The cygnar forums.

[PG_Dino-Czar]

Nachos, too?

Dude, we will get nacho supremes, nachos grande, even nacho salads. Thats why Johnny Law will be chasing us. He'll see all out sweet nachos and want to steal them.*




*I'm naturally assuming that most police officers operate like breakfast cereal mascots.

[Rochr]

The cygnar forums used to be a nice place with creative ideas but now its all whine. Yeas thoes that want to discuss hoe much they need mercs to win and why cygnar is not competative should be alowed to do that but that discussion is in every second thread these days whatever it is about. If you want to play cygnar without nyss or whatever just put on your big boy pants and play.

More moderation and threadlocks when things goes way of topic please.

[Bladestorm]

Hmm. I normally try to stay out of this sort of thing and only occasionally post when I feel I have something helpful to say, but I feel I have to comment here.

From my perspective as someone who regularly reads this and several other sub-forums, it feels to me like this sub-forum has three major poster groups:

Whiners about Cygnar: People who simply outright complain with no real argument to back it up. This feels like by far the smallest group - typically no more than a handful of people do it in a given month but most don't tend to hang around as they don't get much support.

Moderates: People who have feelings one way or the other but manage to remain civil, rational and engage in discussions based on the game itself and there perceived issues or lack thereof. quite a few though by no means all of them think some units or Cygnar as a whole have issues, but exactly how many and how bad those issues are is a point of great variance.

Whiners about whiners: People who outright complain about whining, yet often resort to insults about the intelligence, maturity, gender and preferences of the people they disagree with rather than actually trying to engage in discussion about the issues to change opinions. Lately it seems some members of this group have started using memes that have insulting implications so they don't have to write an actual insult themselves.


For a long time I felt that the moderates were by far the majority here and it was quite possible to have a reasoned discussion with point and counter-point, which if not always perhaps entirely friendly, was at least civil and productive. lately however it feels that the whiners about whiners are getting out of hand which has made it increasingly rare for a discussion to remain civil and productive, which is starting to sadden me as I used to quite like reading this forum to see what people had come up with and if anyone had any neat new perspectives on things I'd overlooked.

[mongoose1]

I havent been playing long and I started playing Cygnar because the day I went to buy my chosen faction it was out of stock so decided "well maybe I'll just get Cygnar".
And since then I have never looked back yes I get my army slaughtered all the time but that just makes the victories I do have just that much sweeter. I dont regard myself as a bad player but I just play to have fun yes I play in tournaments (well once anyway but I'm still new to the game) and I had fun the only time I got a bit peaved was when one opponent I had was being a bad sport and I would rather not play that person ever again cos it did put a damper on the day (funny how he was also a Cygnar player also, just hellbent on winning).
I guess what I'm trying to say is if you dont enjoy playing perhaps youre playing the wrong faction. I dont begrudge anyone having a whinge as sometimes I am also surprised when someone tells me what their model can do and I'm like "It can do what again?" then I destroy their heavy jack with a 4 point unit of sword knights. All armies have their sub par units hence why I've never seen something like Khador Kommandos on the table.
I just dont buy units that are terrible unless I have a way of making them work or am willing to give them a shot.

P.S. I think Darius is cool!!

[bouncymischa]

Okay. Seriously. If you can explain why this means trenchers have to be subpar I am willing to listen.

What does the existence of a merc unit have to do with the value of a faction unit?

Okay, so a sub-par faction unit exists, likely due to the fact that Privateer chooses to cost generalist, multi-role units in a way that many competitive players disagree with. There also exists a character mercenary unit that is likely undercosted for its capabilities, due to the supposed limitations of being FA:C that don't really appear in competitive play until character restrictions are introduced.

How does one affect the other? Are you saying the sub-par unit was made intentionally bad simply because the mercenary unit exists? Even that doesn't really hold water, since things like Assault Kommandoes exist in Khador, which can also take Nyss Hunters, but I don't think I've ever seen a Khador player argue that Kommandoes are bad because Khador can take Nyss. (They'll argue that Kommandoes are bad on their own merits, but that's somewhat different.)

In the end, bad units and better units will always exist, simply because the game can never be perfectly balanced, and as new models continue to come out, they'll either be considered lackluster (because they are inferior to existing units) or seen as a money-grab (because they're superior to existing units). It's simply part of the way the competitive playerbase views the world, with a focus on list optimization.

[GreenJello]

Whiners about whiners: People who outright complain about whining, yet often resort to insults about the intelligence, maturity, gender and preferences of the people they disagree with rather than actually trying to engage in discussion about the issues to change opinions. Lately it seems some members of this group have started using memes that have insulting implications so they don't have to write an actual insult themselves.


For a long time I felt that the moderates were by far the majority here and it was quite possible to have a reasoned discussion with point and counter-point, which if not always perhaps entirely friendly, was at least civil and productive. lately however it feels that the whiners about whiners are getting out of hand which has made it increasingly rare for a discussion to remain civil and productive, which is starting to sadden me as I used to quite like reading this forum to see what people had come up with and if anyone had any neat new perspectives on things I'd overlooked.

THIS. I'm also surprised at how much vitriol any sort of negative comment about PP seems to invoke. Saying that everything is rainbows and unicorns is just as blind as insisting that PP is the tool of Satan.

It's pretty clear that there are problems with the game, some of which PP has been quick to fix, and some of which they are not. Could be that they are not problems, not worth fixing, or have a fix that's just awaiting the next release. I find it interesting that the Colossals have been in the works for several years (4-5), and the game was probably designed with them in mind, w/o their actual release. I wonder how many other issues have similar fixes that just haven't made it out the door.

Until said fix makes it out the door, commenting that unit X has issues is very helpful to the general user base, since it helps them avoid investing time and energy into things that don't work for the majority of the forum. If they do decide to invest time and energy into it, then they've got a better idea of what the issues are, and are more likely to find a solution, instead of going over the same ground that other factions players have already had.

Also, I don't understand people who feel the need to comment on threads they don't like. If you don't like the topic, subject, posters, or options expressed the best thing to do is to ignore it, and do something else. Posting insults just leads to a degradation of the thread itself.

Finally I don't understand why it's hard/wrong to admit two things:
1) There is a faction on the bottom.
2) That faction could very well be Cygnar (or not )

[leo_neil316]

What does the existence of a merc unit have to do with the value of a faction unit?

That's what I said. That's what I'm asking. That's what bugs me about all the 'oh stop whining' people.

They use this stupid stupid stupid stupid argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand that, for some reason, only applies to cygnar but doesn't to khador who get all those same mercs! -I'M- not saying that cygnar stuff is intentionally underpowered. I think they're suffering from to many counters to them being generically good choices on their own.

But anytime we try to talk about things like that we get 'Oh but cygnar are balanced around mercs.'

It makes no sense, unless the 'stop whining' crowd are saying that cygnar stuff that's weak is intentionally weak so that we'll take mercs instead.

I agree with you, you'd never see someone saying 'assault kommando's are bad because we can take nyss'. But you'd also never see 'Why are assault kommando's bad? 'Oh it's because we're balanced around mercs.'

It's a stupid argument. Khador also get all the decent mercs, but they have doom-reavers, kayazay, winterguard and ironfangs. And don't need their models balanced around abilities like calamity that we will never see in faction.

[Dashwood]

@leo_neil316

That's what bugs me about all the 'oh stop whining' shut downs too. Thank goodness someone came up and said it. Thank you.

Any time anyone asks about why our trenchers have to be gimped in MkII, or mentions that the trenchers are expensive for what they do, someone just brings up that we're 'balanced around mercs' or that we should use 'the tools available to us' or 'shut your hole' when all I want to see is someone dissect the issue and explain to me why in a way that isn't some pithy 'oh, it's impossible to balance a game so we have bad units take the mercs they are available to you' way. It's like I'll want to talk about apples and everyone just starts yammering about how those gorram orange salesmen should go away. Dude, no, I or someone like me is talking about apples.

The shut downs have become a mantra around here, and while I will admit that some people do warrant a response like that, the fact that it has become an automatic response is kind of reprehensible and prevents any true dialogue from emerging. It is as much to blame for why our forum has become kind of ugly as the people who just bemoan our faction like it's something to be mourned when it isn't.

I got my answer on the trencher thing from the spill over thread in the general. PP tried to 'balance' them for MkII and kind of failed, so now we're left with models many of us wish we never bought. That's cool. We have other good models that I use. We have mercs that I use. I'm willing to play and just have fun.

What I want to know, though, is why PP never went back and rebalanced them properly with an errata when it's pretty darn obvious they need one and that the nerfbat experiment just wasn't successful and that it's made our faction allergic to a unit that should form more of the backbone of the Cygnar army. I'm not whining about it; I'm asking for reasons. I want to know the logic.

[MagnustheJust]

Okay. Seriously. If you can explain why this means trenchers have to be subpar I am willing to listen.

Otherwise what the **** does it have to do with the price of milk on a sunday? Really? We get like, two more mercs than khador. And they get all the good ones we get except Anastasia and Rhupert. And since they have pathfinder melee and tough infantry they don't need Rhupert in the first place.

Part of this cracked me up!

The other part...

I have been playing Mercenaries for over 7 years. Can you please point me to the Mercenary unit in question that has pathfinder and tough?? I really would like to field these!!

[Bladestorm]

I have been playing Mercenaries for over 7 years. Can you please point me to the Mercenary unit in question that has pathfinder and tough?? I really would like to field these!!

I believe he means Khador has infantry units with those traits, so Khador doesn't need Rhupert as much.

[bouncymischa]

What I want to know, though, is why PP never went back and rebalanced them properly with an errata when it's pretty darn obvious they need one and that the nerfbat experiment just wasn't successful and that it's made our faction allergic to a unit that should form more of the backbone of the Cygnar army. I'm not whining about it; I'm asking for reasons. I want to know the logic.

Here's a question for you: Why would/should they? Nothing about Trenchers makes them completely unviable, and at the very least they can still serve quite solidly in casual games. Sure, they may be somewhat overcosted for what they do, and they're eclipsed by other units, but since they can do quite well in casual games, where's the pressing need for an errata?

What's more, what kind of errata would you expect? A lot of suggestions seem to revolve around simply reducing the cost -- but I don't think Privateer has ever changed the stats of a model, outside of something like the Mk II overhaul. Even the release of Remix I believe did little more than adjusting a few rules and adding perhaps some new ones to underperforming models, but that was before I started so I'm not sure. I know Remix occured several years after the game was first released, and was done in part to incorporate the large number of new rules that had been added to the game (such as cavalry and epic warcasters), so it's likely the errata adjustments were included as part of a game-wide overhaul, with a corresponding new rulebook and card release. Aside from a couple of exceptions, the bulk of errata I've seen has been rule clarifications, without any actual stat changes.

The game is the way it is. Perhaps after Colossals we'll see Privateer decide to release a Mk II Remix that'll include the expanded rules for Battle Engines, RO's, Colossals, and the like, at which time we may see certain errata or rules adjustments. It's also quite possible that Privateer will simply go, "We're satisfied with how Trenchers work, even if certain competitive players aren't," and leave them as they are. In the end, it's their game, after all.

[Defenstrator]

I have been playing Mercenaries for over 7 years. Can you please point me to the Mercenary unit in question that has pathfinder and tough?? I really would like to field these!!

He means that Khador has durable melee units that also have Pathfinder. This isn't quite accurate since the only ones that have it are IFP with the UA, Uhlans, and Great Bears, and they only get it on the charge. Charging Great Bears do leave an impression though.

Cygnar melee also now has access to in faction Pathfinder with the introduction of Runewood.

What I want to know, though, is why PP never went back and rebalanced them properly with an errata when it's pretty darn obvious they need one and that the nerfbat experiment just wasn't successful and that it's made our faction allergic to a unit that should form more of the backbone of the Cygnar army. I'm not whining about it; I'm asking for reasons. I want to know the logic.

This is an issue that has come up with a number of units. There has even been suggestion put forward that PP could put out an errata deck to buff weak units across all the factions.

The problem is that heavy errata is hard. There's all the product with the old cards, getting the new cards to players, and the fact that now all your books are wrong. Changing the Trenchers to 5/8 would get them into a lot more games, but it would also screw up both Prime and the Cygnar faction book.

[The Sentinel]

Remember how we had that conversation in the other thread about you being insulting? Well this is you doing it again. I understand that can't accept that other people might talk about things you don't like, but the name calling doesn't help your position. Instead it undermines your point of view. After all, if you had anything real to say you'd say that. Instead it's blah, blah, blah, they say things I don't like so they're girls, blah, blah.

You understand that I can't accept something I've plainly stated I can accept? How does that work?

And it's not true that I don't have anything to say other than insulting people. Whether you like me or not and whether I've offended you or not doesn't change the fact that I've stated a reasonable opinion: the forums would be more pleasant for everyone if threads weren't derailed by the same old arguments that are unrelated or barely tangential to the topic.

If you want to make a thread about what you think is wrong with Cygnar or why you don't like mercs I won't even post in that thread because those conversations don't interest me.

When someone does well in a tournament with Cygnar and then gets dumped on for using mercs in his lists, I think that's uncool.

If you want to claim a moral high ground because I'm a meanie, go for it. But you can't claim a logical high ground. The points I make aren't invalidated because I hurt your feelings. None of my arguments are based on insults. Yet you refuse to respond to my points or answer my questions.

Perhaps you could start some constructive threads about how to get the most of the Cygnar models you have?

I don't own any yet. I just bought the Prime book a few days ago. I'm a new player (or technically not even a player yet) and I've chosen Cygnar (I was also considering Circle and Retribution). I was hesitant to choose Cygnar at first. Not because I think it's underpowered, but because of what I see on these forums.

But I decided it would be stupid to let that change my mind about playing a faction when I really like the models and the playstyle. So I'm going Cygnar.

I love a challenge. I love a good argument. I don't mind ruffling feathers. So I'll just argue with people who make flawed arguments. I'll call people out for bad attitudes.

But how many other people in my shoes just decided against taking up Cygnar? How many new people have been driven away thinking that Cygnar isn't competitive or even if it is, they don't want to have to constantly read that it isn't?

On the teamliquid Starcraft 2 forums, I remember they had 1 balance thread, and balance whines and complaints in other threads earned warnings. Maybe we should have something like that here.

Is it too much to ask for complaints about lack of competitiveness or reliance on mercs to be kept out of threads about other things?

[Dashwood]

Here's a question for you: Why would/should they? Nothing about Trenchers makes them completely unviable, and at the very least they can still serve quite solidly in casual games. Sure, they may be somewhat overcosted for what they do, and they're eclipsed by other units, but since they can do quite well in casual games, where's the pressing need for an errata?

If we work on the premise that Privateer Press increased the Trencher cost in MkII as a sort of balance measure and look at how you just acknowledged that Trenchers are overpriced and eclipsed in all but a casual setting, then I believe PP should complete the work they began and find that middle ground between casual and competitive for our old mainstay unit. It's the responsible thing to do, just as it was the responsible thing for PP to try find that balance for the Trenchers in the first place. I'd just like for them to complete the process, although I never said it was a 'pressing need.' Careful there.

Etc.

The rest of what you say I begrudgingly acknowledge intellectually. I have never seen Privateer Press directly errata the stats of a model, so as much as I want it to happen, I also won't hold my breath. Furthermore, I understand the amount of paperwork that would entail: changing the cards in the blisters, the boxes, and the decks would be a huge and painful endeavour. Not worth the cost. And as you say, these changes might never come, not even in a Mk II Remix. You may be correct also in saying that Privateer Press is utterly satisfied with how Trenchers operate now. However, if that really is the case, I'd like to hear them say it explicitly. If they do, I will accept that they are absolutely satisfied; I may question their motives and their judgment, since it would be nonsensical or motivated by market forces instead of game forces in my point of view, but I would also drop the matter forever. I'd have been given my answer in that scenario. (And then I'd take my trenchers and make a pretty diorama with them because they'd have greater function as a piece of art than they would have on the table.)

This was so much better than being told any of the usual canned responses. Thank you for questioning me, bouncymischa.

[Dashwood]

When someone does well in a tournament with Cygnar and then gets dumped on for using mercs in his lists, I think that's uncool.

I agree with this.

Glad you've chosen Cygnar despite all the everything going on. We're a good faction with very effective tools and a couple of problems I wish weren't there, but that's true of all factions. I worry constantly about the good folks, old and new, who get turned off by this sort of ugliness. To that end, however, I'd like to ask that you not add to it, as much as you like to argue. Combat bad logic with good logic, by all means, but hold off on the name calling. We're not going to solve the issues on this board by calling one another 'little girls,' which is both sexist and rude and not at all related to flawed argumentation.

The biggest problem on this board right now isn't the derailment in every thread, though that is a terrible issue, but that we are slowly no longer treating one another with even the veneer of civility.

[The Sentinel]

I agree with this.

Glad you've chosen Cygnar despite all the everything going on. We're a good faction with very effective tools and a couple of problems I wish weren't there, but that's true of all factions. I worry constantly about the good folks, old and new, who get turned off by this sort of ugliness. To that end, however, I'd like to ask that you not add to it, as much as you like to argue. Combat bad logic with good logic, by all means, but hold off on the name calling. We're not going to solve the issues on this board by calling one another 'little girls,' which is both sexist and rude and not at all related to flawed argumentation.

The biggest problem on this board right now isn't the derailment in every thread, though that is a terrible issue, but that we are slowly no longer treating one another with even the veneer of civility.

you're right

I've generated more negativity, which wasn't my intention

when I get called out for negativity or being overly sensitive or whatever, it makes me reflect on my behavior

in other words, the insulting approach would have worked on me so it was my first reaction

it didn't work so I'll try a different strategy

[Dashwood]

it didn't work so I'll try a different strategy

Don't worry, I'm trying one too by actually talking, haha.

And hey, I almost forgot. Welcome to the best faction,

[Sardonic Artery]

A couple of strategic additions to your delete list does wonders in this subforum. There seems to be a few idiots hellbent on trolling and causing drama, but when you get past that there's some pretty useful info. I've been looking at commentary on Stormblades, because I suck at using them and I would like to put them on the table more often instead of just going for Boomhowler + Murdoch all over again.

For me, I only run Stormblades if I can stack armor buffs and I'm running them with a Stormclad anyway. There's usually an out-front unit, too, so that means I'm usually only running them at 50 points and above with the likes of pNemo, eStryker and eHaley (their ARM buff spell + arcane shield from Junior). Throw in the need for Rhupert and that their threat range is actually a 1/2" less than forgeguard and I'm only playing them if the army build lines up right.

[Sardonic Artery]

Dude, we will get nacho supremes, nachos grande, even nacho salads. Thats why Johnny Law will be chasing us. He'll see all out sweet nachos and want to steal them.*

*I'm naturally assuming that most police officers operate like breakfast cereal mascots.

My goo'ness, it's like I'm looking into my own soul, except, you know, on the internet.

[bouncymischa]

If we work on the premise that Privateer Press increased the Trencher cost in MkII as a sort of balance measure and look at how you just acknowledged that Trenchers are overpriced and eclipsed in all but a casual setting, then I believe PP should complete the work they began and find that middle ground between casual and competitive for our old mainstay unit. It's the responsible thing to do, just as it was the responsible thing for PP to try find that balance for the Trenchers in the first place. I'd just like for them to complete the process, although I never said it was a 'pressing need.' Careful there.

The term "pressing need" may have been poorly used -- my viewpoint was that, given the fact that a significant change to Trenchers would likely necessitate a fair amount of time, effort, and money to accomplish, that it would be necessary to demonstrate a definite necessity to justify such a change. Certainly, there has been at least one instance where a model was errata'd before it was even published, but even that likely needed less resources than making an errata after the fact, and the change involved didn't involve the model's cost or stats, only its abilities.

It may be worthwhile to point out that Privateer did, in fact, reduce the cost of Trenchers over the course of the Field Test -- they were originally a 7/11 unit, and were reduced to 6/10 in the end. At the time, at least some players applauded this change, feeling that it made Trenchers at least somewhat playable. Two years later, they're considered overcosted again, but I don't think the idea that Privateer increased the cost of Trenchers as a balancing factor really holds merit -- the big issue with Trenchers was always the smoke wall, and the changes to smoke template rules (placing them 1" away, instead of 3" away) is far more likely the balancing factor than they're cost. My suspicion is that Trenchers cost so much because they're a very multi-purpose generalist unit, and those can be very difficult to cost. (I'd point out the Retribution's AFG as another example of this.)

I was hesitant to choose Cygnar at first. Not because I think it's underpowered, but because of what I see on these forums.

But I decided it would be stupid to let that change my mind about playing a faction when I really like the models and the playstyle. So I'm going Cygnar.

But how many other people in my shoes just decided against taking up Cygnar? How many new people have been driven away thinking that Cygnar isn't competitive or even if it is, they don't want to have to constantly read that it isn't?

This is one of the reasons I've felt concerned with the amount of perceived negativity in the Cygnar forums. Heck, I've felt it myself -- for every time I'd venture into the Cygnar forum and find a thread that inspired me to put something on the table or come up with a new list (the recent discussion about Kraye is a good example, as it's gotten me curious to play with him again), there's been a time where the mass of complaints made me feel like playing something else instead. Sure, I could take various measures to try and block out or ignore those particular threads or posts, but going through the hassle of doing so just compounds the problem. Not to mention it would likely make the forums look akin to swiss cheese, and make it more difficult to glean actually useful information.

I think part of the problem is that everything gets presented in extremes. There is a certain justification for this -- both sides want to change the way things are, whether its encouraging Privateer to change the sub-par models or to get the complainers to tone down their rhetoric, and one way to accomplish this is to make things seem worse than they really are. Sure, Cygnar may be at the bottom competitively, but it's not abysmally crippled. The Cygnar forums may have a significant amount of active complaining, but they do have helpful information threads as well. But when people exaggerate the situation, painting it in black-and-white, whether it's to say that Cygnar is competitively crippled and hopeless, or that the forums are a cesspool of vitriol, then nothing useful can get accomplished, and the conversation degenerates into an argument over competing ideologies. Those who have potentially legitimate complaints get tarred as doomsayers, and those who feel the situation isn't that bad get painted as blind fanboys.

Personally, I'm hoping to adopt an approach of optimism tempered with realism. I'll acknowledge that Cygnar, as a faction, has its flaws and weaknesses, and it may very well be the weakest faction competitively. But the game will never be perfect, and there will always be a weakest faction. Privateer, as a company, has its own ways of dealing with things. If there's an opportunity to actually present some well-reasoned criticism and suggestions for future improvement, I'll take them, but I don't think random complaints on their forum are a particularly effective way to accomplish this. In the meantime, I'll focus on the aspects of the game I do enjoy, and work to ensure that I get the most out of the game as it is.

[Sardonic Artery]

I havent been playing long and I started playing Cygnar because the day I went to buy my chosen faction it was out of stock so decided "well maybe I'll just get Cygnar".
And since then I have never looked back yes I get my army slaughtered all the time but that just makes the victories I do have just that much sweeter. I dont regard myself as a bad player but I just play to have fun yes I play in tournaments (well once anyway but I'm still new to the game) and I had fun the only time I got a bit peaved was when one opponent I had was being a bad sport and I would rather not play that person ever again cos it did put a damper on the day (funny how he was also a Cygnar player also, just hellbent on winning).
I guess what I'm trying to say is if you dont enjoy playing perhaps youre playing the wrong faction. I dont begrudge anyone having a whinge as sometimes I am also surprised when someone tells me what their model can do and I'm like "It can do what again?" then I destroy their heavy jack with a 4 point unit of sword knights. All armies have their sub par units hence why I've never seen something like Khador Kommandos on the table.
I just dont buy units that are terrible unless I have a way of making them work or am willing to give them a shot.

P.S. I think Darius is cool!!

Agreed on the need to switch factions if you don't like Cygnar's playstyle / needs. I came to the conclusion a while back that the True Blues really do fit me best.

Agreed on the need to avoid poor sportsmanship guy, but it can be hard at tournies. There was a disturbingly good Cygnar player at my LGS. Dude was better than everyone, appeared in NQ pics at some huge tournie, but apparently blew out a while back. His presence solidified the idea of player skill over faction, but his attitude (again apparently) wrecked the lot for him.

[PG_Dino-Czar]

Whoa, WHOA! Hold on here. This thread reached 2 pages and only one poor guy embarrassed himself with animal noises?

We, as a group, may yet recover from all the "help" we've been getting lately.

[eKraye]

Cygmerc is the hands down best class in the game /thread

>_> Fllaaaaaaame on!

[Dashwood]

It may be worthwhile to point out that Privateer did, in fact, reduce the cost of Trenchers over the course of the Field Test -- they were originally a 7/11 unit, and were reduced to 6/10 in the end. At the time, at least some players applauded this change, feeling that it made Trenchers at least somewhat playable. Two years later, they're considered overcosted again, but I don't think the idea that Privateer increased the cost of Trenchers as a balancing factor really holds merit -- the big issue with Trenchers was always the smoke wall, and the changes to smoke template rules (placing them 1" away, instead of 3" away) is far more likely the balancing factor than they're cost. My suspicion is that Trenchers cost so much because they're a very multi-purpose generalist unit, and those can be very difficult to cost. (I'd point out the Retribution's AFG as another example of this.)

I had to squint and think to figure out which Retribution unit the AFG was. Good morning.

Thinking about Trenchers at 11 points for what they do is kind of awful. I'm glad they're only 10, though I think they can stand to become 9 outside of a Siege Tier List. I agree that it is probably their theorymachine utility that's the culprit here, though I thought they were priced higher because of the smoke bombs. It's a pity multi-purpose generalists are so difficult to price; we'd probably have done a lot better with a bunch of specialist Trenchers--Commandos for wetwork, Infantry for support/smoke clouds, and the Bulwark from the Homebrew thread for tarpit--in terms or pricing. Oh well. This is now heading into the realm of "I wish it were," so I'll put it down.

This is one of the reasons I've felt concerned with the amount of perceived negativity in the Cygnar forums. Heck, I've felt it myself -- for every time I'd venture into the Cygnar forum and find a thread that inspired me to put something on the table or come up with a new list (the recent discussion about Kraye is a good example, as it's gotten me curious to play with him again), there's been a time where the mass of complaints made me feel like playing something else instead. Sure, I could take various measures to try and block out or ignore those particular threads or posts, but going through the hassle of doing so just compounds the problem. Not to mention it would likely make the forums look akin to swiss cheese, and make it more difficult to glean actually useful information.

I recommend following your curiosity and fielding Kraye again. After I shelved my Trenchers, I was kind of lost in the faction until I found him. Never looking back. Kraye makes Cygnar the most fun to play, and the Wrath additions like the Minuteman open up the gamut for tactical options. Plus, if they reveal the mystery Cygnar Light Cavalry option in Colossals, Kraye will only get better.

I think part of the problem is that everything gets presented in extremes. There is a certain justification for this -- both sides want to change the way things are, whether its encouraging Privateer to change the sub-par models or to get the complainers to tone down their rhetoric, and one way to accomplish this is to make things seem worse than they really are. Sure, Cygnar may be at the bottom competitively, but it's not abysmally crippled. The Cygnar forums may have a significant amount of active complaining, but they do have helpful information threads as well. But when people exaggerate the situation, painting it in black-and-white, whether it's to say that Cygnar is competitively crippled and hopeless, or that the forums are a cesspool of vitriol, then nothing useful can get accomplished, and the conversation degenerates into an argument over competing ideologies. Those who have potentially legitimate complaints get tarred as doomsayers, and those who feel the situation isn't that bad get painted as blind fanboys.

That and I think we need to be a bit more patient with people who ask questions or bring up concerns which were addressed in the not-so-near past. The nature of this forum is such that people will wander in and wander out at intervals, miss key discussions or complaint threads, come into forum and ask the same thing. Without addressing some recurring threads with sticky posts, we're going to see them reiterate again and again. The other part of the problem is that people have taken to responding with very curt and very rote phrases and alluding, perhaps as a way of not retyping the bulk of their argument, to older discussions. We need to have the wisdom to treat each name on our forum as an individual without arbitrarily lumping people into camps... or at least the foresight to make a sticky post that can act as an index of those older discussions so people can find their answers without asking again. However, anything formulated must be polite, unironic, and lacking in condescension, otherwise we risk alienating more people away from the forum.

That all said, I love Cygnar. I love our jacks, our stormnouns, our casters, our fluff (even if we only win phyrrically), and our brave trenchers who die everywhere, even on the tabletop.

[Varius]

Cygmerc is the hands down best class in the game /thread

>_> Fllaaaaaaame on!

If Cygnarly became a word I dont know why Cygmercy cant..

[The Sentinel]

If Cygnarly became a word I dont know why Cygmercy cant..

because Cygnar and gnarly are words but Cygmer and gmercy aren't

[Varius]

because Cygnar and gnarly are words but Cygmer and gmercy aren't

Cygnar is a made up word.

And mercy is a word.

[bouncymischa]

I had to squint and think to figure out which Retribution unit the AFG was. Good morning.

Thinking about Trenchers at 11 points for what they do is kind of awful. I'm glad they're only 10, though I think they can stand to become 9 outside of a Siege Tier List. I agree that it is probably their theorymachine utility that's the culprit here, though I thought they were priced higher because of the smoke bombs. It's a pity multi-purpose generalists are so difficult to price; we'd probably have done a lot better with a bunch of specialist Trenchers--Commandos for wetwork, Infantry for support/smoke clouds, and the Bulwark from the Homebrew thread for tarpit--in terms or pricing. Oh well. This is now heading into the realm of "I wish it were," so I'll put it down.

You're probably right that specialists would likely fare better than generalists -- heck, the Commandoes seem better received, being more specialized. Unfortunately, it's one of those things that's unlikely to change at this point. Ah well.

I rather like the Trenchers myself, so I plan to try throwing them into games when I can to see what I can get them to do. :P

Ironically, in the past I considered running Trenchers with Kraye; I'm still tempted to run Commandoes with him, as well as Rangers, until some other kind of scout infantry comes along :3

That and I think we need to be a bit more patient with people who ask questions or bring up concerns which were addressed in the not-so-near past. The nature of this forum is such that people will wander in and wander out at intervals, miss key discussions or complaint threads, come into forum and ask the same thing. Without addressing some recurring threads with sticky posts, we're going to see them reiterate again and again. The other part of the problem is that people have taken to responding with very curt and very rote phrases and alluding, perhaps as a way of not retyping the bulk of their argument, to older discussions. We need to have the wisdom to treat each name on our forum as an individual without arbitrarily lumping people into camps... or at least the foresight to make a sticky post that can act as an index of those older discussions so people can find their answers without asking again. However, anything formulated must be polite, unironic, and lacking in condescension, otherwise we risk alienating more people away from the forum.

That all said, I love Cygnar. I love our jacks, our stormnouns, our casters, our fluff (even if we only win phyrrically), and our brave trenchers who die everywhere, even on the tabletop.

I'm not entirely certain how much of an issue that is; it's one that crops up in pretty much every subforum. (Heck, General has it's constantly recycled set of thread topics, such as "Focus vs. Fury" debates.) More likely, it's a problem in the Cygnar forum because it just causes old wounds to reopen. Every new player that asks "Why do Trenchers suck?" or comes up with a fix for them is just reopening festering wounds.

To be honest, I have a bit of a worry that things are only going to get worse before they get better. Both sides of the debate seem to be entrenching themselves. I won't deny that those who are arguing for a more positive atmosphere are largely just throwing gasoline on the flames at this point -- as I said earlier, they're resorting to more extreme rhetoric in an effort to try and get their message through. On the other hand, even if the people on the "positive" side just went away or shut up, I don't think anything would change -- those who are upset with the way things are would continue to simmer and seethe under the surface. For the reasons we discussed before, I think it's highly unlikely Privateer will actually come out and do anything to patch up Cygnar's weaknesses, aside from future expansions -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it took until 2013 or later for any of that to actually arrive. So I suspect we're looking at several more months in which those people who are dissatisfied with the way things currently are will continue to feel frustrated and complain as an outlet for that.

[The Sentinel]

To be honest, I have a bit of a worry that things are only going to get worse before they get better. Both sides of the debate seem to be entrenching themselves. I won't deny that those who are arguing for a more positive atmosphere are largely just throwing gasoline on the flames at this point -- as I said earlier, they're resorting to more extreme rhetoric in an effort to try and get their message through. On the other hand, even if the people on the "positive" side just went away or shut up, I don't think anything would change -- those who are upset with the way things are would continue to simmer and seethe under the surface. For the reasons we discussed before, I think it's highly unlikely Privateer will actually come out and do anything to patch up Cygnar's weaknesses, aside from future expansions -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it took until 2013 or later for any of that to actually arrive. So I suspect we're looking at several more months in which those people who are dissatisfied with the way things currently are will continue to feel frustrated and complain as an outlet for that.

I don't see how wanting a positive atmosphere can be throwing gasoline on the flames. Why would anyone not want a positive atmosphere?

[kolonelk]

For the reasons we discussed before, I think it's highly unlikely Privateer will actually come out and do anything to patch up Cygnar's weaknesses, aside from future expansions -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it took until 2013 or later for any of that to actually arrive. So I suspect we're looking at several more months in which those people who are dissatisfied with the way things currently are will continue to feel frustrated and complain as an outlet for that.

I think the Black Dragon UA sets a precedent for very easy fixes that don't need a major rules revision. Give Trenchers a UA that actually does something worthwhile for them, and it will go a long way to patching their high points cost.

[Dashwood]

I think the Black Dragon UA sets a precedent for very easy fixes that don't need a major rules revision. Give Trenchers a UA that actually does something worthwhile for them, and it will go a long way to patching their high points cost.

What did the Black Dragon UA do for Khador? I saw the attachment kit on the store, but I still don't have a regular subscription to NQ. Trying to find a good secure lane for them to arrive safely before I commit to the new International Subscriptions.

You're probably right that specialists would likely fare better than generalists -- heck, the Commandoes seem better received, being more specialized.

Ironically, in the past I considered running Trenchers with Kraye; I'm still tempted to run Commandoes with him, as well as Rangers, until some other kind of scout infantry comes along :3

I haven't tried the Commandoes yet, but I probably should. If you run him with Commandoes before I do, let me know how that goes. Since Kraye can't do much for his infantry, he has to be a bit pickier than normal about who he takes. Also, I sincerely hope light cavalry arrives before more scout infantry, :3. Really want to know what motif will be chosen for Cygnar hit-and-run.

Hoping that the forum doesn't fall into that. The last day or so has seen an improvement that I hope continues as we become more willing to hash out our issues with one another. The real stress test will probably be L&L when all the Cygmerc army lists emerge, hahaha.

[kolonelk]

What did the Black Dragon UA do for Khador? I saw the attachment kit on the store, but I still don't have a regular subscription to NQ. Trying to find a good secure lane for them to arrive safely before I commit to the new International Subscriptions.

Honestly can't quite remember, since even though I've recently branched into Khador, I hate the IFP models so I'll never run them. I don't think they are anything over the top, but it shows PP can release another UA for a unit, and I have a glimmer of hope that we may see one yet - preferably with something like a Deadeye mini-feat, or Takedown on their guns

[iksander]

For the reasons we discussed before, I think it's highly unlikely Privateer will actually come out and do anything to patch up Cygnar's weaknesses, aside from future expansions -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it took until 2013 or later for any of that to actually arrive. So I suspect we're looking at several more months in which those people who are dissatisfied with the way things currently are will continue to feel frustrated and complain as an outlet for that.

People forget, that Cygnar Forums have always been pretty darn "mweh". Honestly the Superiority release also brought out a lot of negativity, but Cygnar also had the Menoth forums as a comparison and they were worse.

Truthfully, it's probably going to take some Legend's level retardation for Cygnar to actually be happy, but hell PP sells hope using the yearly/biyearly release schedule. All it takes is one good set of releases.

[Dashwood]

Point of curiousity, but what is 'mweh'?

[leo_neil316]

Point of curiousity, but what is 'mweh'?

A Muse on mini's inside joke about how we're all whiners.

[Ysthrall]

Thank you to Joasht and Defenestrator for clarifing my objection a little better than I could. I am uncomfortable with the concept that Cygnar requires mercs to be balanced, and react somewhat badly to sweeping staments like "they're designed that way". I was not intending to troll, but was being rather snarky, for which I apologise.

I shall endeavour to find a different balance point with little or no mercs

Re the Black Dragons: they grant Iron Zeal (+4 ARM and unknockdownable) for one turn, and precision strike. I played against them yesterday and found them a painful lesson. 2 or three CMAs that target your 'jacks weapon arm are highly effective. Ol 'Rowdy ended up punching half the unit to death...

[MagnustheJust]

I usually don't hang out here...

Do threads usually die this quickly around these parts???

[eKraye]

The cygnar forums aren't really that bad, there's just a few people that are sour and whine. Since playing several other factions (mostly hordes) coming back to Cygmerc has been a refreshing breath of air... though I do want to start mercenaries at some point.

[Joasht]

That's what I said. That's what I'm asking. That's what bugs me about all the 'oh stop whining' people.

They use this stupid stupid stupid stupid argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand that, for some reason, only applies to cygnar but doesn't to khador who get all those same mercs! -I'M- not saying that cygnar stuff is intentionally underpowered. I think they're suffering from to many counters to them being generically good choices on their own.

But anytime we try to talk about things like that we get 'Oh but cygnar are balanced around mercs.'

It makes no sense, unless the 'stop whining' crowd are saying that cygnar stuff that's weak is intentionally weak so that we'll take mercs instead.

I agree with you, you'd never see someone saying 'assault kommando's are bad because we can take nyss'. But you'd also never see 'Why are assault kommando's bad? 'Oh it's because we're balanced around mercs.'

It's a stupid argument. Khador also get all the decent mercs, but they have doom-reavers, kayazay, winterguard and ironfangs. And don't need their models balanced around abilities like calamity that we will never see in faction.

Sigh, your obvious display of anger and repeated use of the word "stupid" makes me almost not feel like replying, but I think this has to be said; you cannot compare between factions. Cygnar has some pretty darn good casters, support and decent WJs (I'm not a big fan of Khador jacks personally). So our tradeoff is that our infantry isn't as good, but at least this is somewhat mitigated by the presence of Mercs, which brings the infantry back up to the same level.

I mean seriously, I win the vast majority of my games with Cygnar, and I play both Khador and Cygnar passionately and I can honestly tell you neither is vastly stronger than the other. Of course Khador has better infantry, thats their schtick because they can't rely on their WJ's to do anything, they have nearly non-existant support and even though their casters sometimes have a reputation for being awesome melee monsters, most aren't - put that Vlad anywhere near the threat range of a kill vector and he WILL die.

What you are forgetting is to look at the overall picture. Our faction has its own strengths, and the entire playstyle of the faction is utterly different. If you play Cygnar like a Khador army, you are bound to lose miserably. Cygnar is all about being flexible enough to adapt and deal with the threats that are facing you, and that makes it very difficult for some people to click with the faction not because they are mentally slow, but rather because different people naturally gravitate towards certain playstyles.

Look, if you are frustrated because you can't win properly, just ask for help and many of us are surely willing to chip in some ideas. If you are just frustrated because you wish your infantry was better, then I'm sorry to tell you that because of the way the faction is as a whole, it seems like our infantry are relegated to being more towards "utility" (e.g. Rangers and ATGM) rather than steamrolling monsters like those in Khador. They wish they had ATGMs, seriously.

Thanks.

[Varius]

Sigh, your obvious display of anger and repeated use of the word "stupid" makes me almost not feel like replying, but I think this has to be said; you cannot compare between factions. Cygnar has some pretty darn good casters, support and decent WJs (I'm not a big fan of Khador jacks personally). So our tradeoff is that our infantry isn't as good, but at least this is somewhat mitigated by the presence of Mercs, which brings the infantry back up to the same level.

That really makes sense to you? Really?

What point is there for the infantry to be inherently weaker if you are just going to sub them out for more powerful Merc units anyway? Shouldnt they be on par with those Merc units? If our units were on par, balance wouldnt change in the slightest. So the only conclusion is improper balance, not intentional imbalance. They accidentally made the mercs too good, or cygnar units too bad. To think they made them bad on purpose, because we have good warcasters...I cant even fathom what kind of logic it takes to get to where you think that makes any sense.