What evidence would you require to class Cygnar as Competitive?

[Ysthrall]

The more I read this thread the more I regret starting it.

Let me continue to refine the question.

What results from any convention, tournement, competition or group/combination therof, would cause you to opine that Cygnar are competitive at the events specified, to your definition of "competitive", if you did not think that way previously?

Please do not discuss any specific units, casters, spells, abilities or players in your answers.

[The Happy Anarchist]

I think part of the perception is that people somehow got the idea that ranged units are bad in Steamroller. Probably for the same reason that we just saw a huge list of how awesome melee is and how bad ranged is, but the largest advantages of ranged attacks were missed.

When you see things like that you start to think people have a fundamental lack of understanding about key parts of the game.

[ricefrisbeetreats]

I guess if I really wanted to be sure Cygnar was competitive, I would want to see consistent top 3 rankings at varied tournaments. Requirements are 5 or less mercenaries (roughly 2 Merc solos and varied casters, units and so forth. Hopefully that's enough info.

[thebill77718]

TL;DR (the thread, not any one single post)

For my money, Cygnar's stigma stems from 3 issues:

1) We are a shooting faction (at best, a combined arms faction) in a melee dominated game. Our shooting is not powerful enough to dominate a game - i.e. box a jack/beast with a unit in a turn - and scenarios force us into engaging. We are designed to do one thing well, pay a premium for doing it (like anyone does, for their specialties), and the game punishes us for it.

2) We use warjacks. I'm not one to ***** and moan about fury v. focus, as I like the variation between the two resource systems (the only concern I have is the fury management solos that abound in hordes - why have a risk management system if you are going to simply remove all of the risk?). That being said, objectively, warbeasts are inherently superior in all ways, with the POSSIBLE exception of survivability (and that is a push in my opinion, due to the ease of healing up a warbeast). They hit harder, are more flexible, and have better abilities than equal pointed warjacks. To compound this issue, one of our signature abilities and methods of delaying heavies from wrecking our faces off (see #1) - disruption - is completely worthless against warbeasts.

3) Many of our units are just... not quite right. Trenchers, Long Gunners, Stormnouns all have inherent flaws not represented in their points costs. Trenchers bring the kitchen sink to battle with them, pay for it, then forget they brought it. Long Gunners have absolutely no defense against melee and aren't good enough at shooting to stay alive. Stormblades have horrible armor for their role, have a UA that forces them to operate in a bubble and is too expensive, and are too slow. Stormguard have all the flaws of stormblades as a unit, and on top of that eat their own electrical leaps. They don't even HAVE a UA. Storm Lances are a point or two too expensive, and their solo repeats the error of the Storm Blades' UA - too expensive and forces the Lances to operate in a bubble. For Cygnar as a FACTION to be considered competitive, these units must be fixed.

All that being said, I still enjoy playing Cygnar. I will often enough to avoid horrible frustration that makes me want to melt the models down into minie balls. I'm not *****ing about the faction, I just recognize its flaws, tore those pages out of my forces book, and moved on.

[Defenstrator]

You troll'd this entire thread on purpose, don't lie.

No, he asked a question, and has been pretty reasonable about trying to keep it on the subject. And it's a fair question. Already in this thread moving the goal posts has been mentioned. It's a question like this that establishes where the goal posts are, and who is being reasonable or unreasonable in what the criteria for success are.

For some it's for Cygnar to do better in the tournament scene. For others, a more genuinely dangerous unit that feels more on the level of Winterguard + Iron Flesh or Banes + UA + Tartarus. And some feel the faction is balanced, but that there just haven't been enough top players going all the way to represent. By asking the question we can talk and explore the issue. Which is, you know, the whole point of a discussion forum.

[Sardonic Artery]

The more I read this thread the more I regret starting it.

Yup, there's a reason why I don't post as much as I used to. There's just not much left for me (at this stage) to learn here (save the occasional great tactical thread like the Kara Sloan Patient Eye thread). That's not some great know-it-all comment; I've just been around for a while. That said, there are some good thoughts on competitiveness here.

I feel like Cygnar got one of the best battle engines, but that wasn't enough to bump us up. Now battle engines and colossals -- that might do it, especially given that we seem to be getting what looks like more triangulation love. Certain builds could disrupt and slaughter infantry in a single turn.

[GreenJello]

I think part of the perception is that people somehow got the idea that ranged units are bad in Steamroller. Probably for the same reason that we just saw a huge list of how awesome melee is and how bad ranged is, but the largest advantages of ranged attacks were missed.

When you see things like that you start to think people have a fundamental lack of understanding about key parts of the game.

Please enlighten us. Maybe there's something that's been missed. The typically advantages of ranged combat are the ability to extend your threat range, and to concentrate on a single target.

However, in game where the typical ranged attack has RNG 10 POW 10, you're doing about the same as a melee attack, and have about the same threat range, before moving. With buffs etc, it really is possible to get several units across the table before most ranged units will get to shoot. At best they'll get a round of shooting off.

Concentrating on a single target doesn't work as well in this game because the game tilts towards offense, not defense. The one type of unit you're guaranteed to see have some longevity, and get fielded on a regular basis is jacks/warbeasts, which most ranged units will struggle to damage w/o some sort of special ability/higher than average POW.

[mcdermott]

Please enlighten us. Maybe there's something that's been missed. The typically advantages of ranged combat are the ability to extend your threat range, and to concentrate on a single target.

However, in game where the typical ranged attack has RNG 10 POW 10, you're doing about the same as a melee attack, and have about the same threat range, before moving. With buffs etc, it really is possible to get several units across the table before most ranged units will get to shoot. At best they'll get a round of shooting off.

Concentrating on a single target doesn't work as well in this game because the game tilts towards offense, not defense. The one type of unit you're guaranteed to see have some longevity, and get fielded on a regular basis is jacks/warbeasts, which most ranged units will struggle to damage w/o some sort of special ability/higher than average POW.

Did you read that battle report on the use of the centurion + longgunners to hold a point? Cause there it is.

[Varius]

Did you read that battle report on the use of the centurion + longgunners to hold a point? Cause there it is.

Which one?

[GreenJello]

Did you read that battle report on the use of the centurion + longgunners to hold a point? Cause there it is.

Yes, and made a number of comments in it.

I suspect that things could have gone very differently if he had pulled a different opponent. A beast heavy hordes list would have made that list cry. It would start by wrecking or tossing the centurion, and then eating the LG, allowing them 1 round of shooting, like I said.

All this assuming that the cent was in position to intercept the fast infantry, you'll notice that Keith said that he didn't necessarily have the jack in front of the LGs at all times. Or that that didn't have dash, the cent wasn't knocked down, chilled, blinded, or otherwise incapacitated.

[mcdermott]

Thats why you have 2 lists man. ANY list can be "what iffed" into being useless.

Edit: More to the point, every tournament winner in every miniatures game or CCG or any other gamer style competition at some point takes a gamble on what the environment at the tournament is going to be and adjusts their lists accordingly.

[Octavius_Maximus]

Green jello.

That would be why he didn't use that list against a beast heavy hordes army.

That's why multi list formats exist.

[The_Villain]

This is the best thread ever and get tingly all over every time I see someone else has given their highly experienced opinion! YAY!

[PG_n00buaddib]

Since there are pretty much those who think Cygnar is competitive and those who aren't, and since both sides made literally hundreds of arguments already (many of them saying the same, although worded differently), are we past the stage where we have to say why and can just answer the question? Like a pool of sorts?

Because I think Cygnar are competitive, but can't be bothered to elaborate why. If you really wanna know, seek out someone that thinks Cygnar are competitive as well and imagine his wall of text being here instead of this lovely Aston:

[GreenJello]

Thats why you have 2 lists man. ANY list can be "what iffed" into being useless.

Okay, so what's your explaination for why ranged combat is better than melee?

[Octavius_Maximus]

Its not necessarily better, but it is balanced. Melee has power while ranged has flexibility.

[GreenJello]

Its not necessarily better, but it is balanced. Melee has power while ranged has flexibility.

Sorry, proof by fiat isn't really proof.

[Stephan Garmark]

To the OP:

I'd like to see some Cygnar players doing well to ETC in July. Of course it's a team effort, but I'd like to see some of those Cygnar players just steamroll everybody there, this would for me be proof that they're just as competetive as everybody else and would likely shut the disbelievers and curmudgeons up once and for all.

[The Happy Anarchist]

Please enlighten us. Maybe there's something that's been missed. The typically advantages of ranged combat are the ability to extend your threat range, and to concentrate on a single target.

However, in game where the typical ranged attack has RNG 10 POW 10, you're doing about the same as a melee attack, and have about the same threat range, before moving. With buffs etc, it really is possible to get several units across the table before most ranged units will get to shoot. At best they'll get a round of shooting off.

Concentrating on a single target doesn't work as well in this game because the game tilts towards offense, not defense. The one type of unit you're guaranteed to see have some longevity, and get fielded on a regular basis is jacks/warbeasts, which most ranged units will struggle to damage w/o some sort of special ability/higher than average POW.

Managing the table space, attacking while being able to be in a different position, against infantry heavy lists increasing the relative distance between some models, effectively making it harder to get into melee by killing key models. People also severely underestimate the ability to put some early damage on a beast jack - for some reason they have this idea that not killing something entirely in one or two rounds of shooting means the shooting was useless, while ignoring the fact that you have a heavily damaged, easily killed beast/jack to target with your melee clean up.

This is in addition to the ability to remove key models like solos and UAs, or support units, or even just exactly the models that are contesting a zone.

Oh yes, and clearing a zone without jamming up the space with your own bases, allowing for very aggressive assassination attempts. For example, you need to clear a path to get a heavy to a caster or one of their heavies, if you try to do it with melee models then they are in the way themselves, whereas ranged models can clear the path without personally getting in the way.

The benefits of ranged attacks are extremely strong, and most of them rely on table position and more than just basic math. That is why a lot of people discount ranged attacks - they just add the numbers together and think that is the whole story. It is not, and the benefits of ranged attacks can only really by shown extensively by experience and clever use on the table.

Oh, almost forgot. Ranged attacks are much less susceptible to control than melee. Things like Haley or Harbinger, Crippling Grasp, Breathstealer, Fear of God. Those things can take a melee unit out of the game, but often barely slow down a ranged unit or even don't bother it.

My strongest troll lists have a strong ranged component, for example. The lists where I am solely melee models often have much more trouble getting controlled or jammed, for that matter. Ranged lists are better against the jam than melee lists - which is counter-intuitive, I know. The thing is, ranged lists can move up and thin down the jam, then get their own jammy models up there - whether they be Boomhowler's, Forgeguard or even Sword Knights or Precursors. Sword Knights are not as terrible as I thought at first, much like the Cent. They aren't Banes or anything, but as a screening unit without the UA they are 6 points for 10 guys that are Spd 6. Arm 14 base, so resilient to blast damage and can pair up to Arm 16. The main thing they lack is reach, but with AS they can get up to Arm 19 which is enough to start causing problems.

In addition to that, they can often clear a path through the jam to allow your other models to work, whereas melee infantry vs the jam is jammed whether or not they kill the jamming infantry. You can kill it all you want, but if you are doing it with melee models, unless you have Martial Discipline you are still jammed.

[GreenJello]

Managing the table space, attacking while being able to be in a different position, against infantry heavy lists increasing the relative distance between some models, effectively making it harder to get into melee by killing key models. People also severely underestimate the ability to put some early damage on a beast jack - for some reason they have this idea that not killing something entirely in one or two rounds of shooting means the shooting was useless, while ignoring the fact that you have a heavily damaged, easily killed beast/jack to target with your melee clean up.

It's a very good ability, but the ability to completely remove it is better. In this case I gotta go with melee being strong than ranged. I can't think of a single ranged unit/model in the game that can remove a heavy from play, while there are a LOT of melee units that can do this without breaking a sweat, largely due to that extra die.

This is in addition to the ability to remove key models like solos and UAs, or support units, or even just exactly the models that are contesting a zone.

It's a nice ability, and can be gaming winning, but it's also possible to do this with melee units via positioning & flanking.

Oh yes, and clearing a zone without jamming up the space with your own bases, allowing for very aggressive assassination attempts. For example, you need to clear a path to get a heavy to a caster or one of their heavies, if you try to do it with melee models then they are in the way themselves, whereas ranged models can clear the path without personally getting in the way.

Yes, I run into that problem with my Trolls. A large part of that has to do with all the medium bases, they tend to get into their own way, anyway. However it's also possible to do this with throws, slams, and reach models. In fact, last game I cleared most of the charge lane for my Stormclad using the Stormblades, and only two shots from Gun Mages.

The benefits of ranged attacks are extremely strong, and most of them rely on table position and more than just basic math.

True, but there's more to it than that, which is the reason why I pointed out that most ranged units get a turn of shooting in before being engaged. It's not just the low pow, it the threat ranges are barely longer than the melee threat ranges.

Oh, almost forgot. Ranged attacks are much less susceptible to control than melee. Things like Haley or Harbinger, Crippling Grasp, Breathstealer, Fear of God. Those things can take a melee unit out of the game, but often barely slow down a ranged unit or even don't bother it.

If those are your only examples, I think that the prevelance of stealth and cloud effects is going to be a lot more common, but that is a few more than I was aware of.

The lists where I am solely melee models often have much more trouble getting controlled or jammed, for that matter.

I think a lot of this depends on the unit doing the jamming. If it's just a bunch of cheap crap, like mechanithralls, then yes, ranged attacks are going to do well. If it's a real tar-pit unit like Boomhowlers, Forgeguard, or something else with high armor, once again melee is going to do better because of the extra power. High DEF really depends on either elite melee or AOEs.

In addition to that, they can often clear a path through the jam to allow your other models to work, whereas melee infantry vs the jam is jammed whether or not they kill the jamming infantry. You can kill it all you want, but if you are doing it with melee models, unless you have Martial Discipline you are still jammed.

Or reform, or vengence, or heck, just move out of your own way next turn. While it's possible to end a game quickly, there are no turn limits like 40K, you can go for 50 turns if it takes that long.

[mcdermott]

Okay, so what's your explaination for why ranged combat is better than melee?

Whats my explanation for a strawman you just made up?

I don't have one, because I didn't make that argument. Ranged is a completely different beast than melee. But the other guy covered it pretty well, board position, the use of combined arms to soften targets before engaging...the list goes on. Stealth CAN bone it, but Cygnar is a faction that can mitigate or outright ignore stealth with their shooting units better than anyone in the game. (I bolded and underlined that to give me an excuse to sockjack anyone who brings up legion beasts...units people...units.)

But hey, what do I know, I'm just going to sit back and see how these guys taking up the cygnar banner do. So far they've posted 1 win, using models this forum makes faces at the thought of. Lock and load is soon as well, so we'll see how that pans out.

[Bean Mk. II]

I don't have one, because I didn't make that argument. Ranged is a completely different beast than melee. But the other guy covered it pretty well, board position, the use of combined arms to soften targets before engaging...the list goes on. Stealth CAN bone it, but Cygnar is a faction that can mitigate or outright ignore stealth with their shooting units better than anyone in the game. (I bolded and underlined that to give me an excuse to sockjack anyone who brings up legion beasts...units people...units.)

I think you're right that they're different, but I would re-iterate my earlier point that they're no longer really equal.

Way back in the day, when the game was just caster kills, you could win games with nothing but shooting. I did it all the time, in fact. I played a Haley denial army with long gunners and trenchers--and I could just camp and wait for my opponent to break himself on my pile of guns (or pick off a solo for victory points with the GMCA or Eiryss and wait to win on time if my opponent wasn't up for advancing into my TB/Smoke/Longgunner line).

At some point (I like to think that it was mainly because of this very army that I played) Privateer decided that they didn't want people winning games like this, and started writing rules that forced people into melee--and the scenarios they came up with are the prime example of this.

Was this a bad thing? Perhaps not. I think a lot of people appreciated it, actually, because they didn't like losing to armies that could camp and shoot them to death without ever really giving them a chance to retaliate effectively. And that's fair (though I loved camping and shooting people to death without ever really giving them a chance to retaliate effectively). Whether you like it or not, though, one thing is undeniable: Privateer intentionally, specifically nerfed the all-ranged army through scenarios, and that nerf has remained with us since.

[PG_Cridler]

TL;DR (the thread, not any one single post)

For my money, Cygnar's stigma stems from 3 issues:

1) We are a shooting faction (at best, a combined arms faction) in a melee dominated game. Our shooting is not powerful enough to dominate a game - i.e. box a jack/beast with a unit in a turn - and scenarios force us into engaging. We are designed to do one thing well, pay a premium for doing it (like anyone does, for their specialties), and the game punishes us for it.

2) We use warjacks. I'm not one to ***** and moan about fury v. focus, as I like the variation between the two resource systems (the only concern I have is the fury management solos that abound in hordes - why have a risk management system if you are going to simply remove all of the risk?). That being said, objectively, warbeasts are inherently superior in all ways, with the POSSIBLE exception of survivability (and that is a push in my opinion, due to the ease of healing up a warbeast). They hit harder, are more flexible, and have better abilities than equal pointed warjacks. To compound this issue, one of our signature abilities and methods of delaying heavies from wrecking our faces off (see #1) - disruption - is completely worthless against warbeasts.

3) Many of our units are just... not quite right. Trenchers, Long Gunners, Stormnouns all have inherent flaws not represented in their points costs. Trenchers bring the kitchen sink to battle with them, pay for it, then forget they brought it. Long Gunners have absolutely no defense against melee and aren't good enough at shooting to stay alive. Stormblades have horrible armor for their role, have a UA that forces them to operate in a bubble and is too expensive, and are too slow. Stormguard have all the flaws of stormblades as a unit, and on top of that eat their own electrical leaps. They don't even HAVE a UA. Storm Lances are a point or two too expensive, and their solo repeats the error of the Storm Blades' UA - too expensive and forces the Lances to operate in a bubble. For Cygnar as a FACTION to be considered competitive, these units must be fixed.

All that being said, I still enjoy playing Cygnar. I will often enough to avoid horrible frustration that makes me want to melt the models down into minie balls. I'm not *****ing about the faction, I just recognize its flaws, tore those pages out of my forces book, and moved on.

This really sums up what it would take for me to consider cygnar competitive. Our melee infantry is overpriced AND needs way too many support models to actually protect our gunline. At 35pts I feel we're about 5 points short of our opponents. They simply get more for the same price. We have some great units and some great jacks, but when you compare them one on one with our rival factions equivalent, we usually pay 1-2 points more for each one.

[PG_viggo3000]

I think that cygnar shooting is nice when combined with mele units. What real shooting unit is rng 10 pow 10 ? Yes gunmages / b13 but they can shoot snipe or other awesome special amunition. I would love me some ATGM in my cryx. Yes cygnar has kinda crapy mele troops but would it not break the game to give the strongest range faction strong mele units.

Side note: Swordknights combined with estryker is pure win :-)

[The Happy Anarchist]

If only there were units that ignored stealth for shooting. Or cover. If only Cygnar had access to units like these, they could mitigate some of the downsides of ranged combat.

In any case, imagine what would happen if there was a ranged unit that could take a heavy off the table in a turn. There are some that could take it off in two, or against Warpwolves one. I watched a unit of Stormblades+Gunners with Deadeye kill a warpwolf in one turn with their assault ranged attacks. Invictors can do it over two turns if it's armor isn't too high. Outside of feats or combined arms that is it though. If you could, it would be absolutely busted - you could quickly remove pretty much every important model.

Also, reread Vengeance, you are apparently playing it wrong. It cannot clear charge lanes, at least not til next turn after they have a chance of killing you. Also, ranged attacks are still perfectly capable of dealing with ARM 16. Even with 4+ tough. They can still do all the things I said they can do, and with CRA you can even do so against higher armor. Even against very high armor you can at least contribute.

Your choice if you want to be more effective, you have the tools. Up to you to use them. For example, using screening infantry to protect your ranged models. Or counter charging infantry to clear them out of melee.

[MadJack]

Stormblades have horrible armor for their role, have a UA that forces them to operate in a bubble and is too expensive, and are too slow.

Wait, I missed this before. How exactly does the UA force them to operate in a bubble?

[Mighty]

Wait, I missed this before. How exactly does the UA force them to operate in a bubble?

Bubble = Electrical Arc from the Stormblades leader.

To run at full capacity Stormblades have to stay within 5 inch from their leader. Many argue that this is an unnecessary leftover from mk1.

[Adept Rahn]

To the OP:

I'd like to see some Cygnar players doing well to ETC in July. Of course it's a team effort, but I'd like to see some of those Cygnar players just steamroll everybody there, this would for me be proof that they're just as competetive as everybody else and would likely shut the disbelievers and curmudgeons up once and for all.

I shall be there with eStryker, Sloan or something.

[GreenJello]

If only there were units that ignored stealth for shooting. Or cover. If only Cygnar had access to units like these, they could mitigate some of the downsides of ranged combat.

Stealth bothers me because of it's ubiquity. When you can field an entire army that has some sort of melee negating ability, but can still be shot, we can come back to this discussion. As it stands there are several builds that can completely negate normal shooting attacks. Yes, we've got a couple of tricks, but I'm talking about the game as a whole. Also those tricks require the addition of other stuff.

If you could, it would be absolutely busted - you could quickly remove pretty much every important model.

How is doing this any more busted than being able to do it via melee units, which happens all the time? Further the threat ranges on a lot of these melee units is comparable, which is the truly busted part.

Also, ranged attacks are still perfectly capable of dealing with ARM 16. Even with 4+ tough. They can still do all the things I said they can do, and with CRA you can even do so against higher armor. Even against very high armor you can at least contribute.

I was actually referring to ARM18-19, which is where the forgeguard are, or boomhowler + A.S. is going to be sitting, or most of the other heavy armor units. Regardless, a POW 10 ranged attack is not as effective as a POW 10 melee attack, due to the extra die from charging. You are correct about CRA, I mentioned that, however, CMA is about comparable. Further the Stormblades are going to wreck stuff a lot better by assaulting or just charging, once again because of the bonus die.

[iksander]

If only there were units that ignored stealth for shooting. Or cover. If only Cygnar had access to units like these, they could mitigate some of the downsides of ranged combat

Dear god, can we stop with the cygnar ignores the crap out of stealth routine? We have one unit that easily ignores stealth in gun mages. Fire beacon is just one 5 inch AoE on one model in a 3 man unit, that can see play in one Steamroller list. After that it's assaulting out of ranged models for units. Assault works in a pinch and i'm glad its there, but it can still easily be blocked due to the necessity of it being straightline movement. I mean if you really want to put Longgunners/UA in ignore stealth list, its one pow 10 five inch lingering pie plate thats pretty easy to run around. Look I love the lingering damage plates, but that stuff only really works when you can throw out multiple AoEs.

Cygnar has one unit that ignores cover with cover with Nyss hunters (which are only available for one steamroller list), if you want to get hyper specific we also have the 3 WAs in Trencher Commandos.

Look, I'm not saying cygnar can't deal with stealth troops, because mostly Cygnar can, but those crazy lists where even the battlegroup is Stealthed and all the troops have stealth, yeah it screws Cygnar just a hair less than most factions but its still god awful to deal with.

In any case, imagine what would happen if there was a ranged unit that could take a heavy off the table in a turn. There are some that could take it off in two, or against Warpwolves one. I watched a unit of Stormblades+Gunners with Deadeye kill a warpwolf in one turn with their assault ranged attacks. Invictors can do it over two turns if it's armor isn't too high. Outside of feats or combined arms that is it though. If you could, it would be absolutely busted - you could quickly remove pretty much every important model..

Stormblades are pow 14 range 6 in a unit that maxs at eleven men that is crazy expensive; there are other models that can hit pow 14 rng 6 like Zealots, Devil Dogs, etc... Dygmies are pow 14, rng 6 but its way more effective to use their slug gun as a melee attack due to slug gun melee buff stacking. Now I'm not trying to downplay pow 14, pow 14 ranged is amazing, but there are a number of factions that can throw out pow 14 rng 6.

[Phantom]

Dear god, can we stop with the cygnar ignores the crap out of stealth routine? We have one unit that easily ignores stealth in gun mages. Fire beacon is just one 5 inch AoE on one model in a 3 man unit, that can see play in one Steamroller list. After that it's assaulting out of ranged models for units. Assault works in a pinch and i'm glad its there, but it can still easily be blocked due to the necessity of it being straightline movement. I mean if you really want to put Longgunners/UA in ignore stealth list, its one pow 10 five inch lingering pie plate thats pretty easy to run around. Look I love the lingering damage plates, but that stuff only really works when you can throw out multiple AoEs.

Cygnar has one unit that ignores cover with cover with Nyss hunters (which are only available for one steamroller list), if you want to get hyper specific we also have the 3 WAs in Trencher Commandos.

Look, I'm not saying cygnar can't deal with stealth troops, because mostly Cygnar can, but those crazy lists where even the battlegroup is Stealthed and all the troops have stealth, yeah it screws Cygnar just a hair less than most factions but its still god awful to deal with.

Mage Sight? True Shot? Arcane Precision?

Stormblades are pow 14 range 6 in a unit that maxs at eleven men that is crazy expensive; there are other models that can hit pow 14 rng 6 like Zealots, Devil Dogs, etc... Dygmies are pow 14, rng 6 but its way more effective to use their slug gun as a melee attack due to slug gun melee buff stacking. Now I'm not trying to downplay pow 14, pow 14 ranged is amazing, but there are a number of factions that can throw out pow 14 rng 6.

But how many can do it with boosted hit rolls? And those 11 POW 14 RNG 6 attacks can reach out and touch models that are 18" away. Like you said, that SB unit is really expensive so you better take them with casters that actually support them.

Cygnar units can't be seen in isolation like that, we have to match them with casters that support them effectively to get the most potential out of them.

[MadJack]

Bubble = Electrical Arc from the Stormblades leader.

To run at full capacity Stormblades have to stay within 5 inch from their leader. Many argue that this is an unnecessary leftover from mk1.

But that has nothing to do with the UA, it's a function of the basic unit, which is why thebill's comment made no sense to me. The UA doesn't do anything to force them to operate in a bubble... If anything it does the opposite, since assaulting Stormblades care less about staying in the bubble as they've got an extra attack to balance out the lack of the extra POW.

[iksander]

Mage Sight? True Shot? Arcane Precision?

He said units, man. But still. We have two casters (Siege and Kraye) that can grant their battle group the ability to ignore everything but cover in a 5"AoE. Which is good. Captain Caine and Sloan can only ignore stealth for themselves. Solo-wise we have Stormsmiths and Gunmage Captain. We have one jack that can ignore Stealth. Barring Siege and Kraye, this isn't that overwhelming amount of anti stealth technology, that people like to play up. It stands out because Cygnar/Legion pretty much are the only factions with anti-stealth shooting.

But how many can do it with boosted hit rolls? And those 11 POW 14 RNG 6 attacks can reach out and touch models that are 18" away. Like you said, that SB unit is really expensive so you better take them with casters that actually support them.

Cygnar units can't be seen in isolation like that, we have to match them with casters that support them effectively to get the most potential out of them.

Ok the Stormblades do need to all be in range of the 5 inch bubble, and only 3 dudes get to assault at range 20, the rest are rng 14. Lets go over, Zealots can't get crazy to hits, but do have access to Severious 1 with Eye of Menoth and Kreoss 1 with Menoth's Wrath, while for 11 points you could go Devil dogs+ 4 points of merc of your choice like Gorman, etc... to make your to-hits nice and sexy or extra hard hitting. You can doctor up those other factions Pow 14s as well. Support from your casters/army isn't unique to Cygnar.

[thebill77718]

But that has nothing to do with the UA, it's a function of the basic unit, which is why thebill's comment made no sense to me. The UA doesn't do anything to force them to operate in a bubble... If anything it does the opposite, since assaulting Stormblades care less about staying in the bubble as they've got an extra attack to balance out the lack of the extra POW.

Sorry, I was a little unclear, I was listing all the reasons the storm blades are less than sexy. Crap armor is one reason. An over-costed UA is another. The leader bubble is a third. I kind of ran them all together. I forgot to mention their relative slowness at SPD 5 and their atrocious RAT, but yeah, there it is.

[MadJack]

Sorry, I was a little unclear, I was listing all the reasons the storm blades are less than sexy. Crap armor is one reason. An over-costed UA is another. The leader bubble is a third. I kind of ran them all together. I forgot to mention their relative slowness at SPD 5 and their atrocious RAT, but yeah, there it is.

Well, rather than just running them all together you actually specifically said that it's the UA that forces them to be in a bubble, hence my confusion.

And to be fair, RAT 5 isn't atrocious. It's on the low side for Cygnar (although it's the same as Long Gunners have), but it's actually fairly common across all factions for standard shooting troops. Since Cygnar has ways to get around lower RAT, having RAT 5 is hardly a big deal for Stormblades. I almost never have any trouble hitting what I want to hit with shots from Stormblades (either because I'm shooting at low DEF things, or because I have Rangers, or because I'm using Deadeye).

[mcdermott]

Stealth bothers me because of it's ubiquity. When you can field an entire army that has some sort of melee negating ability, but can still be shot, we can come back to this discussion.

Saeryn feat turn.

[Phantom]

It stands out because Cygnar/Legion pretty much are the only factions with anti-stealth shooting.

Exactly, and except for eLylyth and eKaya it is a very rare sight to have more than 1 or 2 stealth units / warnouns in a game so we can easily have the needed tools to deal with the "usual" amount of stealth in every list.

All-stealth lists will require a dedicated counter-list on our part, even if that list it is to just focus on mellee instead of shooting...

Ok the Stormblades do need to all be in range of the 5 inch bubble, and only 3 dudes get to assault at range 20, the rest are rng 14. Lets go over, Zealots can't get crazy to hits, but do have access to Severious 1 with Eye of Menoth and Kreoss 1 with Menoth's Wrath, while for 11 points you could go Devil dogs+ 4 points of merc of your choice like Gorman, etc... to make your to-hits nice and sexy or extra hard hitting. You can doctor up those other factions Pow 14s as well. Support from your casters/army isn't unique to Cygnar.

8" charge + 6" RNG + 4" snipe = 18" assault

I'm not trying to offend you but the rest of your post doesn't make any sense, Zealots have a max RNG of 11" and Devil Dogs are just POW 12 while Gorman that was supposed to just give them the +2 DMG (and only works against warjacks), is just max RNG 12".

None of the examples you gave are equal to the Stormblades and we aren't even factoring the other special rules that they bring like the WA hitting = everyone auto-hits on the same target or the 3" AOE on each hit.

I'm not claiming that they are the equal to stuff like Nyss Hunters or Winterguard DS, but they aren't nearly as bad as most people in this forum will make you believe.

[sepher32]

Stealth bothers me because of it's ubiquity. When you can field an entire army that has some sort of melee negating ability, but can still be shot, we can come back to this discussion.

Captain Victoria Haley

[DemonCalibre]

captain victoria haley

qft...........

[GreenJello]

Captain Victoria Haley

You could also add Deneghra2 and the Harbringer to the list, but these are all FEATS.

I'm referring to an ability that you can give to or buy most/all of an army having it that prevents melee units from attacking for the entire game, since that's effectively what stealthed armies do.

Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges. But assuming you DO want to do that comparison, it still means that melee is better because 1 turn of can't attack is better than an entire game of can't attack.