Warmachine: Battle Engine Thoughts and Concerns
 |
| I really didn’t want to start a Cygnar army, but… |
Now that battle engines are upon us, the doom cycle is in full swing. Paranoia is running high with concerns over what these monstrous models will mean for the overall game balance.
I recall there being similar anxiety over cavalry when it was first announced, which in retrospect was pretty well-deserved. Cavalry in their MkI form was very powerful, arguably over-powered with their eight-wounds, spell interaction, and incredible potency. While this issue was obviously fixed in MkII, it remains to be said that Privateer Press, while very good at rules balance, is not perfect. So I thought I would take some time to lay out specifically what my major thoughts on the subject are.
The first thing that will be interesting is their point cost. With models of this size, it certainly seems likely that a cost of 10+ PC can be expected. While many worry that this will drive point values of average games higher and higher (particularly for Hordes players who have a hard enough time making well-balanced 35-point lists), I do not particularly mind this. My LGS averages out at 35-point games, but not because we worry over volume of models. It is about time. Most people stick around the store for about three hours and consequently do not have the time for games at 50 points or higher if they wish to get more than one game in. While battle engines could serve to push our regular 35-point games up to 50, they might not have a drastic effect on time required to play those games due to their expected high point value, in that single, high-cost models do not take long to activate compared to similarly priced 10+ model units.
 |
| That is going to block a lot of LOS… |
The next thought for me has to do with a lot of the commonly occurring core rules, like slam, push, place, and knockdown. I am currently speculating that battle engines will be immune to these rules. While the first three cause me little concern, it is the immunity to knockdown that worries me. A 120mm base (roughly the size of a CD) takes up a lot of real estate, making steady battle engines a really powerful means of protecting your warcaster or warlock from drop-and-pop tactics. If they are not immune to knockdown, there are several potential problems. The most concerning is that battle engines will be incredibly easy to shut down because they cannot shake effects like a warjack or warbeast, meaning that a simple knockdown effect becomes a very formible denial tactic against what is most likely a very expensive model. This is something that warjacks and warbeasts suffered from under MkI, something that Privateer seems to have learned from with the advent of the shake effects ability. Also, there is a little too much required suspension of belief when thinking about the Khadoran Gun Carriage being knocked down and then righting itself in the amount of time extrapolated in a single game turn.
My last big wonder is how exactly battle engines will interact with terrain. In rough terrain, a 120mm model will crawl turn after turn. Since there are many ways to create rough terrain, I think it likely that they might simply have Pathfinder. Additionally I think they will be able to remain atop a linear obstacle. 120mm is about 4.75″, meaning that unless the engine starts very close to it, they will need a lot of movement to clear a linear obstacle with the entirety of the model’s base. Due to model volume, I do not expect battle engines to have particularly high SPD values, making this a potential issue unless there is another rule to mitigate it.
Other than that, I’m okay with what I’m seeing. I find myself wishing that the battle engines were a bit more steampunk. Only the Storm Strider and Wraith Engine seem to embrace the look of steampunk. It’s a minor complaint, but none-the-less, there it is.
So, we have seen the concept art for all five and one of the new models. What are your thoughts on the matter?
