This about sums up my thoughts on the topic.
So, now to deal with Fingolfin:Ryan Thunder wrote:1. Any weapon can be made more effective by extending its range. Melee weapons, in fact, shorten the effective killing range of a soldier.
2. A soldier must be heavily armoured and/or ludicrously agile in order to effectively field a melee weapon as his primary means of offense. A soldier armed with little more than a rifle needs to be neither. Therefore, a soldier, given an arbitrary amount of armour and handed a melee weapon is less efficient than a similarly armoured soldier armed with a ranged weapon of similar or even lesser power.
Since a soldier has the express purpose of killing as many of the enemy as efficiently as possible before he himself is killed, this must mean that a ranged weapon will make a soldier more efficient.
From this, we can conclude that ranged weapons are better than melee weapons as anything more than a last resort.
Therefore, an army that fields dedicated melee troops when they have access to powerful ranged weaponry is retarded. QED
As such, the entirety of the 40K universe is retarded from the outset, perhaps excluding the Tau, with the Imperial Guard as the least offenders.
I can see them falling back on melee if they ran out of ammunition, but at that point they're basically boned, anyways.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Because the guys who did the Dawn of War games were in some ways idiots? There were similar situations in the novels but the Space Marines didn't go all gungho and charge up on the enemy, until the enemy had closed in so close, or they ran out of ammunition, they had to fight knife to knife.PainRack wrote:Its still doesn't change the fact that a lot of the game fans and even concept design emphasize meelee over ranged combat. Hell, LOOK at the ingame videos from Dawn of War and the like. Dawn of War opening video has to be the most stupid tactical move ever. You had a fortified position, the enemy is charging you, you broke their attack. Fine, you counter-charge to gain momentum and crush them, but what do you do next? You ADVANCE up into open terrain away from cover, up a hill and then get sucked RIGHT into the middle of the Ork hordes which was using dead ground and the terrain intelligently. And of course, despite a Space Marine being valuable and the Imperial Tactica saying that any tactic should have more risk to the enemy than to you, we see the Space Marine carry his flag bearer up the freaking hill against what appears to be autogun fire, ultimately collapsing on top of the hill just so he could plant a freaking banner and await the rest of the Blood Raven drop pods landing.
Where is this "minimum range" thing coming from? It doesn't particularly matter if you're two feet or ten feet away from me; in the former case, I can shoot you in the gut, in the latter case, you're an easy target. If I'm using a knife there's the issue of actually having to pull back and thrust and what not. A pistol is a small point-and-click weapon that can blow holes in people for you. Perfect for CQC.
Alternatively, while a boltgun is more cumbersome, its not exactly the longest or most unwieldy weapon in the hands of a Space Marine, either. There isn't much preventing him from using it in melee combat in favour of his little knife, which would allow him to continue shooting.
The fact that Assault Marines have chainswords and regularly engage in melee combat as their primary means of killing the enemy, in spite of the fact that they have access to regular boltguns that would actually make them more effective.Space Marines already carry heavier weapons than the Imperial Guard can cart around, so what exactly is the beef?Fingolfin. Don't be an ass. If meelee combat makes Space Marines more vulnerable, then by right, they should be LEANING away from meelee combat and using their other physical capabilities! After all, why go up close and risk hurting yourself against a Goff vibroaxe or even a guard monobladed knife, when their guns have lesser chance of hurting you? And given your speed and reflexes, you can actually dump out more firepower than your opponents?
Rather, they are usually issued bolt pistols and chainswords, as well as both frag and krak grenades. Sometimes they're issued melta bombs (which actually makes sense), plasma guns (which also makes sense), meltaguns (which make quite a bit of sense), or flamethrowers.Again, as others have said, Assault Marines engage in very specialised missions, and hardly do Space Marines engaged in close combat unless pushed to it. And Assault Marines come equipped with bloody bolters themselves.
Strangely, we don't see heavy bolters or missile launchers in that list, which are like SAWs and LAWs for the Space Marines, respectively.
They aren't the issue.Standard Marine Squads themselves come only equipped with Combat knives and not swords.
Even typical tactics involve using the Terminator Squads, armed with flamethrower and heavy bolter, going in front, while other Squads follow closely behind.
They still field Assault Marines.And yet even in World War II, were there plenty of instances on the Eastern Front where fighting devolved into knife fests after soldiers on both sides run out of ammunition, at Kursk or at Stalingrad.Connor. You essentially just quoted what is our modern day military. Heavy long range firepower and high mobility. An intelligent use of that configuration would give HUGE flexibility.
And it's not like the Space Marines solely charge in and gut the enemy through hand to hand combat. There's plenty of armour and artillery vehicles. The only Space Marines that do that are the World Eaters.
I haven't ignored it. It's central to my opinion, in fact; despite the access they have to these weapons, they still choose to field Assault Marines armed with chainswords and employing melee tactics as their primary means of inflicting damage. Hell, they even field entire companies of them.Really now, you are the one who has been carefully ignoring the fact that Space Marines are extensively equipped with ranged weapons, that are heavier than what the Imperial Guard has. So I'm not sure who's strawmanning who.Ryan Thunder wrote:Thank you, Painrack.
Alright, folks, I feel compelled to point out that you've done nothing but strawman my arguments and try to nitpick them to death up until this point. The l east you could do is try.
It would be trivial (not to mention cheaper) to equip them with boltguns and additional ammunition, or perhaps some sort of cross between a submachine gun and a boltgun. Whatever. Fact of the matter is that it would increase their effective kill radius and thus their effective killing power and flexibility as a shock troop.
Yes, even in tight quarters.
On the contrary, I don't ignore the armour paradigm at all. In fact, it highlights the ridiculousness of your position. You expend so much more effort to field a marginally effective melee soldier, that you might as well just field shooters that will last longer (if they aren't deployed by complete idiots) and can cover a wider area anyways due to their greater numbers (because they're cheaper.)Unfortunately, you again ignore the whole armour paradigm and choose to cling to that stupid idea.1. Any weapon can be made more effective by extending its range. Melee weapons, in fact, shorten the effective killing range of a soldier.
Think of it like this; which do you fear more? A massive, plodding tank with a flame thrower on the front, or a smaller jeep with a machine gun? It might not be able to hurt the tank, but it can outmaneuver the tank, and stay out of range quite easily. The tank can be flanked, its support can be cut off, etc.
A Space Marine is also the end result of an outlandish sum of resources and training. A Tau Fire Warrior is not, by comparison.Lasguns carried by Imperial Guards are quite useless against Space Marine Armour. Tau have slightly better luck, but again, by no means are melee weapons the first option until the fight has devolved into close quarters. Neither does it change the fact that extremely tough monomolecular blades have proven to be extremely effective against armour. There was even one instance of traitor PDF militia, using a power fist, cracked open the armour of a Leman Russ tank that was in a very tight situation.
Which a bloody Space Marine fulfills all the above without sweating it.2. A soldier must be heavily armoured and/or ludicrously agile in order to effectively field a melee weapon. A soldier armed with little more than a rifle needs to be neither. Therefore, a soldier, given an arbitrary amount of armour and handed a melee weapon is less effective than a similarly armoured soldier armed with a ranged weapon of similar or even lesser power.
While ammo may be limited, guns are also quite a bit more effective than knives at killing people. Additionally, by using a gun and attacking from long range, you give the enemy less of an opportunity to injure or kill you, which increases your survivability. However you look at it, guns are better.Did you fail at logic, or is everything all black and white? Or has your obsession with ranged weapons led you to forget that ammo is limited, while a blade works so long as it doesn't break?Since a soldier has the express purpose of killing as many of the enemy as possible before he himself is killed, this must mean that a ranged weapon will make a soldier more efficient.
From this, we can conclude that ranged weapons are better than melee weapons.
Therefore, an army that fields dedicated melee troops when they have access to powerful ranged weaponry is retarded. QED
The melee weapons that are regularly used by the Imperium and others require active power. Power swords don't run themselves, you know. They might run out even sooner, since the awkwardness of a chainsaw sword is going to make it incredibly difficult to conserve "ammunition" as one could with, say, a lasgun.How then do you plan to rationalise off the multitude of situations when the Space Marines are out of ammo, far from logistical lines etc. ? Bearing in mind that as elite forces, going behind enemy lines is part and parcel of Space Marine missions, along with leading at the front.