Taking 40k seriously

[Zakath the slaughterer]

Rabidnid, please... The axe thing was just an example, I'm sure that with a little bit of thinking an effective CC weapon could be deviced - a one that works against modern day body armour.

By that logic all of the anti-terrorist units in the world would be armed with axes.

How did you come up with that? I talked about breakthroughs, you talk about terrorists... I have never been on the field but I'm pretty sure that terrorists generally do not form front lines or dig in or anything like that. Anti-terrorist units are not going to do any breakthrough or charges. Or at least, not much.

That, and I think Arquinsiel hit the head of the nail.

I might add that since it is year 40 000 and something, we can't forsee what the future holds... I think it is very much possible that in the future, wars are waged in a way different manner than today (possibly by droids as in Star Wars? Or clone soldiers?). So I promise that I won't promise anything but everything is possible.

[Crazyhorse]

Ok in 40k I would say the closest things to terrorists would be orks. They are plants! So anti-terrorism in the 40k world may use and axe as we would us an axe on a tree . Lets not get caught up in all the what ifs as Zakath has stated, we have no idea what the future holds.

-crazyhorse

[Rabidnid]

Rabidnid, please... The axe thing was just an example, I'm sure that with a little bit of thinking an effective CC weapon could be deviced - a one that works against modern day body armour.

There is, its called a gun

By that logic all of the anti-terrorist units in the world would be armed with axes.

How did you come up with that? I talked about breakthroughs, you talk about terrorists... I have never been on the field but I'm pretty sure that terrorists generally do not form front lines or dig in or anything like that. Anti-terrorist units are not
going to do any breakthrough or charges. Or at least, not much.

Anti terrorist units, particularly hostage rescue teams, are specialist assault units that need maximum damage potential, with the minimum possilbe collatoral damage. If swords and axes or whatever were any use in CC they would be using them. They use guns because they do far more damage for the effort put in, are effective beyond a metre or so range, and penetrate all forms of body armour with ease. EE (Doc) Smith (the orignator of space marines) and the grunt cum author of Forever war may have liked the idea, but reality has nothing to do with it.

That, and I think Arquinsiel hit the head of the nail

Again nope, guerillas and terrorits are two different things, Western and Chechen terrorists are generally armoured these days and using military grade weapons. Guerillas are a differnet thing and have nothing to do with the argument that axes are better than guns.


Physics will be the same in 40,000 years time and the kinetic energy of a bullet will still be superior to the kinetic energy of an axe, then as now.

[T12161991]

Physics is the same yes, but when you put a monomolecular edge and an energy disruption field on a bladed weapon, they get quite a bit more lethal

[Arquinsiel]

Again nope, guerillas and terrorits are two different things, Western and Chechen terrorists are generally armoured these days and using military grade weapons. Guerillas are a differnet thing and have nothing to do with the argument that axes are better than guns.

Let's ignore all of the reasons this is flawed and instead focus on the fact that you are ignoring: ship-board combat. Rationalise that away please.

[Archdukechocula]

Setting a story in the future is a narrative device that is almost always employed precisely because it gives the author a certain amount of structural freedom. It allows you to, in essence, make a setting that reflects an idea, rather than limiting the portrayal of those ideas to internal character developments, dialouge, or action. When someone sets something 40,000 years in the future,it is pretty much the narrators way of saying "All bets are off, this is my universe". After all, our ability to project even a few years into the future is crap at best. Once you start talking 40,000 years, it pretty much gives an author artistic license to make the world operate according to whatever principles he or she chooses. The story comes first. The explanation is merely a byproduct of that process. People use axes in space? Well hey, maybe body armor is specifically designed to deal with high energy lasers and exploding projectiles, and isn't engineered for dealing with a hand weapon. Modern body armour is functional to a degree versus hand weapons, but its design is highly geared towards dispersing the kinetic energy of something shaped like a bullet. It is serviceable against, say, a knife or an axe, but it isn't really designed for those purposes, and there are older armours that are far superior for dealing with those kinds of blows. One could easily imagine that in the future, the specific needs of body armour to deal with hyper deadly ranged weapons comes at the cost of hand to hand protection. But really, that isn't even the point. The point is, it's fun to play around with the idea of axe wielding orks that are made of fungus. You come up with an explanation for why these things exist after that. It's 40,000 years from now. You have a lot of leeway for making up random explanations. But really, requiring explanations for every little thing is just an indication that you are sort of missing the point. We aren't talking about real things. We are talking about archetypes and symbols and ideas clashing in epic battles across the universe. The details are incidental.

[Rabidnid]

Again nope, guerillas and terrorits are two different things, Western and Chechen terrorists are generally armoured these days and using military grade weapons. Guerillas are a differnet thing and have nothing to do with the argument that axes are better than guns.

Let's ignore all of the reasons this is flawed and instead focus on the fact that you are ignoring: ship-board combat. Rationalise that away please.

No, please share your insight into how terrorists are actually guerillas, the defence community would like to so they don't mistake one for the other.

[Zakath the slaughterer]

Damn, that was nicely put Archdukechocula showed us what's the difference between a native speaker and me trying to explain something

Also, there's the playability issue, 40k would be much less of a game if there were only different flavours of Tau to select an army from - that is to say, if no codex included a credible CC unit.

[Crazyhorse]

There have been some very good points made by Archdukechocula and Zakath the Slaughterer. New weapons means new armor that usually ignore the old "outdates" and "insignificant" weapons that are sill deadly. Also I would not play if every army was a Tau varient. Now it seems that the topics has shifted from can we take the game seriously to is the game plausable? I still can't take it seriously even though I like the game if we really wanted a serious game we would play Flames of war.

-crazyhorse

[Arquinsiel]

No, please share your insight into how terrorists are actually guerillas, the defence community would like to so they don't mistake one for the other.

Why bother? Your phrasing already implies that the source you consider most valid will always continue to believe them distinct and non-overlapping forms of conflict (which is blatantly not the case, as the invasion of Afghanistan shows) and you fail to provide any counter-arguement beyond throwing insults at authors.

[Rabidnid]

No, please share your insight into how terrorists are actually guerillas, the defence community would like to so they don't mistake one for the other.

Why bother? Your phrasing already implies that the source you consider most valid will always continue to believe them distinct and non-overlapping forms of conflict (which is blatantly not the case, as the invasion of Afghanistan shows) and you fail to provide any counter-arguement beyond throwing insults at authors.

Quoting myself from previously

"Anti terrorist units, particularly hostage rescue teams, are specialist assault units that need maximum damage potential, with the minimum possilbe collatoral damage. If swords and axes or whatever were any use in CC they would be using them. They use guns because they do far more damage for the effort put in, are effective beyond a metre or so range, and penetrate all forms of body armour with ease. EE (Doc) Smith (the orignator of space marines) and the grunt cum author of Forever war may have liked the idea, but reality has nothing to do with it "

If you want to say that the above is not true then you need to explain why.

Again quoting my self previously

"guerillas and terrorits are two different things, Western and Chechen terrorists are generally armoured these days and using military grade weapons. Guerillas are a differnet thing and have nothing to do with the argument that axes are better than guns."

Purely in the context of being the targest of Western HRTs, terrorists are people who take hostages to terrorist the public and influence the actions of the goverment. Western terrorists, be they IRA, Chechen, tend to be well equiped and armoured these days.

If you believe that the above is not the case then explain why.

Quoting you from proviously

" ship-board combat. Rationalise that away please"

Currently nobody cares and are willing to shoot holes in airliners, All airline security is armed with firearms, some of the minor US ones might have tazers as well but all are gun armed. Now your premise is that it might be dangerous to use guns in space, so people will use axes instead dosen't really work. In a war people wuill be putitng a lot of work into letting the air out of an oppoents space ship so is isn't going to be critical.

In circumstances where letting the air out is a bad thing, various non lethal current gadgets like lead shot bean bags and hydralic teargas despensors will be adaptable to more fragile enviroments. There is currently a teargas round that on striking a windshield, punches a tiny hole though the windshield and pumps teargass though the hole. Its not in civilian use due to the risk of eye damage from glass shards, but it is a very neat use of hydro dynamics and could be the basis for a lethal non penetrating round

All i have ever said is that axes will not see a comback as a space weapon, which is the reason I cannot take 40K seriously.

[Grogsnotpowwabomba]

But really, requiring explanations for every little thing is just an indication that you are sort of missing the point.

Rabidnid, please reread this statement over and over again until it sinks in...

[Faerthurir]

Western terrorists, be they IRA, Chechen, tend to be well equiped and armoured these days..

IRA? armoured? whut?

the axe is a fantastic weapon for numerous reasons, not in the least the fact that if it doesn't penetrate armour it will most likely shatter the bone underneath from the force of the blow, a decent hatchet can be as small as a long knife too.

as to the whole theme of the thread, find an article from the 1950's on "what the future will be like", compare it to today and then have a good giggle. seriously, who knows?

[Rabidnid]

But really, requiring explanations for every little thing is just an indication that you are sort of missing the point.

Rabidnid, please reread this statement over and over again until it sinks in...

All i have ever said is that axes will not see a comback as a space weapon, which is the reason I cannot take 40K seriously. Since then i have been patiently expaining to assorted individuals why axes are not as good as guns.

[Zakath the slaughterer]

I reread the whole topic and it dawned on me. I am misunderstood.

Imagine two hostile soldiers standing in one squaremeter. That is close combat to me. Both have assault rifles or equivalent and try bash each other senseless. That's the basic scheme.

All I'm saying is that if I were one of those soldiers, I would, in that situation, rather have an axe or a mace than that gun.

I have stabbed, shot, tore and slashed modern day body armours and I can tell you those things are tough. Stabbing a large knife into it didn't do any harm. If, however, there was a man inside and I'd hit him with a mace/hammer/axe he would most propably

A) lose his breath and/or
B) fall over or atleast lose his balance for a while and/or
C) some of his bones would break.

In addition, most modern day soldiers I know of, do not wear any armour for their arms, tighs and legs. Face and neck are also vulnerable to this kind of attack.

Note that I am not saying that armies will deploy troops that resemble Howling Banshees or Assault Terminators anytime soon. Troops that are going purely for hand to hand combat and armed with minimal/no ranged weaponry. What I am saying is, that it isn't such a dumb idea to equip soldiers with dedicated close combat weaponry - even if those were modified spades or spoons or something soldiers already carry.

I think that at this point, we can at least agree that arguing about this is way off topic and has very little to do with the question "do you find 40k believable". In a game setting including Sanctioned Psykers, Living Saints and such a variation of xeno races, specialized close combat troops are IMHO a small thing.

[T12161991]

Actually, the US army is developing a full body exoskeleton for use by Spec. Ops. by 2025. Full body armor, musculature enhancement, all sorts of neat little gadgets (GPS, FOF, automatic blood clotting etc.).

[Zakath the slaughterer]

Yeah I've read of that. Really nice looking but I wonder if any army has the budget for equipping soldiers with those! Well that's really not a thing for me to worry about.

Yeah, articles about "power armours" are really impressing, it is wondrous what man can device. Some of it sounded a bit like the description of Eldar armour. Textiles that react to movement and enhance it and that... Really looking forward to prototypes!

[Grogsnotpowwabomba]

Since then i have been patiently expaining to assorted individuals why axes are not as good as guns.

Because you are the authority on forecasting events 38,000 years into the future, right?

Ok man, you keep doing that...

[Arquinsiel]

Yeah, articles about "power armours" are really impressing, it is wondrous what man can device. Some of it sounded a bit like the description of Eldar armour. Textiles that react to movement and enhance it and that... Really looking forward to prototypes!

IIRC there was a "mesh armour" made from layering kevlar sheets and glass dust in minute amounts. It works on the same principle as the famous shattering custard trick. Not sure how well it worked out in the end though, I stopped paying attention.

[Rabidnid]

Since then i have been patiently expaining to assorted individuals why axes are not as good as guns.

Because you are the authority on forecasting events 38,000 years into the future, right?

Ok man, you keep doing that...

At this point I will withdraw, because as the saying goes:

"never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

[Gnosis]

Pipe down, all of you. Let's be polite.

[Demetrius]

If you have next to no armour, then you will be shot before reaching the enemy (inevitably). If you have good armour (not modern armour) to be able to protect yourself from firearms, CC weapons can be of use, look at Halo with Elites' energy swords and Brutes' gravity hammers. But as I said, they would just be shot if they didn't have their powerful armour.

[Eeeeron]

For the most part I like the fluff, there are occasional points when they seem to contradict themselves or some of the novels are just terrible.

[Neferata]

I am certainly not an expert in the matter and therefor I wont try to explain or show any similarities between the 40k universe with our own. But I don't really think you can compare two, such different universes with each other. The technology for example is very different, you can teleport troops, make use of incredibly potent defense systems such as void shields, but still most worlds are having a great deal of trouble with producing a battle tank such as a baneblade. This because the tech is very limited. In our world, manufacturing a baneblade would be much more simple than for example teleporting troops (which we most surely never will be able to do).

Another different thing is that our battles on earth is always man to man conflicts. No other race and no other physical prowess. If you imagine yourself a lone, scared IG officer with a las-pistol and a glowy blue sword that has proven itself quite useful at slicing through armour and you are charged by a battle-crazed giant wearing an armour equal to the hull of a battle tank. I don't say you stand much of a chance either way, but perhaps your sword will come in handy. Or imagine yourself fighting tyranids in the 41st millenia. Ofcourse you don't leave your bunker and try to assault them, but when ammunition starts to run low, perhaps you are greatful that the generous emperor provided you with a bayonet .

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that warhammer 40k isn't just as simple as trying to imagine our own civilization 38 thousand years from now as there will probably not be any daemons by that time either .

N.

[Arquinsiel]

Don't encourage the spambots, they'll cry if they realise you're being sarcastic.