I liked that mythbusters vid. 18' is approx 6 metres, which is within Charge range and out of Point Blank Range.

No, I gather that neither of the 2 test-persons in the vid were expert quickdraw-shooters or very fast sprinters, but even so it was quite interesting.

Nor did it account for the possibility of the gunner ALREADY having their gun out and ready, which, unless the guy with the melee weapon is ambushing the gunner, is a very likely possibility.

I liked that mythbusters vid. 18' is approx 6 metres, which is within Charge range and out of Point Blank Range.

No, I gather that neither of the 2 test-persons in the vid were expert quickdraw-shooters or very fast sprinters, but even so it was quite interesting.

Nor did it account for the possibility of the gunner ALREADY having their gun out and ready, which, unless the guy with the melee weapon is ambushing the gunner, is a very likely possibility.

Nor the difference between the gunner wielding a longarm instead of a pistol, which could potentially allow a sneaky ambusher to make the gun irrelevant.

However, it was the best study I could find, off hand.

I liked that mythbusters vid. 18' is approx 6 metres, which is within Charge range and out of Point Blank Range.

No, I gather that neither of the 2 test-persons in the vid were expert quickdraw-shooters or very fast sprinters, but even so it was quite interesting.

Nor did it account for the possibility of the gunner ALREADY having their gun out and ready, which, unless the guy with the melee weapon is ambushing the gunner, is a very likely possibility.

Nor the difference between the gunner wielding a longarm instead of a pistol, which could potentially allow a sneaky ambusher to make the gun irrelevant.

However, it was the best study I could find, off hand.

I think, however, these do point to the same thing. Assuming both combatants have their weapon drawn, unless you are literally on top of the guy, a gun is a superior weapon to any melee weapon. And even then, don't bring a spear to a gunfight

To make a long story short:

In reality, in 99% of situations, guns are better than melee weapons

As a result, in reality people use guns instead of melee weapons.

A realistic game system will try to reproduce reality.

Thus will result in guns being better than melee weapons in 99% of situations in the game.

This will result in characters using guns instead of melee weapons.

BUT

the 40K universe, melee weapons are used a lot, and our rules are trying to.function in that universe.

Therefore the realism has to give so that the universe may survive!

Now in the case of high-tech weapons like power weapons this real-world logic is violated because they do a huge amount of damage (more than almost all guns). HOWEVER we are not talking about those weapons, but about mono swords and suchlike (which do admittedly seem to figure in the RPG a lot more than in TT or other fluff, in which somebody with such a weapon is probably using it in conjunction with a pistol).

Of course guns are better overall, which is why they are the main weapon. At long ranges, they are without peer compared to melee weapons. But by saying close up a gun is automatically superior is false, in melee, a gun can be pushed out of the way, accuracy is awful, a gun has to be lined up, then the trigger pulled, while a knife can just be pushed in anywhere they can try. Longarms are even worse (which DH reflects in not letting them be used in melee, besides improvised weapons or spears at best with bayonets.)

Even in melee though, they have their advantages. But there is a reason troops still have them (though reduced as fits their changed role of support).

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10

This is a great one to look at. And as said in the mythbusters video, a charge would be terrifying, from just a person with a knife. Now imagine a chainsword there, long, noisy, fierce. Now imagine an Ork or a Space Marine, tough, shrugging off shots you DO fire, then slamming into your line with momentum.

I think the rules in pistol melee combat reflect it pretty decently. It isn't optimal to use them in melee, they can be nasty if you pull down the trigger on a good roll. But they eat up ammo, can't deflect attacks and a bladed weapon is still nasty to be up against.

This is a great one to look at. And as said in the mythbusters video, a charge would be terrifying, from just a person with a knife. Now imagine a chainsword there, long, noisy, fierce. Now imagine an Ork or a Space Marine, tough, shrugging off shots you DO fire, then slamming into your line with momentum.

In fairness if a Space Marine is charging you with a chainsword raised high, it probably doesn't matter whether you have a gun or a sword, you're going to die.

Of course guns are better overall, which is why they are the main weapon. At long ranges, they are without peer compared to melee weapons. But by saying close up a gun is automatically superior is false, in melee, a gun can be pushed out of the way, accuracy is awful, a gun has to be lined up, then the trigger pulled, while a knife can just be pushed in anywhere they can try. Longarms are even worse (which DH reflects in not letting them be used in melee, besides improvised weapons or spears at best with bayonets.)

Even in melee though, they have their advantages. But there is a reason troops still have them (though reduced as fits their changed role of support).

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10

This is a great one to look at. And as said in the mythbusters video, a charge would be terrifying, from just a person with a knife. Now imagine a chainsword there, long, noisy, fierce. Now imagine an Ork or a Space Marine, tough, shrugging off shots you DO fire, then slamming into your line with momentum.

I think the rules in pistol melee combat reflect it pretty decently. It isn't optimal to use them in melee, they can be nasty if you pull down the trigger on a good roll. But they eat up ammo, can't deflect attacks and a bladed weapon is still nasty to be up against.

Yes, m elee weapons have uses as a backup weapon. Hence why soldiers are given knives.

Note: knives. Not swords, not axes. That's because a sword or an axe is so unlikely to be useful that they're not worth the extra weight.

In 40K on the other hand, people are carrying around such things all the time. Death cultists with swords are real, and viable!

Now I will note that this is not really a problem for TT, say, where most people who use melee weapons regularly are carrying around sci-fi things like power swords, which do have a function, since they can cut through things that most guns cannot. HOWEVER, if we are talking about the swords that DH Guardsmen are given to start out with -- they're just absurd.

Their equipment depends on the environment they fight in and where they came from. You do see swords and axes in several regiments.

Not to mention the IG has enemies who outnumber then and soak up a lot of shots, so it is very likely that you run out of ammo. A decent melee weapon like a sword or axe costs little and enable your troops to survive longer than usually.

In fact, in the real world, there is no use for melee weapons other than as a last-ditch backup weapon.

They are obsolete. This is why armies use automatic rifles and not spears.

If you want you 40K game system to be realistic, exactly the same thing is going to happen, because reality says that melee weapons suck ass when there are guns around. If you do want melee weapons in the game (at least for players to use them, and not NPCs that the GM can equip with water balloons of he wants), you're going to have to change reality.

BTW Lightning Attack costs quite a whole lot of XP, whereas anyone can fire a pistol full auto. Which is another way of saying that pistols are much much better.

There is no point at all in using a melee weapon other than ammo (and to parry... attacks from melee weapons that nobody will be using because using a pistol works much better). Which is why you have a last-ditch backup. That is the only reason to use a melee weapon, either in the real world or in a realistic game.

In short, if the system is realistic, you will, naturally enough, have a system that looks like the real world... which is to say, NO MELEE WEAPONS, just like in the real world.

In the real world, we don't have ballistic stopping Conversion or Force Fields, nor do we have Psychic powers that jam all mechanical devices/make firearms irrelevant. The prevelance of close combat weapons in 40k is steeped in hyper technology, the irregular balance of technology between worlds (Feral, Death, and Fuedal worlds come strongly to mind), as well as a myriad of alien factors.

Sure, the fire arm is superior. Kudos to you for not killing that guy with a Refractor Field or Holo-Device who now has a sword at your throat. XD

Seriously though, the setting is one where close combat has had a resurgence for many, many reasons - and unlike modern day societies they have definite issues with galactic logistics.

In fact, in the real world, there is no use for melee weapons other than as a last-ditch backup weapon.

They are obsolete. This is why armies use automatic rifles and not spears.

If you want you 40K game system to be realistic, exactly the same thing is going to happen, because reality says that melee weapons suck ass when there are guns around. If you do want melee weapons in the game (at least for players to use them, and not NPCs that the GM can equip with water balloons of he wants), you're going to have to change reality.

BTW Lightning Attack costs quite a whole lot of XP, whereas anyone can fire a pistol full auto. Which is another way of saying that pistols are much much better.

There is no point at all in using a melee weapon other than ammo (and to parry... attacks from melee weapons that nobody will be using because using a pistol works much better). Which is why you have a last-ditch backup. That is the only reason to use a melee weapon, either in the real world or in a realistic game.

In short, if the system is realistic, you will, naturally enough, have a system that looks like the real world... which is to say, NO MELEE WEAPONS, just like in the real world.

In the real world, we don't have ballistic stopping Conversion or Force Fields, nor do we have Psychic powers that jam all mechanical devices/make firearms irrelevant. The prevelance of close combat weapons in 40k is steeped in hyper technology, the irregular balance of technology between worlds (Feral, Death, and Fuedal worlds come strongly to mind), as well as a myriad of alien factors.

Sure, the fire arm is superior. Kudos to you for not killing that guy with a Refractor Field or Holo-Device who now has a sword at your throat. XD

Seriously though, the setting is one where close combat has had a resurgence for many, many reasons - and unlike modern day societies they have definite issues with galactic logistics.

As I believe I may have pointed out a couple of times before , the technological level of 40K changes the playing field (albeit rarely, because the things you are talking about are rare).

However, this is not what has been in debate, because what is being compared are not bolt pistols and power swords, but autopistols and regular swords -- the kinds of things that pop up in Dark Heresy, even at character creation. At this level, melee weapons have no advantange over pistols; indeed they are inferior unless they are single shot. (BTW a bolt pistol is in tact superior to a chainsword in close combat unless you do one of the balance issues that FFG has done).

If you want to make things like swords superior to autopistols in melee, you can do 2 things:

1. Reduce pistols to single shot in melee. This will allow the sword's higher damage (assuming the wielder's SB is high enough) to matter.

2. GET RID OF THE SA AND FA BONUS AND GIVE A BONUS TO STANDARD ATTACK. THAT is what is really imbalancing, and that is what FFG did in BC and OW. Now an autopistol has become much, much less appealing, because its chance to hit is now 20% less rather than 20% higher and the maximum amount of shots it can get it drops by 2.

Voila! Problem solved.

Hell I'll work out the stats.

Attacker with sword and SB3 vs. attacker with autopistol firing full auto. WS and BS are both 30. Both take half-action aims before they attack (as you can in BC/OW). Target has TB3.

Sword chance to hit is 30 + 10 (aim) + 10 (standard attack) = 50%. Average danage per hit is 5.5 + 3 = 8.5 - 3 = 5.5. Average danage per attack is 2.75

Autopistol chance to hit is 30 + 10 (aim) = 40 - 20 (full auto burst) = 20%. Average damage oer hit is 5.5 + 2 = 7.5 - 3 = 4.5. He has a 10% chance of doing 4.5 wounds and a 10% chance of doing 9 wounds. Total average damage per attack is 1.35.

See? The pistol is now less than half as good as the sword, and the sword is better in close combat.

Second time I've edited this post...that'll teach me to read the bloody thread before opening my mouth.

Yes, in real life firearms are better than melee, pretty much because you can be the hell over there and kill the guys with the spears and swords without much worry. Imperialism indeed proved this over and over again in our own history.

However, as things have become more advanced, there are a lot of hand to hand techniques that involve using firearms. Self defense courses around the world incorporate small arms into their training. Why? because you honestly never know when you'll have to kick someone in the junk before you can shoot them.

Practicality really is that simple.

I just had to remember that scene from Starship Troopers 1 about the knive throwing.

The system cannot be realistic, as the setting itself is nothing but irrealism overcharged to 100.

Here's why melee weapons are viable in 40k.

Second time I've edited this post...that'll teach me to read the bloody thread before opening my mouth.

Yes, in real life firearms are better than melee, pretty much because you can be the hell over there and kill the guys with the spears and swords without much worry. Imperialism indeed proved this over and over again in our own history.

However, as things have become more advanced, there are a lot of hand to hand techniques that involve using firearms. Self defense courses around the world incorporate small arms into their training. Why? because you honestly never know when you'll have to kick someone in the junk before you can shoot them.

Practicality really is that simple.

This this is true. and it is irrelevant,

Of course melee weapons will be used on occasion. They will not, be, however, important. Thay are last-ditch weapons if something has gine wrong, like using your fist.

There are, however, no soldiers working on serious "melee builds" in the real world except maybe if you are out in the Amazon someplace in a loin cloth. There are no sword-wielding death cultists who eschew the barbarity of the gun. Because they will die.

This is so obvious that I am amazed that it has caused such debate.

Anyway, you cannot have both melee viability and have pistols firing semi- and full-auto in close combat if the DH rules set is in play. Which is the whole point; that's why the single-shot limitation is in there.

BTW if you want to truly enter the lands of madness, look at the pre-errata Deathwatch Astartes bolt pistols and see how vastly superior they are to Astartes chainswords. Even fired on single shot.

BTW if you want to truly enter the lands of madness, look at the pre-errata Deathwatch Astartes bolt pistols and see how vastly superior they are to Astartes chainswords. Even fired on single shot.

When a friend of mine was creating his Deathwatch character- an Assault Marine- he looked at the un- Errata 'd weapon stats and said "You would have to be an idiot not to trade in your chainsword for a second boltpistol!" It was kind of depressing that the iconic Assault combo of boltpistol/chainsword didn't seem viable; later it occurred to us that the chainsword benefits from the Marine's Unnatural Strength, and the +2 bonus from power armour to boot. Of course we adopted the Errata stats, and now his trusty chainsword is, basically, the melee equivalent of a 'heavy weapon'- for when something has to be killed all the way dead ...

I just don't see how it's irrelevant, sorry. If there was no relevance to it, militaries wouldn't require basic training for the situation and offering advanced training would be seen as a waste of time. Instead they develop better ways to kill with knives and your bare hands.

It might be that we're just misunderstanding each other here. I'm getting that feeling anyway.

Melee combat is always relevant, especially as warfare moves increasingly to urban zones. The gun never replaced melee weapons in it's whole history. From Medieval times to napoleonic, from WW1 to modern. With quick reloads and minimal jamming of modern guns, melee weapons are at their weakest, but the techniques are still taught, why?

Guns can be hard to use close up, guns run out of ammo, guns jam and at close ranges, melee weapons are nasty.

40k took this nastiness to new levels, with more gun resistant armor (Flak, for as weak as it is, still can repulse small arms fire of lasguns and autoguns, and that is just flak, the weakest). With amazingly powerful melee weapons (from armor piercing mono, to the deadly chain weapons, not to mention power weapons). Add to it enemies that easily withstand volleys of fire to close the distance.

Yes in modern times they are diminished, but they are never obsolete.

1) Deathwatch Assault Marines are the solution to everything. They are ridiculous. They overcome the main problem with melee fighters in 40k (getting into combat) by hyaving the jump pack, and when properly tooled up can mince everything, whether it is hordes, tanks, carnifexes etc, while ranged combatants tend to have to choose a weapon which is suited to one role or another.

2) While modern armies do train in hand to hand combat and the use of knives, but for very specific purposes (sentry removal is the big one, where load guns are not an option), or for last ditch self defence. Even in that instance training often emphasises "If your opponent has a gun and you do not, your aim is to get the gun out of their hands, and if you have a gun and your opponent does not your goal is to make sure they do not take your gun from you." No military advocates trying to use a knife if you have a viable gun instead.

I guess the big big difference in 40K is how powerful armour is compared to modern armour. Flak armour is well capable of fully protecting a guardsmen from small arms fire and allow them to stay in the fight, My (limited) understanding of modern warfare is that bodyarmour will keep you alive but you'll be injured and unable to continue to fight.

Moving on from there carapace and light power armour can give considerable protection against all but (by our standards) the toughest weapons.

This is not even counting that genetherapy, certain drugs and bionics can make an individual naturally resilient to wounds.

Astartes Power armour and Tactical Dreadnought Armour would make a mockery of pretty much all our small arms and many of our support weapons.

I think adding your SB to an attack represents both your literal strength and also ability in combat to find weak spots which wouldn't necessarily be hit in a fire fight.

A dug in guardsman behind a armoured barricade will be tough nut to crack with normal weapons hence the viability of jump packing assault troops.

It is always difficult to compare real life with Wh40K because of course a huge amount of 40K is there for stylistic reasons but none the less I think the big difference whcih makes close combat viable in WH40K is armour.

Melee combat is always relevant, especially as warfare moves increasingly to urban zones. The gun never replaced melee weapons in it's whole history. From Medieval times to napoleonic, from WW1 to modern. With quick reloads and minimal jamming of modern guns, melee weapons are at their weakest, but the techniques are still taught, why?

Do you see a whole lot of modern soldiers running around carrying swords?

The point is noit that melee weapons are completely useless, Obviously, a sword with cut someone's head off as well as it could 1000 years ago. That's not the point. Bows will still kill people. So will thrown rocks. None of this is the point.

The point is that they are unviable as anything byt a backup weapon in modern warfare, and moreover unviable as anything but a backup weapon with the Dark Heresy rules set unless you limit pistol shots to 1 in close combat.

You cannot have, at the same time,realistic rules for melee combat, realistic rules for ranged combat, and a universe in which melee combat (or bows, or rock throwing) are a common theme, Melee combat will happen, occasionally. But you will NOT have guys with swords charging at guys with autopistols. They will die. There will be no Moritat death cult assassins, because an Adept with an autopistol is better than he is.

If you DO want this, you need some way in which melee weapons are in common circumstances (not fringe circumstances, common circumstances) superior to pistols; and in Dark Heresy, with its rules for semi and full auto, pistols (with such firing modes) are demonstrably and vastly superior to melee weapons, WHEN IN MELEE. Such as, by limiting the number of shots fired in close combat, Which is exactly what Dark Heresy does.

Similarly, if for some reason you want rock throwing warriors to be a common thing, you had better do something unrealistic with rocks other than saying, "well there really are no ammo issues with rocks. There will always be a place for rocks."

Yessss, because the military STILL teaches it's soldiers to throw rocks. I mean, look at rocks as always being important to militaries throughout history.

Greek States: Armed phalanxes destroyed their enemies by using rocks in their tight shield and rock formations

Romans: The Roman legions were unmatched for chucking rocks at the barbaric tribes

Medieval: Indeed, the rock wielding knights on horseback were a most FEARSOME foe!

Napoleonic: After firing volleys, the troops drew their rocks and tossed them at the foe, causing many to rout with the skill of a final rock volley

WW1: Trench Warfare was no match for....I can't do this anymore.

There is a reason why other technologies fell out of use, why the gun supplanted them or prevented them (Bows, Plate/Chain Armor, etc.), but melee weapons never stopped being useful. Their role diminished, but bayonets turned the musket into a powerful weapon even after being fired. Cavalry used swords for a devastating charge for a fairly long time too.

You can keep harping on about how the "DH Semi/Full Auto rules are so overpowering" which is why they stopped being used. Which is why the system switched over to more realistic AND balanced modifiers and let the other modes be used in melee too.

To finish off, Dude 1 with Melee Weapon and Dude 2 with Basic Ranged Weapon. They are currently engaged in melee, who wins?

Thanks for laugh guy, i needed that.

We have so far listed several reasons why cc-weapons are used in both reality and WH40k.

We can bicker about some of them but please not about the realism in the DH rules.

If i wanted realism i would not play.

The only reason you would - 'rule of cool' aside - need a sword is if there are situations where a gun is not useable.

...I can't help but think of the Dune series at this point. The effectiveness of Personal Shields depended on the speed of the incoming attack - so shields would stop bullets, but cheap shields could be defeated by...essentially 'spring-crossbows'? and really good shields (the kind the nobility would wear) would ultimately require a blade.

If i wanted realism i would not play.

It's not about realism an sich , but realism in the WH40k universe. The rules off the game should be in concert with the background you use. Nobody is advocating abandoning the melee weapons. What we do ask is that in a world where melee weapons are widespread and are pictured as a good alternative for ranged weapons in about every fictional work we've read, seen or experienced, the rules of the roleplaying game reflect this quality.

Therefore the somewhat absurd example about rockthrowing

As far as I understand the meaning of Bogi's post, it's not so far off Cymbel's message. The example Symbel gives (basic weapon vs. melee weapon) is exactly the kind of thing that makes sense (substantial advantage for the melee weapon). I suppose you could move this threat to the houserule forum to find the ideal adaptation of the rules that tailors tho the WH40k preference for melee weapons.