This isn't meant to rock the boat too much, it was just a thought I had recently regarding CC vs skimmers. Based on forum feedback, it always looks like CC based armies suffered especially to skimmer based armies, tyranids vs. eldar being a shining example. At the end of the day CC loses to FF 9/10 times, but I feel like the skimmer issue really hurts sometimes. I'm sure there is no standard opinion, and again, balance is balance for the most part, but here goes...

I had two ideas recently that might help bridge the gap regarding the issue.

The first is that instead of a skimmer being able to just force an opponent to use their FF if in base to base, this decision would also force the skimmer to also lose ZOC. In the rules it explicitly states "Skimmers may always choose to use their firefight value in an assault, even if there are enemy units in base contact with the skimmer. If they do this then the enemy must use their firefight value also. This represents the skimmer lifting off the ground out of reach of enemy ground units." To me that essentially says they are too high off the ground to be hit in melee, ergo they are not blocking anything behind them. How this works in gaming terms is that when an engage action is declared against another formation, if either or formation has skimmers, those respective skimmers must declare ahead of time if they will be using their FF only rule when in base to base. This therefore means that a defending formation has two options, either skimmers shield infantry and are forced to use their CC as well or they can "pop up" being unable to be hit by CC, but at the same time be unable to provide ZOC and thus allowing the assaulting formation to potentially get into base to base with infantry directly behind the defending skimmers. As you can see, this is particularly meant to affect the huge advantage with seemingly no downside often reported by CC armies/units against armies like eldar, tau, etc., particularly with skimmer transports shielding infantry. If anything it changes very little for formations that are only comprised of skimmers. I feel this would level the playing fields quite a bit for CC armies, which already need some help along the way, while fostering real life mechanics.

The other idea was to implement an arbitrary negative modifier to an engaging units CC value if the skimmer decides to use the FF in base to base rule, say -2. So an assault marine attacking a skimmer that would normally hit on a 3+ would then be required to hit in base to base on a 5+. This probably would be a more conservative and "safer" rule change as it wouldn't affect tactics and game mechanics nearly as much while hopefully balancing the CC vs skimmer disparity a little bit. This also means that CC only units such as hormagaunts don't get left completely in the dust (although I am a little torn regarding CC only units as only AA can attack aircraft, but at this point I may be simply going too far off tangent).

On a final note, one thing that I never really liked was that jump packs are treated the same as any other infantry vs skimmers. IMO they should have an easier time than most against skimmers due to their unique maneuverability. This could be represented as either an engaging unit with a jump pack could always use CC against a skimmer, or instead of -2 modifier to CC it would be reduced to a -1 modifier for example (aka an assault marine would need to hit on a 4+). Units without jump packs would still keep the -2 modifier.

Perhaps even a combination of the above might be worth implementing.

I realize this may create unforeseen complications in tactics, balance, etc. but for now it is just a thought. I have no batreps to show if this is viable or balanced atm, really it was just a thought I wanted to bounce off the community and see what folks thought. Thanks!

Well the first thing that pops to mind about option #1 is that would make sense if all skimmers were in B2B contact. What do you do with say 5 Land Speeders in a line being engaged and only the center one is in B2B and thus ZOC pretty much remains intact, no?

Perhaps what would be a better house rule would be that Skimmers electing to for FF suffer a -1 penalty on their save instead? That might represent them presenting a more vulnerable target sitting up high like that.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I see what you are saying. I kind of figured the first idea would run into eventual complications. I'm still a fan of the negative modifiers to a unit's CC value when engaging a skimmer. It at least gives certain units a chance against heavy skimmer lists, especially CC based armies. I'll have to experiment.

I don't think changing the rules is be needed or a good idea. The army lists are balanced and costed taking into account the advantages for skimmers and Eldar, Tau and Dark Eldar armies would become noticeably worse if you reduce those advantages.

Some lists find certain other army match-ups a challenge, but tyranids, say, have other advantages of toughness, numbers, ect that still help and infiltrating Hormaguants can be used to get the infantry while ignoring ZOCs. Army lists should be chosen not going all out for CC incase you come up against skimmers. The best and fairest to play games is to write the lists not knowing what army you'll be facing, and if some match-ups are harder than others then accept it as part of the challenge and variety, games are still winnable. Last weekend I used a Salamanders list with loads of deadly ignore cover AP weapons, centered around a formation of Salamander Terminators in land raider Redeemers (16 shots of ignore cover high AP flamer weapons) I was cursing when it turned out they were playing a titan legion with no AP targets whatsoever, but I still managed to win the game.

That's rough glyn, congrats on pulling off the win. Overall I agree with you, EA has been around for quite a while and so it appears pretty established at this point indeed. It's unlikely there are any major changes needed. Ultimately I noticed a few rules which irked me a little, nothing game breaking by any means, but it got me thinking for a minute. Is it worth having to rebalance such a minor change for the need to better emulate real world physics, probably not, EA is just a game after all. Just throwing out a few ideas but I guess at the end of the day if it isn't broken then don't fix it.

Although I quite like the principles presented behind your first thought, I have to agree with the others that this should be considered (and tried out) as a house rule and is highly unlikely to get any further. While ZoC is a simple concept in theory, it has generated a considerable number of discussions.

Skimmer Vs skimmer (or jet pack) is regularly raised. However this is always rejected on the grounds that the 3 dimensional combat is a whole lot harder than fighting on the ground - as an example consider traditional 'knights in armour' trying to joust in three dimensions, where it is hard enough to hit each other under highly regulated circumstances on the ground.

As to the other thoughts, further deductions are even harder to justify or apply. As Glyn says the game is fairly well balanced and IMO these deductions would not really work.

However, these comments really only apply to the standard "tournament" scenario. There is absolutely no reason why you should not use them in your own scenarios with own friends. You can easily explain that 'These particular Tyranids have special biological appendages which extend their reach under skimmers' or that 'always force opponents into C-C ' etc.