in favour of the armour.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 08:24
A bazooka prolly could harm a marine...maybe even kill him. But after that one hit, you still have 9 or more coming your way. You better be able to reload really really fast, or be willing to arm everyone with bazookas.

A bazooka is a WW2 reusable shoulder launcher. Please don't apply it to every shoulder launched missile or rocket system.

big squig
26-11-2007, 08:28
A bazooka is a WW2 reusable shoulder launcher. Please don't apply it to every shoulder launched missile or rocket system.
Ok. Still, one guy firing rockets isn't about to really stop a marine assault.

Adept
26-11-2007, 08:29
No...the other 99% of campaign time when they AREN'T in their drop pods.

:D

Marines deploy from space ships.

Space ships with orbital bombardment cannons.

Why would they ever not use drop pods?


Flak and anti-aircraft guns will do just fine in destroying their drop pods.

Hard to say. Certainly a threat that can't be discounted, but at the same time how much harder would it be to hit a drop pod than a plane? Could a flak gun or SAM take out a small meteorite?


Its established well enough that the equivalent of small arms and machine guns CAN hurt marines.

Sure. So could a well placed blow dart, or a luckily thrown pencil.

Can does not equate to can be counted on.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 08:31
Erm, perhaps i'm totally mistaken but flak guns operate by getting sucked into intakes as metal shrapnel more than anything else, which would mean you'd basically be shooting metal dust at a falling steel rock.

Adept
26-11-2007, 08:34
Erm, perhaps i'm totally mistaken but flak guns operate by getting sucked into intakes as metal shrapnel more than anything else, which would mean you'd basically be shooting metal dust at a falling steel rock.

Quite possibly. I have no idea how the things work.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 08:37
Radar is blocked by terraiun, air is blocked by weather in some cases and in other cases ints simply intercepted. Armored reconaissance-Carnifex.

Cut to the f'in point! You are just playing silly quote wars, trying to be pedantic. You phrase an argument one way, and then shift what we are talking about. So, you can come up with a couple of counter-examples. Sometimes strategies don't work - its doesn't invalidate them forever and for all time.

Generally, reconaissance in modern armies would be able to detect enemy concentrations. Just because you can point out one or two counterexamples when this system might occasionally fail doesn't prove ANYTHING about close combat being a viable way of warfare with modern weapons.



Bull, the entire forces of a planet are not going to be in one area. They simply need circumstances in their favor to reach it, whether by suprise and ambush, overwhelming numbers in a location, or unexpected meetings on the other side of a door.

These victories in rare circumstances would also be small scale victories. Somebody getting killed because he kicked down the wrong door doesn't vindicate an entire strategy.




In 15 hours they've been there for 10 years and the imperials with all their shooting still had not dislodged them. There are so many ork held worlds even on the door step of terra that disproves your statement. Hell, in 15 hours the very end was the orks practically overrunning all the Imperial positions.

Yes, but that is also because the Orks outnumbered them and got continual reinforcements.

The idea that the success of the Orks "disproves" that the Orks fight in a strategically ridiculous way is simply wrong. The Orks failed at Armageddon, they were constantly slaughtered by the Space Marines during the Great Crusade, etc etc.

Their success is mostly due to their unique biology and high breeding rate. They can be successful in combat, but it doesn't seem that they are except in situations where they outnumber their enemies significantly. Same can be said of the Imperial Guard.

Does the fact that the Imperium has a million worlds and is the most powerful force in the galaxy mean that they are the best at combat?


Which ends up with them being whittled down and annihilated. Case in point the fluff story in the Tyranid codex with Coyle and the imperial fortress being overrun after seige.

Anecdotal evidence does not an argument make.

There are plenty of examples of Imperial Guard armies triumphing over the Tyranids - the Cain novels, the picture of the Mordian armies and Cadian armies in the Guard codex, the Last Chancers Novels, etc etc etc

And when they do win, they win because the Tyranids use close combat styles that allow the Guard to sit back and blast them to bits.



Your misusing the word army. An army is a massive number of people. We don't fight with armies in 40k. We use anywhere from platoons to companies. (A head quarters and several platoons, platoons being a head quarters and several squads). Even the biggest games might only reach a regiment in size.

I'm well aware of what an army means, thank you.


So your talking about squads or platoons being encircled and overrun. Hell it happened in Somalia.

What does this have ANYTHING to do with the argument we are making here though? This is just drifting off into silly pedantic quote wars.


We used millions of live rounds in the battle of the bulge, doesn't mean we should nuke them.

What? First of all we did not possess nuclear weapons, second of all, the USA is NOT the Imperium, and third of all, the Battle of the Bulge was not a situation where an entire world was under threat of destruction.

Had the USA possessed integrated Tactical Nuclear Weapons in their army at the time of the Battle of the Bulge, and they felt sufficiently strategically threatened,



Of course the numbers matter. If you could lay waste to an armoured column of 10 tanks, with a plane, it would matter if they had 30 armored columns of 10 tanks each, not to mention air cover and ground based Ack ack.

The amount of damage that Ground Support aircraft could do against unthinking sacrificial enemies like the Nids or Orks would be horrendous. If used in concert with a high concentration of armor and machine guns, it would be very very deadly.


Thats a long jump of logic there. The current trend indicates combat will be increasingly based in cities and close quarters where close combat will be more prevalent than ever.

Somehow I honestly don't think that will mean soldiers going into combat with laser swords or axes.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 08:41
In 40,000 years, a lot has changed, and the balance of power has once again swung in favour of the armour.

Thats hardly possible when there are things like Nuclear weapons and high explosives running around.


Sure. So could a well placed blow dart, or a luckily thrown pencil.

Can does not equate to can be counted on.

When the Space Marines would be outnumbered hundreds to one, I wouldn't favor their chances.



Marines deploy from space ships.

Space ships with orbital bombardment cannons.

Why would they ever not use drop pods?

Because they have already been deployed. You know, situations where they can't end global wars in a five second fist fight.

TheMartyr451
26-11-2007, 08:42
They wouldn't be that scary when you can shoot them from 5 miles away.

Not all battles are fought in wide open spaces. Urban combat being a prime example of close combat warfare (not necessarily hand-to-hand, but it's often too close for comfort)

chromedog
26-11-2007, 08:42
I think it's because one of the 'influences' for 40k was DUNE. OK, so it's only set 8000 odd years into the future (assuming they were still using the christian calendar). Wouldn't 'imperial calendar' use a year 1 for the birth of the Emperor - if he was born 5000bce, then that makes the 'real' 41st millenium only the 36th.
CC was important there because the higher tech weapons were pretty much nullified by personal shields (you aren't going to use them (lasguns) if the enemy have shields, since you pretty much destroyed both of you in the resulting explosion and slugthrower rounds were stopped by the shield.
Only the slow moving attack gets through. Hence why it was more used there.

It was conceived of as a cool future wargame. I really don't think two guys with no real combat experience really thought that anyone would be digging to far into the reality of it - they should have known better, I mean, look at the trekkies (or tolkienites).

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 08:44
I think it's because one of the 'influences' for 40k was DUNE. OK, so it's only set 8000 odd years into the future (assuming they were still using the christian calendar). Wouldn't 'imperial calendar' use a year 1 for the birth of the Emperor - if he was born 5000bce, then that makes the 'real' 41st millenium only the 36th.
CC was important there because the higher tech weapons were pretty much nullified by personal shields (you aren't going to use them (lasguns) if the enemy have shields, since you pretty much destroyed both of you in the resulting explosion and slugthrower rounds were stopped by the shield.
Only the slow moving attack gets through. Hence why it was more used there.

This is one of the real reasons here- ultimately Dune influenced WH40K more than any other single source, and it featured close combat warfare between gigantic armies.

As to your question on the Imperial Calendar, the Emperor was born in 8000 B.C., and no, the Imperial calendar is not dated from his birth. Their 40,000 is our 40,000.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 08:50
Cut to the f'in point! You are just playing silly quote wars, trying to be pedantic. You phrase an argument one way, and then shift what we are talking about. So, you can come up with a couple of counter-examples. Sometimes strategies don't work - its doesn't invalidate them forever and for all time.

Then why do you bring them up as if they negate suprise and close combat all. You basically argued against yourself for me.



Generally, reconaissance in modern armies would be able to detect enemy concentrations. Just because you can point out one or two counterexamples when this system might occasionally fail doesn't prove ANYTHING about close combat being a viable way of warfare with modern weapons.

It proves that modern systems aren't a hundred percent reliable and considering the way forces in 40k work that operate in close combat they could be subverted or otherwise pointless. IE detecting a group out of billions of tyranids.




These victories in rare circumstances would also be small scale victories. Somebody getting killed because he kicked down the wrong door doesn't vindicate an entire strategy.

It negates the idea you've been claiming that close combat doesn't work in close combat because of infinite weapon superiority. If space marines were going house to house clearing, close combat would be a good way of doing it for them against most of what they fight.




Yes, but that is also because the Orks outnumbered them and got continual reinforcements.

The idea that the success of the Orks "disproves" that the Orks fight in a strategically ridiculous way is simply wrong. The Orks failed at Armageddon, they were constantly slaughtered by the Space Marines during the Great Crusade, etc etc.

Uh, the orks are still in fluff, at armageddon and the world hangs barely in the balance. Armageddon was nearly crippled with the third war thanks to ghazgkhulls tactics.



Their success is mostly due to their unique biology and high breeding rate. They can be successful in combat, but it doesn't seem that they are except in situations where they outnumber their enemies significantly. Same can be said of the Imperial Guard.

Right, because ghazghkhull probing the imperiums defenses, turning von-straub traitor, developed teleportation arrays and massive submersibles is becuase they just crap them out as part of biology. Your standard ork boy isn't necessarily that smart, but a warboss is.



Does the fact that the Imperium has a million worlds and is the most powerful force in the galaxy mean that they are the best at combat?

Obviously they wouldn't have gotten where they were if they weren't. Victory doesn't require an explanation of how it came about. If they cease being the best they will fall. And right now, the imperium is falling.



Anecdotal evidence does not an argument make.

Yes, because events occuring that agree with a particular side of an argument isn't proof of any sort. Its not a story from a friend of a friend, its straight out of the codex. Its further proven by the march of hive fleet leviathan almost into Ultima Segmentum from Tempestus.



There are plenty of examples of Imperial Guard armies triumphing over the Tyranids - the Cain novels, the picture of the Mordian armies and Cadian armies in the Guard codex, the Last Chancers Novels, etc etc etc

And when they do win, they win because the Tyranids use close combat styles that allow the Guard to sit back and blast them to bits.

I never claimed close combat was infallible, merely that it can be successful, even against modern firepower. Behemoth smashed its way all the way to Ultramar, Leviathan is nearly into Ultima Segmentum and a hop from Terra.



I'm well aware of what an army means, thank you.

Then quite misuing it because it means very different things when your talking about a game of 40k and a battlefield scenario in reality.



What does this have ANYTHING to do with the argument we are making here though? This is just drifting off into silly pedantic quote wars.

I didn't expect to have to spell it out for you. It means, that contrary to your previous assertions, superior firepower does not necessarily mean you can't still be overrun.



What? First of all we did not possess nuclear weapons, second of all, the USA is NOT the Imperium, and third of all, the Battle of the Bulge was not a situation where an entire world was under threat of destruction.

The point is that using millions of rounds of ammunition is not a go ahead for nuclear strikes.



Had the USA possessed integrated Tactical Nuclear Weapons in their army at the time of the Battle of the Bulge, and they felt sufficiently strategically threatened,

The battle of the bulge was winnable (obviously) without nuclear weapons. Many battles are winnable without them, even those with millions upon millions of rounds being expended.



The amount of damage that Ground Support aircraft could do against unthinking sacrificial enemies like the Nids or Orks would be horrendous. If used in concert with a high concentration of

Until anti-air cut them down, they ran out of fuel, or they weapons. Were not talking a thousand orks, were talking a billion.



Somehow I honestly don't think that will mean soldiers going into combat with laser swords or axes.
You'll probably see a strong trend toward armor piercing hand guns and close combat weapons in the future as we get into more enclosed areas and against better armor.


Thats hardly possible when there are things like Nuclear weapons and high explosives running around.

Bull, the armor is just good enough to resist it. Your argument or incredulity is baseless. They said the same thing about body armor at the advent of guns, yet today we have armor that can stop bullets. Not everyones packing a nuclear warhead or high explosives of quantity to work against it anyhow.



When the Space Marines would be outnumbered hundreds to one, I wouldn't favor their chances.

Depends where they are. The general ratio is about 10-1, it can increase or decrease depending on weapons and where they are.



Because they have already been deployed. You know, situations where they can't end global wars in a five second fist fight.
Thats what teleportation and orbital transport is for. Go back up and go at it again somewhere else. They can redeploy.

Adept
26-11-2007, 08:52
Thats hardly possible when there are things like Nuclear weapons and high explosives running around.

Don't be silly.

There are always weapons capable of penetrating even the hardest armour.

A medieval knight may have been immune to nearly everything on the battle field, but a rock hurled from a trebuchet would still crack him like a nut.

And while you may have nukes and uber high explosives in the 41st millennium, they are like the trebuchet of the middle ages: rare, hard to construct, difficult to replace, and reserved for special occasions. A Marine force drop podding into an enemy held objective can count on not running into a nuke, or other high explosive.


When the Space Marines would be outnumbered hundreds to one, I wouldn't favor their chances.

I would. I'd bank that the enemies would break and run well before any fluke penetrations of their power armour added up to significant casualties.


Because they have already been deployed.

And then, if required, extracted via thunderhawk or teleporter. Another objective needs to be hit immediately? Drop another Marine company on it. Can't hit it in time? Blast it off the face of the planet via orbital bombardment. Marines aren't ever going to have to walk (or drive) five miles across the surface of the planet.

12gaugeDPG
26-11-2007, 09:02
Have to say guys, trying to compare REAL-LIFE to a table top game set in the year 40,000 (or so) is utterly ridiculous. If you want realism play a different game, this is SCIENCE FICTION and therefore no comparison between this and real life can be drawn.

Honestly, talking about realism when we play with little toy soldiers....

This game (game- not simulation) involves spaceships, aliens, laser guns, power armour, genetically engineered superwarriors, plasma guns, daemons etc etc- whats realisitic about that lot? How can a set of rules to govern the interaction between power armour and microwave weapons ever hope to have even a modicum of reality?

Just my thoughts, not wanting to offend anybody...

big squig
26-11-2007, 09:04
Yeah, but were nerds. We get off talking about this kinda stuff. It's just for fun.

Darnok
26-11-2007, 09:06
Does this really turn into another "why real world weapons would smash Marines/aliens/40K in general"-thread? You are not really into comparing reality and fantasy/sci-fi to the end, are you? :eyebrows:

azimaith
26-11-2007, 09:07
Were arguing against the claim that modern weapon systems would render close combat (or close combat oriented fighting) useless regardless of any other circumstances which was claimed earlier.

KwisatchHaderach
26-11-2007, 09:13
Then why do you bring them up as if they negate suprise and close combat all. You basically argued against yourself for me.

No, I didn't. The vast majority of the time, modern army's surveillance or reconaissance equipment will work. In a few circumstances here and there they may be faulty, but, everything can be faulty.



It proves that modern systems aren't a hundred percent reliable and considering the way forces in 40k work that operate in close combat they could be subverted or otherwise pointless. IE detecting a group out of billions of tyranids.

First of all, it doesn't prove anything. Its an anecdotal assumption.

Second of all, nothing can ever be 100% certain, but that doesn't mean a general trend can't be discerned. One (imagined) failure doesn't negate the supremacy of modern warfare.




It negates the idea you've been claiming that close combat doesn't work in close combat because of infinite weapon superiority. If space marines were going house to house clearing, close combat would be a good way of doing it for them against most of what they fight.

Yes, in that situation good close combat skills would be beneficial. But so would shotguns or automatic rifles.

The point is - battles in the real world that are house to house affairs are still usually fought with grenades or pistols or rifles.

That is all well and good, but that is not equivalent to the type of close combat you see in WH40K.




Uh, the orks are still in fluff, at armageddon and the world hangs barely in the balance. Armageddon was nearly crippled with the third war thanks to ghazgkhulls tactics.

No, the Orks lost at Armageddon. The battle is winding down, Ghazgkull left.



Right, because ghazghkhull probing the imperiums defenses, turning von-straub traitor, developed teleportation arrays and massive submersibles is becuase they just crap them out as part of biology. Your standard ork boy isn't necessarily that smart, but a warboss is.

What is your point? The level of Ork intelligence outside of battle hardly negates the fact that their style of combat is foolish and suboptimal.


Obviously they wouldn't have gotten where they were if they weren't. Victory doesn't require an explanation of how it came about. If they cease being the best they will fall. And right now, the imperium is falling.

Not really. The Imperium is an empire of a million worlds. A few tough battles on a few planets means little when set against that sort of epic arena. The Imperium wins and loses all the time, and has for 10,000 years.



Yes, because events occuring that agree with a particular side of an argument isn't proof of any sort. Its not a story from a friend of a friend, its straight out of the codex. Its further proven by the march of hive fleet leviathan almost into Ultima Segmentum from Tempestus.

No, its not, its not proven at all by that.



I never claimed close combat was infallible, merely that it can be successful, even against modern firepower. Behemoth smashed its way all the way to Ultramar, Leviathan is nearly into Ultima Segmentum and a hop from Terra.

Its a function more of their supremacy in numbers than any superiority in their tactics.




I didn't expect to have to spell it out for you. It means, that contrary to your previous assertions, superior firepower does not necessarily mean you can't still be overrun.

Yes, but the flaw in your argument is that you are gravely imbalancing the various sides, and it doesn't support your argument whatsoever, despite how badly you clearly want it to.

If ALL circumstances are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY in favor of the side which uses close combat, then yes, with very very high casualties the close combat side can win.

Military strategy is usually formulated around what is EFFICIENT, not necessarily what works in extreme circumstances. You COULD train an army to fight in close combat, but what is the point? Unless they get one of these one in a million scenarios, then their skills will be useless.


The point is that using millions of rounds of ammunition is not a go ahead for nuclear strikes.

Words can't express how meaningless what you just said is. You seem to feel as though you are "nailing" me on something, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is.

The use of nuclear weapons in the case of a Tyranid invasion would be contingent, probably, on not being able to overcome the invasion via normal means.



The battle of the bulge was winnable (obviously) without nuclear weapons. Many battles are winnable without them, even those with millions upon millions of rounds being expended.

You keep talking to yourself there crazy man.


Until anti-air cut them down, they ran out of fuel, or they weapons. Were not talking a thousand orks, were talking a billion.

Yes, but this is the Ork army that is solely using close combat tactics. If they only have close combat weapons they can't take down the airplanes.


You'll probably see a strong trend toward armor piercing hand guns and close combat weapons in the future as we get into more enclosed areas and against better armor.

Its a fallacy to say that combat is going to become more and more centered around city battles - that is just the circumstance that has arisen from recent politics.

It could very well be that we have open warfare again, like World War II. The reason warfare has changed has been because of the scale of wars fought, not because we simply "don't fight open wars anymore."


Bull, the armor is just good enough to resist it. Your argument or incredulity is baseless. They said the same thing about body armor at the advent of guns, yet today we have armor that can stop bullets. Not everyones packing a nuclear warhead or high explosives of quantity to work against it anyhow.

Armor is not good enough to stop nuclear weapons. Armor is not good enough to stop high explosives. The only way you can avoid dying to something like that is NOT being where it is.




Thats what teleportation and orbital transport is for. Go back up and go at it again somewhere else. They can redeploy.

That would be pretty damn costly - why would they do that when the army can use mech transports or something?


Anyway, I am tired of quote wars. Peace out.

Vanger
26-11-2007, 09:26
Interesting read.

It can be reasoned, that the technology and procedures have devolved compared to our current day technology, but they live in a constant warfare and are made to wage war.
In all honesty, I can't think of any reason, why a Space Marine, or even the World Eaters wouldn't use orbital bombardements, precision strikes and whatnot to disable/criple the enemys AA capabilities, key facilities and emplacements before planetfall. The SM usually (according to fluff) drop in for the final blow. Or the first cripling blow, when the enemy is unprepared. (It is not very common for SMs to serve in prolonged military campaigns like the 3rd War for Armageddon.
And remember, not only our side as big long range guns, but so do have the (Chaos) Space Marines/Orkz/Tyranids.
And the bugs infiltrate/defile the entire planet where first vanguard organisms (Genestealers) do the dirty work in crippling the enemy.

R Man
26-11-2007, 09:42
No, I didn't. The vast majority of the time, modern army's surveillance or reconaissance equipment will work. In a few circumstances here and there they may be faulty, but, everything can be faulty.

You are presuming that the Space Marines have no way to jam it. And most of our modern reconaissance is dependent on satalites which would be the first things to be knocked out in a war. And you also have to be looking in the right place.


Yes, in that situation good close combat skills would be beneficial. But so would shotguns or automatic rifles.
The point is - battles in the real world that are house to house affairs are still usually fought with grenades or pistols or rifles.
That is all well and good, but that is not equivalent to the type of close combat you see in WH40K.

Actually the Rulebook does give a close range fire fight as an example of close combat. However shotguns and grenades work via fragmentation, which cause damage over large areas though the fragments. Each fragment is fairly weak and is unlikely to penetrate armour.


The use of nuclear weapons in the case of a Tyranid invasion would be contingent, probably, on not being able to overcome the invasion via normal means.

The Imperium does use heavy nuclear type weapons. But only when they have no other choice. If they have the men to fight the battle on the ground they usually will as they realise once they nuke a planet it's not going to be very useful for a while.


What is your point? The level of Ork intelligence outside of battle hardly negates the fact that their style of combat is foolish and suboptimal.

Do you suggest the orks try to shoot back? With BS 2? Orks do use covering fie anyway eg: Flashgitz, Shootaboyz.


Its a fallacy to say that combat is going to become more and more centered around city battles - that is just the circumstance that has arisen from recent politics.

Actually many poorer nations can only fight battles in places with dense terrain such as Urban settings (Iraq) or Jungles (Vietnam). The key here is that in dense terrain reconnaisance, aircraft and armour are weaker than in the open, reducing their effect and making the wars more infantry on infantry.


Armor is not good enough to stop nuclear weapons. Armor is not good enough to stop high explosives. The only way you can avoid dying to something like that is NOT being where it is.

Of course it's not going to stop high explosions. But it can stop bullets, which is the point.

You have to rember that being a soldier in a war is not like Call of Duty. The vast amount of shot fired miss. Soldiers are affected by what is going on around them and will not always have a cool calm shot like a gamer will. I think something like 5000 bullets are expended for every casualty (NB: Suspect statistic)

You are also ignoring jump troops that can drop right into the ranks of soldiers from above while they are pinned down by supporting troops. And orks have been known to teleport troops straight into enemy postions as Marines/Chaos forces do with Terminators.

Darnok
26-11-2007, 10:02
Were arguing against the claim that modern weapon systems would render close combat (or close combat oriented fighting) useless regardless of any other circumstances which was claimed earlier.

Given the fact, that the discussion is about a fantasy setting in the far future, the only source you can base your arguments on would be the available background. From this observation it is only one little step further to look into an arbitrary Codex and check: "well, they have a lot of CC out there". Discussion finished.

There is no point in comparing our technology from today with whatever one might think is or is not possible in 40K. You won't ever find a common ground, because there is none.

PlasticFork
26-11-2007, 12:20
Space Marines = The 40k version of the Medieval knight; a heavily armoured shock troop with armour nearly impenetrable against small arms fire (muskets were ineffective against plate armour until well into the 17th C), galloping into battle in a... drop pod. The Space Marines use the sheer force of their strength and armour to smash the enemy - therefore it is reasonable that Space Marines would get into CC where they can bring this to bear.

In a way, a Space Marine is like a laser guided sledgehammer.

Imperial Guard = WW2-esque army set up. A good number of the pivotal battles in WW2 were fought in cities, in fact, it was one of the first times that cities became a battlefield of their own. Close quarters combat is rather prevalent as a result.

Tau = Probably the closest race to our own modern armies, with reasonable armour, things like chaff on the gunships, guided missiles etc etc . Why do they employ the Kroot? So they don't have to get their hands dirty.

Orks = The average Ork is bigger and stronger than a human. They may have some fearsome fire power, but the only army that they can really out-shoot are Tyranids. When you have an innumerable number of bodies at your disposal, negating the enemy the advantage of superior firepower by engaging in CC seems to be a sensible option.

Tyranids = Much the same as Orks... Casualties aren't important when you can fill an entire world with slavering beasties.

Dark Eldar = Live to take slaves - rather difficult to do unless you're up close and personal. Very fragile, but appear with a similar tactic to Space Marines, by emerging through the webway. I've never read any fluff involving DE in a pitched battle.

As for Nukes... I don't think the Ultramarines would have been particularly keen about having their homeworld nuked.

General MacArthur requested the use of fifty hydrogen bombs in the Korean War. By your logic, during the Chinese-supported counter offensive there would have been plenty of good situations to employ them then. I wonder why they didn't - probably for the same reason why the Imperium won't.

The Imperium will defend planets for a reason. A dead, radioactive/seismically unstable/contaminated world is no use to anybody, unless you're a Necron, Chaos, or Tyranid, and want everything dead in the first place.

The 40k universe is racked by war. If over 10,000 years of conflict since the Great Crusade, the Imperium had nuked every single planet that they could not effectively defend, then I'm sure a million or a billion worlds would start to dwindle.

Ultimately, am I correct in thinking that the only individuals with the authority to order nukes.. Exterminatus, are Inquisitors?

Skyweir
26-11-2007, 12:23
No, I didn't. The vast majority of the time, modern army's surveillance or reconaissance equipment will work. In a few circumstances here and there they may be faulty, but, everything can be faulty.




First of all, it doesn't prove anything. Its an anecdotal assumption.

Second of all, nothing can ever be 100% certain, but that doesn't mean a general trend can't be discerned. One (imagined) failure doesn't negate the supremacy of modern warfare.





Yes, in that situation good close combat skills would be beneficial. But so would shotguns or automatic rifles.

The point is - battles in the real world that are house to house affairs are still usually fought with grenades or pistols or rifles.

That is all well and good, but that is not equivalent to the type of close combat you see in WH40K.





No, the Orks lost at Armageddon. The battle is winding down, Ghazgkull left.




What is your point? The level of Ork intelligence outside of battle hardly negates the fact that their style of combat is foolish and suboptimal.



Not really. The Imperium is an empire of a million worlds. A few tough battles on a few planets means little when set against that sort of epic arena. The Imperium wins and loses all the time, and has for 10,000 years.




No, its not, its not proven at all by that.




Its a function more of their supremacy in numbers than any superiority in their tactics.





Yes, but the flaw in your argument is that you are gravely imbalancing the various sides, and it doesn't support your argument whatsoever, despite how badly you clearly want it to.

If ALL circumstances are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY in favor of the side which uses close combat, then yes, with very very high casualties the close combat side can win.

Military strategy is usually formulated around what is EFFICIENT, not necessarily what works in extreme circumstances. You COULD train an army to fight in close combat, but what is the point? Unless they get one of these one in a million scenarios, then their skills will be useless.



Words can't express how meaningless what you just said is. You seem to feel as though you are "nailing" me on something, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is.

The use of nuclear weapons in the case of a Tyranid invasion would be contingent, probably, on not being able to overcome the invasion via normal means.




You keep talking to yourself there crazy man.



Yes, but this is the Ork army that is solely using close combat tactics. If they only have close combat weapons they can't take down the airplanes.



Its a fallacy to say that combat is going to become more and more centered around city battles - that is just the circumstance that has arisen from recent politics.

It could very well be that we have open warfare again, like World War II. The reason warfare has changed has been because of the scale of wars fought, not because we simply "don't fight open wars anymore."



Armor is not good enough to stop nuclear weapons. Armor is not good enough to stop high explosives. The only way you can avoid dying to something like that is NOT being where it is.





That would be pretty damn costly - why would they do that when the army can use mech transports or something?


Anyway, I am tired of quote wars. Peace out.

I find it very strange that a person with your nick would be so ignorant to the possibility that defensive power can and will outstrip offensive power in war at some point.
In Dune, personal shields makes ranged weapons and nuclear power largely useless, which means that close combat is again important.
So it is in Warhammer 40k. A space marine is basiclly superman with heavy armour, he can take a grendade to the chest and not be more than bruised. Terminators can survive having a Titan thread on them. Defences has outstripped offence.
Space Marines, Orks and especially tyranids lack vital organs. As such, they can cannot be stopped relibaly by a fast projectile which is what our armies are equipped with now.
Punching a whole in a space marine lung is mearly an inconvenience, shooting a homragaunt in the head is not lethal. Which leaves the options of cutting them to pieces or blowing them up, which is what we mostly do in the game of 40k.

On the subject of tactial nukes, I want to add that what many fail to realize is that the largest effect of a nuke is the radiation and the fallout. Power armour is, for the best of my knowledge, radiation proof, and I would hazard a guess that the tyranids unique immune system makes the virtually immune to it as well.
Seeing that such weapons are not very effective in warfare against many opponents, and is likely to have a much deadlier effect on the Imperial Guard than anyone else, I would think that it has lost favour within the Imperium. Either you kill them all up close and personal, or you use Exterminatus and is done with it

Weezeh
26-11-2007, 15:04
Regardless of how far in the future we look, the army with superior firepower will attempt to engage the enemy where optimum killing zones are available whilst those with superior numbers (and/or weaker firepower) will attempt to engage the enemy through stealth and subterfuge, thereby maximising the likelihood of negating the enemies advantage.

PlasticFork
26-11-2007, 15:21
Regardless of how far in the future we look, the army with superior firepower will attempt to engage the enemy where optimum killing zones are available whilst those with superior numbers (and/or weaker firepower) will attempt to engage the enemy through stealth and subterfuge, thereby maximising the likelihood of negating the enemies advantage.

You've kind of summarised what I was trying to say... though I think that it's those with superior numbers ('Nids and Orks - they don't do subtle really, do they?) who try to overwhelm, their enemy, and those with inferior armour such as the Eldars, attempt stealth.

Weezeh
26-11-2007, 15:48
Indeed, those with superior numbers will try to overwhelm the enemy, but they wouldn't do it whilst trying to close the gap over a 5 mile pasture or desert, which is what some people are trying to imply ;)

TheOverlord
26-11-2007, 15:53
Don't space marines fight the same way as the normal infantry man fight these days? As in, mobility and an incredible amount of firepower? They charge into close combat is normally down to a few reasons, objective securing, enemy whose physiology is bred for it charges into them, being so much larger than they are and armored in the toughest armor known to man, and the ability to crump human bones and flesh like paper bags filled with water, what have you.

Marines, played properly, should be played the same way the American Marine corps fight now, optimum fire zones and good use of cover to lay down prodigious amounts of firepower from. The few Marine chapters that use close combat effectively really just weather the storm and charges into close combat (and/or are crazy). Considering that the automatic weaponry we have now more or less equates into the lasgun or autogun of the future means that we can barely wound the large honking b**tards while they sprint at you bounding across whole yards in seconds whilst your anti-armor bullets bounce useless off the ceramite plates, maybe taking down a few on the way, till those 8 feet tall angels of death rain blows to your heads that could smash down concrete walls with ease. Plus marines normally send down whole companies, meaning 100 marines, to a single objective at a time. They could easily wipe out whole battalions with the proper timing and precision strikes astartes are utterly famous for :P

Not to mention those large honking b**tards are laying down bolter fire at the same time whilst moving forward.

And we don't use nukes. Cause, you know, we're sensitive that way. And we don't exactly want to use it in the general vicinity of our own troops. Bad for morale. 40k though... they just don't care. Another million worlds where that came from, boys.

But this is derailing from the OP's topic. I just think that without close combat, 40k would be a far more prosaic place to be. It's a game about toy soldiers in a grim future where chainswords and powerfists exists. I mean, there's no point creating such iconic weapons and NOT use them, right?

Pokpoko
26-11-2007, 16:58
Hard to say. Certainly a threat that can't be discounted, but at the same time how much harder would it be to hit a drop pod than a plane?you mean a huge chunk of metal falling in a direct or semi-direct path, glowing with radio and electronic chatter like a christmas tree would be harder to hit than a manouvering plane deploying dedicated anti-missile defenses like chaff and such? especially when,due to lack of any organic air-support save the huge,slow coffins that someone dubbed thunderhawks, they are the only hostile things in the air, and in numbers no greater than 10-20 at a time?(unless we'r talking abut entire chapter attacking,but then we'r also talking about nukes being used,friendly casualties or not). probably a single aegis-like system that the german army is preparing to deploy would take down the entire batch on final-approach,when they slow down.

. Plus marines normally send down whole companies, meaning 100 marines, to a single objective at a timethey usually send this number for an entire campaign unless it's Armageddon or cadia.we'r talking 20-30 SM at any single objective probably.

but this is all besides the point. 40k is a pure abstract, it's as detached from reality as a long-time crack addict. close combat weapons are daaark and griim, so they are obviously the spotlight of the game. it's like the rash of skulls on any model save tau and tyranids-they are there to show how grim the setting is, and supbetlty be damned:angel:

MuttMan
26-11-2007, 17:33
With all the stealth fields, Radar absorbing material(RAM), Pulse dampeners(sound deprivision), and soldiers that can leap 15 feet without a running start I would say hand to hand is common.

With lions as an example how CLOSE melee can come (without armor and 3 people shooting at it!) Here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x_yTNo36YOs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ohvxdbtHALA&feature=related
I hope this explains why 5 inch armored marines that weight several tons can get close.

Adept
26-11-2007, 17:35
you mean a huge chunk of metal falling in a direct or semi-direct path, glowing with radio and electronic chatter like a christmas tree would be harder to hit than a manouvering plane deploying dedicated anti-missile defenses like chaff and such?

I honestly don't know.

Would a SAM be able to accurately target a small meteor? I think it's safe to assume that drop pods would be shielded to prevent radio, electronic or radioactive transmissions. So drop pods would present an identical target profile to any other inert item entering the atmosphere.


probably a single aegis-like system that the german army is preparing to deploy would take down the entire batch on final-approach,when they slow down.

I'm unfamiliar with the Aegis system.

I imagine that drop pods would only decelerate to around 100-150 kph. They would be built to withstand the impact, and a Marine could certainly survive it.

Deadnight
26-11-2007, 17:52
on shooting marines... bolters kill 'em well enough. the standard guard heavy weapon is a heavy bolter... and on taros, when the raptors squad were charging the orbital silo, wasn't there one gun crew with an autocannon that killed on on the way in, and crippled 4 more. thats 50% casualties...

i dunno. marines are far from invincible. that said, if 30 terminators deep strike into the command bunker of a rebel IG commander, i'm sure they'll cause some havok!

on orks and nids...

think starship troopers. see them soldiers? them be PDF for the most part. with autoguns. them bugs be standard nid warriors and genestealers. one shot doesnt generally kill 'em. you need hundreds. and then some more to be sure. and thats for one bug. bugs generally outnumber humans in ST by a few hundred to 1. its even worse in 40k. you are talking about a sky turned black with gargoyles, every inch of the ground covered with gaunts. heck, the GW website has a story where 160k guardsmen die in less than a day to a nid assault. (it mentions 20 regiments or something...) even if im not remembering it right, it was a lot.

and orks. orks are born to fight. it takes a few years to train a good soldier. orks are born with the knowledge and ability to fight. and orks dont care. the term "green tide" applies for a reason. they're all but endless. and an m16 bullet wont kill an ork. heck, there are stories of orks getting arms lopped off, then holding it in place and it heals back. you need 'the whole 9 yards' from a heavy machine gun to put a dozen into the dirt. and im not even going into the worthlessness of small arms against them, then there is the fact 99% of shots miss etc...

hand to hand exists in 40k. stop thinking real world physics.

Bunnahabhain
26-11-2007, 18:06
40 k isn't realistic, we all know that.

If you want to create a more likley balance between close combat and ranged fire, then simply reduce all movement rates by 5/6, without changing anything else. If assualt troops want to get up close and personal, then they've better be using cover, or they'll be taking a dozen rounds of fire to get there.


In Edinburgh, a group of us are putting together a reasonably realistsic WW2 game, at 50m to the inch, and a couple of the people leading this are experinced infantryman.

In out system, infantry can move 300 meters on foot across standard ground in one turn, which is roughly thrirty seconds (just slower than an olympic sprinter!) This is set by the vehicle speeds, which are established form real data. Even with the infantry moving at this somewhat too fast speed, they cannot cover open ground and expect to live, unless there a huge number of them- ie a russian platoon of 60 men can charge down a german squad with machine gun in a building, but they will lose a couple of squads ( total of 20-40 men) in doing so.

Assualt is very simple. The squads(s) moving in to assualt can move up to 300m (6" in game), take a round of fire from the defenders at short range, then the assualt is resolved by both sides conducting a round of shooting at point blank range. It works. once you've covered the dead ground, then all that matters is numbers.

Pokpoko
26-11-2007, 18:32
Would a SAM be able to accurately target a small meteor?if sam is a heatseeking missile,then yes, even if you hide any electronic emission a large(small meteorites are fist-sized, drop pod is well,smaller than the tunguska meteorite,but still pretty damn big) metal object entering the atmosphere with powered flight would be brighter than anything short of nuclear explosion i'd risk saying.

I'm unfamiliar with the Aegis system.close-in defense system for US navy ships, radar-guided minigun used to intercept and destroy incoming missiles. germans(and probably other modern armies) are fielding/will be shortly a longer-ranged anti-aircraft version with more powerful 30mm autocannons.

Infallius_Daemonium
26-11-2007, 19:25
If 40K was realistic, I probably wouldn't like it so much. . .

On comparing our modern day weaponry to Marines, etc? That's plain silly. The difference in technology alone is insane, nothing really has a chance compared to any army in 40K. You might make a decent argument when it comes to ground based fighting, but remember that every army in the game has spaceships that can level targets on the ground, so really what we have means little.

In the case of CC though, look at it this way. A Space Marines can be killed by lasguns, yes I know some disagree but it has happend in the books so it can. However, when has a SPace Marine been beaten to death by a Guardsmen? That's why they use close combat.

jfrazell
26-11-2007, 19:30
So back MEQs out of the equation-they are an extreme fluff rarity to begin with. Why would anything else (nids exempted) go all CC on everything?

A guardsmen shooting a lasrifle will be better than charging with a glorified swiss army knife. Same for pretty much anything else (nids exempted as always although they are now quite shooty as well).

AgeOfEgos
26-11-2007, 19:35
Why even have CC in the far future where everyone has nukes?

http://www.nerf-herders-anonymous.net/images/ClancyBrown_StarshipTroopers_Zim.jpg

"The enemy can't press the button if you disable his hand! Medic!"

Keichi246
26-11-2007, 20:47
Me - I'm in the "There's too much Close combat" camp myself.

I think some people are vastly overestimating the survivability of Marines - but that is neither here nor there. (fluff evidence of various IG killing Space marines with lasguns is plentiful. Not EVERY portion of a space marine is amazing well armored - they have joints, eyepieces, etc)

I understand Close combat is supposed to be brutal and effective as a shock technique. It does have that "gothic" feel - making it part and parcel of the 40k-verse.

But shooting is supposed to be somewhat effective too. That's the 40k part of Warhammer 40k. They wouldn't give soldiers guns if they weren't supposed to be able to kill things with them...

The big problem (as far as I'm concerned) is simply the weapon ranges to movement speed ratio. Infantry (especailly "assault infantry") move *far* too fast - period.

I mean - really. Think about it - apparently MOST infantry can move from the edge of (or outside) pistol range into close combat without the pistol weilder EVER getting a shot off. Same thing with Guardian Shuriken catapults - a very high Rate of fire weapon. Or any guy with a flamer... etc.

Far too often - 40k is simply "who gets their charge off first". The way the game is set up and designed - assault is *the* preffered method of dealing with an enemy. Why not? You get 2 assault phases per shooting phase (once you get there), you are "safe" from enemy shooting in close combat AND you get free movement getting INTO assault...

They really *should* have charge reaction where the the defenders get to shoot the assaulters in the face on their way in. (look at how many charges failed in the American Civil War, for example) Sadly - it isn't ever going to happen - too many people would whine about the developers making the assualt phase weaker...

Ah well. I still play 40k - warts and all. I just think close combat is overdone in 40k...

marneus54
26-11-2007, 20:55
I run a close combat list. Litterally i have 10 guns in my nids army. 10 devourers on my gaunts. The rest is genestealers warriors and a carnifex with 2 sything talons. If you wanna complain about CC target me. OOOR you can just shoot me. If you don't like getting into CC get better guns to keep people like me away. And when/if I get there don't complain that I'm completely destroying you. Blame yourself for not having a good gunline.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 21:00
The problem with not getting shots off as they charge is a matter of the turn system, not close combat.

The issue with them not shooting on the way in is supposed to be the effect of the attackers shooting on the way in, and the entire turn is not supposed to be taken in sequence as literal. For example, enemies you kill in the last shooting phase could have occcured as they were barrelling into your lines background wise, its not like they go and say: "Hey its our turn to move now, so don't shoot!"

Grand Warlord
26-11-2007, 21:14
[Slightly off topic]

Could you imagine 40k battles IRL though?

Army A Private: Sir they re about to take the winning objective!

Army A Sgt: No, hold them for one more turn! ONE MORE TURN for a draw!

Army B: Ah jeez a draw.

Army A and B: See you next week.

[/Slightly off topic]

I think its cool, but I prefer firefights to getting into close combat ... 100 lasguns will still kill a marine lol

Keichi246
26-11-2007, 21:17
The problem with not getting shots off as they charge is a matter of the turn system, not close combat.

The issue with them not shooting on the way in is supposed to be the effect of the attackers shooting on the way in, and the entire turn is not supposed to be taken in sequence as literal. For example, enemies you kill in the last shooting phase could have occcured as they were barrelling into your lines background wise, its not like they go and say: "Hey its our turn to move now, so don't shoot!"

I would acccept your point - except let's return to the Guardian example I mentioned.

Shuriken Cataults are supposed to have a high rate of fire - correct? Why is it that most assault units can start outside their effective range - and then make it ALL the way through their range to fight in close combat? Without the Guardians EVER getting a shot form a weapon that by most descriptions - if they even touch the trigger hundreds of shuriken go downrange? The enemy unit HASN'T taken any wounds from guardians shooting on the way in...

Whereas a round of shooting at 1 inch would certainly make assaulting Guardians to be feared...

Same thing for a flamethrower - is it at ALL reasonable that you can run from outside maximum range of a flamethrower and whack me with a chainsaw in the time it takes for me to pull the trigger and wave the jellied gasoline all over you and your buddies? I'm certainly not going to be firing it when I am in close combat...

At least with a charge reaction - close range weaponry would actually be USED at close range most of the time... People might actually start using flamers instead of plasmaguns if they could defensively fire it at maniacs charging at them...

jfrazell
26-11-2007, 21:18
Under EPIC both sides firefight and HTH at the same time. Its much more realistic and effective obviating the advantages of the turn system to a great extent. It also, dare I say it, feels more right than the 40K version.

jfrazell
26-11-2007, 21:21
I would acccept your point - except let's return to the Guardian example I mentioned.

Shuriken Cataults are supposed to have a high rate of fire - correct? Why is it that most assault units can start outside their effective range - and then make it ALL the way through their range to fight in close combat? Without the Guardians EVER getting a shot form a weapon that by most descriptions - if they even touch the trigger hundreds of shuriken go downrange? The enemy unit HASN'T taken any wounds from guardians shooting on the way in...

Whereas a round of shooting at 1 inch would certainly make assaulting Guardians to be feared...

Same thing for a flamethrower - is it at ALL reasonable that you can run from outside maximum range of a flamethrower and whack me with a chainsaw in the time it takes for me to pull the trigger and wave the jellied gasoline all over you and your buddies? I'm certainly not going to be firing it when I am in close combat...

I think thats a brilliant example of his point. To be fair HTH options are generally substantially stronger than shooting options. For example, there is no short range P fist equivalent (meltas are one shot per turn weapons). Rarely are IC's geared for something other than HTH.

Emperor's Grace
26-11-2007, 21:43
The big problem (as far as I'm concerned) is simply the weapon ranges to movement speed ratio. Infantry (especailly "assault infantry") move *far* too fast - period.

I mean - really. Think about it - apparently MOST infantry can move from the edge of (or outside) pistol range into close combat without the pistol weilder EVER getting a shot off. Same thing with Guardian Shuriken catapults - a very high Rate of fire weapon. Or any guy with a flamer... etc.

Actually, I think this speaks to something left out of the last few pages.

The SM "killing machine" can cross open ground at like 60 mph (IIRC) at a run, faster on jet packs, I'd bet. Given that they know that they're bigger and better trained for CC, I'd say that would give them a reason to assault a gunline very directly.

As for "RL", think about the charge of the light brigade. 600 men unarmored and charging (on horseback) multiple cannon and rifle lines. They won.


On the subject of tactial nukes, I want to add that what many fail to realize is that the largest effect of a nuke is the radiation and the fallout.

Um, no... The largest effect at ground zero (for our unlucky soldier) is the explosion/shockwave and resultant firestorm. The radiation/fallout kill at the outer edges and for much longer but the core center is just vaporized.

azimaith
26-11-2007, 21:48
No, I didn't. The vast majority of the time, modern army's surveillance or reconaissance equipment will work. In a few circumstances here and there they may be faulty, but, everything can be faulty.

Which is why using proper techniques you can subvert or avoid them. And if they don't have to, they may simply have the numbers not to care.




First of all, it doesn't prove anything. Its an anecdotal assumption.

According to you any evidence based on previous happening is ignorable because its "anecdotal". Sorry, I guess WW2 didn't happen, after all *I* didn't see it, I only have anecdotes from other people about it! Give me a break.



Second of all, nothing can ever be 100% certain, but that doesn't mean a general trend can't be discerned. One (imagined) failure doesn't negate the supremacy of modern warfare.

The general trend in warfare is to avoid damage by avoiding detection, case in point, RADAR stealth. The style of warfare in 40k with most close combat races is simply to have enough bodies that detection is irrelevent.




Yes, in that situation good close combat skills would be beneficial. But so would shotguns or automatic rifles.

Even shotguns are difficult to use as you get very close up and can be totally negated should your opponent grapple you. Even close combat weapons are unwieldy at extremely close distances.



The point is - battles in the real world that are house to house affairs are still usually fought with grenades or pistols or rifles.

That is all well and good, but that is not equivalent to the type of close combat you see in WH40K.

Its fought that way because humans don't endevour to go hand to hand with one another. Replace the human with a hormagaunt and the majority of house to house fighting will be pistol and rifle vs claw and fang.



No, the Orks lost at Armageddon. The battle is winding down, Ghazgkull left.

The armageddon codex is at the beginning of the third war.



What is your point? The level of Ork intelligence outside of battle hardly negates the fact that their style of combat is foolish and suboptimal.

The ork method of combat is for enjoyment. Eating fattening but good tasting foods in the modern era is foolish and suboptimal for health, doesn't mean people won't do it. Orks fight that way because they want to and they have the numbers it doesn't make a big deal.



Not really. The Imperium is an empire of a million worlds. A few tough battles on a few planets means little when set against that sort of epic arena. The Imperium wins and loses all the time, and has for 10,000 years.

If the imperium is crushed by outside forces it indicates it was insufficiently capable of fighting them off, thus inferior to the forces arrayed against it. Its obvious despite all their firepower that hive fleet leviathan has cut its way through nearly the entirety of a segmentum. Its obvious despite imperial firepower that the Ork empire of octavius exists right on the door step of ultima segmentum. Its obvious CC is not backward in the realm of 40k.



No, its not, its not proven at all by that.

Oh right, because an army based mostly off of close combat obliterating its way through a quarter of the galaxy against foes based on shooting and high firepower doesn't prove close combat has a place in 40k.



Its a function more of their supremacy in numbers than any superiority in their tactics.

That is their tactic. Swamp them with bodies. After a certain point the enemy firepower becomes mostly irrelevent to the horde around it.



Yes, but the flaw in your argument is that you are gravely imbalancing the various sides, and it doesn't support your argument whatsoever, despite how badly you clearly want it to.

Of course the sides are imbalanced, are you mad? Its obvious an army focusing on close combat will suffer more casualties on the way in than an army entrenched and fighting back. Not only are the imperials the defenders with all their fortifications, but they fight primarily at range. No one has ever claimed that you'd somehow suffer less casualties because you ran screaming at them. Casualties are not the be all and end all of a war. Objectives are. If a billion tyranids expend a thousand gaunts to kill 100 guardsmen out of 1,000,000 they're breaking even already, even with those grossly inflated casualties. If it takes a million tyranid macrorganisms (as in gaunt or larger) to take a hill with a thousand guardsmen on it, but that hill is an ammo dump, the tyranids have accomplished their objective and denied the imperials vital supplies. Casualties to them are irrelevent in the case.



If ALL circumstances are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY in favor of the side which uses close combat, then yes, with very very high casualties the close combat side can win.

Thats rather obvious isn't it? If the circumstances are all in the favor of gunfire then they will win too. Suprise.



Military strategy is usually formulated around what is EFFICIENT, not necessarily what works in extreme circumstances.

Military strategy is based on what accomplishes objectives, efficient or not.



You COULD train an army to fight in close combat, but what is the point? Unless they get one of these one in a million scenarios, then their skills will be useless.

Thats why tyranids and orks are born with that bred in. And every modern army is trained to fight in close combat.



Words can't express how meaningless what you just said is. You seem to feel as though you are "nailing" me on something, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is.

Your arbitrary designation that a million rounds expended was a go ahead of nuclear strikes.



The use of nuclear weapons in the case of a Tyranid invasion would be contingent, probably, on not being able to overcome the invasion via normal means.

It would certainly take more than a million rounds before thats authorized.




You keep talking to yourself there crazy man.

Obviously if I disagree with you i'm crazy. Thats really well supported evidence there.



Yes, but this is the Ork army that is solely using close combat tactics. If they only have close combat weapons they can't take down the airplanes.

They can take airfields. Airplanes require places to land, whether its an airfield or a carrier, both are reachable by troops on foot. Airplanes do not magically regain fuel and ammunition.



Its a fallacy to say that combat is going to become more and more centered around city battles - that is just the circumstance that has arisen from recent politics.

Its not fallacay, the world is becoming more and more urban with each passing day. In addition, urban centers are the points where the people are, and thus the resources. Politics has nothing to do with the enemy deciding to sit in a city rather than go out and meet you in a movie style fight.



It could very well be that we have open warfare again, like World War II. The reason warfare has changed has been because of the scale of wars fought, not because we simply "don't fight open wars anymore."

WW2 was fought largely in and around cities, not out in the middle of nowhere. Many of the places battles were fought in WW2 *are* cities now.



Armor is not good enough to stop nuclear weapons. Armor is not good enough to stop high explosives. The only way you can avoid dying to something like that is NOT being where it is.

This is a ridiculous absolutist statement and its wrong. Armor can't stop nuclear weapons? Maybe not now, eventually it may be. Armor can't stop high explosives, bull. Tanks get shot at with high explosives quite often and don't explode sponteanously. Perhaps your under the impression that if you take a pea sized clump of gellinite and blow it up it will blast through a foot of steel.



That would be pretty damn costly - why would they do that when the army can use mech transports or something?

Because mech transports are harder to get behind enemy lines. Duh.

---------


I would acccept your point - except let's return to the Guardian example I mentioned.

Shuriken Cataults are supposed to have a high rate of fire - correct? Why is it that most assault units can start outside their effective range - and then make it ALL the ugh their range to fight way throin close combat?

Because turns are arbitrary clumps of time that aren't sequential in any sense of the word.



Without the Guardians EVER getting a shot form a weapon that by most descriptions - if they even touch the trigger hundreds of shuriken go downrange? The enemy unit HASN'T taken any wounds from guardians shooting on the way in...

Maybe the guardians were firing at another squad when they got blindsided, troops barrelling through a column of smoke and wreckage, or up a burm/from behind a building. If we were to turn a 40k game into a more reasonable interpretation you'd have assaults going on in what would be considered the movement, shooting, and assault phases of both turns. A unit of guardians might be shooting at another squad then be assaulted while they're still firing (their CC attacks from firing in close combat). Its an abstraction.



Whereas a round of shooting at 1 inch would certainly make assaulting Guardians to be feared...

It would also make low save, low toughness assaulters pointless. Oh look here come my orks after 3 turns of foot slogging into those dire avengers. "Wait, I get my shooting at them for their assault."

"Oh well, maybe one of my other squads will have a couple survive next time."



Same thing for a flamethrower - is it at ALL reasonable that you can run from outside maximum range of a flamethrower and whack me with a chainsaw in the time it takes for me to pull the trigger and wave the jellied gasoline all over you and your buddies? I'm certainly not going to be firing it when I am in close combat...

Because as I was assaulting your flame thrower guy was ducking behind some rubble as stray shots went screaming over his head before we plowed into you. The battle is supposed to be an organic flowing environment where stuffs happening all the time. Not everything requires a dice roll.



At least with a charge reaction - close range weaponry would actually be USED at close range most of the time... Peopel might actualyl start flamers instead of plasmaguns if they could defensively fire it at maniacs charging at them...
Uh, I use flamers and pistols all the time. If a squad is getting too close I may choose to move up and fire at them with my weapons.

Its a game balance issue. Defensive fire would require armies like tyranids and orks getting more toughness and better saves for even their basic infantry.

Eulenspiegel
26-11-2007, 21:53
Azimaith do you do that on purpose? That is unreadable ;)
So I didnīt, seening how this thread - like the other one hat has contemporary military technology vs WH40K as a topic - drifts off into some sort of mud wrestling, but without the boobs (so far).

Keichi246
26-11-2007, 22:03
Actually, I think this speaks to something left out of the last few pages.

The SM "killing machine" can cross open ground at like 60 mph (IIRC) at a run, faster on jet packs, I'd bet. Given that they know that they're bigger and better trained for CC, I'd say that would give them a reason to assault a gunline very directly.

If you can find a single fluff reference that says they move that fast - I'd agree with you. Except I can't think of any. Are they faster than a normal human? yes. Several times faster than an olympic sprinter? I don't think so...
AND ruleswise - a standard tactical marine moves and assaults EXACTLY as fast as a standard Imperial Guardsman. So that rather precludes any "super fast" movement for space marines...


As for "RL", think about the charge of the light brigade. 600 men unarmored and charging (on horseback) multiple cannon and rifle lines. They won.

Sure - they did - after suffering hideous losses. Now - how many similar charges have failed... (and as I said - I have no problem with CC being decisive when it happens - I just think it happens too much/too easily)

****
Re: To Azimaith


Maybe the guardians were firing at another squad when they got blindsided, troops barrelling through a column of smoke and wreckage, or up a burm/from behind a building. If we were to turn a 40K game into a more reasonable interpretation you'd have assaults going on in what would be considered the movement, shooting, and assault phases of both turns. A unit of guardians might be shooting at another squad then be assaulted while they're still firing (their CC attacks from firing in close combat). Its an abstraction.

Agreed - it IS an abstraction. but the following it the part I laugh most at...


The battle is supposed to be an organic flowing environment where stuffs happening all the time.

Exactly - so why aren't the guys getting assaulted getting their "shoot the charging maniacs in the face" at the same time... :D Stuff IS happening all the time...


Its a game balance issue. Defensive fire would require armies like tyranids and orks getting more toughness and better saves for even their basic infantry.

Your're right - and slightly wrong - all they would need to do is change the point costs for the assaulty types. I've seen "close range shooty" Ork armies...

MalusCalibur
26-11-2007, 23:54
What really gets me about the heated discussion in this topic is that people are seriously comparing modern warfare to that of a fictional setting that is some 38,000 years ahead.

You CANNOT compare real-life weaponry/warfare to fictional futuristic weaponry/warfare.
How could any of us know how, for example, Space Marines would fare against to real life auto-rifle fire? Logically, we can assume that it would be like rainfall to them (the 38,000 year gap in technology being my 'evidence' for that), but we can never know for sure without real examples, which are of course impossible because, obviously, Space Marines and their armour are not real and therefore not around to test the theory.

As many have said, 40K is unrealistic, but honestly: WHO CARES. That's what makes it an interesting setting. It really annoys me when the military-nerds try to apply their knowledge to point out flaws with 40K. Personally I couldn't care less if things are not realistic, because surely that is the point of a fictional game.

In response to the topic in hand, I think CC is a neccesary part of 40K. It stops it just being a 'line up and shoot' affair.
Would Tyranids, Orks, and Chaos be anywhere near as enjoyable as they are if they didn't use melee? Even Marines, for that matter.

If you're still not convinced, go watch the intro from Dawn of War :D

[Disclaimer: This post is not intended to offend anybody. It is simply a mini-rant]


MalusCalibur

Amnar
27-11-2007, 00:08
I can't believe 40k realism is seriously being debated...

R Man
27-11-2007, 00:10
Exactly - so why aren't the guys getting assaulted getting their "shoot the charging maniacs in the face" at the same time... Stuff IS happening all the time...

You've forgotten about covering fire. Who say's the assaulters are not plugging away with their weapons to keep the defenders down. And example: A group of orks are fighting the guard in a runined city. They come upon a fortified position. They take cover as the guardsmen shoot them (Orks do use cover). Then a few of the orks pop out of cover and open up with their big Shoota's. Then the rest of the orks move up plugging away with their sluggas. When the get to the line they stop shooting an ge their choppa's ready. Then the Guardsmen pop up and let a few rounds of. (Reperesented by having Initative 10 in cover) Then the orks that survive hack into the guardsmen and jump the wall...etc.

Or a chaos raptor spots a patrol of guardmen. He flies above them and then drops into them. They see him above them but in a few seconds he's fallen into them and hacks a few down. Now the Guardsmen get their few remaining attacks. Who say's these must be stabing with the bayonet. They might let loose a few hurried shots at the raptor as they run.

Now this does not mean that shooting is competely wasted. If it was the Imperial Guard would not exist. In concentration it can be very powerful an can stop or hold most attacks. In this situation close combat would be folley. However their are times when close combat is very viable. A load of ork commando's raiding a sentry post. Or Eldar assault troops attacking a passing column of Infantry from cover.

azimaith
27-11-2007, 00:16
I can't believe 40k realism is seriously being debated...

You haven't been a nerd for very long then :P.

Stormhammers
27-11-2007, 01:01
I don't see why people always view CC has nothing more than fist fights. I've always seen it as that AND a really chaotic mixed firefight.

That and you're right. Marines are heavy armored superhumans. CC makes a lot more sense then.
Also, I tend to think of 'assault' in 40k as that 12" spot where rapid fire and charges happen.

yes, that is how I always viewed CC

mistformsquirrel
27-11-2007, 02:38
What really gets me about the heated discussion in this topic is that people are seriously comparing modern warfare to that of a fictional setting that is some 38,000 years ahead.

You CANNOT compare real-life weaponry/warfare to fictional futuristic weaponry/warfare.
How could any of us know how, for example, Space Marines would fare against to real life auto-rifle fire? Logically, we can assume that it would be like rainfall to them (the 38,000 year gap in technology being my 'evidence' for that), but we can never know for sure without real examples, which are of course impossible because, obviously, Space Marines and their armour are not real and therefore not around to test the theory.

As many have said, 40K is unrealistic, but honestly: WHO CARES. That's what makes it an interesting setting. It really annoys me when the military-nerds try to apply their knowledge to point out flaws with 40K. Personally I couldn't care less if things are not realistic, because surely that is the point of a fictional game.

In response to the topic in hand, I think CC is a neccesary part of 40K. It stops it just being a 'line up and shoot' affair.
Would Tyranids, Orks, and Chaos be anywhere near as enjoyable as they are if they didn't use melee? Even Marines, for that matter.

If you're still not convinced, go watch the intro from Dawn of War :D

[Disclaimer: This post is not intended to offend anybody. It is simply a mini-rant]


MalusCalibur

On the money.

jfrazell
27-11-2007, 13:32
Now the actual topic is not fluff why marines would fight with swords but why people complain about the game having too much CC. I would tend to agree with that, although V4 has moved the pendulum strongly back towards the center with shooting focused armies. With the death of rhino rush, the value of ranged weaponry has increased signficantly. Personally it feels about right playwise with a nice enjoyable mix between the two.

Deadnight
27-11-2007, 16:21
id disagree. 4th ed made assault with basic units out of transports worthless. you rarely see a tac squad charging these days.) in fact, you saw the true birth of min/maxed tac squads. ) However, it made fast dedicated cc units (death co., genestealers, assault marines, harlies) far more deadly with the I roll off at the end, and the new sweeping advance rules. it just put the overpowered in a slightly different area and its not uncommon for things to just roll up an entire flank.

I would agree that the movement speed is a bit high. thankfully, we have those 5th ed "forced march" rumours coming out. and they had some kind of "stand and shoot" reaction to assault in ia4 i believe (iirc). and a lot of the new tau stuff in ia3 came true...

M1A2 Commander
28-11-2007, 01:35
Why even have CC in the far future where everyone has nukes?

http://www.nerf-herders-anonymous.net/images/ClancyBrown_StarshipTroopers_Zim.jpg

"The enemy can't press the button if you disable his hand! Medic!"


Too funny. :D

CC tactics are something the game relys on so I dont mind it much. Playing a "shooty" army (IG), I tend to be on the receiving end of much bloodshead. There are those times however where the dice gods are on my side and the lowly IG defeat their enemies in CC. Not too often mind you but it's all in fun. Nothing like seeing your friends jaw drop when a IG trooper takes out the last CSM. :D

marneus54
28-11-2007, 03:36
I don't understand that Picture...:cries:

UncleCrazy
28-11-2007, 04:38
Well if you look at the fighting in places like Iraq, you will see short range fighting. Most people tend to think that CC is just fighting with swords and axes, but pistols are the main weapon of use. In WW1 through Vietnam shovels were sharpened so they could be used in close quarters. Even now in Iraq there is close quarter fighting going on. Last week in the news (Foxnews.com) there was a story about a US solider got a hunting knife in the side of his head and then turned around and beat the guy down with his rife butt.

Imperialis_Dominatus
28-11-2007, 08:26
I don't understand that Picture...:cries:

Watch the movie. Recruit makes a quip about war being a button pushing thing now. Sarge stabs him through the hand. You can't push a button with a knife in your hand. That is, if I'm not totally off base and can't remember it right. Think I have the gist of it.

marneus54
28-11-2007, 09:02
Sounds funny

IAMNOTHERE
28-11-2007, 09:09
You have no idea how much I laughed in that film

mistformsquirrel
28-11-2007, 10:05
You have no idea how much I laughed in that film

Eh, it wasn't horrible if you didn't think about it too hard. The book is so much better though that you really can't compare the two.

Imperialis_Dominatus
28-11-2007, 16:02
Then don't. Enjoy the movie for what it is. Enjoy the book for what it is. Enjoy the video game for what it is. Enjoy the ripped-off material shoved into a tabletop wargame for what it is. That's my take on that kind of thing.

lanrak
28-11-2007, 18:36
Hi all .
If I may drag this thread back onto topic?
I belive the original poster wanted to know why some people think CC in 40k is 'silly-dumb etc'.

ALL warfare involves manouvering 'ranged' and 'close' combat, in varing degrees.

Ancient warfare (WH)was mainly about manouvering to get the best close combat match ups, bringing NUMBERS to bear..And ranged attacks were used to support this.

Modern warfare is more about mobility and bringing FIRE POWER to bear.(supported by close combats/assaults.)

Its just those that belive 40k should be more representative of modern warfare think that the 40k rules have been abstracted to degree they do not like.

EG close combat was made more powerful to balance the increased efficiency of ranged attacks ,(when the devs decided to remove ALL to hit mods!)

SO close combat has a place in 40k.But it shouldnt over shadow everthing else as much as it did.

40k shouldnt be WH in space.IMO.

So why do GW STILL use a WH based rule set?

marneus54
28-11-2007, 21:12
40k shouldnt be WH in space.IMO.

So why do GW STILL use a WH based rule set?

Because the system is simple and works quite efficiently.

jfrazell
28-11-2007, 21:14
Well I agree with the simple part.

The_Outsider
28-11-2007, 21:24
Well I agree with the simple part.

I like to think that due to 40k's far more weapon options keeping it simpler and having number of attacks prove important for some units while others work on weapons works well.

I.e sluggas vs incubi.

Sluggas rely on law of averages by lobbing bucketloads of dice, Incubi work by having good stats and weapons - more of a precision strike.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
28-11-2007, 21:57
40k Suffers from the common sci-fi affliction of "theme worlds" where one planet makes all the food and one makes all the guns etc... So if the food planet was lost the gun planet would starve and cause a domino effect. It would make more sense to have worlds be as self-sufficient as possible but of course 40k is not in the business of making sense.

Conversely it makes single planets like Armageddon important and noteworthy amongst a million other worlds. The Imperium also considers it humanity's manifest destiny to rule the galaxy. So overall the Imperium has to bitterly defend itself everywhere on all fronts and never give ground. Nukes probably only speed up their own demise in this scenario.

Varath- Lord Impaler
29-11-2007, 00:14
40K Suffers from the common sci-fi affliction of "theme worlds" where one planet makes all the food and one makes all the guns etc... So if the food planet was lost the gun planet would starve and cause a domino effect. It would make more sense to have worlds be as self-sufficient as possible but of course 40K is not in the business of making sense.


what are you talking about? Planets are self sufficient usually, otherwise no life would exist on them.

Agri worlds sustain themselves and other planets. So a loss of an agri world hurts, but its bearable and doesnt kill anyone.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
29-11-2007, 00:20
I'm "talking" about Forge Worlds, Agri Worlds, Death Worlds, Hive Worlds etc. Entire planets which can be (and are) neatly classified as one or two things. The Tallarn Desert Raiders and Valhallan Ice Warriors seem to hail from worlds with one type of climate, the Blood Angels and Ultramarines homeworlds being a parralel example etc. One worlds cranks out out guns, one farts out babies (guardsmen) and another provides foodstuffs.


So a loss of an agri world hurts, but its bearable and doesnt kill anyone.
The farms of Armageddon, truly a worker's paradise!

Lord Raneus
29-11-2007, 02:13
Quick question-
Do we know if a SAM is even fast enough to intercept something falling to earth at meteorite speeds? If they only have to decelerate at the last moments, then it may be difficult. AA batteries probably wouldn't have any time at all.

Dartganan
29-11-2007, 03:59
If WH40k included a short ranged firefight element of the game, the level of detail and enjoyability would increase. Currently, cover in unimportant, especially because you can cover the 12in rapid fire range in one move. If a charge target had a final shot before the enemy closed, then more tactical movements would become a necessity, which is not a bad thing.

Too often games descend into a CC madness where the gun army is unable to establish new fire lines because of consolidation rules. Some variant of overwatch would go a long way stopping the ability of one CC unit to overwhelm an entire side of an army.

big squig
29-11-2007, 06:06
If WH40k included a short ranged firefight element of the game, the level of detail and enjoyability would increase. Currently, cover in unimportant, especially because you can cover the 12in rapid fire range in one move. If a charge target had a final shot before the enemy closed, then more tactical movements would become a necessity, which is not a bad thing.

Too often games descend into a CC madness where the gun army is unable to establish new fire lines because of consolidation rules. Some variant of overwatch would go a long way stopping the ability of one CC unit to overwhelm an entire side of an army.

But don't the rapid fire rules already cover firefights? I mean, if you are going to assault a unit, you have to be with 12" at the beginning of your turn (assuming your unit is infantry). Which means the opposing unit was within 12" on their turn and there fore had their chance to shoot.

Kasonic
29-11-2007, 06:16
40k as designed would be boring as hell without CC.

Ddraiglais
29-11-2007, 18:31
I'm kind of middle of the road. I would make exceptions for heavily armored SM. Hordes (nids) will eventually reach your lines. Super fast assaulters might get a chance to get to you (DE). Deep striking could get some troops into HTH. However, shooting should dominate 40K. Some of these weapons are terribly destructive. They should have longer ranges too (although I understand that they don't for game mechanics).

The OP also brings up another good point. It's not just for game mechanics that we have good HTH. The flavor of 40K is suppose to be more like the Middle Ages in space. The Ad Mech don't make high tech stuff. They make holy machines that they pray to to get it to work. They probably couldn't fix your Ford if they didn't have STC data for it. You have knights (SM and CSM), calvary, and even Orks, Ogres, Halflings, and Elves (you also use to have Dwarves).

I like it the way it is because of the flavor. I don't like it the way it is because it doesn't make sense if you look at what the capabilities of the weapons should be.

Keichi246
29-11-2007, 18:55
Quick question-
Do we know if a SAM is even fast enough to intercept something falling to earth at meteorite speeds? If they only have to decelerate at the last moments, then it may be difficult. AA batteries probably wouldn't have any time at all.

Off Topic Geekery...

It's primarily dependent on the nature of the SAM. The main problem hitting such a fast moving target is target acquisition and trajectory calculation.

For example - it has been rumored that the newest US Aegis Cruisers may actually have the capability to engage ICBMs - which are the nearest "Drop pod" analog comparing game fluff to tech.

Also - I think some people are reading WAY too much into the fluff here. Drop Pods can NOT be as fast moving a target as fluff suggests. Doesn't matter how "tough" a marine is or how much armor he is wearing - the components that make up a human body can only survive a certain amount of decelleration trauma. The inertia of the fleshy tissues THEMSELVES destroy themselves. I can't be bothered to do all the math - but even if the Marines can survive a 25g decelleration for 10 seconds and "hit" with a terminal 100g deceleration (Both of which are MORE than fatal to any "normal" human) - they were only travelling barely supersonic before that. Considering that even modern technology has missles that travel and engage FAR faster than that...

Considering that the 40k verse has lightspeed weapons (lasers) and hypersonic projectile weapons (railguns) - the only reason drop pods work in 40k is because GW wants them to work...

Wolflord Havoc
29-11-2007, 19:22
To me close combat is a combination of short range firefights, grenades, and also a fair degree of Xenophobic hatred and/or fear that drives one individual to want to hack another one to death.

Also its all well and good having a massive gun line, but what if you have to evict the enemy from a hive city or tunnel network - even in Afganistan today fights happen around towns or villages or a Dam or something.

For example to me the IG doctrine Hardened Fighter is less about placing your 18" Bayonet into the Aliens guts and rather Close Quarter Techniques for engaging enemies that are maybe a few feet away by stance shooting your lasrifle/las pistol rather than taking the fataly extra time to aim it. Many 'Nato' infantry troops will have small 'lasers' or torches attached to their assault rifles to enable them to quickly aim the rifle without using the sights. These troopers represent some of the best in the world today. Very few of them will ever have to bayonet someone, they are far more likely to have riddled a guy full of 5.56mm after bursting into a room. That is close combat. In the universe of 40K life is held with less regard by nearly all of the factions for one reason or another.

So in my mind Imperial Guard in Close combat is less 'Dads army advancing at a walk across a field with bayonets attached' and more 'Troopers storming through a dusty village using combat drills that are 2nd nature to clear room after room and building after building using, grenades, close range automatic fire, covering fire from their collegues in the same Squad/Section/fire team and on occasion bayonets, sharpened Shovels, knives and more exotic weapons such as chainswords, power weapons and powerfists'. The problem however is when the enemy is 300 Lbs of Ork whot didn't fall down when the burst of lasgun fire hits him. And instead wants to redesign your skull with his cleaver.

jfrazell
29-11-2007, 19:30
But don't the rapid fire rules already cover firefights? I mean, if you are going to assault a unit, you have to be with 12" at the beginning of your turn (assuming your unit is infantry). Which means the opposing unit was within 12" on their turn and there fore had their chance to shoot.
No.
*Units that fleet. Most of the entire Nid and eldar list fleets. Orks are similar.
*Units that move fast (at least faster than 6). Thats pretty much all your dedicated assault troops in one form or another.
*DE and orks from open topped vehicles.

Ddraiglais
29-11-2007, 20:07
Considering that the 40k verse has lightspeed weapons (lasers) and hypersonic projectile weapons (railguns) - the only reason drop pods work in 40k is because GW wants them to work...

Or there are too many drop pods to shoot down. Watch the movie for Dawn of War where the SM is dying and puts the flag up. The end of it has a sky filled with drop pods. Maybe only a small percentage of them have marines or dreads in them? I know I'm reaching here, but it is one way to explain why drop pods work in the 40K universe.

jfrazell
29-11-2007, 20:10
Meanwhile, as it slows, I have just pumped it full of ground fire...

marneus54
29-11-2007, 20:13
Meanwhile, as it slows, I have just pumped it full of ground fire...

I don't think they slow down, if you play the game they kinda smash into the ground.

jfrazell
29-11-2007, 20:30
Take the first part. They hit their retros a couple of seconds before impact. More than enough to burp it with a heavy stubber.

marneus54
29-11-2007, 20:31
Okey dokey.

Vaktathi
29-11-2007, 20:33
One thing I think many people are missing is that 40k is still really more Fantasy in Space than actual scifi. Most modern day western militaries have equipment more advanced than even the Tau get, we just don't have skimmers and jumpsuits (but we can have a tank moving at full speed and hit a moving target that it can't even see over a mile away and still fire its machine guns at a different target)

Hell, modern day counterbattery artillery fire can drop shells on opposing artillery positions with extremely good accuracy from over 20 miles away. in 40k artillery is a crapshoot even for the Eldar.

In real life, 40k just doesn't work. Its a fantasy setting, think of it like such, but in space.

marneus54
29-11-2007, 20:37
Hell, modern day counterbattery artillery fire can drop shells on opposing artillery positions with extremely good accuracy from over 20 miles away. in 40k artillery is a crapshoot even for the Eldar.


US has a gun that fires 60 miles I'm pretty sure. It's called Goliath I think.
But I get what your saying.

superknijn
29-11-2007, 20:39
Ay, bet the USA doesn't has giant bipedal shielded monstrosities mounting plasma-shooting weapons, do they?

You know, that's the reason I love 40K; everything in the universe is both better and worse than ours.

marneus54
29-11-2007, 20:43
Ay, bet the USA doesn't has giant bipedal shielded monstrosities mounting plasma-shooting weapons, do they?

No..but we're cooking some thing up. ;)