Faction Purity and "Using the tools you have access to"

[ReaverQueen]

Ok, well, to make a constructive argument that is less U NO U...

I think we can all agree that Mercenary solos represent a degree of power above average compared to most faction solos. This because... like 99% of them are characters, and characters get access to special abilities and stats on account of being FA C. ( that's my theory anyway )



Now, would similar solos existing in each faction be better than mercs that fill that spot for every faction? I think sometimes yes, sometimes no.

We don't really need a McNaile for every faction. Wouldn't make too much sense. But I think the hierarchy of Power Booster solos is a fair representation of the idea. You can argue that certain solos are undercosted or whatever ( The WW Siren is typically considered as such ) but that doesn't change the core concept - that each faction can have a solo that fulfills a similar role but with their own unique sculpts, stories, and playstyles.



We don't all need an Eiryss for example, but a toned down FA 1 or 2 faction of that kind of solo isn't too bad an idea. Less powerful, but less restricted at army construction. Can be used across multiple lists, and then removes upkeeps or messes with warjacks or whatever. They don't have to have identical abilities - just the same general role or idea.

[MagnustheJust]

Ineptitude is someone elses fault!!!

Yeah it is!!


That jerk in the mirror who keeps mocking you when you faceplant...

[Defenstrator]

That's a matter of opinion and one of the reasons people take the gatorman posse. It gets old that when your infantry just flail about at heavy arm. So no that actually cause them to have to play beast heavy due to gaps in the infantry's game. Thats why kallus has a weird niche.

I don't think Warmongers are bad. I'd love to have them in Cygnar. Gatormen are just underpriced for what they do. They make almost everybodies heavy infantry look bad.

Besides, with decently cheap weapon masters and POW 14 heavy reach infantry, not including the Gatormen, I don't see how Legion infantry is having a harder time than other factions. They can't go to the extremes that Khador or Cryx can go to with their buffs and debuffs, but it's not bad.

[Mr.chair]

The problem with mercs, when it comes to cygnar, is that they aren't so much an additional option to include, they are the better option to include. Boom Howlers and Nyss hunters are just better in most cases than the regular infantry available from within faction. That means if you like the look of the faction, you're going to be sacrificing a lot of your available resources and strengths in order to use that look. Personally, I don't like mercs because I don't find them to fit in aesthetically with most forces. I like the look of a purist force, and if I was going to use a mercenary unit I'd probably be tempted to convert it to look as if it belonged to the faction I was playing. As far as other people using them in their forces, I'm not too bothered. Just to re-iterate, I only wish that using mercs was a choice, not THE choice, to play at the highest level of competition.

[The Sentinel]

Hell in the cryx and menoth forums they're getting all giggly over pirates! lol In the skorne and loe they're pakin the gators in as much as possible since they're better heavy infantry for the points then either factions has. We acknowledge it and deal. But the Cygnar forums do more whining then I have seen since the 40k threads.

It's 4 or 5 people, not the whole Cygnar forum. Some of us hate the whining.

[Scottl1]

I don't think Warmongers are bad. I'd love to have them in Cygnar. Gatormen are just underpriced for what they do. They make almost everybodies heavy infantry look bad.

Besides, with decently cheap weapon masters and POW 14 heavy reach infantry, not including the Gatormen, I don't see how Legion infantry is having a harder time than other factions. They can't go to the extremes that Khador or Cryx can go to with their buffs and debuffs, but it's not bad.

Arent those the reasons cygnar takes mercs?? So it's ok for loe but OMG for cygnar? Hhhmm guess I don't follow your logic here.

Also aside from pthag and kallus who is an infantry caster? Bethayne is kinda but only really for hex hunters. I can take swordsman or gatorman who get rerolls... Um no brainer there chief. Plus they don't get trampled since theyre medium bases. So no I really don't feel bad for cygnar taking mercs. Everyone does and uses the hell outta em. In many pthags lists you see as many pts of gatorman as you see in the recent winning cygnar proportionally. Well sometimes more if they run 2 posse. Yet NO ONE has even said a peep about it.

[Steam Pants]

Well, if you want to win you use what will help you win.
If you want to cling to some idealistic notion of factional purity, I'm deaf to your cries when you lose due to your self-imposed limitations.

The whole point of this topic is people who refuse to use the tools available to them, and then blame others for their own failure.

I actually agree with this a bit as well. I think someone SHOULD use all the tools available to him if he wants to have the best chance of winning. I myself use some Mercs and I have no problem with it. That might be because I pretty much like almost all of the PP models so, mixing it up for me isn't a big deal. However, I know not everyone is like me.

The whole faction purity thing is a weird area and multilayered topic. I don't think its just a matter of Power Gamers on one side and Fluff Nazis on the other. Allow me to explain.

I think these players are actually the type with the same attitude of "use whatever works to make you competitive". However, what might be happening is there are coming in from games where the models you bought for your faction were ONLY from your faction. So the concept of "splashing"(borrowing) from other factions is really against what they're used to. However, within their faction they were willing to break fluff to create tight competitive lists.

"I don't care if Space Wolves normally go into battle with at least some Blood Claws, I'm only taking Grey Hunters for Troops."


But let's look at it from their point of view. You don't know anything about Warmachine/Hordes, you go to the website and look at the gallery and faction synopsis, then you pick. When you start this hobby, you just have broad and vague descriptions like "brick faction", "ranged heavy", "board control faction"....that and a miniature gallery. So, in defense of those so called whiney Cygnar players, how were they suppose to know that they should've also looked at the Mercenary gallery and not only the Cygnar one? Where on their website does it say that? Where does it say "Cygnar tends to employ a large amount of mercenaries"?

Well, one could counter by saying that they could've come here to the forums to ask more questions and get more in depth impressions on the "actual" state of armies. This is true. Its something that I sometimes do when I check out new games. But again, in defense of the Cygnar players, for every post that says one thing you have another post that says "don't listen to the forums, people here are going to give you the wrong impression, just play and find out for youself."

Basically it means you're going to get players that spend money on stuff they will not use that much anymore because eventually they'll find out Mercs are better for their x,y, or z needs.

So after all that, of course they're gonna feel a little burned. Then they express that they're not happy with the amount of Mercs that are needed because that not what was advertised and they get labeled as wussies that aren't willing to "do whatever it takes...rarrrrgh..."

Yes, its true all factions need Mercs/Minions in some way. Maybe the reason why Cygnar players whine and not the other faction players is because their dependency on mercs is much heavier. Just a bit more than the other guy. Enough to cross some line of "acceptable amount".

The thing is, some people are going to be cool with it and some aren't. Like I've said in the Cygnar forums, there are just going to be differences of tastes and expectations. Its not like players on one side of the argument are smarter than those on the other side.

Here's a question, would we be having this debate if the so called less optimal faction models were used way more often than merc models? Would the players that say "use what tools you have chump" be angry if a pure or near pure faction list was viable? Would those players be sitting around saying, "I wished Trenchers weren't so good..." ?

If not, then why have the game in a state where only the players on one side of the argument are happy and not both sides?

I don't think it was Privateer Press' intention to make Mercs replace other units/models or have any Faction be "heavily" dependent on them. I think they were suppose to be fillers for certain gaps and weaknesses, accents here, a little boost or augment there, but not outright replacements. Either a lot of the players are playing the game wrong or some things have slipped through playtesting here and there. Maybe both?

[Defenstrator]

It's 4 or 5 people, not the whole Cygnar forum. Some of us hate the whining.

I honestly hadn't noticed. The 4 or 5 people who whine about other people talking about things they don't like are the really annoying ones. At least the people who don't like things eventually make constructive threads about how to get the most out of them. The others just moan and add nothing.

Arent those the reasons cygnar takes mercs?? So it's ok for loe but OMG for cygnar? Hhhmm guess I don't follow your logic here.

Also aside from pthag and kallus who is an infantry caster? Bethayne is kinda but only really for hex hunters. I can take swordsman or gatorman who get rerolls... Um no brainer there chief. Plus they don't get trampled since theyre medium bases. So no I really don't feel bad for cygnar taking mercs. Everyone does and uses the hell outta em. In many pthags lists you see as many pts of gatorman as you see in the recent winning cygnar proportionally. Well sometimes more if they run 2 posse. Yet NO ONE has even said a peep about it.

First off, that's one unit. You don't see Legion taking a multiude of support solos, becuase they're better, or a bunch of different units, becuase they're better. That's one unit with maybe two warlocks. It doesn't come up becuase it doesn't happen much. And even then it's an alternative rather than an out right replacement. It's not like Kallus or Thags do much to support them. I like Warmongers just as much with Kallus because Beserk + Dark Guidence is sweet. Something Gatormen don't get access to.

And I've never seen of heard of a two Gatorman Thag list, maybe that's a local meta thing, but I haven't seen anything that would make me think it's universal. On the contrary, I'm often encouraging people to take more infantry with Thags rather than feeling they have to take at least three heavies.

So yeah,
Legion= 1 minion unit with two warlocks.
Cygnar (the two winning lists at the Mayhem cup)= ATGM+UA & B13th, all the rest merc infantry.

Bit of a disparity there.

[HeadHunter]

Let me give you a comparison:

I play a CCG called Legend of the Five Rings - some of you may be familiar with it. I am a diehard Crab Clan player, to the point where I prefer not to include any personalities from other clans - though I will do so occasionally if it works with the theme. However, I understand that my choice may make victory more difficult to attain (but not impossible).

However, I'm one of the founders of a group called the Jade Hand. This is a group of players who have vowed not to include any Shadowlands tainted cards in their tournament decks. We do this because we realize the developers will see tainted wins as an opportunity to hose the victorious clans - not only in the fluff, but in future card designs. It has happened before and it continues to happen when such victories occur.

Now, each and every one of us realizes that this decision is a personal choice - even if it's for the good of our clans, there's nothing in the rules that requires it. Heck, there wasn't even much in the fluff to suggest it. We realize that this makes it harder for us to win in tournaments - the path of the Dark Side is tempting and the power it grants is easy and all that... but when we lose, we don't blame the opponent, or the Story Team. We try harder next time. We find better ways to utilize what we do have available to us.

Time and energy spent complaining, or justifying one's shortcomings, is time wasted - time that could be better employed to find those hidden paths to victory. Blame doesn't win games, nor does recrimination. Excuses don't bring victory. Finding the best way to use everything you've got is the only way to triumph. Wishing it wasn't so won't change that, either.

[Scottl1]

I honestly hadn't noticed. The 4 or 5 people who whine about other people talking about things they don't like are the really annoying ones. At least the people who don't like things eventually make constructive threads about how to get the most out of them. The others just moan and add nothing.


First off, that's one unit. You don't see Legion taking a multiude of support solos, becuase they're better, or a bunch of different units, becuase they're better. That's one unit with maybe two warlocks. It doesn't come up becuase it doesn't happen much. And even then it's an alternative rather than an out right replacement. It's not like Kallus or Thags do much to support them. I like Warmongers just as much with Kallus because Beserk + Dark Guidence is sweet. Something Gatormen don't get access to.

And I've never seen of heard of a two Gatorman Thag list, maybe that's a local meta thing, but I haven't seen anything that would make me think it's universal. On the contrary, I'm often encouraging people to take more infantry with Thags rather than feeling they have to take at least three heavies.

So yeah,
Legion= 1 minion unit with two warlocks.
Cygnar (the two winning lists at the Mayhem cup)= ATGM+UA & B13th, all the rest merc infantry.

Bit of a disparity there.

Not proportionally since the merc book has MORE units and characters. Gobbers, totem hunters, posse, feralgheist, etc are all used frequently.

There are many factions whod love to have the access to mercs that cygnar does. Troll, ret, and a few others have threads wanting more mercs/minions. One thread in trolls was I want reinholdt. lol Hhhmm maybe cygnar has been spoiled on this is and just having a case of faction envy.

[Dashwood]

My position on this is not one of models or faction purity, but point parity. If unit A is worth 5 points, and unit B is worth the same, why can unit B be used more widely than unit A with greater effect while unit A, even when used for what is intended for, ends up feeling very mediocre? Aren't they worth the same?

This is how it feels with Cygnar sometimes. I've learned to shelf certain units I'd like to use, but which just don't perform on the table. It is an odd feeling when I compare it to my experiences in the Other Game; as a Skaven player, I had the choice between slaves, clan rats, and storm vermin for my regular infantry. Obviously, the slaves were scrubs, and the clan rats were weaker than the storm vermin, but this was reflected in the points. I knew what I was buying and that my slaves were going to be less effective overall unless I put them in that one sweet spot from which they could shine.

Now, I don't mind using Mercs when I need to in my Cygnar list. I love that we have such a wide selection of choice. I understand that, in many cases, mercs are just the superior decision. Many people in this discussion have agreed with this via the implication carried by the phrase "use the tools needed to win." However, if so many of us accept that some units are just better than others, why aren't these lesser units also cheaper to field?

This is where my confusion lies. Instead of talking about what tools win, why aren't we talking about why the tools that aren't as capable cost the same as those which are? Normally, my signature is just a joke, but I guess this time it actually has relevance.

[MediumYellow]

Everything you said above was really subjective. It basically ammounted to "I don't like mercenaries". Attatching words like "morality" to it is just silly.

Even after this I have to question why you are playing a wargame meant to be competitive and then worrying about lore cohesion. Honestly you should just go play role playing games.

[ReaverQueen]

Army aesthetic and theme have their own distinct value that shouldn't just be thrown aside.

We could all be playing with bases marked with initials and rules-wise the game would be functionally the same. Just like having models painted is overall better, having some kind of army cohesion visually or thematically is better - even if it just means your mercenaries are converted or painted in your faction colors or something.


Obviously just mashing power units or solos together with a caster where nothing in the army complements each other visually or thematically is going to come across as pretty shallow.

[moorg]

Too be fair, the most commonly used unit are the ATGM+UA, which everyone agrees are really good.

Let's add to that by saying that Epic Magnus' Bad Seeds theme list is generally considered to be pretty damn good.

Let me give you a comparison:

I play a CCG called Legend of the Five Rings - some of you may be familiar with it. I am a diehard Crab Clan player, to the point where I prefer not to include any personalities from other clans - though I will do so occasionally if it works with the theme. However, I understand that my choice may make victory more difficult to attain (but not impossible).

However, I'm one of the founders of a group called the Jade Hand. This is a group of players who have vowed not to include any Shadowlands tainted cards in their tournament decks. We do this because we realize the developers will see tainted wins as an opportunity to hose the victorious clans - not only in the fluff, but in future card designs. It has happened before and it continues to happen when such victories occur.

Now, each and every one of us realizes that this decision is a personal choice - even if it's for the good of our clans, there's nothing in the rules that requires it. Heck, there wasn't even much in the fluff to suggest it. We realize that this makes it harder for us to win in tournaments - the path of the Dark Side is tempting and the power it grants is easy and all that... but when we lose, we don't blame the opponent, or the Story Team. We try harder next time. We find better ways to utilize what we do have available to us.

Time and energy spent complaining, or justifying one's shortcomings, is time wasted - time that could be better employed to find those hidden paths to victory. Blame doesn't win games, nor does recrimination. Excuses don't bring victory. Finding the best way to use everything you've got is the only way to triumph. Wishing it wasn't so won't change that, either.

Judging by the time of registration, the location, Playing Khador, the love of the Crab Clan, and the founding of the Jade Hand... Hida Okami, that must be you.

Glad to see my pimping of Warmachine on the C3 brought you here. Nothing beats a Yasuki sales pitch.

[ReaverQueen]

Isn't there a province of Cygnar that essentially IS the Crab Clan?

Like all they do is sit on the coast and fight Cryx 24/7. Crab Clan is the one that fights the Oni on the coast right...?

[Scottl1]

@Dashwood

I think it comes down more to synergy. As a stand alone I don't think things in cygnar look bad on paper. I mean if you compared bane thralls, nyss swordsman and stormblades together stormblades actually have a lot going for them. They have pretty good melee damage, same def/arm as banes, a ranged attacked, etc.

Granted this is a small example but what really seperates them in my opinion is when you add the UAs and such to the squads. I mean banes get tartarus and the UA. Swordsman have the UA and spawning vessel.

I don't think its that theyre bad or that they're poorly costed. It is prob the lack of support for the melee units. *shrug* I could be wrong but i still don't think the cygnar stuff is bad. It kinda reminds me of the ranged stuff in trolls. Theres a lot of potential but lacking one or two pieces to make it great if that makes any sense.

[King-of-Storms]

Aesthetics do not hinder me from fielding models, rather I look at their CAPABILITIES and at times their stats. People who just want to whine and expect too much out of certian Cygnar models just need to go play another faction or LEARN to make do what you have.

I'm actually glad Cygnar has such a healthy selection of Mercs to choose from, and no this does not mean that Cygnar has more "crutches" to choose from it just means they have more friends and possibilities than anyone else. Personally I don't use too many mercenaries but the ones I do use I have it to where they work in a tandem with my Cygnar models, not as a crutch like some of these people are putting on.

Let's face it that the people who consistently moan and groan about Cygnar needing mercs to be competitive just need to make a beeline to Ebay and sell their Cygnar models because Cygnar is not the straight forward smash stuff up style faction like Khador or Menoth. Cygnar requires a unique finesse and certian playing styles. If you don't like it, don't play it.

I'll share an old Southern addage with yall...

Quit yer b*tchn'!!

[kolonelk]

Army aesthetic and theme have their own distinct value that shouldn't just be thrown aside.

We could all be playing with bases marked with initials and rules-wise the game would be functionally the same. Just like having models painted is overall better, having some kind of army cohesion visually or thematically is better - even if it just means your mercenaries are converted or painted in your faction colors or something.

That's not so simple. Do I paint my Nyss in blue (my Cygnar base colour), grey (Cryx), or green (Khador)? What if I want Gorman to be all in black/grey?

I think Mercs should be distinct, because they're not part of the regular army. I have a pallette of greens, browns and greys that I mostly use for mercenaries, and as an all-merc force it's cohesive. In another army, they stand out and I don't have a problem with that.

[moorg]

Isn't there a province of Cygnar that essentially IS the Crab Clan?

Like all they do is sit on the coast and fight Cryx 24/7. Crab Clan is the one that fights the Oni on the coast right...?

Not just the coast. Draw a line from the bottom left hand side of the Rokugan map, and to about third of the way up.

[HeadHunter]

Judging by the time of registration, the location, Playing Khador, the love of the Crab Clan, and the founding of the Jade Hand... Hida Okami, that must be you.

Glad to see my pimping of Warmachine on the C3 brought you here. Nothing beats a Yasuki sales pitch.

Hai, Yamakori-san, it is I indeed.

YOU did this to me. You know that, don't you?

PP should give you a finder's fee or something. I've already spent $250 on WM stuff since you turned me on to this less than two weeks ago. Neat thing is, I haven't had to spend a cent out of pocket - traded in some unneeded 40k models and terrain at my LGS to get my Prime MK II, Forces:Khador and my Battlebox. And I just sold my old Armorcast Warhound for the stuff needed to make my WGDS and round out a little Rhulic army.

Thanks for turning me on to a really cool game - if I hadn't been out of tabletop gaming for so many years, I might not have overlooked this for so long!

[moorg]

Hai, Yamakori-san, it is I indeed.

YOU did this to me. You know that, don't you?

PP should give you a finder's fee or something. I've already spent $250 on WM stuff since you turned me on to this less than two weeks ago. Neat thing is, I haven't had to spend a cent out of pocket - traded in some unneeded 40k models and terrain at my LGS to get my Prime MK II, Forces:Khador and my Battlebox. And I just sold my old Armorcast Warhound for the stuff needed to make my WGDS and round out a little Rhulic army.

Thanks for turning me on to a really cool game - if I hadn't been out of tabletop gaming for so many years, I might not have overlooked this for so long!

I know.... It's all my fault.

Welcome to the game. Glad you're having fun.

[Dashwood]

I don't think its that theyre bad or that they're poorly costed. It is prob the lack of support for the melee units. *shrug* I could be wrong but i still don't think the cygnar stuff is bad. It kinda reminds me of the ranged stuff in trolls. Theres a lot of potential but lacking one or two pieces to make it great if that makes any sense.

Haha, I don't think you are wrong; we have a lot of good units with a lot of good flavour that, unfortunately, just don't perform or synergise well enough to justify their costs. Especially not when you compare them to a similar unit from the merc list that has the ability to act independently and effectively without those missing synergies.

Now, what units we do have that are worth the point expenditure (ATGM + UA, B13, Kraye) are beautiful and keep me playing. If we weren't a finesse army, I'd probably have gotten fed up long ago. All I need now are some light cavalry and I'll ignore our infantry woes forever.

Although, I'll admit, I will still miss the trenchers no matter what, haha.

P.S. it sure is swell seeing some Crab Clan folk here! L5R, Alterac, and I are old friends. I really like your philosophy about not including tainted cards; I was never part of your organization, but I adhered to the same personal limitation. I also noticed how Altersc responded to tainted deck winners and that was just unacceptable for the Crab Clan, so I had to do my part also. I run on kind of the same paradigm with Cygnar: play mostly Cygnar, use Mercs only when I absolutely have to, figure out why I make those choices instead of in house choices, and strive to win despite my own limitations.

I wonder if PP uses the tourneys here to craft their fluff. We sure are screwed if they do, hahaha.

[Wishing]

However, if so many of us accept that some units are just better than others, why aren't these lesser units also cheaper to field?

This is where my confusion lies. Instead of talking about what tools win, why aren't we talking about why the tools that aren't as capable cost the same as those which are?

I think we do talk about that, all the time in fact. That some units are underpowered and overcosted, and others are overpowered and undercosted, is something that will always be continuously discussed ad infinitum with games like this.

The issue is that it all comes down to personal opinion and you can't conclusively prove that something is underpowered or overcosted. If top tournament players think that most Cygnar units suck, then that's simply their opinion. PP designed and costed them the way they did because they felt it was the appropriate choice at the time of designing them.

Factions having good internal balance is something that WM is usually applauded for by players of GW games, in my experience. So hopefully the issue of Cygnar units being overcosted isn't actually as bad as it seems.

[King-of-Storms]

I guess to justify the point cost of Cygnar versus other factions is the fact that Cygnar units usually have more tools than their counterparts, but some units can be a point or two less, but I digress.

A prime example is the Trenchers versus the Winter Guard. Trenchers cost 10 points for the full unit versus 6 points of the full unit of Winterguard. The difference? Stat wise Trenchers have better STR, MAT and DEF than the Winter Guard. As far as advantages both have the combined ranged attack. The trenchers however have a lot more than the winter guard as far as abilities. Trenchers can assault, dig-in and launch smoke bombs. So the Trenchers can shoot and bayonet the Winter Guard and if they're not assaulting they got a DEF of 17 versus shooting and ignore blast damage on top of it all they can put a cloud in front of them for concealment. So the 4 point difference is justified.

If I have anything to say about Cygnar's point cost is in their jacks. The Centurion, Grenadier, Firefly and Thunderhead can stand to be a bit cheaper IMO

[Dashwood]

If I have anything to say about Cygnar's point cost is in their jacks. The Centurion, Grenadier, Firefly and Thunderhead can stand to be a bit cheaper IMO

You have a point with the Trenchers. It may be as Scott said above and just come down to synergies in the end. I've failed to find the Trencher niche for me, so moved on.

Since I play Jack Heavy, those are specifically the models I was thinking about! However since we're talking mercs, I felt mentioning the 'jacks as my examples would be off topic, haha.

[Wishing]

I'd probably say that the Trenchers and Centurion are a result of overnerfing in the Mk2 transition. Trenchers used to be able to make an impenetrable line of smoke that blocked LOS to your whole army in Mk1, and the Centurion was just amazing with its high ARM, immunity to charging and high POW reach spear. As often when wanting to correct overpowered models, they both reduced the problematic abilities *and* gave/kept a high cost for those models, effectively erring on the side of caution/underpoweredness.

[Dashwood]

That may be right. When I started back a little before MkII, someone told me that trenchers and centurions were amazing, so I ended up buying both. Centurion still gets some use, but only because he's a handsome bloke.

[CeltKhan]

A prime example is the Trenchers versus the Winter Guard. Trenchers cost 10 points for the full unit versus 6 points of the full unit of Winterguard. The difference? Stat wise Trenchers have better STR, MAT and DEF than the Winter Guard. As far as advantages both have the combined ranged attack. The trenchers however have a lot more than the winter guard as far as abilities. Trenchers can assault, dig-in and launch smoke bombs. So the Trenchers can shoot and bayonet the Winter Guard and if they're not assaulting they got a DEF of 17 versus shooting and ignore blast damage on top of it all they can put a cloud in front of them for concealment. So the 4 point difference is justified.

Amusingly enough, that's one of the worst comparisons you can make.

Add the UA to the Winterguard and they gain Bob and Weave which, with practically any Def boost, makes them functionally immune to Trencher shooting and sprays which murder Trenchers in job lots, especially when you add in Kovnik Joe. You get all that for the same base price as Trenchers without UA or support solos, but even those additions do nothing vs Winterguard.

Also, with the new ubiquity of Nyss Hunters, anybody has the option to ignore concealment and cover. Result: Trenchers cost a whole lot for two abilities that do nothing at all. I am so glad I never bought them in MkI.

[Defenstrator]

Let's add to that by saying that Epic Magnus' Bad Seeds theme list is generally considered to be pretty damn good.

Very true. If Cygnar got Talons and Swordknights that could ambush the amount of Swordknight use would go way up.

[Azuresun]

A prime example is the Trenchers versus the Winter Guard. Trenchers cost 10 points for the full unit versus 6 points of the full unit of Winterguard. The difference? Stat wise Trenchers have better STR, MAT and DEF than the Winter Guard. As far as advantages both have the combined ranged attack. The trenchers however have a lot more than the winter guard as far as abilities. Trenchers can assault, dig-in and launch smoke bombs. So the Trenchers can shoot and bayonet the Winter Guard and if they're not assaulting they got a DEF of 17 versus shooting and ignore blast damage on top of it all they can put a cloud in front of them for concealment. So the 4 point difference is justified.

Having a lot of options on one model is deceptive when a model can only use one per turn. For example, Dig In is a very niche ability when (unlike Farrow), you do it instead of shooting, more so when so many scenarios pretty much require you to pile into the centre of the table.

With Range 10 guns, a lot of enemies can just run-to-engage you, not to mention it has no synergy with Assault and does nothing to protect against sprays (such as the boosted sprays that 10pts of Winterguard will be bringing to the table because really, does anyone field a basic unit of WGI?)