Yarium wrote:
There's two main reasons:

#1 - Closest-to-Closest casualties.
There was a time when players could pick which models died. But now, since the closest models have to die, each death results in extra distance that you need to move across a second time. Nothing is more disheartening for my Orks that to move 6 inches forward, and then, effectively, move 4 inches backwards in casualties. In this situation, I have, effectively, had my movement reduced to 2 inches. This is why you see the close combat units that ARE very deadly as being able to cover 24 inches in a turn, charge from deep strike, or do other such nonsense. Anything on foot that wants to engage in close combat just won't ever make it in. This is probably the biggest issue, but the decline of close combat as a primary way of playing has been death by a thousand cuts.

#2 - More Stuff Moves & Shoots
If you can believe it, there was a time when the decision of whether or not to move was a bigger deal. Almost everything nowadays can move and shoot at full, or nearly full, effectiveness. Hands up if you remember that moving cut your Rapid Fire down to a single shot at half range! Nowadays it's full effectiveness, regardless of moving or not. Other things that have changed? Vehicles moving and shooting with more, Heavy Weapons able to shoot when other stuff in the unit moves but they don't, Snap Shots (beforehand it just was "couldn't shoot", not "shoot badly" - which can make a big difference!), Power of the Machine Spirit was just at BS2. This means that a lot more stuff can do "scoot & shoot", by moving away from close combat threat, while still being a threat themselves. This isn't a bad thing per se, as it helps make the games feel a lot more dynamic, but that is a consequence of it.

Together, these two things, both of which are movement based, take away the close combat focus of the game. The things in the game that are considered to be good at close combat get around these by being fast enough & tough enough to bypass these weaknesses, or break core rules of the game (like being able to Infiltrate & Assault, Deep Strike & Assault, or are incredibly potent even outside of close combat anyways).

On top of these, there's a few other important issues that reinforce these two points:

i. - Overwatch. It's not that Overwatch is deadly, because it's not. What it does is reinforce point #1, in that even if you lose just 1 model, often that means you need to make up an extra 1 or 2 inches on the charge, and that hurts far more than the actual number of wounds lost due to Overwatch.

ii. - And They Shall Know No Fear & Fearless. Reinforcing point #2, so much stuff in the game is Fearless or ATSKNF, that you almost always need to completely wipe a unit out with attacks in close combat before being able to move on. Imagine what would happen if once a unit started shooting at a target, it had to stay focused on shooting at that target until it was entirely wiped out, and couldn't even move until that happened. This is why Hit & Run is considered so useful, as it allows close combat units to enjoy this same level of mobility. This problem doesn't tend to come up against non-Fearless/ATSKNF armies, as combats resolve to a natural conclusion far faster depending on who has the upper hand.

iii. - Entering from Reserves/Scouts/Outflank/Infiltrate/Deep Strike. Reinforcing point #2 again, shooting is not hampered by any of these things, while close combat is impossible after these things. If you Deep Strike, you can shoot at maximum effectiveness right away, but can't assault right away. If you Infiltrate you can shoot at maximum effectiveness right away, but can't assault right away. If you enter from Outflank or Reserves or you Scouted on the first turn, you can shoot at maximum effectiveness right away, but you can't assault right away. This means that you have more tactical options when playing with shooting units than with assault units, which means you are rewarded more often for using these special forms of movement/deployment with shooting units than you are with assault units.



Now, you'll note that the best assault stuff in the game gets around certain parts of these things. Harlequins all have Hit & Run to get out of unfavourable combats and keep moving between points even while fighting in assault, and can often run & charge (which helps them keep up with scoot & shooters). Imperial Knights don't have their charge ranges reduced when it loses hull points, and it also moves 12" per turn anyways, and STOMP kills things so fast that it's often not stuff in long and useless close combats. The Genestealer Cult formation, the Skyhammer, and now the Raptor Talon can all charge right after Infiltrating/Deep Striking.


There are a few people (some even responded above!) that don't get how these two main points, and the three sub-points that reinforce them, affect the game. Instead they give these red herrings:

Red Herring #1 - Close Combat isn't strong enough. While this can feel true, it often isn't. Sure, most close combat weapons have no AP value, and it's a lot harder to get strikes-at-initiative AP2 than to get shooting AP2, but generally speaking stuff dies in close combat if you're actually able to get there. Some things kill things remarkably well in close combat. In fact, due to the nature of close combat, it can actually be far DEADLIER than shooting! ATSKNF/Fearless armies negate a lot of this (see sub-point ii.), but in theory that is not the weakness of close combat, but a strength of those armies and an imbalance in the game's meta.

Red Herring #2 - Shooting is effective every turn, while close combat has to wait. This isn't actually true, it's just that, as per Point #2, shooting units can avoid close combat a lot more effectively now than before. This means that it's easier for shooting units to stay relevant every turn. Note that in the past, when the question of whether to move or shoot was more challenging, while shooting would dominate the early game, close combat would dominate the late game, meaning that the two had more game-length parity.

Red Herring #3 - Charging through terrain sucks. No, it doesn't. That's just called using terrain to your advantage. People can use terrain to their advantage against shooting too. If you give every close combat unit assault grenades, then the use of cover as a means to strike before opponents is a totally moot rule, and it's one that I think should stay.

Red Herring #4 - Random charge range sucks. Okay, it hurts when you roll snake eyes, but there's also the chance for you to succeed on very long charges too. Ultimately, I don't think there's too much of a difference between the old "for sure 6 inches" and the new "often 7 inches, but not always". I think what hurts most here is that shooting range is set in stone, and charge range isn't, and this is more of a psychologically taxing feeling, but isn't what's holding close combat back.


What could be done to fix this? Well, the two main points of close combat's decline need to be addressed. First, if you can make it so closest-to-closest is no longer in effect, then close combat armies won't suffer as much. The worry here is that models with special or heavy weapons can take a lot longer to die, or that the game isn't as realistic if you do this, but I've always felt that this would be acceptable. The style of the game is what's important, and treating these weapons as being something that the next soldier just picks up seems fine to me. Next, let units Consolidate or Hit & Run into close combat. Just make it so that if you end a move in base to base contact, you're in close combat. Third, make Overwatch a response to an enemy moving into base to base contact. Fourth, change ATSKNF to something else (maybe bring it back to having to make more saves instead). And five, make it so that if you infiltrate, scout, deep strike, or enter from reserves (unless you're a flyer), you can only make Snap Shots that turn, so that these two things are more at parity.