>>96276822
>does bullshit like this even make sense?
Usually not, instead it will tend to both draw attention to the problem and introduce its own set of problems. (Shutting down magnetic fields? Electromagnetism isn't just for railguns, it also happens to be what hold atoms together... And if the taurians didn't have protective suits to keep their brains form shutting down then what the fuck where the swords and spears needed for in the first five battles?) So IMO "less is more" very much applies here. Ideally just go Star Wars, where there's halberds and vibroaxes and lightsabres and shit in use despite all the blasters and that's just the way it is. Getting your players to use such shit is likely less a matter of worldbuilding and more a matter of just making sure it's viable (or even preferable) according to the rules. If there are special movement powers/cybernetics/powered suits/blaster reflectors for them to get that supports it then, well, that's your in-universe explanation sorted just as a side effect.
>the twist is that my stasis is unreliable, one second you can shoot a gun the next you're stuck stabbing people with a pointy stick
That may be the worst option of all, as suddenly the players are left exposed to "mother may I", feeling like they either have to waste money/skill points/carrying capacity on guns that usually don't work just to not get fucked when they suddenly do, or they see the enemy with a gun as not much of a threat and then get rather upset when that gun does work for no discernable reason beyond "it's random bro". Having melee simply be rules-wise useful also means the players will know at CC how shit works and which concepts are worth pursuing, to spare you the pain of someone thinking guns may work often enough, making a gunslinger, and then finding himself dead weight when guns don't work often enough for him to be anything but the party jester.