Why the Trencher hate?

[Zemmi]

Hey guys,

Like you've probably guessed I wonder why people seem to dislike (or just hate) the Trenchers. I'm slowly getting into Cygnar and I must say that the Trencher look pretty cool.

I can see why people don't like them stat wise, but CRA and Assault is pretty usefull right?

[Icepick28]

To make this short, use the search function and you'll find a whole bunch of topics on this already. The biggest problem is that they are too expensive for all the abilities they come wrapped in. I actually pulled them out and played with them in a few games. With support they are a very good/decent unit, but without support they are a huge point sink.

[A8mew]

If you want CRA, you just bring Long Gunners or Nyss Hunters instead.

If you want Assault, you bring any mercenary unit with a gun and a melee weapon and toss on Jonas Murdoch.

The problem is that everything on their card is exclusive from everything else. If you CRA you can't dig in if you moved, if you smoke bomb you can't assault, if you assault you can't CRA. Then for all of this they are a 6/10 unit with mediocre- to put it politely- stats and a 3 point UA whose support solo can either support or be a combat solo. I'm pretty sure nearly every other factions 4/6 units have equal or greater survivability than the Trenchers, so they aren't a tarpit- they're too cheap to be disposable, and what it really comes down to they don't really do anything.

Compare them to something like the Nyss Hunters. They have lots of things on their card and can all be immediately useful. Hunter with CRA and weaponmaster melee. Nyss Hunters are a stage show where the performer can balance on a unicycle while juggling and sawing a woman in half. Trenchers are a stage show where the performer can balance on a unicycle, juggle, or saw a woman in half. For the same cost (arguably Nyss are 1pt cheaper, if you give them Murdoch and Trenchers their UA) which would you bring in 90% of situations? Their only real high point is how well they can piss off non-hunter ranged. If you need people to sit still and get shot at, Trenchers can sit there all day enjoying tea and crumpets. Everything else, well... they're mediocre at it. And there's not a whole lot of demand for 6/10 point units who do lots of things okay but nothing incredibly well.

[Stephan Garmark]

And there's not a whole lot of demand for 6/10 point units who do lots of things okay but nothing incredibly well.

Amen to that brother

[Zemmi]

Hmm.. Yeah I get what you guys are saying. But what about Siege? I heard he can do pretty neat stuff with the trenchers.

[Techcasualty]

Hmm.. Yeah I get what you guys are saying. But what about Siege? I heard he can do pretty neat stuff with the trenchers.

siege does nothing special for trenchers.

[cargils02]

foxhole is the only thing he can do to keep them alive longer but they already have that ability with dig-in plus siege's focus would be better used elsewhere like shooting at the enemy

[Rapier]

For me it's whether you want smoke bombs or not. Smoke Bombs is what trenchers give us that we don't get elsewhere - if you want to block LOS with aoe's trenchers do it better than any other unit out there.

Murdoch + merc unit is better at assault. Long gunners are better are CRA. Dig-in is a self buff in a faction with access to Junior to essentially buff any unit, if they AD where you wanted them it's good;otherwise not. Trenchers can give a Grenadier extra shots - but you can do that with a chain gun or cannon too; for less points (And the Grenadier isn't that good anyway). Finn gives them a decent bonus - but it's not like you need to have trenchers to make Finn worth consideirng - you certaintly won't be choosing to have trenchers just because you took him.

The weapon attachment is somewhat meh; it's nice enough but you won't take trencher's just to get access to a few extra aoes. The Officer and Sniper is arguably even worse; the sniper is a nice idea but it just doesn't work with the unit - they don't syngerise with it at all and it makes them even more of an expensive toolkit. (on the other hand the officer giving them advance and dig-in is nice).

They're like a swiss army knife that replaced the grip with some more gadgets. It's a shame because trenchers are the second biggest them in our army (Lightning theme is the largest).

[whats82]

They're like a swiss army knife with every tool stunted and blunted.

There's not a lot of 10-for-10 units out there that can hold their own weight, the ones that can far exceeds what trenchers can do. Majority of the popular 5/8's do better than trenchers (look at errants).

Easiest way to convince yourself, proxy a few games with them, try your hardest to make them work.

[Defenstrator]

If you want to play Trenchers then take a minimum unit for the Smoke. They can protect a couple of key targets like your warcaster while the others throw off a few shots and you aren't out too many points. The larger the unit gets the worse it is, since you have less stuff that's actually good at fighting.

So why does no one like Trenchers? Because they have the defensive stats of a 4/6 unit, the offensive stats of a 5/8 unit, but they cost 6/10.

[Murkhadh]

Aren't they like 18 points for the full load out?

so you could have trenchers, or a stormwall, hmmmmmm

[drugfreeboy]

10 pts for 10 man unit + 3 for 3 WA's + 3 for the UA is 16 points. Finn is another 3 points. So 19 points for the compleeetely tricked out unit.

[Sardonic Artery]

They've got a merc statline while paying (point wise) for abilities that you can't use at the same time.

[Poignantswine]

siege does nothing special for trenchers.

At risk of being terribly wrong about this:
Less points in a tier list?

[mattausten]

And a free master gunner!!!!



cheers
matt

[jking_3rd]

To OP,

I share the sentiment, they don't really seem like a bad unit. Unfortunately, as the replies suggest they just aren't worth the points. Need CRA, mercs do it better and cheaper. The assault would be cool if they could CRA a target like they did in Mki, like brother in arms charing a big bad on a field keeping eachother alive, etc. but they can't. Even the UA reposition sucks now since there is an Alarming amount of Hunter ability going on. So Cover is useless, as opposed to the old straight +4 to both Def & Arm, which made them worth the points.

On occasion i'll use them to hide Kraye's big base, but since there are better (& cheaper) Def/Arm buff options, I tend to neglect them. Ex. Gormon has smoke for 2pts. And talking about model comparrison, someone mentioned Cylena & the Nyss, taking the full unit w/ Jonas Murdoch who gives mercs Assault gives Cygnar a Weapon Master unit. Thats 4d6 of dmg on the charge! Glorious!

[mattausten]

true,but the nyss models are horrible!!!


cheers
matt

[Zemmi]

Well thanks for all the replies so far. I already knew they weren't that great but I was hoping for at least a few positive responses since their models look so sweet... But thanks anyways, I'll just stick to stormblades.

[Gr33nJ3llo]

But thanks anyways, I'll just stick to stormblades.

Stormblades have their own set of problems.

[Zemmi]

Stormblades have their own set of problems.

Oh god... The fact they're squishy? Also, your link doens't appear to be working..

[Defenstrator]

Well thanks for all the replies so far. I already knew they weren't that great but I was hoping for at least a few positive responses since their models look so sweet... But thanks anyways, I'll just stick to stormblades.

I wasn't entirely negative. As i said, the minimum unit can be alright if you're buying it for the smoke wall. If you have a warcaster like Siege or Haley that likes to play forward due to feat or TB, these guys can be used to form a smoke pocket around them. It's piece of mind for 6 points which you can often spare in 50 point games.

[A8mew]

Stormblades are squishy, slow, and we lack the defensive spells as a faction that would be required to fix either of them.

They hit like trucks though, so unlike Trenchers they're good at something. They just almost never get to do it.

[PG_GrimmRiggins]

I will step in here and say a few things. First off, Trenchers can perform admirably, but only if you plan your list around them. Their fluff suggests that they be used as a buffer between your army and the enemy, but their point cost suggests that you should babysit them like you would any other centerpiece unit. In my trencher experience, if you do the latter, they can be game winning in their own right.

The main thing people overlook about Dig-In is the immunity to blast damage. Forget Hunter completely hosing Dig-In; if you have a buffer unit between the Trenchers and the Hunter unit, the Hunters can't hit what they can't see (unless they're Mage Hunter Strike Force. You have no choice against them but to die--but hey! Your grave's already dug!). Protect the Trenchers behind something like... say... Precursor Knights, Sword Knights or Storm Guard, and you now have a CRA unit akin to Nyss or Long Gunners, but who flat out ignore about 75% of the anti-soft infantry tech (AOE's). This is a pretty big deal. And as you're riding out the random AOE spam, use those POW 11 Rifles and CRA to inflict some damage.

Remember, too, that Trenchers have a big ol' command range of 9", which means you can really play a big unit like several smaller units. You can Assault with them in waves, 3 or 4 at a time. Remember if you kill your initial target with the rifle shot, you can take a second swing against something else. Few infantry can make 2 attacks in a round, so against choice targets (average/low defensive stat infantry), you can start to creep ahead on the attrition curve. On non-Assault turns, you can have a few of them CRA, some of them build a smoke wall, others can tie things up in melee or block charge lanes.

In probably 3/4 of the games where I've protected them (usually behind Precursor Knights), the game has ended with a near full-strength CRA into the opposing 'caster's face. In other games, they have taken down light warjacks (such as Hunters) with Assault, brought down Molik Karn (with a little help from some friendly Sword Knights) and have generally done very well for me. They take some practice, proper 'caster support (I like any of the Prime 'casters, as well as Sloan) and some protection, but they can work. The emphasis, of course, is on the can. They aren't a plug and play unit (Cygnar doesn't get many of those). They do have lots of potential.

[Gr33nJ3llo]

Look, honestly, if you want to run infantry, Cygnar really ISN'T your faction. For the most part our infantry is a little over costed, has durability issues, and brings ranged attacks in a game that focuses on melee.

Cygnar is great for other things like Jacks and Casters, but infantry isn't a faction strong suit.

[n647]

well is not that trenchers and stormblades are terrible, they just have theyr set of shortcomings, it also depends a lot of the match up, in the case of trenchers is mostly the mechanics and thep oint cost not much you can do to work around that, but with the right support they can give a surprise, stormblade so nthe other hand, hav ethe problem of being kind of slow and not that resilent, low def and medium armour makes so that almsot anithign can kill them, mat 5 hit them on average! and a pow 8 would kill them on average... but they do hit liek a truck and this time you can work around those thingsi n game, like setign them as a second wave unit, or seting things up for theyr charge, the bigges tproblem actually is keeping the grunts withing 5" of the unit leader so they can get the bonues to pow when hitting in melle...

[Cronix]

Trenchers, they think they are the best, but they are not.... though the models look amazing (steampunk soldiers).
- their shooting range is... close to frontline, if they can shoot, most armies have something that can counter charge them for less point.
- their melee power is not ok, they have freaking bayonets on their weapons, Brutal Charge would be welcome.
- their UA, is not that great, if they had a some fancy rules like UA of the dwarfs, would make the unit better.
- their initial cost is to high, -1 min/max would balance it a little bit.
- TOUGH, their frontline soldiers, their survived more war's than a avarage Cygnarian.

And their rolemodel > Maxwel Finn, need some fixes to ^ Trenchers with tough "No sleeping on the Job", Killing Spree / decent ranged fire power 12/ covering fire (he supposed to be Rambo afterall) :P....

I know kneejerk... i realy hope PP will come with a REDUX MKII, there are many models in each faction that needs some love....

[bStyker]

@OP - For some of us here, hating on trenchers isn't actually hating on them; instead it's like a comedic sport. We love to poke fun at them, make jokes, compare them to things, you know, all that kind of stuff. We just can't do all of those things at the same time because they're all *Actions.

Sound familiar?

[JohnOSpencer]

Trenchers are fine, but you need to design your list around what they do then bring other units to overcome their short comings. I've been using them to good effect with Stryker1, snipe gives them the ability to shoot other troops and not get charged in return. Max Finn makes them crazy accurate. I'm could probably get the same effect from other models for the points but, with the right match up, they can be really good.

[Rapier]

Is there a worse 6/10 unit? That's the real question. Undeniably they can be made to work - but is there any unit cost the same (in any faction) that isn't better?

The idea of a trencher army; 1 unit of comandos, one of trenchers + UA and WA; Finn, chain guns and trencher cannons; backed up by Grenadiers and a theme fitting caster like Sieige is nice but...

Well I just made a list of some of our worst units to try to run the theme.

[Rapier]

There's always Idrian Skirmishers who do nothing helpful especially compared to Errants.

Idrian Skirmishers with UA beats Trenchers with UA into the ground imo. Without I think it's fairly close - I actually prefer concealment and pathfinder to dig in and smoke bombs, but I can see they fill different roles. No assault order base hurts them - but Assault and Battery is way better than Cautious advance imo.

Also while they're weak in the Menoth list - they're not a bad merc unit (with the UA) I can't imagine you ever using a 6 Idrian unit though it's always with the UA - I guess trenchers have something on them there. (6 of them is at least viable for smoke bombing).

[Gr33nJ3llo]

Is there a worse 6/10 unit? That's the real question. Undeniably they can be made to work - but is there any unit cost the same (in any faction) that isn't better?

Long Gunners? (ducks!)
How about Reeves of Orbus?
Man O' War Shocktroops

Honestly, not really, which I think is their real problem, they're a touch too expensive at 6/10. BTW, all those units have something in common, ranged attacks.

[Rapier]

6/10 Long gunners are definitely better - they're combined ranged attacks punch much better holes than the trenchers - they don't serve a mixed role - and dual shot makes them good at what they do.

Their UA is a lot better too.

Reeves may be worse - I don't know them well off the top of my head but they get a lot of hate.

[Kej]

Because people don't like paying Mercedes sticker prices for Chevrolet quality?

Not saying that they are useless...they have their place and their strengths. The problem is that they are tremendously expensive in the new points system for what they bring to the table.

Everything they can do can be preformed equivalently, or cheaper, by another unit, and Cygnar being a faction of multipurpose units means they are constantly overlooked for the better options.

[Kej]

Look, honestly, if you want to run infantry, Cygnar really ISN'T your faction. For the most part our infantry is a little over costed, has durability issues, and brings ranged attacks in a game that focuses on melee.

Cygnar is great for other things like Jacks and Casters, but infantry isn't a faction strong suit.

While I agree I would take it a step further and say that the Jacks, while are amazing at what they do, suffer some of the exact same issues our infantry do as well. They all tend to be overcosted and a few of them have durability issues as well, especially if you are running light on infantry as they lose effective screeners which brings us back to the main point of my post .

Overcosting is a Cygnaran plague.

[Zaruthustran]

I was wondering if they'd be useful if you had something else to draw enemy fire. Like a Stormwall. You can't afford to ignore the Stormwall, so maybe you could place Trenchers in front of, or flanking, our colossal. If you've got a high POW gun or spell you're not going to waste it picking off a single 1 hp Trencher. You're going to nail the Stormwall. And for what it's worth, they *do* block charges.

Might be something there.

Although... no. I'd rather take a Grenadier (fewer points, can also Dig In, and is a Warjack) and Field Mechanics (to keep the Stormwall running), which totals just 1 point more than a Minimum unit of Trenchers.

[Maou_Mint]

I like Trenchers myself, there are fun shennanigans to be had with the Grenadier martialed to the ATGM UA for Thunderbolt and a min unit of either trenchers, the artillery pieces, Master Gunners, etc... to get in three 3" Thunderbolt AOEs/turn. More depending on points/Casters and the number of Grenadiers. It's kind of like having a slightly less durable but much more reliable Mule.

They bring a good amount of options to the table but making the most out of them requires combining them with other things, like the example above. They also do better in certain scenarios than others and terrain can be a big aid or pain to them.

To me, they are a support unit and serve much the same way I expect certain other support units to work: They help enable other units/models to do stuff rather than being a singular entity on their own. I don't feel they're expensive due to their range of options personally. Making the most of those options for whatever point value game I'm playing is the particular trick.

[Sanguinary Dan]

Trenchers are the unit almost every Cygnar player buys, but only fields once or twice. To me their biggest issue is range. A rifle with the same, or less, range as every single pistol in the game? That's just stupid. If they had range 12?

Can they be effective? Sure. With pCaine or pStryker from my experience. Give them Snipe and they'll kill any non-stealth infantry unit in range. And even hurt jacks/beasts with a POW22 CRA and an 18" sniper shot. But that's a 1/3rd of your points in a single defensive unit. And Assault or Cautious Advance can't change that fact. They just let the Trenchers change the position they are defending.

But for 2 points less I could have Stormblades w/UA & 3 WA. The same number of guys, but with dramatically higher combat potential.