1. Warmachine army is difficult to balance because it is most vunerable to a specialistic TK weapons. So if the opponent knows he will face Titans, he will take more TK weapons. If the list is balanced against a balanced army, it will always loose to a anti-Titan army.
Another problem is that SM have few TK weapons. I have been thinking about a general solution which could help with both problems. In short, I propose making all warmachines more vulnerable to jump-pack infantry in close combat.
It has been often said that every army should have a weakness. I don't think it is entirely correct. I think however it is undisputable that every formation should have a clear weakness, which can be avoided only by cooperation with other formations - eg Ork foot formations are slow, SM formations are small etc.
Titans and Warmachines in general, and specially fearless Warmachines seem to lack such a weakness. Should we for a moment leave the game and try to envision the imagined battlefield, one potential weakness appears - the warmachines are powerful, but not very manouverable. Shoud they be boarded by even one infantryman, they could be easily destroyed.
Titans, and most other warmachines are gigantic, and it wouldn't be easy for an infantryman starting at the groundlevel to reach the hatches. But there is one exception - Jump Packs allow easily to reach hatches, command head of a Titan etc and board it.
Because of that, I would suggest adding the following rule to Jump Pack rules:
"All close combat attacks of an infantry unit with Jump pack special rules, if directed against a warmachine, count as Macro Weapon attacks."
This introduces a clear weakness to warmachines, doesn't requires a new formation or unit and gives a purpose to Assault Marines.
It also provides a dual-use units, which can be used effectively both against Titans and other targets.
2. Maybe not necessary from the game mechanics point of view, but I think interesting option would be the following additional rule: "Infantry units with Jump pack special rule in contact with a skimmer use their Close Combat value, even if skimmer declares that it wants to use the Firefight value, (although the skimmer still gets to use Firefight value)."
This won't allow the Eldar skimmer warmachines to avoid close combat. It is justified, I think, since infantry with jump packs can always reach skimmer, even if they are rising high.
3. The rules for broken formation in EpicA are based on the decision not to rule in which direction broken formation should withdraw, which is difficult (they should move towards their own lines, but away from the enemy, avoid impassable and difficult terrain, etc) but to introduce instead penalties for broken formation being near enemy. It generally works very well.
It breaks down only with wholly fearless formations, which are free from nearly all such penalties. As has been shown above, they can use withdrawal movements to advance, in the hope of rallying and assaulting enemy,
I would suggest the following rule, added to the rules for the fearless units:
"Withdrawal usually represents a formation desperately trying to break away from the enemy, and so moving fast (taking two moves) but suffering additional casualties. But a formation composed only of fearless troops keeps cool nerves in the presence of the enemy. Even when broken, they seek cover, defend tenaciously any strong point and only unwillingly retreat. Because of that, they do not suffer additional casualties, but move slower.
Any formation consisting only of Fearless units makes only a single move (instead of two) when withdrawing."
4. There is also a lesser problem of using fearless formations to move on objective, ignoring zones of control. In regard to that problem I would propose the following rule change:
1.13.3 Withdrawals .... Withdrawal moves may be made in any direction, but if a unit ends the second withdrawal move within 15cm of the enemy, it is destroyed (it is killed while trying to escape!). Units belonging to formations withdrawing after lost engagement may ignore enemy zones of control while making a withdrawal move but may not move directly over enemy units. This do not applies to formations broken by Blast Markers or withdrawing after failing the rally roll in the end phase.
5. The last proposition is not rule change, but a facultative rule. I think it would make the game even more "realistic" or rather probable or plausible.
At present it is very easy to retreat from an enemy unit, even if it is very close. In reality it is one of the most difficult and dangerous manouvers. Additionally, it makes it more difficult to use close combat units. (It has also good side, as it requires more strategy from the close combat player.)
I would add the rule "Ambush".
If the only enemy formation within 15 cm of the player's formation that is not broken and had not marched makes a move, a double or a march action, or if it makes marshall or hold action and decides to move, the player can declare an ambush. The enemy formation doesn't make a move, but instead counts as assaulting the player's formation. The ambushed formation (counting as the attacker) cannot make charge moves. The ambushing formation (the defender) can make countercharge moves as normal. After that both formation fight an assault according to normal rules. If the ambushed formation wins, it can make the declared action (move, double etc).
A formation consisting only of scout units cannot be ambushed. The ambush cannot be combined with the overwatch fire by the same formation.
In this way, a formation cannot simply move away at full speed from a close enemy. It needs to get other formation to provide covering fire. It can also declare engage action and move away - it would represent a formation sneaking away, sacrificing speed and fire for a chance to break contact.
|