Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To break this down to its bare essentials, melee has a couple of really pertinent downsides relative to shooting:

-It has an effective range of 0, so you have to endure shooting and get in close.
-Because you have to get in close, it's easier to block just with screening.
-Your enemy gets to hit you back, even if they'd already shot in their turn. Any time you're hurting the enemy, they're hurting you too.

In previous editions, the main upsides were:
-You get to attack on both your turn and the opponent's turn, so good combat units can do a lot of damage quickly.
-You're safe from shooting, so a good combat unit can inflict damage while mitigating it in return.
-Morale checks for the loser made it easier (relative to shooting) to break the enemy and either wipe them out or render them combat-ineffective.

On top of the increased lethality of shooting (including Overwatch), the above upsides have been mitigated in 8th- Fall Back negates the first two, and morale is easily ignored.

GW has specifically identified Overwatch, Fall Back, and morale as mechanics that are changing in 9th. It's possible that we might be going back to an older version of how things work. Throw in that recent stratagems (eg the new AdMech ones) are focused on durability as much as firepower, and the pendulum might be swinging back.

We'll need to actually see what they've done to those mechanics to draw any useful conclusions, IMO.

 Vaktathi wrote:
With respect to previous editions, I also played IG mechanized lists and tank companies from 4E onward, I don't recall my infantry living long enough for opponent's units to hide in CC much. A depleted 5 man tac squad charging in would kill 3 guardsmen with 10 attacks on average, I'd usually kill nobody back, take a Morale test at -3 (with an Ld8 sergeant meaning testing on a 5), fail ~72% of the time (or less if I allocated wounds to kill off the Sergeant to test Ld7 on a 4), and then typically be swept or otherwise fall back out of position. I never found units hiding in CC with guardsmen to be a consistent problem I had to deal with, from my experience it was always an "unlucky" outlier. As soon as the guardsmen were out of transports or the enemy got to within 12", the guardsmen disappeared off the table. I found that to be a much more advantageous tactic against my CSM's than it ever was with my Guardsmen.

Of much greater importance was the fact that I couldn't draw LoS to a gun barrel on the one dude in range and allocate wounds to the rest of the unit that was otherwise out of range and LoS.

A depleted 5 man tac-squad would charge 2-3 units of guardsmen in my experience, not just one - and then split its attacks. One of them will pass their L6 check

And yes. We'll see how 9th edition handles it.