Portrayal and realism of close combat in BL fiction

[grailkeeper]

Kinda hard to see why there would still be close combat specialists, particularly in tight formations, in a unverse where orbital bombarments exist. 

 

The only place where  I could see it existing would be in ship boarding action.s

[DarkChaplain]

Probably because you'd like to actually take infrastructure, like forges or mining complexes, intact rather than on a molecular level.

[grailkeeper]

Even on a smaller scale- artillery, grenades other explosives. If someone can easily kill you from far away, massed close combat is not a great idea.

Edited March 18, 2020 by grailkeeper

[b1soul]

@grailkeeper

 

Yet massed close combat exists in 40K, and it exists in a packed press of SM going at each other.

 

You make it sound like close combat between SM involves optimally spaced out pockets of SM, which is simply not the case.

 

In current BL work, it reads like SM do get into chaotic melee presses, it's just that the groups of SM don't fight as cohesive units with weapons optimized for group combat (like Legionaries or Hoplites).Rather,they fight more like two packs of Germanic or Celtic champions slamming into each other and getting mixed up in the process.

 

I've never read anything in BL deliberately hinting that SM try to optimize their spacing in melee struggles to mitigate against explosive ordinance. BL tends to emphasize the effectiveness of "savage" CC-oriented chapters or legions in Astartes vs. Astartes conflicts. No hint that these "savage" factions practice some sort of optimal spacing in melee. They just go at it agressively and get stuck in (without flying entirely off the handle and overextending like WE on Nails).

 

So if in SM vs. SM CC, they can get away with sub-optimal, relatively packed spacing, why don't they fight as cohesive units in CC? It doesn't have to be giant formations of thousands or even hundreds of marines, it could be formations of ten or twenty fighting in small cohesive blocks equipped with shields. But that seems to be rarer than it should be.

[Xisor]

Again, this is where it works. Or should work.

 

In a world where orbital bombardments work - and where Marines are amongst the best at 'em - Marines are also Batmans (Batmen?) - they're prepared for all eventualities.

 

Most battles can be won by a quick drop pod and bolter firing. That's their MO, they rarely need comprehensive air support, because they'd rarely need to be on the damn planet longer than a few hours to cripple a target and let local opposition take over again.

 

They don't need to fight orks for centuries - they need to break the back timely enough so the Astra Militarum can sort it out in their stead.

 

So Marines in close combat isn't "tight formation", it's just not devolving into chaos where THEY are the ones struggling.

 

If they can manage to avoid that, then it almost doesn't matter what they're doing, as much as they're comfortable and in control with it. They can be as sub-optimalbas they like, as long as its not seriously risking their success.

 

But that's where stories bug me - if a Marine's dragged down by zombies, I'd want to seem them escalate into a formation, or mode of operation that accounts for it.

 

I'd heard The Martian described as competence porn - it's fun, and interesting to see and read about someone diligently solving vexing problems.

 

Marines in combat situations should feel like that - almost like a murder mystery. What wacky Marine tool do they have in the Codex to help? Nothing in the Codex? Why?? That's interesting.

 

But it all has to fit together neatly, otherwise it's not a satisfying murder mystery, just a serious of fairly incoherent set pieces and "and then this happened" without evoking a feel of... Connectedness?

 

I don't need to see all the pieces, but the implication that it all fits together just out of sight makes it much more bearable.

 

----

 

It's also why for such a long time I didn't enjoy Marine fiction - it was never presented in a way that met that criteria to seem "plausible enough", even with obvious handwaving and just-off-page stuff.

 

As I've long said: Marine stories, in principle, should be howlingly boring. (Or rather, it's a difficult job to find really interesting stuff in them that sustains a conventional action romp with only aesthetic changes. Marines - in principle - should dramatically alter what's going on with a narrative. At least that's what I usually feel when it's a straight up "Captain Protagonist + Sergeant Friend" adventure.)

[b1soul]

I think I would just want...

 

1. team tactics, even if only at the demi-company or squad level, employed more often by Astartes in CC

 

2. such discipline more often shown to be effective against more berserk styles of CC

 

I am reminded of that scene in Prospero Burns when Fith and his Ascomanni comrades fend off the Balt. They improvise a shield wall as best they can and fight as a unit. I think Shiban and Jochi operate as a two-man team in some of the combat scenes of PoH, but I'd like to see more of that stuff on a larger scale

[Tyriks]

I think I would just want...

 

1. team tactics, even if only at the demi-company or squad level, employed more often by Astartes in CC

 

2. such discipline more often shown to be effective against more berserk styles of CC

 

I am reminded of that scene in Prospero Burns when Fith and his Ascomanni comrades fend off the Balt. They improvise a shield wall as best they can and fight as a unit. I think Shiban and Jochi operate as a two-man team in some of the combat scenes of PoH, but I'd like to see more of that stuff on a larger scale

I don't remember the book, but somewhere a character was comparing Astartes to Custodes and said the difference in fighting style was that the Custodes fight individually like a lion, whereas the Astartes fight together like wolves.  But I think I can count on one hands the number of times an author has actually shown that in books I've read.

[Dumah]

 

 

I think I would just want...

 

1. team tactics, even if only at the demi-company or squad level, employed more often by Astartes in CC

 

2. such discipline more often shown to be effective against more berserk styles of CC

 

I am reminded of that scene in Prospero Burns when Fith and his Ascomanni comrades fend off the Balt. They improvise a shield wall as best they can and fight as a unit. I think Shiban and Jochi operate as a two-man team in some of the combat scenes of PoH, but I'd like to see more of that stuff on a larger scale

I don't remember the book, but somewhere a character was comparing Astartes to Custodes and said the difference in fighting style was that the Custodes fight individually like a lion, whereas the Astartes fight together like wolves. But I think I can count on one hands the number of times an author has actually shown that in books I've read.

I think that was The First Hereric by AD-B. The same idea is reinforced in Wraight's The Emperor's Legion (which I just so happen to be halfway through reading).

[Beren]

Its also made clear in the Master of Mankind

[bluntblade]

And a contrast is supplied in The Hollow Mountain.

[b1soul]

@ Nemesor Tyriks

 

Yes, shoulder-to-shoulder SM melee action is very rare in 40K

 

It shouldn't be, as even if SM spread out to avoid explosives (which they don't always do), the squads should still be intact. When squads clash against squads, I would expect some team coordination in melee.

 

During the Heresy, there's a taste of hundreds of SM slamming into each other (e.g. Ventanus and his men charging into WB, Shiban and his men charging into Traitors), but I don't think we ever read anything about trying to maintain formation under those circumstances. It's all a bit glossed over or ignored, which is a bit of a shame.

[Fedor]

Kyme had a short in Shattered Legions that showed coordinated melee of the Iron Hands grinding their way through a World Eaters ship with few losses above Istvaan V, before of course eventually coming undone by getting enraged at the WE having mutilated the corpses of a previous boarding party, giving in to MEDUSAN RAGE and getting into a chaotic brawl that favoured the world eaters.

 

It's simplistic though and the short did ultimately have another focus than just depicting different fighting styles.

[Xisor]

Fedor, that reminds me Kyme's done some neat work that way - conspicuously more than a lot of other Marine authors.

 

I recall his defence of the crashed starship in the Salamanders trilogy - it didn't get into squad combat to my memory, but did do some interesting things about overlapping defences, inter-squad support and so forth. Was neat.

 

Think he managed a similar result in "Assault on Black Reach" - albeit in reverse, where one of Sicadius' questionable traits was his ability to act without coordination, and expect people to form up in his wake. It bred some resentment, if memory serves. (It also has a fine example of Tactical Marines getting out of power armour and into Scout armour to go and do some scouting too, I think?)

[b1soul]

I enjoyed Kyme's Fall of Damnos, where he also describes Sicarius and his retinue as the guys who (rather recklessly) charge out in front to chase glory

[Moonreaper666]

@ Nemesor Tyriks

 

Yes, shoulder-to-shoulder SM melee action is very rare in 40K

 

It shouldn't be, as even if SM spread out to avoid explosives (which they don't always do), the squads should still be intact. When squads clash against squads, I would expect some team coordination in melee.

 

During the Heresy, there's a taste of hundreds of SM slamming into each other (e.g. Ventanus and his men charging into WB, Shiban and his men charging into Traitors), but I don't think we ever read anything about trying to maintain formation under those circumstances. It's all a bit glossed over or ignored, which is a bit of a shame.

In a Marine vs Marine battle is it worth it to help your buddy engage in melee with one enemy Marine or fight another one?

 

I feel that racking up kills would be more effective in keeping the squad or company alive (in most situations) than helping your buddy. It probably would take a few seconds longer to help a buddy in melee than killing Marines going solo since it would mean less steps/actions. Very important when there is a stream of enemies heading your way

 

Navy Seals are not as effective as Space Marines because they value their lives and of their teamates more than Astartes. Astartes take more casualties than NSs on regular missions

[b1soul]

Why wouldn't you help your buddies if you were a marine? Marines are heavy shock infantry doing heavy shock infantry things in melee, except the group cohesion part.

 

There seems to be this odd line of thought that because marines are faster and stronger than mortals, unit cohesion would not benefit them. Maybe that's true when they're cutting down useless mortals, but when they're carving into other marines...yeah, it would benefit them.

[Lord_Caerolion]

 

@ Nemesor Tyriks

 

Yes, shoulder-to-shoulder SM melee action is very rare in 40K

 

It shouldn't be, as even if SM spread out to avoid explosives (which they don't always do), the squads should still be intact. When squads clash against squads, I would expect some team coordination in melee.

 

During the Heresy, there's a taste of hundreds of SM slamming into each other (e.g. Ventanus and his men charging into WB, Shiban and his men charging into Traitors), but I don't think we ever read anything about trying to maintain formation under those circumstances. It's all a bit glossed over or ignored, which is a bit of a shame.

In a Marine vs Marine battle is it worth it to help your buddy engage in melee with one enemy Marine or fight another one?

 

I feel that racking up kills would be more effective in keeping the squad or company alive (in most situations) than helping your buddy. It probably would take a few seconds longer to help a buddy in melee than killing Marines going solo since it would mean less steps/actions. Very important when there is a stream of enemies heading your way

 

Navy Seals are not as effective as Space Marines because they value their lives and of their teamates more than Astartes. Astartes take more casualties than NSs on regular missions

 

 

Seriously, what is with your hatred of Navy Seals? 

 

Also, 2 Marines are more effective than 1 Marine. One marine is roughly on par with "you" so you've got a roughly 50/50 chance of being killed yourself. Why not team up with a buddy to be certain you kill that single enemy marine, then the next single marine, and so on? I mean, this is really sounding like you're discounting the chances of actually getting defeated yourself, instead just churning through enemy after enemy.

 

Basically, a properly trained squad will almost always perform better than a bunch of well-trained individuals acting independently of each other. There's a reason all militaries operate using squads, instead of just giving people guns, pointing them towards the enemy, and saying "off you go".

[Moonreaper666]

 

 

 

@ Nemesor Tyriks

 

Yes, shoulder-to-shoulder SM melee action is very rare in 40K

 

It shouldn't be, as even if SM spread out to avoid explosives (which they don't always do), the squads should still be intact. When squads clash against squads, I would expect some team coordination in melee.

 

During the Heresy, there's a taste of hundreds of SM slamming into each other (e.g. Ventanus and his men charging into WB, Shiban and his men charging into Traitors), but I don't think we ever read anything about trying to maintain formation under those circumstances. It's all a bit glossed over or ignored, which is a bit of a shame.

In a Marine vs Marine battle is it worth it to help your buddy engage in melee with one enemy Marine or fight another one?

 

I feel that racking up kills would be more effective in keeping the squad or company alive (in most situations) than helping your buddy. It probably would take a few seconds longer to help a buddy in melee than killing Marines going solo since it would mean less steps/actions. Very important when there is a stream of enemies heading your way

 

Navy Seals are not as effective as Space Marines because they value their lives and of their teamates more than Astartes. Astartes take more casualties than NSs on regular missions

Seriously, what is with your hatred of Navy Seals?

 

Also, 2 Marines are more effective than 1 Marine. One marine is roughly on par with "you" so you've got a roughly 50/50 chance of being killed yourself. Why not team up with a buddy to be certain you kill that single enemy marine, then the next single marine, and so on? I mean, this is really sounding like you're discounting the chances of actually getting defeated yourself, instead just churning through enemy after enemy.

 

Basically, a properly trained squad will almost always perform better than a bunch of well-trained individuals acting independently of each other. There's a reason all militaries operate using squads, instead of just giving people guns, pointing them towards the enemy, and saying "off you go".

So that is why the "off you go" Custodes can wipe out Two or More Astarte Legions despite their small numbers. The battles in Warhammer are much more chaotic than Real Life in every way

 

Navy Seals are not meant for war as their poor performance in Yemen and Afghanisthan has shown. Nor are they ok for a true war scenario like Warhammer

[cheywood]

 

 

 

 

@ Nemesor Tyriks

 

Yes, shoulder-to-shoulder SM melee action is very rare in 40K

 

It shouldn't be, as even if SM spread out to avoid explosives (which they don't always do), the squads should still be intact. When squads clash against squads, I would expect some team coordination in melee.

 

During the Heresy, there's a taste of hundreds of SM slamming into each other (e.g. Ventanus and his men charging into WB, Shiban and his men charging into Traitors), but I don't think we ever read anything about trying to maintain formation under those circumstances. It's all a bit glossed over or ignored, which is a bit of a shame.

In a Marine vs Marine battle is it worth it to help your buddy engage in melee with one enemy Marine or fight another one?

 

I feel that racking up kills would be more effective in keeping the squad or company alive (in most situations) than helping your buddy. It probably would take a few seconds longer to help a buddy in melee than killing Marines going solo since it would mean less steps/actions. Very important when there is a stream of enemies heading your way

 

Navy Seals are not as effective as Space Marines because they value their lives and of their teamates more than Astartes. Astartes take more casualties than NSs on regular missions

Seriously, what is with your hatred of Navy Seals?

 

Also, 2 Marines are more effective than 1 Marine. One marine is roughly on par with "you" so you've got a roughly 50/50 chance of being killed yourself. Why not team up with a buddy to be certain you kill that single enemy marine, then the next single marine, and so on? I mean, this is really sounding like you're discounting the chances of actually getting defeated yourself, instead just churning through enemy after enemy.

 

Basically, a properly trained squad will almost always perform better than a bunch of well-trained individuals acting independently of each other. There's a reason all militaries operate using squads, instead of just giving people guns, pointing them towards the enemy, and saying "off you go".

So that is why the "off you go" Custodes can wipe out Two or More Astarte Legions despite their small numbers. The battles in Warhammer are much more chaotic than Real Life in every way

 

Navy Seals are not meant for war as their poor performance in Yemen and Afghanisthan has shown. Nor are they ok for a true war scenario like Warhammer

Soldiers aren’t meant for war? What does that mean?

[BrainFireBob]

Why wouldn't you help your buddies if you were a marine? Marines are heavy shock infantry doing heavy shock infantry things in melee, except the group cohesion part.

 

There seems to be this odd line of thought that because marines are faster and stronger than mortals, unit cohesion would not benefit them. Maybe that's true when they're cutting down useless mortals, but when they're carving into other marines...yeah, it would benefit them.

You have this idea that phalanxes abd formations are the superior way to go. They're not in a vacuum. They were developed to account for human shortfalls. Frankly, the posts read like fan posting, not a rational view of the strengths and weaknesses.

 

The phalanx was developed by a physically smaller-than-their-neighbors people to use in chokepoints, and equipment was selected to be affordable for the average citizen-soldier.

 

Even then, skilled veterans were stationed on the flank, to deal with having no protection from a neighbor's shield.

 

Even in a society that waged war internally this way, the city-state that promoted the highest level of *individual* skill was considered to have an edge. The 8-man depth trapped those at the ftont against breaking.

 

The phalanx was outmoded by the combined-arms Macedonisn phalanx. In its form under Philip and Alexander, it was not just 16 man deep ranks with sarissa, but slingers, archers, men with shorter spears, skirmishers, and cavalry *was part of the formation*.

 

This ultimately proved inferior to manipular style formations. This essentially created the squad, which would respond individually to formation orders and/rotate in and out from the front line. This kept front-line fighters fresh.

 

Consider marines. Marine on marine combat is best expressed by fluff snippets like Deliverance Lost (training sequence). An AL infiltrator stabs at a gorget, drops his knife, catches it in a reverse grip, and stabs up at the groin to bypass his opponent's power armor.

 

This kind of combat requires, above all, mobility. Marines wear bulky armor, with bulky backpacks. They stand too close, they are in each other's way.

 

Authors have mentioned marines fighting as a unit, the "wolves v. lions" thing, but the only scene I have read that shows it is Tarvitz versus Lucius at Istvaan- Tarvitz drops and Bulle's squad shoots. What we should see from Astartes books is marine A headbutts his opponent even as his squadmate b throws a leg behind his opponent to trip them, turning the headbutt into a pointblank shot into squadmate c's opponent, since Marine helmets can network HUD at the squad level. That is team combat.

[bluntblade]

That does come up in Warhawk of Chogoris, actually.

[Lord_Caerolion]

 

 

 

@ Nemesor Tyriks

 

Yes, shoulder-to-shoulder SM melee action is very rare in 40K

 

It shouldn't be, as even if SM spread out to avoid explosives (which they don't always do), the squads should still be intact. When squads clash against squads, I would expect some team coordination in melee.

 

During the Heresy, there's a taste of hundreds of SM slamming into each other (e.g. Ventanus and his men charging into WB, Shiban and his men charging into Traitors), but I don't think we ever read anything about trying to maintain formation under those circumstances. It's all a bit glossed over or ignored, which is a bit of a shame.

In a Marine vs Marine battle is it worth it to help your buddy engage in melee with one enemy Marine or fight another one?

 

I feel that racking up kills would be more effective in keeping the squad or company alive (in most situations) than helping your buddy. It probably would take a few seconds longer to help a buddy in melee than killing Marines going solo since it would mean less steps/actions. Very important when there is a stream of enemies heading your way

 

Navy Seals are not as effective as Space Marines because they value their lives and of their teamates more than Astartes. Astartes take more casualties than NSs on regular missions

Seriously, what is with your hatred of Navy Seals?

 

Also, 2 Marines are more effective than 1 Marine. One marine is roughly on par with "you" so you've got a roughly 50/50 chance of being killed yourself. Why not team up with a buddy to be certain you kill that single enemy marine, then the next single marine, and so on? I mean, this is really sounding like you're discounting the chances of actually getting defeated yourself, instead just churning through enemy after enemy.

 

Basically, a properly trained squad will almost always perform better than a bunch of well-trained individuals acting independently of each other. There's a reason all militaries operate using squads, instead of just giving people guns, pointing them towards the enemy, and saying "off you go".

So that is why the "off you go" Custodes can wipe out Two or More Astarte Legions despite their small numbers. The battles in Warhammer are much more chaotic than Real Life in every way

 

Navy Seals are not meant for war as their poor performance in Yemen and Afghanisthan has shown. Nor are they ok for a true war scenario like Warhammer

 

 

Dude, you really seem to have comprehension issues with how fights work. Custodes are superior one-on-one, yes. When operating in large-scale engagements, they do not train for these sorts of things, and depend on just understanding the capabilities of their companions to compensate for each other. Custodes have not wiped out "two or more Astartes Legions". They took part in the Burning of Prospero, and while they were highly effective, they a) had the Space Wolves doing the bulk of the work, and were working side-by-side with Sisters of Silence, so the Thousand Sons were being offset by having their greatest strength removed.

 

First Heretic shows us that the Custodes, while individually superior, at the very least the Astartes believe they would hold the advantage in actual combat rather than dueling. Regents Shadow shows us that

a squad of Minotaurs is not a pushover to a squad of Custodes with Sisters of Silence supporting them, and even has two Marines dogpile one Custodes, breaking his back

 

Just because one side wins doesn't mean they just steamroller over everyone in their way. Going by your previous logic, sure it takes "a few seconds longer to help a buddy" than working independently, but if both sides are roughly equal then when working independently you've got an equal chance of getting killed yourself. Working in a team minimises that chance, and therefore increases the number of kills you can make before you get killed, even if it might take you slightly longer. Sure, battles are "more chaotic than Real Life", but that doesn't mean that you can assume that one side is running on God Mode and just killing every mook that comes their way. The enemy makes kills too.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Lord_Caerolion

[b1soul]

@ BrainFireBon

 

"You have this idea that phalanxes abd formations are the superior way to go. They're not in a vacuum. They were developed to account for human shortfalls. Frankly, the posts read like fan posting, not a rational view of the strengths and weaknesses."

 

Phalanxes would be one way to go. The discussion moved beyond just Phalanxes quite a while ago. Please get up to speed.

 

The overarching idea is unit cohesion/group discipline in melee, on a smaller or larger scale depending on the circumstances. A phalanx-like formation would be one expression of that, not suitable for every single situation.

 

I encourage you to read more posts in this thread and contribute in a more rational manner, thanks.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

Why wouldn't you help your buddies if you were a marine? Marines are heavy shock infantry doing heavy shock infantry things in melee, except the group cohesion part.

 

There seems to be this odd line of thought that because marines are faster and stronger than mortals, unit cohesion would not benefit them. Maybe that's true when they're cutting down useless mortals, but when they're carving into other marines...yeah, it would benefit them.

You have this idea that phalanxes abd formations are the superior way to go. They're not in a vacuum. They were developed to account for human shortfalls. Frankly, the posts read like fan posting, not a rational view of the strengths and weaknesses.

 

The phalanx was developed by a physically smaller-than-their-neighbors people to use in chokepoints, and equipment was selected to be affordable for the average citizen-soldier.

 

Even then, skilled veterans were stationed on the flank, to deal with having no protection from a neighbor's shield.

 

Even in a society that waged war internally this way, the city-state that promoted the highest level of *individual* skill was considered to have an edge. The 8-man depth trapped those at the ftont against breaking.

 

The phalanx was outmoded by the combined-arms Macedonisn phalanx. In its form under Philip and Alexander, it was not just 16 man deep ranks with sarissa, but slingers, archers, men with shorter spears, skirmishers, and cavalry *was part of the formation*.

 

This ultimately proved inferior to manipular style formations. This essentially created the squad, which would respond individually to formation orders and/rotate in and out from the front line. This kept front-line fighters fresh.

 

Consider marines. Marine on marine combat is best expressed by fluff snippets like Deliverance Lost (training sequence). An AL infiltrator stabs at a gorget, drops his knife, catches it in a reverse grip, and stabs up at the groin to bypass his opponent's power armor.

 

This kind of combat requires, above all, mobility. Marines wear bulky armor, with bulky backpacks. They stand too close, they are in each other's way.

 

Authors have mentioned marines fighting as a unit, the "wolves v. lions" thing, but the only scene I have read that shows it is Tarvitz versus Lucius at Istvaan- Tarvitz drops and Bulle's squad shoots. What we should see from Astartes books is marine A headbutts his opponent even as his squadmate b throws a leg behind his opponent to trip them, turning the headbutt into a pointblank shot into squadmate c's opponent, since Marine helmets can network HUD at the squad level. That is team combat.

That scene in DL was completely ridiculous. It not only implied each legion has some video game style attack animation specific to them, but legionaries would never think to stab at the soft armor of a power armored opponent. It wasn’t like watching a fight between someone boxing and someone doing karate, it was just an obvious thing someone would do. It was like reading someone say ‘hey what was thing you just did with your foot there? A kick? Never heard of that before’ Edited March 24, 2020 by Marshal Rohr

[BrainFireBob]

@ BrainFireBon

 

"You have this idea that phalanxes abd formations are the superior way to go. They're not in a vacuum. They were developed to account for human shortfalls. Frankly, the posts read like fan posting, not a rational view of the strengths and weaknesses."

 

Phalanxes would be one way to go. The discussion moved beyond just Phalanxes quite a while ago. Please get up to speed.

 

The overarching idea is unit cohesion/group discipline in melee, on a smaller or larger scale depending on the circumstances. A phalanx-like formation would be one expression of that, not suitable for every single situation.

 

I encourage you to read more posts in this thread and contribute in a more rational manner, thanks.

I read the entire thread, and you are fixated on, as a given, that formation fighting is superior. You are still bringing them up. You are, I take it, offended I described the position as "fannish". Why? You keep stating as a given that formations are superior; there's no proof or arguments in favor.

 

It is not a priori. Formation fighting, to be effective, requires even ground, an inability to be outflanked, and in its most advanced incarnations the inclusion of specialist troops. The formation itself is slow on the battlefield; requiring hammer and anvil style tactics to utilize. It is a pure crushing kind of combat, one not allowing utilization of mobility.

 

While I agree that there's an implication of anime style attacks, the entire idea that marine aren't trying to punch through each other's armor, but instead going for opportunities to stab weak points, was what I was highlighting. There's a WD blurb from longer ago than I care to remember, where a Chosen marine stabs a Loyalist through the armpit "across both hearts" because "that's how you kill a Loyalist dog." Again, that requires mobility; which makes sense with those stupid backpacks and shoulderpads. Group cohesion can be achieved through the armor networking; something a normal human couldn't handle because of the sensory overload.

 

Marine cohesion is best achieved by unit and situation awareness. During a firefight, forming a firing line is not efficient or required for Marines or in general (the tactic was largely used to concentrate and focus fire in a period with inaccurate standard-issue firearms with a slow rate of fire, broadly speaking); increased ROF weapons and focus on mobility means that Marines aren't charging across the field in formation to engage in melee. For them to be fighting in melee, you would be asking them to make intelligent use of cover, create firing lanes, yell "Time out!" when close to the enemy, shuffle into formation, and the have the Marines in the middle simply unable to move laterally. Instead, "fighting together" because the Marines have such a good interaction with their squad mates and such good connection via HUD would let them anticipate each other's moves; I push you in time to stumble into the blade of my buddy, who moved into stabbing position knowing I'd push you.

 

During the Dacian campaign, the Dacians used a great two-handed sword called a falx. It could split a Roman helmeted head open. Roman helmets were retrofit at this time with two iron crossbars- later helmets they are integrated, but helms from this campaign have the bars mounted over the decorative bits of the rest of the helm; implying an in-the-field retrofit. Helms prior to this campaign did not have this, and we have helms from graves where the helmet is split neatly in half.

 

This is what you leave Marines vulnerable to in formation fighting. Their armor is good, but anything that it can't stop, they are sitting ducks against. They need freedom to dodge, dive, and take advantage of an opponent's movement- unlike the basic infantry of the high period of formation fighting, their skillset isn't limited. All marines should be the equivalent of blackbelts in several martial arts, and allowing them the freedom to tactically utilize terrain is deferring to the judgement of the specialist on the spot.

 

As a sidebar, from a meta perspective, the close-combat angle was inspired by Dune. Shield technology was so good that close combat made a come back- shields were reactive technology in Dune; the more kinetic force the more force the shield would reactively apply. So a high-energy ballistic projectile would be stopped, but a comparatively slow sword or knife thrust would not. So 40k was created where close combat had once again become a thing.

 

We don't use formation fighting in modern militaries today. Are we less advanced? No. Are specialist assault troops not trained in close quarters fighting? Also no. Urban warfare specialists know how to use their k-bar. But engagement does not happen in formation; formations are too vulnerable prior to getting into close combat. Further, in the case of a highly trained soldier, the attrition combat that is formation warfare is a waste of highly trained soldiers (note there's a difference, you can be highly disciplined without being highly trained; putting a comms specialist on a frontline with a sword, or a medic, is a good waste of either).

 

Formation combat had its day in the sun. It was an innovation that allowed part-time citizen-soldiers to punch above their weight. Lifelong trained knights running into pike walls, etc. It also, in its most advanced form, allowed relative pinpoint tactical response to commanders; but that's obviated by modern and/or futuristic comms technology.

 

I'm sorry if that's "boring," but that's how it works. This entire thing is reminiscent of the debate about the realism of ASM vs. straight save mechanics. Different armors flatly guard against different things; Kevlar's not much help against stabbings. It's how the physics of what the armors do works. But headcanon had many convinced differently, and a little digging revealed massive gulfs in the understanding of what the abstractions of Toughness, Save, and Wounds represented. "He's dead" No, he's wounded. He's no longer participating in this fight. Not the same as dead. Probably Starship Troopers "MEDIC!" Or maybe dead, yeah.

 

EDIT: From a fluff perspective, one of the most interesting things they did was indicate that mental changes in each gene line tended to converge. Or, phrased differently, Marines from the same Legion natively think alike. This would amplify the cohesive effects of training and unit longevity- you spend 100 years in the same squad, trained the same way, with guys who think like you.

 

In my opinion, the best example of this is the Ultramarine assault in Calth. Disparate survivors from units launched a cohesive, integrated assault because everyone agreed on how to integrate without discussion- obviously I'm joining these guys over there.

Edited March 24, 2020 by BrainFireBob