I am having trouble figuring out how a melee focused unit/team can actually do good against a ranged focused team.
Benefits of Melee over ranged:
Able to attack around corners (some situations have come up were 6" move doesn't get LOS, but the unit is in range of as 12" charge)
However, if a unit melees and fails to kill/stun the target, the target gets to A) punch back and B) shoot its ranged weapons (most likely with 0 cover because moving to melee range means your not going to have any cover yourself). Now in other wargaming games, getting attacked in melee removes the ability to shoot back for the turn (or longer - depending on the weapons/etc), which means getting a ranged focused unit into melee, means the melee unit has an advantage, however this advantage isn't there here.
points for points, it looks like melee weapon/units seem to be priced similarly to as 12" range weapon (at least for what I can see). So running into melee is basically trading removing stealth/cover off the target for giving up the same. Unless the melee unit has (very) fast (not sure how this works by points).
I am hoping I am missing some thing here and would be happy to hear about situations were melee is better.
I'm not sure about Firefight, but Grimdark Future gives melee several advantages. Fear, Furious and Impact all improve a melee unit. It's also possible to completely rout an enemy unit through melee. This isn't possible with ranged attacks.
Fear, Furious, Impact are all things that can improve a melee unit, but they are all things that would make the melee unit cost more. Fear only impacts the melee attacks, so it doesn't impact the step back and shoot back attack that happens if the unit survives. Furious is an extra basic attack. Impact is useful because it is an auto hit.
Morale in Firefight works a bit differently, moral is only ran between rounds if your down 50% or more of your starting units - so the melee scare them off the field thing doesn't seem to work.
I would try to do a more analytical comparison, however, most melee units have things like that (and fast), so it becomes hard to do a real point comparison, because off all the interactions.
I picked off the 15 point cost units as they would have the least number of special abilities that would make them harder to quickly compare, when you get into more expensive units, all the abilities might be something that make some variations in the effective balance (which is why I was asking if anyone had any input on this).
Also, there are very few deadly ccw. I think thunder hammers, power fists and the like shuld get deadly (3). Melta bombs are also missing ( veterans can get rending but it's not as effective as melta are in 40k) . Morover, i whould give a penality to shooting to a unit that has lost a melee for its next activation.
Absolutely, if there was some penalty for starting your activation with in 1" of an enemy (IE were in melee), then there would be some balance. for example, I was watching some killteam stuff and one tactic was to throw a really weak melee unit into melee with an expensive figure, which even if the weak melee unit died, you prevented the expensive unit from really doing anything, except killing that cheep unit... which can be a very valid tactic for swarms to deal with single big units... however that type of stuff doesn't exist here because said high point unit, steps back and shoots.
I've thought about house ruling that if a model survives a melee attack (Not knocked down), it still has to pass a morale test to fire in its turn. If it passes, it can fire its ranged weapon ar point blank. Fail and it has to either move away from the model that attacked it or use its melee weapon and make its own melee attack.