Fixing the trenchers?

[Fryerdan]

So in response to the "do people hate trenchers?" thread, I have a question to go along with it. Other than a rewrite of their cards, which I don't foresee, what could PP do to bring these guys up to snuff?

I know this is a bit of a touchy topic because people for awhile were feeling like trenchers were being shoved down their throat, but it's so odd that they got a resculpt of all things when it's their effectiveness and not their aesthetics that needed the biggest overhaul.

I honestly don't know what would do it other than a new support solo or character unit that could give them a nudge.

[jr caster]

didn't we already do a thread like this months ago?

[Fryerdan]

dunno. don't remember one. I usually watch pretty closely for topics of trencherly interest.

[Anurien]

So far my trenchers have won me a few games (at low points costs) and got my opponent to start using his minimum sized unit... BTW 2 advancing armies under smoke cover = funny.

Is the argument not that they are just a bit too expensive when you can buy a different unit which does one bit better than trenchers? IE Longgunners are better at shooting when compared to trenchers but for the same cost. I figure there are few units which can do as much or are as flexible on the battlefield. OK they might be the warmachine version of 'just' USMC rather than 'Covert SpecOps Ninjas with Uber leet black ops capabilities and the full backing of the Army, Navy and Airforce as well as a Presidential pardon for any illigalities comited as a unit. Oh and poops that smell of roses!'

I dont think they need fixing. The perception of them might need changing.

[leo_neil316]

Yeah the problem with just using them as a smoke screen is that they're one of our most expensive units.

Again, at the end of the day they're just overcosted by a point, as are finn and the u/a.

With the trencher infantry unit itself this isn't much of a problem. Can be a bit sub optimal but it's hardly gonna cost you the game.

Taking all three is 16 points, almost half of a 35 point list, and it doesn't perform nearly well enough for that kind of cost.

That's part of the problem, when we say 'Trenchers' we're talking about trencher infantry, and unit attachments and weapon attachments, and Finn, and chainguns, and cannons, and commandos, and master gunners, and grenadiers, and commando scattergunners.

And only about half of that is where it should be.

[vesslan]

OK they might be the warmachine version of 'just' USMC rather than 'Covert SpecOps Ninjas with Uber leet black ops capabilities and the full backing of the Army, Navy and Airforce as well as a Presidential pardon for any illigalities comited as a unit. Oh and poops that smell of roses!'

I dont think they need fixing. The perception of them might need changing.

The problem is that they are costed as 'Covert SpecOps Ninjas with Uber leet black ops capabilities and the full backing of the Army, Navy and Airforce as well as a Presidential pardon for any illigalities comited as a unit. Oh and with poops that smell of roses!'

Full unit, 3WA, UA and Finn is 19 pts!
Full Winter Guard, 3WA, UA and Joe is 13 pts.
Which one do you feel is better? :P

[TKaz84]

It's the comparison to the Winter Guard package that really galls Cygnar players. Granted that both the WG UA and Kovnik Jow are undercosted by a point, but even if they cost the same the WG are just plain better than the Trenchers.

As for fixing them, if the base unit had the Cautious Advance order and the UA had something like the old Smoke Assault order I could see using them more.

[Garath]

They always costed a lot of points,say back in MK1 they where one of the best units-but you had to go "all inn". I never fielded them in MK2, and perhaps I should have a go...

[Fryerdan]

I've played trenchers since the field test with an almost religious fervor and time after time I find them outclassed by cheaper and more specialized infantry. They have all these neat abilities with a limp stat line to keep them alive and return damage, dig in is supposed to help but all elite shooters (which is all anyone brings if they are bringing shooters) and melee ignore it. I don't mind them being expensive but I find they are only effective at higher model counts and even then just barely so. I understand the concept that they exist to die, got it, go forth and die gentlemen, but damn you guys cost as much as a stormclad and vanish in a stiff breeze.

Now with that said, it's pretty apparent that PP is swinging the pendulum away from infantry machine, just look at what came out in wrath, mostly anti infantry jacks. Perhaps in the meta to follow this release there will be a place for the trenchers as people adjust their list to compensate for the infantry murdering machines.

[Sacredsouless]

even though a jack with flak field will shred them no problem....

[Blugger]

I guess PP could errata either

a.) Point cost down to 5/8 for a unit, 2 for UA. Maybe lose assault.

b.) Hunter no longer ignores the defense bonuses granted by cover/concealment, either reducing it or simply having to deal with it

[Sacredsouless]

Or we get a straight +4 vs range rather than cover.

[Strangelove]

Dig In could possibly become like it's MKI incarnation - +4 ARM on top of cover. At least then they'll no longer get wrecked by POW 10's.

Endgame also had a great suggestion in an earlier thread - give the unit Prowl. It'd work wonders with the nerf the smoke grenades got.

[Knarfy]

If Dig In gave +4 Def vs range/spells rather than just cover, Trenchers would be great.

That is the one thing I think people forget: While Trenchers have a whole lot of brutally hard counters, when your opponent doesn't have them, trenchers are amazing.

Seriously. I played a pHaley army built around a full 10 man unit of Trenchers (no UA, WA, or Finn) at 35 against my friends Retribution without the MHSF, and I just mauled him. Again and again. Most of our games ended with pretty much his entire army wiped out, and me down 1-2 models.

[Steamwater]

If an opponent doesn't have a counter to trenchers, then they probably don't have a counter to long gunners, either. In which case the long gunners are going to outclass them. I, too, thin they should be repriced to 5/8 with Finn at 2 also. The UA should probably stay at 3 since we don't have any 2-point 2 man UAs and because Cautious Advance and the sharpshooter are both top notch.

[Fryerdan]

You're right Knarfy, but it's really rare that you see an opponent running melee that isn't prepared to fight ranged armies, or ranged armies that aren't comprised of all the top of the line shooters that ignore the trenchers defenses.

What I'm hoping is that more of these infantry slaughtering ranged armies start to get slimmed down in favor of more anti warjack stuff as the wrath releases have put out some really scary warjacks. Of course this doesn't change retribution's utter reliance on MHSF as their infantry of choice since they do both really well, it does mean we can send minutemen after them from across the board to flak field them into ribbons and then follow up with a wave of trenchers.

[Ender101]

I don't think PP would just change the wording on Dig In, for one thing, Trenchers aren't the only unit with the rule, and for another, it makes sense that it grants cover as opposed to +4 def, because that's what cover grants. Are there things that ignore it? Yes, but cover isn't ignored by everything.

I do think that trenchers are over priced, but I disagree that the UA needs to be 2 points as opposed to 3. Most UA's with 2 weapons are 3 points (Stormblades, Iridian Skirmishers, Bane Thralls to name a few), with the Winterguard being one of the few exceptions.

Now I like my trenchers, I enjoy playing them and their fluff was one of my main draws to Cygnar. But, the more I play them the more I feel that I only get their use about 40% of the time at best. They suffer from an over abundance of rules, many of which don't have a major impact on the game. They are priced as an elite infantry unit, and if we're being honest with ourselves, have terrible stats and little damage output. It seems strange to me that the Trencher Commandos, who are better in many regards, are the same price, and are not over expensive. Advance Deployment and Assault are great rules, but Dig In and Smoke Bomb have lost a lot of use since changes to rules and abilities and special attacks like Hunter and Sprays that ignore their abilities have become more prevalent in the game.

Aren't the grave diggers supposed to supply that mobile immovable object to go toe to toe with the best of the Iron Kingdoms? It feels more like their commanders are just asking them to dig their graves as opposed to putting the enemy in the ground. I'd like to see them have rules that allow them to be this force. So, how could this be fixed? The real truth is that they probably won't be until MK III happens in the distant future, but if we're just throwing ideas around, I would suggest pricing them as a 5/8 unit, or increasing their stats, or allow them to have a passive buff (like the before mentioned addition of Prowl) to reflect their cost, making the unit more worthwhile to field in the face of units which look at trenchers with little more than disdain.

[SirMythos]

I think the idea of Prawl is a very good one. Maybe another Trencher Solo with EC like Runewood that gives the Trenchers Prawl. That would be nice (and great if it would Veteran as Finn is, but from the Backarc).

[SpiralingCadaver]

I think that the issue isn't Dig In, but Hunter & Eyeless Sight: being able to track someone through a forest and get a good shot is one hell of a lot easier than being able to tell someone is behind that wall or trench, and somehow being able to get a good shot.

I can't argue with the elves and their magic homing arrows or the undead and their magic ghost bullet/cannons, but I think that it's pretty stupid that being able to tell that something is behind a wall makes it somehow possible to ignore said wall: people don't just hide behind walls to be sneaky, it also helps absorb the bullets.

[Blugger]

I wouldn't go for prowl as it really clashes with the image of the vanguard trenchers, sitting in their ditches weathering heavy fire. Leave the stealthiness to the commandos.

The straight +4def against ranged and magic, however, would be perfect IMO

[Frozen Yakman]

Not my complete list of changes:

For Units w/ Dig-In (*Action)

Dig-In (Order)
Models receiving this order must sacrifice their movement to Dig-In. Dug-in models gain +2 DEF against Ranged and Magic Attacks and Immunity to Blast Damage. This effect continues until the model moves or is placed. Models may begin the game dug-in.

For non-units with Dig-In:

This model may sacrifice its movement to Dig-In. Dug-in models gain +2 DEF against Ranged and Magic Attacks and Immunity to Blast Damage. This effect continues until the model moves or is placed. Models may begin the game dug-in.


Less of a defense bump but it makes up for it by not being a *Action, not being negated by effects that ignore cover, and you aren't kicked out of it if you're engaged.

[veragor1206]

I don't believe PP is going to make a rule change to make them better. Aside from mkii, rarely if ever has a model/unit been buffed. More than likely though we will see a model released that will give.them a boost. This could get tricky though as boosting them can affect the commandos, Finn, master gunner, ect... I would expect to see a warcaster along the lines of Constance. We already have two solos, weapon attach., and two artillery pieces based around a trenches theme, so most likely it will be a caster centered around the Trencher theme.

[RionikuAnjiru]

Yeah I don't think the Trenchers will get usable until the next edition. PP doesn't seem to be in the habit of releasing errata/changes very often and we're still very early in Prime mkII's cycle.

The power dip is too great, sadly - it's not like Sword Knights who are only "ok" but are so cheap that with Reform and the Minuteman to marshal they could actually end up being competitive.

The divide between them and, say, the WGI death star is enormous. Not only is the WGI death star much, much better both offensively and defensively, it also costs a full 6 points less than WGI+UA+WA+Joe.

If it was one or the other (The trenchers are better but overpriced or bad but well costed) I could see some kind of solo/caster making them usable. As it stands, nothing short of an errata will have them really come back into the game. Make the unit 5/8, the UA 2 and Finn 2 and it's fixed. Right now for the same price as a Trencher Death Star you get Stormblades + UA + 3 WA + Rhupert + Eiryss + Gorman. It's kinda sad.

[SpiralingCadaver]

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

That's… that's… wow. I never thought of it like that. Yeah, I don't think mine will ever see play outside of theme lists, now.

…well, actually, a slightly better comparison is TrI (Min) + UA + WAx3 + Finn = SBI + UA + WAx3 + 2 (2 pt) solos, which looks a little less embarrassing, but is still pretty terrible.

[WarcasterKramer]

I sold off my trenchers a while ago, I really think they are just too expensive to field. A minimum unit maybe, but a maximum unit just costs way too much.

[vesslan]

Sometimes I use a minimum unit with no extras to use as a smoke screen for eCaine.
Apart from that I haven't played them at all since Field Test.

It's a bit sad, really.
Trenchers are the reason I chose Cygnar to begin with.

[sleet01]

...
It's a bit sad, really.
Trenchers are the reason I chose Cygnar to begin with.

I'm in the same boat. Back in Mk. I, I saw my buddies getting undead exploding zombies, priestly knights, and guys in giant powered armor, while I was drawn to the WWI trench-warfare approach of the Trenchers. Their models are still all playable and effective, but my Trenchers have seen maybe one fight since Mk. II came out.

[Sacredsouless]

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

18 pts....I think I fainted there for a second. Or had a minor stroke. Thats ludicrous....though I agree, a PC change will be good enough for me. And they don't even need to be 5/8 for me to be happier, just 5/9 is cool. Finn should be 2, okay with UA being 3. Still ridiculous...

[Fryerdan]

they're 5/9 with siege's tier and it's still not worth it. they've got mediocre def, mediocre arm, mediocre range, mediocre pow, mediocre melee, mediocre mat, and mediocre rat duct taped to a choice of cover, smoke, or assault. They fight like fodder and cost like elites. Any recosting short of perhaps 4/6 isn't enough to save them from being too expensive to afford the support they require to perform.

It really hurts my heart to say all this, I've tried and tried to be a stalwart defender of the trenchers but I can't find an enemy they're suited to.

[Sacredsouless]

Other trenchers??? Assault into melee, need 8's to hit with your shots, 7's to hit with your bayonet. The shots kill on all but 1's, the bayonet kills on 4+.

[Cygnar2006]

Off the top of my head maybe increasing the fa would be nice. And some kind of bayonet charge or assault to give us a chance in melee situations. How about an order givin by the ua called mad minute which would be like strafe d3+ number of models in the unit

[Defenstrator]

Fixing Trenchers is simple in a game based on points. Trenchers 5/8 Trencher WA 2 points for 3. Trencehr UA 2 points and add Assault and Battery. Finn 2 points. Done.

Now is this ever going to happen before MK III? Probably not, becuase it would screw up the Cygnar book and require the release of new cards.

[Trollicious]

Side note, but I firmly believe trenchers+pCaine are the main reason player 1's deployment zone was reduced from 8" to 7" in SR. No one likes losing 15 models before they get to activate.

[leo_neil316]

Somehow I think that'll have had more to do with eLylyth and Ravyn. Trenchers are alright at it, but a properly put together ravens of war list can take out a heavy jack and a unit at the top of turn one. With more leeway than the trenchers.

Also, jesus wept why the necro cygnar 2006? (Also trenchers have assault)

[ShockFist]

Trenchers need to be made more cheap, I like the 5/8 solution. UA, needs to drop to 2 Pts. Finn, needs to drop to either drop to 2 pts. As for the comparison to the Winterguard, they suck. They are garbage. However since Kovnic Joe is so freaking OP, he makes that unit murderous... If only Finn could do that do the trenchers.... maybe epic Finn will have battle plans or speeches?

[JamesDiGriz]

I will go out on a limb here and say I still really enjoy playing trenchers. I will say I don't think they are for everyone (or in this thread anyone ). Assault does pretty well against Def up to 14 (27.78% + 41.67% chance of hitting) and OK against def 15 (16.67% + 27.78%), access to Dead eye and many other in faction buffs gives you a bubble of 14 inches you can assault and shoot guys with stealth, or 19" without stealth. Generally if either attack hits high def models cry.

I have had similar results against medium multi, wound infantry where the 2 attacks are more likely to hit, and pow 11 + 2D6 + pow 9 + 3D6 tends to beat arm 18, and puts a couple boxes on arm 16 multi wounds.

Eyeless sight does not ignore dug in (although they counter the clouds). Also most things that ignore cover (hunter, sprays) tend to be coupled with a lower rat (mage hunters for example are Rat 6 with the leader being Rat 7), meaning that about half the attacks will miss against the trenchers measly def of 13.

Trenchers bring cover to just about any board (would probably not play them in a city at all), in general can choose to block LOS or not, can put up some decent (although not fantastic, they are generalists) attack numbers, and all around generally find something annoying to do every round in my book.

In my book one of the biggest issues with getting the most out of them is that they are not one dimensional, longgunners/gunmages shoot, stormblades smash, etc. Trenchers when I have had the most success with them tend to alternate between either ADD (everyone does their own thing (3 smoke, 2 CRA, a couple fire AoE's) or they assault something.

[Trollicious]

Somehow I think that'll have had more to do with eLylyth and Ravyn. Trenchers are alright at it, but a properly put together ravens of war list can take out a heavy jack and a unit at the top of turn one. With more leeway than the trenchers.

Also, jesus wept why the necro cygnar 2006? (Also trenchers have assault)

Math failing me... how does lylyth do this? Right now I'm looking at ravagores: 6"(spd)+2"(tier4)+2"(slipstream)+14"(rng)+4"(feat) =28" How do you get this over 30"?

[Griffin839]

ret-con dig-in back to mk 1. +4 def +4 arm. That way they dont lose it to sprays.

[PG_Dino-Czar]

Somehow I think that'll have had more to do with eLylyth and Ravyn. Trenchers are alright at it, but a properly put together ravens of war list can take out a heavy jack and a unit at the top of turn one. With more leeway than the trenchers.

Also, jesus wept why the necro cygnar 2006? (Also trenchers have assault)

Math failing me... how does lylyth do this? Right now I'm looking at ravagores: 6"(spd)+2"(tier4)+2"(slipstream)+14"(rng)+4"(feat) =28" How do you get this over 30"?

I think the problem lies with Striders and Death Stalkers.

edit: Although, fanning auto-fire AOEs over your opponent before they activate isn't friendly either.

[Trollicious]

I think the problem lies with Striders and Death Stalkers.

edit: Although, fanning auto-fire AOEs over your opponent before they activate isn't friendly either.

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.