CC ability

[TorvaldTheMild]

Banshees get CC abilities but, with the loss of Initiative CC units now have to be strong and nothing else and Eldar CC units aren't strong or never have been, but their speed amounts to nothing really.  What rule do you think you could envisage to bring back speed as an element to CC for the game as a whole?  Its a bit daft when Orks can bash you with impunity.

[Slasher956]

Banshees go first ...even against chargers (unless they lose it in PA) **

 

Scorpions are s4 plus can do MWs iirc at the start of the fight phase before chargers fight...need to check that***

 

 

**nope that’s from Jain Zar...but it can be an exarch power in PA

*** checked. Yep it’s the start of the fight so before chargers

Edited October 11, 2019 by Slasher956

[gaurdian31]

CC in general is the worst it has been in my opinion. Used to be you only got shot on the way there and then if you didn't kill an enemy they either ran and you destroyed them or they were locked in CC. Now you get shot on the way there, on the way in and if you don't destroy the unit they just run away and you get shot more. There is no point in taking CC units anymore and that makes me sad as I got into the game in 3rd and have been a dedicated World Eater from the start. I miss CC being scary, now you just get to slap a unit and then die. 

[Slasher956]

CC in general is the worst it has been in my opinion. Used to be you only got shot on the way there and then if you didn't kill an enemy they either ran and you destroyed them or they were locked in CC. Now you get shot on the way there, on the way in and if you don't destroy the unit they just run away and you get shot more. There is no point in taking CC units anymore and that makes me sad as I got into the game in 3rd and have been a dedicated World Eater from the start. I miss CC being scary, now you just get to slap a unit and then die.

 

You missed the part where your opponent stays in combat and shoots you...

 

So shot on the wayl

Shot when charging

Fail to kill them...get hit back*

Get shot again

2nd attempt to kill them!**

 

*if they don’t interrupt and hit you first

**if they don’t go first and finish you off

[gaurdian31]

True, forgot about pistols if the other side decides to stay in CC. Too much shooting and not enough chopping!

[MARK0SIAN]

CC overall isn’t very strong this edition sadly. However, dedicated CC units are actually very good at the CC part for the most part. If a mob of Orks, world eaters, Custodes etc actually manage to get into CC with something it will probably die.

 

For that reason, I think speed will be a very difficult thing to introduce on all but a select few units. If you look at the old initiative system, it allowed some units to go before others, However generally, the combat was not so deadly that the unit with the lower initiative would be instantly wiped out or wouldn’t get to hit back. That’s not the case now.

 

Under such a system, Custodes would surely be faster than Orks, so what ork player would ever send his mob of thirty boyz against even 5 Custodian Guard, let alone Wardens or Terminators. The ork player would be looking at half to two thirds of his force dead before he even got to swing, especially if the Custodes has a captain supporting them.

 

Going first is the only thing that makes it worthwhile to go to the effort of trying to charge someone so I wouldn’t want to see any changes to that. Dedicated CC units don’t actually need any speed buffs to do well in combat, including the Eldar ones.

 

I personally think speed would be better reflected in the movement stats/rules for a particular unit rather than trying to apply it in CC. If a particular unit is meant to be really fast then then give them higher movement and a charge bonus or something like the ability to charge again after falling back.

[Brother Tyler]

Note that this topic was originally (and erroneously) posted in the Aeldari forum. I moved it to Amicus Aedes because it's a question about assault in general, not specific to the Asuryani.

[chapter master 454]

In the past CC was overbearing imo because it had little counterplay  or responses as most games where once you got charged, it was over. Not to mention it was actually beneficial to be sub-optimal and NOT kill the unit in one fight so you could kill them on their turn to ignore their shooting and then still get your own shooting (what you had of it)  plus free charges since overwatch wasn't a thing for a long time. On top of that it wasn't risk at all, it was "in 6" now, I charge you lose".

 

Now melee is risky but by all accounts can be extremely rewarding. I think the main issue is melee in the game is underpowered because the units that do it aren't exactly all up to snuff (things like Berzerkers scare me and hey, assault centurions will mince near enough anything) as most just lack that magic umph they need to make melee work.

 

Now I speak as a shooting phase guy. I prefer heavy guns and heavier ordnance however I will note that I do think there does need to be some form of game of cat and mouse between chargers and the chargees. I will agree that being able to freely fall back unless you game it with tri-pointing so I would like to see some form of ether roll-off involving movement and leadership being important.

 

The base of it would be falling back is now falling back proper, no falling back towards the enemy, you must move AWAY from the enemy at a basic level to your maximum movement value + D6. If you want to "disengage" you need a leadership check and if you pass then you may move in whatever direction you wish up to your full movement value +D6. However the enemy can pursue if not tied up and may attempt to pursue by moving their full movement value +D6 towards the unit that tried to fall back HOWEVER may not move within 1" of any other enemy units while pursuing (these units would likely be aiding the squad fall back with covering fire and wouldn't be smart to just run past casually). If you get within 1" of the falling back unit, they failed to fall back and are still in combat.

 

Would be nice to add mechanics to this with some units maybe using flashbangs to retreat like the tau as to prevent pursuits (maybe they half the distance the pursuing unit can move) while some units might be allowed to move through other units while pursuing (could see this as a harlequin thing) while other abilities like preventing escape could be using to half fall back distance and the like.

That way it adds some dynamic to the melee a little bit, means both players can get something out of it. The charging player now isn't left out in the cold if their charge doesn't do all it needs and quite possibly would mean you get deeper in the enemy army if they chose to fall back poorly while the shooting army can attempt to help cover retreats to ensure fall backs by having other units form covers for them to get behind.

 

Just some thoughts.

[Kaldoth]

I feel like there are two things that need to happen here to make CC a bit more level with shooting in this edition:

 

1. Overwatch needs to not benefit from rerolls. Overwatch itself isn't a bad mechanic, but being able to reroll every single missed hit and wounds is. Overwatch is supposed to be sporadic close range shooting. It doesn't make sense that it should benefit from a buff to accuracy.

 

2. Make an overwatch mechanic for melee against units that fall back. Same as above, no rerolls of any kind. Another thing that doesn't make sense to me.

 

Guardsmen: "Fall back! They're going to kill all of us!"

 

Guardsmen: *run away without a scratch*

 

Khârn: "Hmmm...that's unfortunate.Tea anyone?"

 

Berserkers: "Oh yes, thank you."

Edited October 12, 2019 by Kaldoth

[Doctor Perils]

The base of it would be falling back is now falling back proper, no falling back towards the enemy, you must move AWAY from the enemy at a basic level to your maximum movement value + D6. If you want to "disengage" you need a leadership check and if you pass then you may move in whatever direction you wish up to your full movement value +D6. However the enemy can pursue if not tied up and may attempt to pursue by moving their full movement value +D6 towards the unit that tried to fall back HOWEVER may not move within 1" of any other enemy units while pursuing (these units would likely be aiding the squad fall back with covering fire and wouldn't be smart to just run past casually). If you get within 1" of the falling back unit, they failed to fall back and are still in combat.

This is a great idea, but would argue that you probably *should* be allowed to involve other enemies. In fact, just make it a blanket "you're allowed to charge immediately if your enemy falls back"

 

- this would mean the enemy would have to think a lot more about whether to fall back or not - in those cases where a second unit is too close it may well be more interesting to stay in combat and shoot with pistols...

 

The additional mechanics around this could probably also allow better representation of a heavy cavalry charge - you could perhaps force a retreat from the opponent and press the advantage in some way

 

 

 

Also, I feel like the KT mechanic of moving the charge distance even if failed works well - just as long as you still can't declare charges against models more than 12" away

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

Lately I've been playing pure Khorne Daemons, which have access to a single dedicated shooting unit and a couple of bad shooting hybrids. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that melee needs some work to be viable, especially Khorne melee. Twice now I've fought Slaanesh armies and gotten absolutely obliterated either because they were spamming noise marines that automatically get to interrupt charge flow and still shoot when they die, or were spamming 120 daemonettes that interrupt charge flow and always fight first on their turn.

 

I've found that armies like Daemonettes are actually fairly solid melee armies because A, they're fast, B they're cheaper than standard daemons, and C they're going to get to hit you more often and interrupt your plays at key points. Khorne suffers because GW didn't make them fast, or tough, or give them any sort of tools to work with. They just hit hard and that's it. Full stop. I think a Bloodletter bomb might still be the most damaging unit to deep strike onto the field even after codex bloat, but it's a one trick pony, and that trick has very hard counters.

 

Against shooting armies this problem is even greater, because it's a lot harder to mess up a shooting flow than it is a melee flow. There's no 2 CP strategem to run across the board and punch someone in the face after their first unit has shot. You have to bleed off half of your army on the approach, then plan your way through their counter melee tactics while you try and hack through their screens. Then you have to carefully kill their shooting units in such a way that you don't leave yourself exposed and open to more shooting after the fight phase.

 

Playing a gunline army is just position, stand, and roll dice. You'll even win a good amount of the time doing it.

[TorvaldTheMild]

Lately I've been playing pure Khorne Daemons, which have access to a single dedicated shooting unit and a couple of bad shooting hybrids. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that melee needs some work to be viable, especially Khorne melee. Twice now I've fought Slaanesh armies and gotten absolutely obliterated either because they were spamming noise marines that automatically get to interrupt charge flow and still shoot when they die, or were spamming 120 daemonettes that interrupt charge flow and always fight first on their turn.

 

I've found that armies like Daemonettes are actually fairly solid melee armies because A, they're fast, B they're cheaper than standard daemons, and C they're going to get to hit you more often and interrupt your plays at key points. Khorne suffers because GW didn't make them fast, or tough, or give them any sort of tools to work with. They just hit hard and that's it. Full stop. I think a Bloodletter bomb might still be the most damaging unit to deep strike onto the field even after codex bloat, but it's a one trick pony, and that trick has very hard counters.

 

Against shooting armies this problem is even greater, because it's a lot harder to mess up a shooting flow than it is a melee flow. There's no 2 CP strategem to run across the board and punch someone in the face after their first unit has shot. You have to bleed off half of your army on the approach, then plan your way through their counter melee tactics while you try and hack through their screens. Then you have to carefully kill their shooting units in such a way that you don't leave yourself exposed and open to more shooting after the fight phase.

 

Playing a gunline army is just position, stand, and roll dice. You'll even win a good amount of the time doing it.

Yeah I play a very fluffy WE's list and its tough, I still win and I beat high tear armies but CC is so ridiculously under-powered.  The only hard hitting units are units with lost and lots of attacks, you look at heavy hitters and its no contest the most you are going to be dealing out is a flat 3 damage, D3 is the average high output, this is nothing compared to shotting and it takes so much damage and basically not doing anything to get into CC to actually use these weapons, we have to go through damage from shooting, overwatch, falling back, pistols.  And powerfists were always insanely powerful and in the lore, D3 is so ridiculous.  Unless you are a walker or a knight or aren't Berzerkers or genestealers etc. you aren't doing any serious damage, most of the time you are tying up units and killing them with attrition and when you win good luck doing anything worthwhile after you win the combat. 

[Jukkiz]

Funny how it´s CC oriented Characters that are, somewhat good or CP hungry powerhouses to work.

Hordes/large blobs are good, but still die to shooting ALOT easier nowdays.

[TorvaldTheMild]

Only because characters can shield themselves from most shooting, if they didn't have the 10- wound closet visible unit rule, they wouldn't be so good.  CC orientated characters can quite easily get into combat as well as buffing other units.   It doesn't mean CC is good just because CC characters are good.

Edited October 12, 2019 by TorvaldTheMild

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

Funny how it´s CC oriented Characters that are, somewhat good or CP hungry powerhouses to work.

 

Hordes/large blobs are good, but still die to shooting ALOT easier nowdays.

 

This isn't entirely true. Or rather, it's not entirely accurate. The reason the most dangerous characters tend to be melee oriented is it's easier to increase the amount of damage a character does in melee. Nearly every character that can be kitted out with enough guns to be a serious shooting threat is over 10 wounds. A Space Marine captain can be given a melta to do a single shot at 1d6, or he can be given a thunder hammer to do 6 at a flat 3. But you shouldn't forget that the most dangerous knight builds are characters with double guns and relics . And, more on point, one of the most dangerous units SM can field is the chaplain dreadnought, which is a character you can give good shooting and hide behind screens.

 

So while it's true that characters tend to see a lot of their use as either buff bots or melee bullets you shoot into the heart of your enemy, it's not really due to melee being good so much as it being the only way you can make those characters dangerous. If people could pay a little more to give them comparable melee damage at range they would.

[Jukkiz]

 

Funny how it´s CC oriented Characters that are, somewhat good or CP hungry powerhouses to work.

 

Hordes/large blobs are good, but still die to shooting ALOT easier nowdays.

 

This isn't entirely true. Or rather, it's not entirely accurate. The reason the most dangerous characters tend to be melee oriented is it's easier to increase the amount of damage a character does in melee. Nearly every character that can be kitted out with enough guns to be a serious shooting threat is over 10 wounds. A Space Marine captain can be given a melta to do a single shot at 1d6, or he can be given a thunder hammer to do 6 at a flat 3. But you shouldn't forget that the most dangerous knight builds are characters with double guns and relics . And, more on point, one of the most dangerous units SM can field is the chaplain dreadnought, which is a character you can give good shooting and hide behind screens.

 

So while it's true that characters tend to see a lot of their use as either buff bots or melee bullets you shoot into the heart of your enemy, it's not really due to melee being good so much as it being the only way you can make those characters dangerous. If people could pay a little more to give them comparable melee damage at range they would.

 

True, true, but as noted, Characters are easy to get in melee, in most cases and in case of Torvald asking: " What rule do you think you could envisage to bring back speed as an element to CC for the game as a whole?" I just noted that what i said is still true. Eternal Warrior could be brought back in some way.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

 

 

Funny how it´s CC oriented Characters that are, somewhat good or CP hungry powerhouses to work.

 

Hordes/large blobs are good, but still die to shooting ALOT easier nowdays.

 

This isn't entirely true. Or rather, it's not entirely accurate. The reason the most dangerous characters tend to be melee oriented is it's easier to increase the amount of damage a character does in melee. Nearly every character that can be kitted out with enough guns to be a serious shooting threat is over 10 wounds. A Space Marine captain can be given a melta to do a single shot at 1d6, or he can be given a thunder hammer to do 6 at a flat 3. But you shouldn't forget that the most dangerous knight builds are characters with double guns and relics . And, more on point, one of the most dangerous units SM can field is the chaplain dreadnought, which is a character you can give good shooting and hide behind screens.

 

So while it's true that characters tend to see a lot of their use as either buff bots or melee bullets you shoot into the heart of your enemy, it's not really due to melee being good so much as it being the only way you can make those characters dangerous. If people could pay a little more to give them comparable melee damage at range they would.

 

True, true, but as noted, Characters are easy to get in melee, in most cases and in case of Torvald asking: " What rule do you think you could envisage to bring back speed as an element to CC for the game as a whole?" I just noted that what i said is still true. Eternal Warrior could be brought back in some way.

 

 

I don't know that the only answer here is to make units faster in, or getting to, melee. Here's what I think we need to do:

 

1: put in some form of disengagement rules. Whether it be a leadership to fall back (which some units require already), or the ability to get stuck as you leave, it has to be something with a cost. Though I'd be extremely annoyed if an Emperor's Children player could choose to fall out of combat and deliberately die so that they could shoot me  again as they died during the movement phase. I'm leaning more toward a leadership rule for that reason. There are lots of annoying fight when you die strategies that would be on the cusp of abusable otherwise.

 

2: Provide melee focused armies with either enhanced speed, enhanced toughness, or very cheap hoards. In the case of Daemonettes and Tyranids , they have access to options 1 and 3 to one degree or another. Nurgle has more of option 2 than anyone else in the game, as well as a bit of 1 and 3 thrown in for laughs. It's really only Khorne that gets screwed for options as pure melee goes. Orks are in a similar boat to Tyranids, and as both armies are both hoard melee and hoard shooting they probably shouldn't count, but I'll include one for argument's sake.

 

Consider the following:

 

Slaanesh Daemons:

Speed: Overall higher movement across the board on all units and the ability to advance and charge as well as strike first in the combat phase as army-wide rules, CP deepstrike.

Offense: More base attacks than comparable units with middling strength and good AP, access to psychic mortal wounds.

Toughness: Base 3 and 5+ daemon save for the most part, but can give tons of stacking negatives to number of attacks and to hit, as well as one or two negatives  to wound, have access to a 6++ from psychic.

Cost:Troupe choice is 1 point cheaper leading to around 90 points saved just from troupes, other options are also fairly cheap.

 

 

Nurgle:

Speed: Slower overall movement on most units but can buy trees that give the ability to advance and charge, has cheap yet survivable tar pit units that can scout, CP deepstrike.

Offense: Average strength, standard damage that can nova into big damage, easy access to wound rerolls, poor AP but access to mortal wounds from psychic and other abilities, access to wound buffs from psychic.

Toughness: Has army wide increased toughness, army wide 5+ FNP, ability to grant enhanced cover saves for above average daemon armor, and ability to muck about with to hit penalties.

Cost: Has access to Nurglings as a cheap and efficient roadblock, most other things are reasonably priced.

 

Tyranids:

Speed: Decent Movement that can get ridiculous with double moves and advancing shenanigans , more than one way to get advance and charge, some deepstrike units that can take others with them, CP deepstrike.

Offense: middling to good strength, middling AP, middling attacks, access to mortal wounds from psychic and other abilities.

Toughness: Middling toughness with the ability to give to hit penalties, 5+ FNP from psychic, almost completely immune to morale.

Cost: Cheapest hoard blob out of the examples, relatively cheap support monsters.

 

Khorne:

Speed: Middling, no access to advance and charge, CP to increase charge odds, CP deepstrike.

Offense) Middling to high number of attacks, easy to hit buffs, good strength, good AP, good damage, little to no mortal wounds.

Toughness: Standard daemon toughness with 5+ save, no access to psychic FNP, no negative to hit penalties.

Cost: Average to high cost across the board except for possibly Flesh Hounds, which are very reasonably priced as long as you don't  bother with gore hounds.

 

...

 

These are the four main parts that make melee armies work. Once you can get in melee things usually work out, but it's getting there that's the issue. Some can do it with speed, some by being durable, and others by having more bodies to throw. It's when you can't do any of these that things fall apart. You'll notice in the lists above that all of the units aside from the bugs have some sort of special stand out feature in melee. That's good. The issue is that one of the above does not have anything outside of that. It's that side area we need to fix to make Getting into close combat work, then a secondary rule to make people escaping melee harder. The only thing broke in close combat itself is that it can be interrupted for CP, which at least forces resources to be spent. Armies that can get around those rules are effectively getting 2 CP for free every phase each time a unit does it.

[USNCenturion]

You know the scene in Indiana Jones where he just shoots the skilled swordsman after his fancy flurries?

 

Being mad about the ineffectiveness of “close combat” in a game and setting with laser, ion, plasma, and nuclear weaponry is kind of a pointless hill to die on. I get there are units who have a melee background, but just because they like doing it doesn’t mean it should be the norm or equal to shooting something at range. Close combat should reward outmaneuvering, surprising, and finishing off opponents. Not reward a heroic Napoleonic charge of frothing madden against a fixed position.

 

AoS has real nice CC mechanics.

[Panzer]

You know the scene in Indiana Jones where he just shoots the skilled swordsman after his fancy flurries?

 

Being mad about the ineffectiveness of “close combat” in a game and setting with laser, ion, plasma, and nuclear weaponry is kind of a pointless hill to die on. I get there are units who have a melee background, but just because they like doing it doesn’t mean it should be the norm or equal to shooting something at range. Close combat should reward outmaneuvering, surprising, and finishing off opponents. Not reward a heroic Napoleonic charge of frothing madden against a fixed position.

 

AoS has real nice CC mechanics.

 

I would agree in any other sci-fi setting, but not in 40k.

[MARK0SIAN]

You know the scene in Indiana Jones where he just shoots the skilled swordsman after his fancy flurries?

 

Being mad about the ineffectiveness of “close combat” in a game and setting with laser, ion, plasma, and nuclear weaponry is kind of a pointless hill to die on. I get there are units who have a melee background, but just because they like doing it doesn’t mean it should be the norm or equal to shooting something at range. Close combat should reward outmaneuvering, surprising, and finishing off opponents. Not reward a heroic Napoleonic charge of frothing madden against a fixed position.

 

AoS has real nice CC mechanics.

If you’re not willing to suspend disbelief about this kind of thing then 40K may not be the game for you.

 

40K has a proud tradition of swords and axes etc being practical choices for armies across the galaxy both in terms of fluff and crunch.

 

If you wanted to get real about the setting then every Tyranid horde would be wiped out with tactical nukes, 1000 Space Marines wouldn’t really be enough to subdue a small country let alone a planet, chemical and biological weapons would be a mainstay of the imperial guard, Eldar would’ve died out centuries ago as they’d be unable to sustain the level of casualties they suffer in the lore and on the table and a myriad of other facets of the setting would be utterly impossible.

 

40K has always had an element of suspension of disbelief/deus ex machina/convenient events (call it what you will) that allows all these different factors to come together despite their implausibility.

[Lexington]

I don’t know that it’s just speed, so much as a combination of speed, durability and visibility. CC units often aren’t that fast, but those that are usually go *squish* pretty easily, which means they’re quite vulnerable to Overwatch. The fact that there’s no such thing as Area Terrain anymore means that units either have to go around solid buildings (thus exacerbating the speed issue), or get shot to pieces by running directly at the enemy. It’s a problem that’s rooted in several areas of the system, so I don’t think there’s an easier, singular fix. The fact that shooting in 8th has become even more “point-and-kill,” as well as incredibly deadly, doesn’t help either.

 

Being mad about the ineffectiveness of “close combat” in a game and setting with laser, ion, plasma, and nuclear weaponry is kind of a pointless hill to die on.

Agreed on principle, but it’s a fairly moot point. Around 3rd Edition, GW started to construct whole armies around close combat, and more or less locked them into it. It needs to be a viable part of the game. Edited October 13, 2019 by Lexington

[USNCenturion]

I wish you told me it’s not the game for me thousands of dollars ago Markosian.

 

Suspend disbelief all you want, until they drastically alter the mechanics of the game, CC fans are going to be in a hole of their own making most games.

 

Keep bringing a knife to a gunfight though ;)

[MARK0SIAN]

I wish you told me it’s not the game for me thousands of dollars ago Markosian.

 

Suspend disbelief all you want, until they drastically alter the mechanics of the game, CC fans are going to be in a hole of their own making most games.

 

Keep bringing a knife to a gunfight though ;)

I actually agree with everything in this quote :)

 

I think we only disagree on the fact that it’s a reasonable expectation for CC to pull it’s own weight against a shooty army. I agree we are nowhere near that now though :)

[TorvaldTheMild]

You know the scene in Indiana Jones where he just shoots the skilled swordsman after his fancy flurries?

 

Being mad about the ineffectiveness of “close combat” in a game and setting with laser, ion, plasma, and nuclear weaponry is kind of a pointless hill to die on. I get there are units who have a melee background, but just because they like doing it doesn’t mean it should be the norm or equal to shooting something at range. Close combat should reward outmaneuvering, surprising, and finishing off opponents. Not reward a heroic Napoleonic charge of frothing madden against a fixed position.

 

AoS has real nice CC mechanics.

When you have armour that has advanced for 38,000 years, or millions of years in the case of other armies its going to allow you to take enough fire to get into CC, so an unarmoured Indian Jones is not a good analogy.  Also the universe has armies that are either focused or practically solely CC so in the universe its extremely effective.  So being mad that the game doesn't represent the lore and the 40k universe is very apt.  Also in terms of realism, take tanks, they often get destroyed by infantry that get close enough to sling shaped charges on them etc. why, because the armour of a tank lets it get close to infantry even in fixed positions.  MEQ and TEQ are pretty much walking tanks.  Shooting should be stronger but not unnecessary, getting free goes at shooting for no reason at all etc. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by TorvaldTheMild

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

You know the scene in Indiana Jones where he just shoots the skilled swordsman after his fancy flurries?

 

Being mad about the ineffectiveness of “close combat” in a game and setting with laser, ion, plasma, and nuclear weaponry is kind of a pointless hill to die on. I get there are units who have a melee background, but just because they like doing it doesn’t mean it should be the norm or equal to shooting something at range. Close combat should reward outmaneuvering, surprising, and finishing off opponents. Not reward a heroic Napoleonic charge of frothing madden against a fixed position.

 

AoS has real nice CC mechanics.

 

You're thinking of this in terms of realism. Don't. Most melee armies are built around 2 core components:

 

1) Hoards. Every pure melee army in 40k is built to represent tides of oncoming enemies. You might kill hundreds of them as they flood your positions, but they will overwhelm you. That's the case with Orks, Bugs, and Daemons. Space Marine melee units either carry special shields so that they can better body guard or monster slay, or they carry guns along with their melee weapons.

 

2) Monsters. Big, brutish units that are much tougher than anything humanoid should be. Greater Daemons, big mutated bugs, Squiggoths. This isn't you shooting a pistol at someone brandishing a sword, i'ts you shooting a pistol at an elephant. Except these are supposed to be threats big enough and strong enough and well armored enough to shrug off lascannons and everything else, otherwise they wouldn't be the scary threats they are in lore.

 

Working in the bounds of the physics this world put forward, it isn't unreasonable to want melee to function properly. Melee armies are part of 40K's design on both a fluff and mechanical level. Someone pooing on that doesn't really make sense to me.