Who brings a knife to a gun-fight?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Yeah, whatever else the modern world is, we are not pragmatic about war. When we fight we are messy, underhanded, wasteful, and rarely settle for anything but unconditional victory. Its definitely a cultural thing: we've seen cultures that fight like that in history, and for many of the same reasons (ancient rome comes to mind). We've also seen cultures that are pragmatic about ending the war before one or the other sides has been turned into dust.

Its also worth recognizing that along with this we have the philosophy that violence is the last resort, so much of the time we use it, the above outlook is valid: if something less than unconditional victory was on the table we would have started with negotiations, not tested (emphasis on test) our strength first.

Champion duels aren't particularly pragmatic either.

If they're simply a part of a larger battle, it's not clear how they change anything. If they're instead of a larger battle, obviously they save a lot of destruction...but you could save even more by settling the matter with a game of chess instead. And a champion duel isn't any better than a chess showdown for determining who would actually win in a battle.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Champion duels aren't particularly pragmatic either.

If they're simply a part of a larger battle, it's not clear how they change anything. If they're instead of a larger battle, obviously they save a lot of destruction...but you could save even more by settling the matter with a game of chess instead. And a champion duel isn't any better than a chess showdown for determining who would actually win in a battle.

I've bolded the assumptions you are taking for granted.

Many kinds of warfare have units that do greatly effect the outcome of the battle: Champions in pre-formation warfare, knights in medival europe, aircraft in many modern situations. Any of these will normally kill a lot of units, and you counter them by simply replying with your own.

If that is the situation, and both sides have other enemies to worry about, its best to pit the units that will decide the battle against each other as a 'champions match'. Presumably the outcome of the battle is the same (as the deciding arm is the same), and you didn't loose all of the conscripts you would have in a pitched battle.

Close Battles are costly affairs. If you are fighting an honest to goodness one on one war, that doesn't matter. If you are dealing with a complex political situation, its advantageous.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I've bolded the assumptions you are taking for granted.

Many kinds of warfare have units that do greatly effect the outcome of the battle: Champions in pre-formation warfare, knights in medival europe, aircraft in many modern situations. Any of these will normally kill a lot of units, and you counter them by simply replying with your own.

If that is the situation, and both sides have other enemies to worry about, its best to pit the units that will decide the battle against each other as a 'champions match'. Presumably the outcome of the battle is the same (as the deciding arm is the same), and you didn't loose all of the conscripts you would have in a pitched battle.

Close Battles are costly affairs. If you are fighting an honest to goodness one on one war, that doesn't matter. If you are dealing with a complex political situation, its advantageous.

Problem is with that is champion vs. champion (or elite vs. elite) was actually a resource maintenance tactic. It's was mainly employed by people who just can't afford to lose large numbers of able bodied people who will otherwise be responsible for keeping you society fed and warm win or lose.

dedicated soldiers had one job to fight*. So while they are individually resource intensive to train, equip and maintain and you don't waste them by any means if they're fighting their earning their keep.

Once warm bodies become a less critical resource (and equipping them less of a burden) to gamble the out come on your best chap not having an off day becomes less attractive.

*and keep the chaps with the big hats in power.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Champion duels aren't particularly pragmatic either.

If they're simply a part of a larger battle, it's not clear how they change anything. If they're instead of a larger battle, obviously they save a lot of destruction...but you could save even more by settling the matter with a game of chess instead. And a champion duel isn't any better than a chess showdown for determining who would actually win in a battle.

If they are members of small tribes, eliminating the greatest warrior in either tribe could make resuming hostilities impractical. It would be like sinking a carrier. If they are nations, with a dispute that is minor strategically but major in terms of face, a duel is a reasonable way to solve it, and possibly the only way to do so and avoid shedding blood without looking like one is trying to. A game of chess lowers the stakes to much, unless of course the loser has to commit sepukku. No nation of course could be trusted to wager it's existence on a duel if it can continue to fight afterwords, but for minor disputes it can be a useful way to keep one's street cred. And of course high-strung young fools wanting to send challenges across no mans land because they are bored don't need to be practical. A lot of champion duels were no more then that and had no other intention.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

If they are members of small tribes, eliminating the greatest warrior in either tribe could make resuming hostilities impractical. It would be like sinking a carrier. If they are nations, with a dispute that is minor strategically but major in terms of face, a duel is a reasonable way to solve it, and possibly the only way to do so and avoid shedding blood without looking like one is trying to. A game of chess lowers the stakes to much, unless of course the loser has to commit sepukku. No nation of course could be trusted to wager it's existence on a duel if it can continue to fight afterwords, but for minor disputes it can be a useful way to keep one's street cred. And of course high-strung young fools wanting to send challenges across no mans land because they are bored don't need to be practical. A lot of champion duels were no more then that and had no other intention.

An ordeal might do for this purpose but it has to be a conspicuous display of prowess. I once wrote a short story where a feud in the Sword Worlds was aborted by the Wise Woman of the Mountains(a famous local backcountry diplomat), ordering the two tribes to have a race to capture an eagle in the cliffs and present it to the local Hertug's aviary. If I remember both tribes captured one, the Hertug took the hint and accepted both eagles. But the point was the Wise Woman of the Mountains realized that the real reason they were feuding was to avoid being looked upon as people who wouldn't feud-and by extension as easy prey. Giving them a rigorous task serves the same purpose. Just as a duel does. A mere chess game doesn't.

[ArchonShiva]

Why does it work in 40k?

Are effective weapon ranges incredibly low, or maybe weapons are incredibly inaccurate, jam all the time or hold very low ammo and reload or cycle very slowly?

Then again, maybe it doesn't work in 40k either.

How close to the source (which I barely know) do you want to stick?

Misunderstood, badly maintained technology is easy to make cumbersome to use. Maybe firing a ranged weapon requires being stationary, drilling spikes into the ground, getting a lock-on (which registers on your target's sensors) and so on, making you melee bait.

Give weapons a huge Bulk, and impose Bulk on unaimed shots (sort of like a better version of Third Edition Snapshot). Cap Move and Attack at 9 with ranged weapons. There's a ton of stuff you can do here.

As an aside, GURPS rounds are 1 second. If you take the duration of a 40k round (6 seconds, 1 minute, I have no idea) and determine that this is the actual rate of fire, you can possibly both follow the lore and make ranged weapons stupidly slow.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

Why does it work in 40k?

Are effective weapon ranges incredibly low, or maybe weapons are incredibly inaccurate, jam all the time or hold very low ammo and reload or cycle very slowly?

Then again, maybe it doesn't work in 40k either.

In the tabletop game, the ranges are incredibly low.

In the fiction I've seen, it mostly works because of furious handwaving. With an occasional side of fighting in close environments that make it at least slightly less implausible.

[mr beer]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

Why does it work in 40k?

Are effective weapon ranges incredibly low, or maybe weapons are incredibly inaccurate, jam all the time or hold very low ammo and reload or cycle very slowly?

The entire premise of 40K is Maximum Grimdark, with an additional side-helping of grimdark. They are the Spinal Tap * of grimdark, if you will. Missing out on bloody melees would reduce the grimdark quotient and therefore the rules are tweaked to ensure that hand-to-hand combat is useful at a technology level where it should seldom be a thing.

* It goes up to 11.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by mr beer

The entire premise of 40K is Maximum Grimdark, with an additional side-helping of grimdark. They are the Spinal Tap * of grimdark, if you will. Missing out on bloody melees would reduce the grimdark quotient and therefore the rules are tweaked to ensure that hand-to-hand combat is useful at a technology level where it should seldom be a thing.

* It goes up to 11.

It's also a wargaming artifact where you don't have an entire gym's worth of terrain to push your guys over.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

Why does it work in 40k?

Are effective weapon ranges incredibly low, or maybe weapons are incredibly inaccurate, jam all the time or hold very low ammo and reload or cycle very slowly?

Then again, maybe it doesn't work in 40k either.

How close to the source (which I barely know) do you want to stick?

Misunderstood, badly maintained technology is easy to make cumbersome to use. Maybe firing a ranged weapon requires being stationary, drilling spikes into the ground, getting a lock-on (which registers on your target's sensors) and so on, making you melee bait.

Give weapons a huge Bulk, and impose Bulk on unaimed shots (sort of like a better version of Third Edition Snapshot). Cap Move and Attack at 9 with ranged weapons. There's a ton of stuff you can do here.

As an aside, GURPS rounds are 1 second. If you take the duration of a 40k round (6 seconds, 1 minute, I have no idea) and determine that this is the actual rate of fire, you can possibly both follow the lore and make ranged weapons stupidly slow.

First off there's a difference between just looking at space marines and looking at the whole setting.

Believe me if you play Imperial guard (WW1 rifles troops) or Tau (manga power armour) it very much becomes a shooting war.

Space Marines chapters (loose organisational groupings) are basically all of histories great warrior cultures with the word space tacked on the front. So you have space Mongols, space Vikings, space legionaries, space crusader knights (and when that's not enough you have space vampires). hand to hand combat fits the motif.

You have to remember of course that 40k came our of warhammer fantasy battle, and it's first edition was practically the same rules set.

Now in the setting (and the RPG, Death watch), marines are very tough, very strong, very fast and very well armoured. Their initial purpose was for small numbers of them to win wars against much greater numbers of less well equipped troops.

They are functionally immune to normal rank and file weapons (but can be brought down my massed fire). Hand to hand combat suits them in because it plays to their strengths and to the weaknesses of who they are supposed to be fighting.

But it also suits their tactics, they are all lighting strikes to the opposing commanding officers and out again etc, etc. They are not rank and file in gun lines or normal engagements. So h-t-h is good for them because they can do while they go, these chaps theoretically don't get bogged down in fire and manoeuvre fire fights.


Someone once described a standard warhammer 40k battle (two roughly equal armies lining up approx 100 yards away from each other) as something having gone badly wrong for both sides.