"So... is this typical for 40k players?" Topic

perfectly sums up 40k

Sure does. Not that there is anything wrong with that. :-)

Seems accurate to me.

Actually, Imperial Guard are really poor at close combat. So that picture doesn't represent what an Imperial Guard player would do. Especially since they use a Leman Russ. Distance is a Russ' best friend.

I can see ground on that table, not enough figures

Don't get me started !!!!!

40K's extremely short ranged weapons and emphasis on hand-to-hand combat are intentional. It allows players to place a large number of miniatures and vehicles on a relatively small table surface. All this encourages prospective players to buy large armies.

Besides, widely spaced miniatures and vehicles may be more realistic but don't look as cool.

It's the absolutely rubbish weapon ranges that make 40k such a broken game. Most weapons only have a range of 24-48 inches. Back when they used to do the world wide campaigns i fielded a force of 6 basilisk artillery pieces with their 240 inch range. The opposing side had Orks where nothing had more than a 36 inch range. Things got messy fast.

Ah, 40k.
The rules are unrealistic.
The Models are silly.
And the world the game takes place in is utterly ridiculous.
…AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY WE LIKE IT!

No, most don't own swords, and it's doubtful even if they did they could convince their parents to "drive closer" to something just so they could hit it.

The caption is poking fun at the tendency for command models, and especially the pictured Imperial Guards Commissars, to be waving around big silly close combat weapons. Yes, even when riding in the TC's spot on a tank.

To be fair, there was more than one American Cavalry officer doing exactly that crossing the LOD in both 1991 and 2003. Admittedly the Cav lost the brains of the outfit when they gave up the horses…

What about the music? That what makes them so different from the rest of us, all that thrash, with such brain wrecking stuff that's. All the tactics they can deal with without having a brain haemorrhage' heheh;)

Titans with close combat weapons…

Titans with close combat weapons…

Oh yeah ! That still amazes me !

The rules are unrealistic.
The Models are silly.
And the world the game takes place in is utterly ridiculous.
…AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY WE LIKE IT!

That is why I always say … "Do what works for you … Not me … "

As SMWBO said, "Somewhere between undead robots and 40,000 years in the future you lost the moral highground to use the word realism."

LOL !!!!!

I was cavalry. I never pulled out a saber in my turret and charged, but it does sound like fun.

Even when you play a fantasy game, you do want it to follow some realism. What happens should feel feasible.

I agree totally, being a former Infantry Officer … I never carried a sword. Save for as part of a Color Guard for friends' weddings. Did carry at least one combat knife of some sort plus a bayonet at times. But I've brought up this topic on other sites. Like on Facebook about some of the unfeasible, unrealistic, etc., things, etc., in the GW 40K universe. I was burned at the stake by the drinking GW fan boys … But again, always do what works for you … not me … If you want to paint you AFVs in bright pretty colors and have the TCs packing a sword. Go for it ! You don't have to justify anything to me …

It's kind of become muddled but one of the things that always stood out to me in Rogue Trader was the notion that sheer brutality is more effective than technology.

A rebellion can be put down by the reputation of the power armoured psychopaths sent to crush them.

You kind of have to "get" the sort of nihilist-dark-humour-2000AD-heavymetalmusic roots of 40K.

40K isn't supposed to be realistic. Power armored space marines fighting with chainswords does not make sense. Ranged weapons that can reach no more than 12 to 24 inches do not make sense. It doesn't bother people who are just looking for a fun and playable game rather than a realistic simulation.

Yes, we get that … But it does not work for me … Just my opinion …

When I first started playing I lost a lot. A friend explained to me that I needed to rework my list and get some guys with swords. I said that I had sniper rifles, shurakin launchers, plasma grenades, krak missiles, and a bunch of other cool shooting weapons. Why would they need swords? He then took me to school with his space wolves. Other than his heavy weapons he hardly fired a shot and tore up my entire battle line by turn three. Wow? Guess I better get some swords if I wanted to win this sci fi game. I discovered I had some pretty good hth units as well, but it really seemed like fantasy with tanks. And I guess it was, but we still had fun.

Yes, the weapon ranges are so short you need to get in close and use your close combat weapons.

In contrast to the sentiments on this board, the consensus among current 40k players is that swords/axes generally have no place on the tabletop because fire kills.

Good to know a36 ! Maybe someone is beginning to see the light !

If you've read the current edition's rules for charging and close combat, alpha3sixes experience makes perfect sense. But the OP's art is from many years ago and the caption dates to 5th edition. 40k is a fluid reality, optimized to sell the new hotness.

the consensus among current 40k players is that swords/axes generally have no place on the tabletop because fire kills

While that is not a 100% true blanket statement, in the last two editions the shooting game has really gotten a shot in the arm compared to assault oriented play. You can still make assault armies work, but they are far less of a sure thing than they used to be.

As an example, I ran my Heresy era Sons of Horus Space Marine army two weeks ago against a Chaos Space Marine force. (yes, yes, not very "fluffy" as they say..) I won the game via shooting, with only one assault being fought during the course of the game. This seems to be pretty typical of many games in today's environment.

40K isn't supposed to be realistic. Power armored space marines fighting with chainswords does not make sense. Ranged weapons that can reach no more than 12 to 24 inches do not make sense. It doesn't bother people who are just looking for a fun and playable game rather than a realistic simulation.

Quoted for truth, as the kiddies say…

Chainswords are indeed a great example. I've done a lot of full contact fighting with medieval weapon replicas over the years using a variety of mediums. (rataan, wooden wasters, steel blunts, etc) But you don't have to have any melee combat experience to realize that a chainsword would be an awful weapon. They would be big and bulky and thus slow, and liable to get stuck in a target if you did manage to hit anything with it. The chain would be a weak point and thus liable to breakage. Finally, they would be rather dangerous to the user unless he were extremely well trained.

But that's all over-thinking it. They don't make sense and they don't have to. They have a certain brutal "cool factor" to them. The same can be said about the whole setting and genre. Thus the silly over-the-top chainsword is really kind of emblematic of the entire game ….

Played 40K in the '90s a bit. And Epic as well, stuck with Epic with various rules mods, other rule systems etc., plus added some other 6mm Sci-fi figures from other companies, etc. … Dumped 40K after a few years. The poor rules, predilection for circus colors, everything looked like it was heading to the Kids Table, etc. … As I said on other threads on TMP and elsewhere. I don't follow the GW fluff and very much.

If I remember correctly from my last game many years ago the big guns and heavy weapons could not reliably penetrated and destroy vehicles.
But send in a couple of blokes with 'power' weapons and they churn them up like playdoh.

Great fun, though duckin n' divin to get them up close.