What you seem to be arguing here is that the game is imbalanced because close combat is less effective than shooting. And I couldn't disagree more.
You will rarely win a game with shooting alone. However it is also true that you will rarely win a game with combat alone.
Those armies that are weak in one area, usually compensate in another. This makes army composition and its use, far more important than which specific phase is going to win or lose the game for you.
If you think the combat phase is weaker, you could always use some of the combat monster characters you mentioned earlier in this thread. That might even things up a bit for you since I believe you pointed out that most are cc orientated?
Well, neither of us has the time, I imagine, to go through those characters one-by-one, but suffice it to say that 90% or more of them are shit.
There's a reason nobody uses Chaplains anymore, barring fluff bunnies and noobs - they provide too limited and situational a buff, when there are far superior options that can be guaranteed to affect the game in some material fashion, even if only be influencing the opponent's movement.
While use of appropriate and adequate cover is something most gamers indeed never experience, I can assure you that I play the vast majority of my games under such conditions. Indeed, the first time I went to a tournament and experienced the dearth and scarcity that is considered the norm, it was quite the culture shock. Fortunately, I wasn't wholly surprised, and brought my own cover with me, in the form of hulls. [Technically, that's not quite true, but it sounds better. In actuality I'd attended a tourny in 4th that took the edge off the first one in 5th, though ofc in 4th terrain didn't need to be 3d, and so there was more of it.]
Back on-topic - there's no reason whatsoever to use the majority of CC-oriented characters. The few worth using, for instance Mephiston, get around it by being so badass that the opponent simply has to deal with them, even though he's a unit of one.
I wins games by shooting alone all the time. Mcmuffin can tell you, in fact, that had I not assaulted him in our game on Saturday, he would have won by a larger margin in shorter order. Granted, Space Wolves are as good assaulted as assaulting (technically, perhaps better) but I was Blood Angels - no slouches in assault.
Combat can indeed be a deciding factor in many games, but that's not to say that it is a powerful, as meaningful, or as good as shooting.
Your assertion of armies being weak in one area being compensated in another is, sorry, laughable. I have no doubt you'd throw out Tau as the bog-standard example, but you'll find that Tau are actually quite shit at shooting.
Apart from the fact that they cost far too much to actually get an appreciable number of shots out per turn, the line troopers are only BS3, despite being supposedly as well drilled as anybody.
It's easy, and lazy, to say that BS3 is the average, but that actually isn't even remotely true. A cursory glance at the Codexes reveals that, of the 16 (including SoBs) the following can easily form armies purely of BS4 guys;
Space Marines, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Black Templars, Dark Angels, Chaos Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Eldar, Grey Knights.
Now, that IG list would be weaker than if it weren't entirely BS4, so if we take it out, and make the 'not' list; Tau, Nids, Daemons, Orks, Imperial Guard - that is still a third of the Codexes that are NOT BS4. Speaking of, you're not stupid, you understand the comparative system I was referring to in previous post, so your mention of toughness and save are merely irritating red herrings.
You don't die BECAUSE you assault, no - but in doing so you give the opponent a chance to kill you in your own turn, meaning you can expect to take MANY more casualties than if it's only in their turns. Not as much as twice, no, that'd be misleading - but certainly a lot more opportunity for casualties.
Assault-based armies are inherently weak as Troops units need to be preserved - throwing them into the teeth of the enemy and having none left by turn 4 - or having them too deep into enemy lines with no remaining mobility (or, worse, tarpitted by something they can't hurt because you were stupid) is Very Bad. This is why, when the internet was all a-ga-ga over All Vets All The Time IG lists, I was pointing out that they're not as good as people say. Suicide Melta, and CC units, both want to be outside the Troops choices. If your whole army is based on getting to grips with the enemy in H2H, then you've singularly failed to create a balanced list.
Shooting is less conditional on good movement, and thus harder to counter
Excuse me? If thats true in some cases, its a marginal difference at best.
Don't play the idiot. There are tons of 36, 48, even 60" range weapons in common usage. The majority of the board is in range of most non-GK armies from T1 onwards. While good movement is required to remove Cover Saves (although, there are plenty of weapons that ignore cover, and usually these are the crowd control weapons that are the anathema of CC units) in most cases, simply firing through Cover is in no way a Truly Bad Thing. Take enough shots, and failing to kill with half stops being such an issue. Sit in the open, and the enemy must cover some open ground eventually, at this point you finish them off.
Going back to your WS3 claim, let's look at that. Armies that typically field WS3 [or worse] models en masse...Daemons, IG, Tau, Sisters, Nids. Wow, so it IS the exact same number, as you say - excepting that the tournament circuit sees virtually none of these players, barring IG - which is a logistical nightmare for transport, and so sees a much lower proportion than it might. Since 4 of those 5 are typically considered uncompetitive at the highest level, and two of those will generally implode on b2b contact with the enemy, I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make.
Thats what cover and strategy is for - if I have a huge unit of hormogaunts, I'm going to do everything in my power to get them across the table in one piece, at which point I will probably unleash almost as many dice in one go, as an equivelent single unit could with shooting in the time it takes to get there. If not as many, then not too far off it, and probably enough to hurt the target.
Hormagaunts are quite cheap. But, they tend to explode to enemy shooting, even in Cover. See, shooting tends to be S4 or better, meaning it wounds on at least a 3+. So, after 2/3 of it hits, and 2/3 of it wounds, EVERY TURN, I have no problem with half of it bouncing off, as you have to remove the models outside of Cover (if there are any) to protect your Cover save, and that slows your assaulting unit (with no Grenades) down further and further.
So, yeah, since they'll be Fearless, they'll probably reach me. Then, my Metal Bawkses will laugh at their pathetic swipes of chitin claws, and I'll drive backwards killing Synapse nearby until I can Tank Shock the Gaunts over and over, or I'll get out into Cover, shoot you, and strike first before you get a chance, wiping you out in your own turn.
Maybe if you didn't hit moving vehicles on 6s if they went over 6", and Fast vehicles didn't both 'exist' and 'be prevalent' then there'd be more of a case...but Shooting > Combat, just like Movement > both put together.
