Fixing the trenchers?

[PG_Dino-Czar]

First, how are striders and lucky AoE's dropping a heavy jack AND an entire unit of infantry? Secondly, how are they all hitting? Thirdly, if eLylyth wants to blow her feat for striders and a couple deathstalkers, I, for one, would welcome it.

pCaine can have the trenchers putting 15 deadeye'd shots at 31" at the top of turn 1, and doesnt need to blow a feat to do it. You may not see it that often, but if deployment zones were still 30" apart, you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end.

Ease up, buddy.

I didn't say they could, and I haven't said boo about trenchers being bad.

I do think that Striders and Deathstalkers are the larger first turn threat than trenchers, and the more likely root for the shrunken first turn deployment.

[Trollicious]

@Dino
No worries, just curious about leo's original statement.

Given the old deployment zones, I still think the 15 deadeyed pow 11s at 31" threat would have been pretty frustrating. I'm not sure what else can match that for potency on the top of turn 1.

[leo_neil316]

First, how are striders and lucky AoE's dropping a heavy jack AND an entire unit of infantry? Secondly, how are they all hitting? Thirdly, if eLylyth wants to blow her feat for striders and a couple deathstalkers, I, for one, would welcome it.

Maybe instead of having a go at someone else you coulda waited for an explanation of how she could pull that off? Similar your assumption of ravagores. I never said ravagores.

*tries to remember exactly how it worked*

fifty points.

eLylyth: +5
Ravagore - 10
Teraph - 5
Teraph - 5
Full Raptors or min raptors and anyssa - 10
Striders with u/a - 9
Striders with free u/a -6
Strider deathstalker -2
Strider deathstalker -2
Strider deathstalker -2
Strider deathstalker -2
Strider deathstalker -2

Top of turn one you have Teraphs 16" on (10 base + 6 ad), moving 8 (spd 6+2 for tier), firing 14 (10+4 for feat) firing twice and boosting damage with RAT 6 POW 13's.

VS a juggernaut that's doing 16 damage on average, an ironclad'll take 21, a crusader takes 20 and so on and so forth.

The striders (Ad for 16", move 7", +16" for the bows under feat) get an inch further in. Two POW 18 CRA's. So that juggernaut takes another ten. Down 26 boxes so far, an ironclad takes straight dice. They'll wipe it out. And so on and so forth.

Five deathstalkers can take out a unit, especially a low def high arm unit (same threat as the striders), or can ding up jacks and beasts.

It's bloody hard to keep organized but swift hunter on the deathstalkers and reform on the striders alleviates that somewhat. And obviously it's not the best choice against any and all targets. But it's a bloody good place to start a match from. And as bad as losing a unit is psychologically, losing a unit and half to all of a heavy is way way worse.

Especially when everything that did it is either further away with stealth or the same distance away and significantly harder to kill. Plus way way way better supported the following turn. Oh and with a couple of scather templates in the way, cause why not. And lylyth on the other side of an entire bloody sherwoods worth of forest templates.

EDIT: I suppose this is still kinda 'blowing it for striders and a couple of deathstalkers. But **** it, if I've got a ranged buffing feat and I blow it to buff 28 of the 34 or 35 guns I have, I call that good use.

[JoeGuardsman]

Well this has certainly had some ideas. 6/9 Trenchers I could possibly see but this 5/8 business is too much. Compare the other 5/8 ranged weapon units out there and you'll see some defensive statistics that even 13/13 can laugh at. Normally even paired with poor range on the weapons. 6/9 ranged units looking at the similarly costed units as well doesn't seem fair in terms of defensive abilities/stats in relation to trenchers though the weapons will be as good.

If it needs to be stated ahead of time I'm only using Trenchers at the moment with pCaine. It's been more than a stiff breeze for my opponents to deal with them.

Between Snipe, Dig-in, Blur, Arcane Shield and Tough I feel that this 15 man group is very survivable. Snipe means you have the important threat range, Dig in puts you up to 17 DEF which unboosted rat of any kind is not going to be able to handle reliably, Blur can stack that to a level that can not be managed at all unboosted. Now Blur also fills that hole created by hunter and for when you know that DEF is ignored entirely you can use Arcane Shield as ignore DEF is almost entirely the domain of POW 10. Throw tough on top and sure it's let's say 18 points between 15 man unit, Finn and Rhupert but you have something that stands up to everything other than match ups as far as survivability.

So we are looking at 18 points for 17 bodies, two of them solos, three of them with boxes, all of them creating a great amount of synergy. I'll pay 1.05 points per model for:

Advanced Deployment
Assault Order
Cautious Advance Order
Dig-In
Smoke Bombs
Range Weapon
Combine Ranged Attack
*Pathfinder
*Tough
*Mat 8/Rat 7
*SPD 8
*POW 26 CRA
*Auto Deviating or easy to hit with AoEs (Desparate Pace or Veteran Leader Rifle Grenades or Assault Rifle Grenades)
**Range 14 (Snipe)
**25" threat range (Snipe, Desparate Pace, Assault)
**Boosted Ranged Attacks (Deadeye)
**DEF 13/16/17/20 Depending on the situation. Pretty hard to get stuck at the 13.

I'm sure there are more uses for them that I know and more that I don't know yet. But point for point I feel just fine playing this for barely over 1 point per model. And Rhupert can help other units in my army just like the Junior can help the Trenchers but isn't dedicated to them. I don't know, maybe if you are looking to use a unit with every caster they aren't right for you. I'd rather take this tool box to a game with pCaine than any other 18 points. It isn't worth discussing a unit and whether or not it works without it's caster.

[Trollicious]

Not trying to have a go at anyone here. Just making sense of things. My intent is to clarify, not to offend.

I may have been unclear, but my original post was about player 1's deployment changing from 8" to 7" (increasing the distance at the start from 30" to 31") Your example with the teraphs refers to a 10" deployment zone for player one, which is a separate issue.

Lets look at it this way for the sake of clarity: Opponent is at 38" (48-10)

If the teraph's threat is 16"+8"+14"=38", this means they are just short of hitting the enemies deployment zone unless they are directly across from the model (trigonometry steps in here to prevent you from hitting it otherwise) so that means each teraph will only be able to hit the one target they are directly across from.

If the Striders threat is 16"+7"+16"= 39", this means that they will have an extra inch to play with and should be able to pull off those CRAs, but it will be tough to get both units on a single target.

Deathstalkers have the same threat 39", and it's highly likely that they will be able to take out a unit, especially a low def one, so I totally get you there.

As for the damage, the strider output looks good, but my calcs show the teraphs doing 14 (3.5*4) to the jugg, 22 (5.5*4) to the ironclad, and 18 (4.5*4) to the crusader.


However, as I mentioned, I was referring to the change from 8" to 7" deployment for player1.
An 8" deployment subtracts 2" from each of the aforementioned threat ranges, putting teraphs 2" short, and the striders 1" short.
Teraph (at 8" deployment) 14"+8"+14" = 36" (less than 38")
Striders (at 8" deployment) 14"+7"+16" = 37" (less than 38")


Now the trenchers (at an 8" deployment) AD at 14"+2" (from finn) + 9" (assault) + 14" (snipe shots) = 39" which is still 1" within the area

[PeregrineP]

- /Snip - I'd rather take this tool box to a game with pCaine than any other 18 points. It isn't worth discussing a unit and whether or not it works without it's caster.

But but but... Siege is the trencher caster! =/

[Trollicious]

But but but... Siege is the trencher caster! =/

...well just imagine a pow 26 CRA with armor piercing.

[Spume]

...well just imagine a pow 26 CRA with armor piercing.

Um, Mommie?

[sleet01]

Well this has certainly had some ideas. 6/9 Trenchers I could possibly see but this 5/8 business is too much. Compare the other 5/8 ranged weapon units out there and you'll see some defensive statistics that even 13/13 can laugh at. Normally even paired with poor range on the weapons. 6/9 ranged units looking at the similarly costed units as well doesn't seem fair in terms of defensive abilities/stats in relation to trenchers though the weapons will be as good.

Well, if we're strictly comparing units with "their" caster, the WGI under eSorscha are SPD 7, DEF 15/ARM 13 for 4/6, or 6/8 with UA that gives them Sprays and CMAs, 8/10 with Kovnik Joe to give them Tough and either All Boosted Attack Rolls (!!) or Tough or +3 STR. Adding the Rocketeers takes them all the way up to 11/13. The extended module adds Aiyanna and Holt to bring it up to 15/17 with Magical Weapons or +2 damage. And I don't think you'll find your Trenchers laughing at them.

Now Blur also fills that hole created by hunter and for when you know that DEF is ignored entirely you can use Arcane Shield as ignore DEF is almost entirely the domain of POW 10.

And MHSF, which ignores all DEF and ARM buffs.

So we are looking at 18 points for 17 bodies, two of them solos, three of them with boxes, all of them creating a great amount of synergy.

Actually 21 points, unless you are suggesting dropping them to 5/8 after all as well as making Finn a 2-point solo. 10 for 10 TrI, 3 for UA, 3 for WA, 3 for Finn, 2 for Rhupert = 21.

I'll pay 1.05 points per model for:

1.23 points per model, or 1.333 if you add Junior for the Arcane Shield you say you'll need. Compare to 0.8125 per for the WGI module, or 0.944 with A&H tacked on.

[JoeGuardsman]

And I don't think you'll find your Trenchers laughing at them.

Trenchers will not have an issue with the Winterguard Deathstar. It would come down to the things around them but if 15 Winterguard with Joe and Iron Flesh from Sorcha are standing in front of 15 Trenchers and Finn with Snipe/Deadeye and the potential defensive buff juggling the trenchers win every time.

The trenchers have the greater threat range and with with boosted attack rolls, Veteran leader and CRA the Winterguard get peeled away.

I'm definitely not looking to match up against MHSF, I'd have to try to get at them first maybe risking a deadeye assault just to draw some blood first but I'm not worried about Winterguard.

You're right on the math though, I forgot to add in the Rifle Grenades. Still works for me at 1.23.

[sleet01]

If that works for you, that works for you. Me, I put my Trenchers in storage and haven't missed them one bit.

[JoeGuardsman]

I'm still not sure if I'd use them with anyone other than pCaine. I definitely understand the points cost and they don't slot in everywhere, Winterguard slot in more easily and at a better point cost so they have a greater overall value. But due to pCaine for me there is nothing to fix or otherwise if you were fixing something you are going to make them too powerful with this caster or remove a tool that enjoy using.

They definitely aren't a 5/8 unit though.

[Ender101]

We could also compare them to Assault Kommandos, another much maligned unit that fits a popular sub theme within a faction (as an aside I play Khador and Love my AKs like I love my Trenchers, so I play them and I try very hard to make them work, though even more so as my Khador collection is but a fraction of my swans).

Weighing in at 5/8, the AKs have almost identical stats to Trenchers, with MAT 6 RAT 5, Def 12 ARM 14, Assault and Battery order, Shield Wall order, Immunity to Corrosion, Fire and ignore clouds. They come stock with a Carbine, Gun Blade, Assault Shield and have strangle gas grenade launchers which can suitably debuff the enemy. This gives them 3 attacks a piece on a normal charge, and a free shot with their carbine or gas before hand, for a potential 4 attacks a pop. While they have no UA or Solo they do have a WA which gives them a flame thrower, which is a niffty, but situational attachment to a situational unit.

Like the Trenchers, AKs specialize in taking out opposing light infantry, have defensive mechanics (there's a surprising amount of Fire and Corrosion shooting out there), trenchers dig in, AKs shield wall. Dig in is ignored by melee, hunter and sprays, Shield Wall is ignored by chain weapons and back strikes. I find these two units to be very comparable in terms of damage potential, survivability and to an extent, battle field role. +4 Arm and debuff cloud vs +4 Def and defense cloud. Trenchers can go after some heavier targets due to combined ranged attack, but Kommandos can take out whole swathes of infantry with some luck.

I don't think that a single caster interaction should consign a unit to mediocrity however, models/units have to stand up on their own bases, and this seems to be how PP prices most units in the game, otherwise Kayazy Assassins and WGI should be much more expensive due to the caster interactions in Khador, and lets not get into Cryx, who's infantry is criminally (guilty as charged =P) under-costed, especially once caster interactions comes into it. Or troll Kriel Warriors or Knights Errant and the list only goes on and on. And those units are not over powered or game breaking, they're a worthy monetary and point investment for this game.

Would a 5/8 unit of trenchers be crazy with Caine1? Maybe, but they'd also be worth considering with say, Nemo1 or Kraye, or even Darius, or really anyone else who isn't Caine1 or Stryker1. And I've tried to get them to work with multiple casters. At 6/10 they're an elite priced unit, and why would the vast majority of casters take them? At 5/8 however they wouldn't be priced restrictively, and would allow people who bought and painted the models to play them more often than with one caster. I buy models that I can use in my games as often as possible, not for very specific interactions, and I don't encourage new players to play that way either. One of the things that sold me on this game was 'switch the caster and the same army plays completely differently' I was also told that they would be about as effective.

Its simple economics, positive incentive to include models is good and rewards players for making choices, and negative incentive to include models is bad and punishes players unless they make the correct choices.

That's my two focus anyways.

[ricefrisbeetreats]

I would have loved a bare-bones trench-style 4/6 unit. Drop the dig-in and smoke. I love the theme, hate that I am supposed to pay out the nose for it. If they ever got retooled to be a cheap meat shield unit, I'd so get multiple units.

[King-of-Storms]

Trenchers are about as good as they get or else people from the other factions are going to start whining that they're overpowered.

My only suggestion to improve the trenchers is lower their point cost. Other than that the Trenchers are about as good as they're going to get.

[DanTrollBlitzer]

Since their CRA gives them a lot of overlap with Long Gunners and adds a lot to their point cost, I`ve always said Trencher Infantry should lose CRA and become 4/6. Then they would be an interesting defensive-minded alternative (in the same point slot) to Sword Knights who are always looking to charge and use flank. It`s just my opinion, but they shouldn`t be competing for spots in lists with Commandos and Long Gunners, they should be a cheap speed bump/jamming unit...more or less just bodies (disposable heroes) to put between the enemy and your more important pieces.

DanTrollBlitzer

[ricefrisbeetreats]

Since their CRA gives them a lot of overlap with Long Gunners and adds a lot to their point cost, I`ve always said Trencher Infantry should lose CRA and become 4/6. Then they would be an interesting defensive-minded alternative (in the same point slot) to Sword Knights who are always looking to charge and use flank. It`s just my opinion, but they shouldn`t be competing for spots in lists with Commandos and Long Gunners, they should be a cheap speed bump/jamming unit...more or less just bodies (disposable heroes) to put between the enemy and your more important pieces.

DanTrollBlitzer

Pretty much. I always thought, at least from the fluff, that Trenchers and Long Gunners were the primary troops of Cygnar. So, I always thought it would be cool to have a huge force of them similar to how Menoth can run Zealots.

I understand that fluff doesn't equal rules or that they have to be pointed appropriately, but I just wish that our "stock troops" were truly fieldable in large numbers.

[leo_neil316]

I may have been unclear, but my original post was about player 1's deployment changing from 8" to 7"

Ah, yes, my bad. Thought you'd meant the drop from 10" to 8". Apologies! I blame illness!

[Trollicious]

There are very few ranged troop options that are 4/6, and most of them have a shorter range than trenchers (except for kossites).

I think 5/8 is pretty standard if not for their clouds, which is what pushes the min unit to 6. 6/10 is steep, 6/9 would be just right. Taking away clouds could put them at 5/8, but not 4/6.

[Spume]

And now, lets compare them to Bushwackers....

[ofthez]

I don't like to compare a unit that I have acces to VS one that I don't have acces to (like wintherguards).

Now, my analogie has everything to do with what I have acces to only.

For 12 pts I have a 11 men squad wich gives me dig in for 1 turn, hard hitting cc, combine ranges (like trenchers) same mat and rat, More basic spd, more basic def by 2 and very low arm. Nyss hunters with murdoch

VS

trenchers 10 pts no UA, dig in each turn, advance deploy, I can do no good dmg vs heavy armour cauz of low pow, got combine ranged, low def, low arm. Now I can invest more points and the unit can give me : capability of blast dmg, A UA wich includes a sniper and allright abilities wich gives acces in digging in and shooting after. A Solo wich Gives more hitting capability when in sight of who is shooting Keeping the last point for the end, the bonus mouvement order of wich brings every models in the unit.

One cost less, is specific to its alpha strike role
The other, Is supposed to last more.

one thing to think about when we have the trenchers in mind is the support they need! even with finn, you would need a to hit buff in cc or range.

this unit, in the hands of a caster with dead eye will wipe all trooper units on the table at 100% with its assault treath range of 19 or 21 then fin screams. I don't like to assault with trenchers for the fundamental reason that they are easy to wipe after, at the exception of playing a carvolo (add more cost to the build).

with the sword knight solo, add buff tohit.


To conclude, What I would change??? I say, 1st, take off assault (even if its one of there signature move) caucious advance keeps them alive. Then keep that cost high as it is, give them tough. If pp absolutely wants to lower the cost, -1 on the ua (this ua cost more than it should (no banner, EZ for a moral check to fail) and it adds 1 ability of wich keeps your unit alive. and -1 on the unit, 6-9 total.

Finn, even if benificial to the unit, is an option for support.
This is my 2 cents

[tensteam]

But due to pCaine for me there is nothing to fix or otherwise if you were fixing something you are going to make them too powerful with this caster or remove a tool that enjoy using.

Have you tried using Nyss Hunters instead of Trenchers? Add Murdoch if you like, but it's not necessary. You basicly get everything Trenchers have to offer and a lot more. Okay no smoke, but I don't think you are taking a full unit for smoke anyway?

It's been said already that Trenchers can be good with right support (Snipe+possibly Deadeye) and they can be worth the points. But at times you run into a match up where the guys offer you little or no value at all. MHSF is one. Other Cygnar player with Nyss Hunters is another. The of course the big ones like all Stealth lists.

Because I do not believe PP is making errata to make units more worth their points (barring a very few OP ones) I find it likely that I'll see Trenchers being used when mk3 is here. I'd strongly favour dropping CRA and Smoke and making the unit really cheap. That could well make Trenchers a viable choice.

[JoeGuardsman]

Yeah, I've definitely considered Murdoch and Nyss. pCaine isn't a faction spell caster so I can easily get away with that. Granted for a lot more points I get to stretch my upkeeps to 15 bodies, include AoEs, Desparate Pace, benefit from Cmnd 10 from Finn. There are definite benefits and I don't have those two liability models in Celyna and Murdoch.

Nyss are definitely on the radar and when I had two units of trenchers in the list (which was way over board) I had to change and Nyss almost made it in but switched to long gunners.

At the moment I'm using Nyss in a pHaley list that I consider when using Character restrictions and the cost of Murdoch also isn't slotting in well into the build. I think Nyss are definitely better in a short game, get in do your damage and try to finish the game but I'm playing the list for long games and so I can't afford to have a moving Dig-in on only one turn and as the grind goes on if something gets at Cylena or Murdoch I can lose CRA or Assault which might make a huge difference at the end of the game.

I don't think anyone could completely say no to Nyss but the 15 body trenchers are edging them out for me with pCaine.

[rjc243]

The problem with trenchers is much more fundamental, they are an anti range unit that wants to be on the front line. What happens when you are in front? You get charged, way to go anti-range abilities. Poor stats for cost aside, they have a basic problem and its even worse in steamroller.

My fix, they need to be able to move forward, dig in and then activate some sort of counterattack ability, where they can shoot anything that comes within x inches. They are in a semi-fortified position, shouldn't they get something for it other than cover?

[Calibre]

The problem with trenchers is much more fundamental, they are an anti range unit that wants to be on the front line. What happens when you are in front? You get charged, way to go anti-range abilities. Poor stats for cost aside, they have a basic problem and its even worse in steamroller.

My fix, they need to be able to move forward, dig in and then activate some sort of counterattack ability, where they can shoot anything that comes within x inches. They are in a semi-fortified position, shouldn't they get something for it other than cover?

Exactly this, some sort of "Order[Overwatch]: If this unit forfeits their combat action during their activation they may immediately perform a normal range attack or a combined ranged attack on enemy models/unit that ends their movement within 10" of this unit, when resolving an Overwatch ranged attack, the attacking model does not suffer the target in melee penalty. Models that receive this order does not gain aiming bonus when performing Overwatch ranged attacks.", and that's the ball game. This here will completely make them worthwhile, you can still have cautious advance and assault on the ua, the AD still makes sense, smoke can be a situational alternative and the point cost, it all works.

[bStyker]

@Calibre & rjc243 -- It's called Covering Fire.

@others - Some of the posters here nailed it already. They're not getting fixed anytime soon. Love em if you want, hate'em if you want. We've got other options that are more competitive, let's just deal with it and move on.

Best,

[PG_ThickMcLargehuge]

Right now for the same price as a Trencher Death Star you get Stormblades + UA + 3 WA + Rhupert + Eiryss + Gorman. It's kinda sad.

Your math is wrong. SBI is 5 points, the UA is 3, 3 of the WA, Rhupert is 2, Eiryss is 3 and Gorman is 2. Thats only 18 points by my count and the Trencher Death Star is 19. So you can buy all that other stuff and actually shave a point.

[Optimus Bryan]

You want Trenchers to work? To up their Offense, bring a Grenadier 'jack. Use the Trenchers to smokescreen the 'jack and to prevent it from being engaged. With loaders, the Grenadier has strong offense and it has defensive stats will force enemy heavies to use focus/fury to take it out.

For the Trenchers themselves, dig them in behind a well placed linear obstacle. This denies most charges, prevents engagement without reach, and gives them the much needed DEF buff against melee if they do have reach. Ranged threats will have to deal with the cover/ counter shooting, and things that ignore cover (MHSF, Gun Mages, Striders) die to the AoEs from the Grenadier. Just watch out for sprays.

Problem being, we have no way to place walls. This leaves Trenchers beholden to table set up and thus a situational unit. Now, if we had access to Rock Wall, it would be a different story. (Why did we let Gunnbjorn quit again?)

I also think using Advanced Deployment for maximum alpha strike is sort of a trap. It is better used for choosing match ups with your Trenchers, even if that means you lose a few inches on turn one. They do well against a lot of units, they just have really terrible match ups. AD can be used to avoid some bad match ups, although counter AD puts them back in the wrong situation.

[leo_neil316]

You want Trenchers to work? To up their Offense, bring a Grenadier 'jack. Use the Trenchers to smokescreen the 'jack and to prevent it from being engaged. With loaders, the Grenadier has strong offense and it has defensive stats will force enemy heavies to use focus/fury to take it out.

For the Trenchers themselves, dig them in behind a well placed linear obstacle. This denies most charges, prevents engagement without reach, and gives them the much needed DEF buff against melee if they do have reach. Ranged threats will have to deal with the cover/ counter shooting, and things that ignore cover (MHSF, Gun Mages, Striders) die to the AoEs from the Grenadier. Just watch out for sprays.

You cover 'we can't place walls' yourself later, so I'll ignore that.

First, gunmages don't ignore cover. Hunter, sprays and phantom seeker ignore cover. Hunter also ignores cloud effects.

The ranged threats that ignore cover without using sprays, striders, magehunters, errants and nyss hunters, all have better or comparable threat ranges compared to trenchers. Striders and nyss hunters can walk and fire the same range trenchers assault and fire, magehunters 1" less, errants are 1" slower, but have 2" more range etc. They also all ignore cloud effects and concealment.

Errants are ARM 16, so not really vunerable to cloud effects, and have a build in defensive ability which severely blunts a first strike by trenchers. On top of that they can get defensive buffs which leave trenchers killing with about 50% of their shots. They have better RAT than trenchers, and ignore any buff that would improve the trencher's survivability. In addition, they're all exemplars, so a DEF 14 ARM 15 jack is not going to worry them.

Similarly the nyss hunters have improved RAT and DEF coupled with the same threat range as assaulting trenchers, and ignore cover and concealment. While they are vunerable to blast damage they are once again weapon masters and this time they have CRA. They're also going to be cheaper than essentially any trencher module.

Striders function the same as mage hunters, but trade weaponmaster for stealth and reform. While technically still 'vulnerable' to blasts, it would be more accurate to say they are -only- engaged by blasts from trenchers. With assault trenchers can attack stealthed models 14" away, but the striders can hit and fade back to 15/17", a full unit of striders with u/a and two deathstalkers costs the same as full trenchers with u/a, should always get the first strike and will reliably take out more than 50% of the trenchers. And Dice + 3 CRA's do horrible things to grenadiers. Especially with two snipers hanging around to put those last points right where you don't want 'em.

Magehunters oddly enough are the least threatening to trenchers. While they have stealth they only have an 18" threat range, and lack the armour to survive blasts. However, as with every other one of these they have pathfinder and out threat trenchers ability to fire AOE's. And magehunters will turn a grenadier into scrap in one short volley.

[Optimus Bryan]

Like I stated- Trenchers do have TERRIBLE matchups- all of the ones you listed seem to be designed to kill trenchers. I just want to point out a few things, though.

First, it is fairly difficult to a have a unit kill all of the trenchers and the Grenadier in a single turn. CRA= Fewer targets. Also, both the Grenadier and Trenchers have DEF stats that put them right around Average Dice. Needing to roll Average or better multiple times in a row isn't something to rely on.

Also, these units (MHSF, Striders, Nyss, Errants) I consider to be "elite". I wouldn't even dream of putting Trenchers in that category. However, if they are being used to kill Trenchers, they aren't doing what they should be doing- Jamming my units, killing support models, and threatening my caster. Really, if I can get you to waste two or more turns with your MHSF on a far flank slaughtering Trenchers and not Murdering my Caster, they go a long way to "earning back their points".

Outside of these units, trenchers perform at the middle- usable shooting range, able to kill light infantry in melee, and can CRA to hurt medium armor. They have smoke grenades to block LOS and can dig in for cover- all in all, an average unit.

The role I use Trenchers for is "anti-alpha strike". They get the unfortunate task of being thrown in the way of the Enemy models that will kill me, giving me time to formulate a win.

Now, none of this means I think Trenchers are great. I am just sick of hearing that they are absolute crap that should relegated to shelf duty. They are high cost models with a lot of options, including screening the enemy by trying to get them to choke on our corpses. If doing this lets eCaine or eStryker open up an assassination vector, I can live with it.

[Defenstrator]

Your math is wrong. SBI is 5 points, the UA is 3, 3 of the WA, Rhupert is 2, Eiryss is 3 and Gorman is 2. Thats only 18 points by my count and the Trencher Death Star is 19. So you can buy all that other stuff and actually shave a point.

And here I thought you were about to give me good news.

[Sanguinary Dan]

Here, here. Trenchers are certainly overpriced, but they don't stink. Like every other unit they work well with some casters, poorly with others and magically with one or two. A big unit with with DEF and/or ARM bonuses will be a nightmare for the enemy to shift.

[A8mew]

Problem being you can probably replace those Trenchers with something else, give them the DEF/ARM boosts, and have a stronger unit as a whole.

They suffer painfully from being 1 point more expensive than Boomhowler & Co, whose only weakness compared to Trenchers is blocking LoS. Add Murdoch to Boomhowler & Co and you don't even have the "Trenchers are in faction" advantage.

Although situationally they can be worth their cost its hard to justify deploying a predominantly anti-ranged unit when we already win virtually every shooting contest in the game without trying anyways. They'de be much more valuable if they weren't so incredibly expensive.

[Trollicious]

Hunter ignores concealment, cover, and forests, but not clouds. Granted, Nyss can shoot the trenchers in the clouds without penalty, but all the trenchers behind those clouds are safe and sound.

Since I haven't weighed in on an actual fix, I'd say make the unit 6/9, and give them tough. They'd be an incredible front line unit then, and I think they'd play to the fluff well.

[leo_neil316]

Like I stated- Trenchers do have TERRIBLE matchups- all of the ones you listed seem to be designed to kill trenchers. I just want to point out a few things, though.

First, it is fairly difficult to a have a unit kill all of the trenchers and the Grenadier in a single turn. CRA= Fewer targets. Also, both the Grenadier and Trenchers have DEF stats that put them right around Average Dice. Needing to roll Average or better multiple times in a row isn't something to rely on.

Also, these units (MHSF, Striders, Nyss, Errants) I consider to be "elite". I wouldn't even dream of putting Trenchers in that category. However, if they are being used to kill Trenchers, they aren't doing what they should be doing- Jamming my units, killing support models, and threatening my caster. Really, if I can get you to waste two or more turns with your MHSF on a far flank slaughtering Trenchers and not Murdering my Caster, they go a long way to "earning back their points".

You seem to be missing something. See, trenchers get alot of anti shooting tech.

Those units are THE MOST COMMON RANGED UNITS IN THE GAME. Other notable ranged units all have fricking sprays.

You say that needing to roll averages isn't something to rely on. But trenchers are much much less likely to kill members of any of those units in return. Even discounting stealth and threat ranges a trencher needs a nine to hit a magehunter and a ten to hit a nyss. Against errants trenchers hit, oh right, half the time, but errants are ARM 16 so military rifles need a 6 to kill, and that's before buffs, and those units can benefit from more buffs than trenchers can (Hell, they could just run up to this hypothetical wall and shoot from there. They hit on 7's, trenchers hit on 9's or 12's when everyone's aiming!).

As for those units being 'elite' two of them cost as much as trenchers. Two of them are -cheaper-. And trading models at those kinds of ratios is only useful when you have a purpose in mind.

Why would I want magehunters on a far flank 'murdering trenchers instead of the caster?' because it could simultaneously net me a scenario win AND more kill points? having 20% of your list there just to die is stupid, and having a unit that's claim to fame is being hard to take out from range which is best countered by the most popular ranged units in each faction is also stupid.

[DrBaltar]

I dont see much that would fix the Trenchers. The easiest solution would be an alternative UA or a point reduction.
We all know that they are overpriced and most of their abilities are ignored or cant be used simultaneously.
My personal fixes:
- reduce the pointcost on the unit (8/5)
- UA -> cost reduced by 1 and war tempered instead of cautious advance
- WA -> exchange him with the sniper from the UA
- Finn -> reduce the pointcost by 1

This would let me field even a second unit!

[JoeGuardsman]

I think that the one thing I could honestly hope to see is a re-roll on command tests despite there not being a banner. The 9 or 10 for Finn is nice but after 6 units of doom reavers run to engage it can get bad. Though 15 bodies I have to bring Rhupert anyway.

[Defenstrator]

Rhupert is Cygnars' best UA. Only the ATGM UA offers competition. My advice is never take the Trencher UA. It's overpriced and even at two points doesn't add a lot to the unit. Which would you rather have, everybody can move and Dig In, and a Sniper shot, or your choice of Tough + Fearless, +1 DEF + Terror, or Pathfinder? Rhupert solves far more of the Trenchers problems than their UA does.

As to them being a 5/8 unit, they really are. Compared to Assault Kommandos they're in the exact same range. People bring up Steelhead Riflemen, but those are overpriced as well. The only time they aren't is with Damiano due to Money Shot. Now if you declare that Cygnar casters grant Trenchers +2 to their RAT and damage then the argument for their current price would be more valid, since RAT 7 POW 13 or RAT 9 POW 15 CRAs are a different offensive kettle of fish. But I don't see that happening, so 5/8 it is.

[leo_neil316]

That'd sort the trencher u/a actually. Add tactics pathfinder and granted tough.