Why Is Cygnar Artillery So Worthless?

[bouncymischa]

I have a feeling this thread will just get locked or removed or something, since it's not particularly positive nor constructive. But at this point I just feel the need to get it off of my chest.

To be honest, I don't actually mind the Trencher Chaingun. It's unwieldy, but it has it's uses.

On the other hand... why is the Trencher Cannon so absolutely worthless?

Now that the Hordes field test is out, and we've had a chance to see everyone's artillery... Cygnar feels pretty much like the only faction without a decent artillery piece. Everything else has AOE 4, or some kind of critical or special effect attached to it that makes it useful on the battlefield. Cygnar, meanwhile, gets an artillery piece that's somewhat survivable... but does absolutely nothing. The only thing my TCC has ever killed for me are lone infantry models.

Basically, if you take a TCC, you're paying 3 points for absolutely no effect on the battlefield.

Now, I understand that, with the buffs we have access to, it's probably the most precise artillery weapon, capable of getting up to RAT 11 with all the buffs. But then why, WHY does it have the pathetic AOE 3? Why couldn't they actually give the shell a critical effect or something instead? It's also one of THE lowest POW artillery pieces in the game, so the AOE damage is negligible, and even on a direct hit only lone infantry models are going to care.

While the trolls are lauding up their new Thumper as an auto-include, and I'm pretty sure the other factions are satisfied with their pieces, why is Cygnar the only faction to have NO useful artillery?

Why does Privateer hate Cygnar?

[CeltKhan]

Can't say I agree: the Defender and Grenadier are some of the best long-range fire support in the game.

Oh, wait, you mean LIGHT artillery. Well, all I can say to that is: The Defender and Grenadier...

[Typhael]

Now, I understand that, with the buffs we have access to, it's probably the most precise artillery weapon, capable of getting up to RAT 11 with all the buffs. But then why, WHY does it have the pathetic AOE 3? Why couldn't they actually give the shell a critical effect or something instead? It's also one of THE lowest POW artillery pieces in the game, so the AOE damage is negligible, and even on a direct hit only lone infantry models are going to care.

While the trolls are lauding up their new Thumper as an auto-include, and I'm pretty sure the other factions are satisfied with their pieces, why is Cygnar the only faction to have NO useful artillery?

Why does Privateer hate Cygnar?

That first bit might have something to do with it. Before you talk about "other factions", you should check prevailing opinion on the respective forums...Cryx isn't that happy with their own artillery either, and they can't even be buffed the way Cygnar's can.

Also, Cygnar has an insane variety/amount of ranged precision. Maybe they don't really need artillery?

[Professor Lust]

All I can say is there is not a chance the thumper is staying as good as it is.

At best they can hope for it remain as a crit effect.

[Marius]

That first bit might have something to do with it. Before you talk about "other factions", you should check prevailing opinion on the respective forums...Cryx isn't that happy with their own artillery either, and they can't even be buffed the way Cygnar's can.

Also, Cygnar has an insane variety/amount of ranged precision. Maybe they don't really need artillery?

Then why do we have it? What's the point in giving us useless pieces that are bad because we don't need them to be good? It makes no sense from any perspective as far as i can see.

And i feel for you on the Cryx arty, it really isn't all that hot.

[Mutton]

Then why do we have it? What's the point in giving us useless pieces that are bad because we don't need them to be good? It makes no sense from any perspective as far as i can see.

And i feel for you on the Cryx arty, it really isn't all that hot.

Really, I don't think any faction has a real want for the Trencher cannon. Oh wow, we can get a single pow13 AOE3 to great heights of RAT. Whoopdeedo, it's a single pow13.

[iknowinternet]

In the faction that lays claim to the Defender, any artillery is gonna be kind of redundant. I wish the TCC had arcing fire and crit knockdown or something, but that wouldn't make it any better than the Grenadier.

[dergliss]

I'm not going to say that the TCC is as good or better than the other artillery out there, but you are whining and awful lot without considering what you can do with this unit. In my pCaine army I bring the TCC and a Grenadier and advance deploy them on some rough terrain and/or elevation with Snipe on the Grenadier. That's 8 points that are putting down four three inch AoEs a round and turning their threat range into a fourteen inch radius no-go zone for any non-Shield Walled infantry. And with them all dug in on elevated rough terrain, they're Def. 19 vs ranged and unchargeable without pathfinder making them a real hassle to remove.

What I'm trying to say is that you should look at everything that is available and what you're able to do with it. Even if Privateer Press really does hate Cygnar, whining and complaining about it won't do anything.

[whats82]

Lay claim to defender.. what about the hydra ?

[Mutton]

I'm not going to say that the TCC is as good or better than the other artillery out there, but you are whining and awful lot without considering what you can do with this unit. In my pCaine army I bring the TCC and a Grenadier and advance deploy them on some rough terrain and/or elevation with Snipe on the Grenadier. That's 8 points that are putting down four three inch AoEs a round and turning their threat range into a fourteen inch radius no-go zone for any non-Shield Walled infantry. And with them all dug in on elevated rough terrain, they're Def. 19 vs ranged and unchargeable without pathfinder making them a real hassle to remove.

What I'm trying to say is that you should look at everything that is available and what you're able to do with it. Even if Privateer Press really does hate Cygnar, whining and complaining about it won't do anything.

Ugh; people aren't whining at this point. We're bummed that it sucks and have tried to put it out of sight, out of mind until someone brings it up. The problem with your setup is that A. pow6s and 7s aren't very scary against most infantry and B. that even a Chain Gun would be better at that point in terms of stoping charges against the Grenadier. And the Chain Gun is pretty weak for it's points at that.

Can you use the Trencher Cannon in friendly games? Yes. But that's not saying much. Overall, it just really needs something to make it decent. I just don't know what.

[Defenstrator]

What I'm trying to say is that you should look at everything that is available and what you're able to do with it. Even if Privateer Press really does hate Cygnar, whining and complaining about it won't do anything.

Saying that the Trencher Cannon sucks is not whining. It is stating a plain fact. The best moment I have ever had with it was when shot a light jack on Seige's feat turn. Otherwise all I have seen the Cannon do is kill 1, maybe 2 infantry models during a game, if that. The AOE is bad, the POW is weak for the price and it has no scare factor at all. I have never once seen my opponent ever do anything to change their plans because it was there, or even attack it unless it was the only thing that happened to be in range.

It sucks and people are going to keep on stating that fact until the thing gets changed. Which we all really wished had happened before this whole second edition came out.

[DrBaltar]

I dont think that the TCC is so worthless, whether it belongs to that pieces (TCG, Hammersmith, Charger) i dont have bought yet to complete my army It is our cheapest (standalone-)way for AoE-access and one of his main roles besides accurat shooting is to kill some high def or stealth units, but its hard to do this job with his current pointcost and only 3" AoE. For other roles like more accurat shooting and high damage we have Jacks(boost) and several shooting units, which are more flexible...

[Justicator]

TCC is good, not great, but it is good. It can advance deploy, which means it can start shooting at least a turn earlier than other artillery. It's got 15 inch range which is respectable.

And with dig-in it's the most defensible artillery in the game (note haven't seen new Hordes stuff yet). Granted dig-in got nerfed, but def 19 is huge especially with immunity to blast damage. Even with our best bonuses Protectorate needs ~12 to hit this thing from range.

Another advantage, your grunts can actually shoot 10 inches themselves with a Pow 11. That'll do a decent job keeping melee infantry and solos from getting to this thing.

Pair it up with a grenadier or something else that can put holes in jacks and you have one of the most annoying formations in the game (especially when put on elevated terrain)

[Rapier]

The two light artillery pieces are bad because they have no role in our army. I think that the TCC at least would be useful to an army with limited range because it's got a fairly nice base range.

The TCC would be better to Cygnar if it was a heavy shot like the defender imo, no aoe just a higher pow (say 15), used for cracking big nuts and makes up for the fact we mainly only have pow 10's.

Even then though, ultimately I think that without having special rules Artillery in WM/H just isn't that good... you'll always get more out of CRA and/or a Jack, for damage and number of shots.

[Killionaire]

We're getting a new arty though in the new book, that Stormsmith Crew. Since they're so weird, surely that won't suck...

But righto. The TCC is worthless, because Cygnar's best artillery is Lt. Darsey Ryan, who basically launches a Tempest that doesn't KD. That's amazing.

[iksander]

The problem with your setup is that A. pow6s and 7s aren't very scary against most infantry...

Pow 7s are reasonable for blast damage. There's a lot more Arm 11-13 infantry being fielded so its definitely a reasonable pow. It's not great by any stretch, but meh...

I'd say the big problem with Cygnaran AoE's (Barring the Grenadier which I take for multiple Arcing Fire shots more than anything) is that their counter intuitive. The purpose for AoEs is to scatter so you can hopefully tag more than one squishy target, not being accurate direct fire weapons with low pow and small AoEs (The Trencher Cannon Situation) or require Direct hits (The Stormblade Situation).

[Marius]

What about if artillery was a bit less powerful (not necessarily the Cygnar one, as it's already pretty weak) but had an extreme range. Really extreme, like 18-20". Just make sure it's not powerful/accurate enough to not really threaten anything but clumped up light-medium infantry/solos. As long as you make sure it can't do significant damage to important stuff early in the game but is more a board control type threat, it might have more of a place.

[whats82]

What about if artillery was a bit less powerful (not necessarily the Cygnar one, as it's already pretty weak) but had an extreme range. Really extreme, like 18-20". Just make sure it's not powerful/accurate enough to not really threaten anything but clumped up light-medium infantry/solos. As long as you make sure it can't do significant damage to important stuff early in the game but is more a board control type threat, it might have more of a place.

You mean like the khadoran mortar ?

[isawatsuke]

What about if artillery was a bit less powerful (not necessarily the Cygnar one, as it's already pretty weak) but had an extreme range. Really extreme, like 18-20". Just make sure it's not powerful/accurate enough to not really threaten anything but clumped up light-medium infantry/solos. As long as you make sure it can't do significant damage to important stuff early in the game but is more a board control type threat, it might have more of a place.

I dont think its a case of privateer press not knowing what to do with artillery in thier game. I mean i would gladly take some of the existing artillery piecs out there, the thumper, khadors mortar, menoths team, and of course the commodore cannon. So pp knows how to make usable artillery pieces and no catch all change is needed.

Of course pp did not come up with the trencher cannon in a day. As far as i know they were playtesting these models over a long period (a year i think?). So with the stated goal of all pieces being equally usable in mk2 thier designers and playtesters got togheter and decided that this piece could be used in a masters level army. I mean if they designed and playtested it for so long a time they must be right right? Not to mention a field test to get feedback from cygnar players. Apparently we all agreed that the cannon was equally as competetive as lets say the black 13th

[CeltKhan]

Thing is, Cygnar doesn't have a whole lot of AoE, so the Trencher cannon seems to be addressing that. The problem isn't that the cannon is overshadowed by the Black Thirteenth et al, it's overshadowed by Herne and Jonne.

[Marius]

The Khadoran mortar and Sunburst crew are already at the sweet spot. Both have a long range and decent ability for their points. I'm not so sure about the field gun, but that's not exactly traditional artillery. Same with the TCG.

However, with the exception of the Commodore, the cannons in WM (i'm not gonna even consider Hordes untill after the field test) arn't up to scratch. Unless they're mounted on a warjack.

If they had a longer effective range than a warjack, similar to the mortar, they might find themselves more useful as tactical disruption weapons. Currently, it's a shame, because while both the TCC & RCC are not compleatly useless, the general consensus seems to be that your handicapping yourself taking them and they are only really of use in friendly games when you take them for reasons other than them being competative.

[Lexington]

Why does Privateer hate Cygnar?

Privateer doesn't hate Cygnar; Cygnar does fine in MkII. I think it's more appropriate to ask why Privateer hates Trenchers.

[bouncymischa]

I'm not going to say that the TCC is as good or better than the other artillery out there, but you are whining and awful lot without considering what you can do with this unit.

I'll freely admit that this was largely a rant -- going over the Hordes Field Test has felt rather like rubbing salt in old wounds. I have a sneaking suspicion Privateer doesn't really have a concept in mind for Cygnar anymore (and would, quite possibly, prefer to see them just fade away). Certainly we have more worthless or lacklustre pieces than any two other factions put together.

I'm not going to get into the issue of whether artillery ranges in general are poor. I'm just going to settle for comparing the TCC to other artillery pieces as-is.

Getting back to the TCC together...

TCC is good, not great, but it is good. It can advance deploy, which means it can start shooting at least a turn earlier than other artillery. It's got 15 inch range which is respectable.

And with dig-in it's the most defensible artillery in the game (note haven't seen new Hordes stuff yet). Granted dig-in got nerfed, but def 19 is huge especially with immunity to blast damage. Even with our best bonuses Protectorate needs ~12 to hit this thing from range.

Another advantage, your grunts can actually shoot 10 inches themselves with a Pow 11. That'll do a decent job keeping melee infantry and solos from getting to this thing.

Pair it up with a grenadier or something else that can put holes in jacks and you have one of the most annoying formations in the game (especially when put on elevated terrain)

This is perhaps the best summary of the TCC's good points. It is highly survivable. Sure, there are lots of things that can ignore Cover now -- but I've been playing with my Mk II Trenchers, and they can annoy any ranged unit that doesn't have those abilities. Certainly the TCC can annoy a Widowmaker team that's trying to pick them off, in contrast to any of the other artillery. They also do have the best secondary weapons in the game -- none of the Hordes artillery even has ranged attacks on its crew. And any RAT buffs you're giving the cannon work for the crew as well, so they can readily fire at RAT 11 along with the cannon if you want.

The downside is that it doesn't really do anything, as I said before. Even the Cryx cannon can at least fire through buildings, giving it perhaps even better survivability than the TCC. Every other piece has a higher AOE (threatening infantry), or some sort of special effect attached to the gun. Nobody's going to be afraid of the TCC on its own, and if you're attaching a Grenadier to it or something, you're paying 8 points for the combination. Your opponent could be taking 12 infantry for that price -- or a unit of heavy infantry, or a warjack, which could simply wade through the fire.

On the other hand, as mentioned, Herne and Jonne bring 3 AOEs for the same price, and a POW 14 gun. Admittedly, they don't benefit from the RAT buffs...

In the end, I can see one use for the TCC -- it's an ant-artillery gun. Pretty much none of the other artillery pieces can hurt the TCC, and even its small AOE 3 can kill off an entire artillery crew with a direct hit. So maybe it's supposed to be our counter-artillery gun.

[CT GAMER]

I wish the mods would really crack down on the trolling that is the "your whining..." posts in all it's forms.

If someone posts something that they want to discuss or express displeasure with and they are not breaking any forum rules then respond if you must, counter their argument if you want, but calling someone a whiner is nothing but an obvious attempt to troll which is supposedly not in line with the new philosophy of the forums.

It is no different then if when someone posted how much they love something that people stated calling them " brown nosing suck-up a** kissing fanboys". That certainly wouldn't be allowed, so why this?

As soon as the "your a whiner' stance is allowed to be established in a thread you have set the stage for a rapid decline in quality of discussion, increased hostility (and the usual dog piling) and so forth that usually derails any potential for valuable discussion and often results in a lock.

Seriously...

[CT GAMER]

Privateer doesn't hate Cygnar; Cygnar does fine in MkII. I think it's more appropriate to ask why Privateer hates Trenchers.

The "hate" that Cygnar receives is because you have a faction that is touted as having cutting edge firearms tech and loads of ranged unit/model options in a game that heavily espouses a melee-centric philosophy and a player community that see's ranged themed armies as somehow not the "right" way to play even though such a force is a perfectly legal build.

That is why you have people screaming that your not "page five" and not "playing like you have a pair" when they think you have too many guns as if some acceptable number could ever be agreed upon.

That is why gun ranges are so short.

that is why a good many models can run/charge further in a turn then most guns cna shoot in a turn.

That is why scenarios like kill box and mosh pit are so popular.

etc. ,etc.

ranged-heavy armies are the red headed step-children of WM...

[iksander]

They also do have the best secondary weapons in the game -- none of the Hordes artillery even has ranged attacks on its crew. And any RAT buffs you're giving the cannon work for the crew as well, so they can readily fire at RAT 11 along with the cannon if you want.

I believe this is the crux of the problem. Cygnar players want functional and effective artillery. Privateer opted to give us artillery that is crappy but has 2 additional guns. Privateer believes that the effective three attacks (that can reach the excellent RAT levels the Trencher Cannon can manage) makes it a worthwhile piece.

They don't understand that we'd gladly trade out our freaking military rifles for worthwhile rules inherent to the artillery. (Well they could understand it but the Military rifles are some how necessary to be "fluffy" for the Trenchers.)

[bouncymischa]

They don't understand that we'd gladly trade out our freaking military rifles for worthwhile rules inherent to the artillery. (Well they could understand it but the Military rifles are some how necessary to be "fluffy" for the Trenchers.)

Admittedly, I'd just be happy if the TCC was POW 15. As-is, it can't really threaten anything other than single-wound infantry. At POW 15, it could at least get some damage in on lighter warjacks/warbeasts or cavalry...

(Sadly, I even said so in the Field Test, but nothing came of it. )

Maybe I'll have to try it out, though, and see just how much use I get out of those rifles.

[Techcasualty]

atleast it has a cool model?

[Typhael]

Then why do we have it? What's the point in giving us useless pieces that are bad because we don't need them to be good? It makes no sense from any perspective as far as i can see.

And i feel for you on the Cryx arty, it really isn't all that hot.

First of all, thank you. Second of all, it's for some sense of "balance", in that every faction gets a piece, just like every faction gets cav. You may not like it (Cryx in mkI, for instance), but you still get it.

It's a silly reason, but I think that it speaks to PP's attempt to present factions as equal in some way.

Also, I second the comments about the Defender. Cygnar has access to accurate, fairly long ranged direct fire. Scattering artillery weapons just aren't their thing.

[TsavongLah]

True, but the Defender is a pretty expensive 9 points. Don't get me wrong, it's an amazing 'jack, but it's not the ultra cheap 3-point artillery pieces that Khador and Protectorate have.

[Typhael]

True, but the Defender is a pretty expensive 9 points. Don't get me wrong, it's an amazing 'jack, but it's not the ultra cheap 3-point artillery pieces that Khador and Protectorate have.

Agreed. But I also don't think that it's Cygnar's "point" to be both a good artillery *and* direct fire faction.

That said, I wish that they just hadn't made some of the crappier models...to heck with getting some sort of visual balance.

[bouncymischa]

Scattering artillery weapons just aren't their thing.

I'm just bitter because I like artillery, I like Trenchers, and I love the model. I'm just disappointed that I feel a bit like I'm hamstringing myself by taking it.

[isawatsuke]

First of all, thank you. Second of all, it's for some sense of "balance", in that every faction gets a piece, just like every faction gets cav. You may not like it (Cryx in mkI, for instance), but you still get it.

It's a silly reason, but I think that it speaks to PP's attempt to present factions as equal in some way.

Also, I second the comments about the Defender. Cygnar has access to accurate, fairly long ranged direct fire. Scattering artillery weapons just aren't their thing.

I disagree with this. I mean isnt the point of mk2 to have models that are equally competetive with each other? Until the first expansion of course. I dont have anything to quote but im pretty sure PP said that that was one of the points of mark2. If that was one of thier point and they release unplayable models then mk2 pretty much had no point at all. I get that as the game develops with more and more expansions then it is impossible to have game balance. From a bussiness standpoint you have to provide an excuse for the people to buy the new expansion but in the beggining all models should be in the same power level, moreso in a non-collectable game like this.

on the defender. Fine a lot of people feel that it is a vastly superior piece to the trencher cannon but then what about the cannon? If we get a defender then its ok to have a useless slot?

[mauler78]

I think the trencher cannon is a great piece. You place it behind a unit with ranked attack, slap a grenadier on it, and you have long range AOE death for 4 shots a turn with a single rifle shot. Not sure how that is bad, but I guess not everyone can see the combos.

Also, most games that I played lately, I might not get to shoot at much with the cannon, but it keep my opponent off of one side of the field for fear of his infantry getting hit with it.

Or you can throw Snipe on it for a turn and get a good punch to the face in the first turn or two.

Albeit, I will not say it is the better Artillery piece in the game, but what is everyone's deal with expecting that the faction you play have the best stuff. I still think that Cygnar is king of the range combat arena. We have more range combat options then any other faction. And if you really need go long range artillery, then play Siege with a Defender, and cast explosivo.

[Wishfullthinker]

I don't think either of our artillery pieces are garbage, but I don't think they are competitive with the other stuff we have in our arsenal.
The problem comes down to a farily simple thing, threat range. The chain gun has one of the smallest threat ranges of any of our models, and the cannon crew isn't that great either. I would say the cannon crew is better just for the fact it does have a longer threat range. Personaly I think both models have their place, just it takes the right scenario, which there hasn't been one made yet.

[bouncymischa]

I think the trencher cannon is a great piece. You place it behind a unit with ranked attack, slap a grenadier on it, and you have long range AOE death for 4 shots a turn with a single rifle shot. Not sure how that is bad, but I guess not everyone can see the combos.

Actually, you can get two rifle shots, since the grunts don't need to do anything to activate the +2 bonus.

I think my only problem with the "anti-infantry firebase" is that it's an 8 point module, whereas most other artillery functions pretty much independently. (The Trolls currently will probably take an Impaler almost constantly with one... but they tend to take Impalers all the time anyways. XD)

[Peregrine]

I don't know about you guys, but range 15 surprises the hell out of people I play against. I just camp that cannon near the middle of the field and take some shots until I open up line of site to something like a choir leader of necrosurgeon or various other squishy things that are rather annoying.

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if the choir leader is such a big target anymore as the other dudes pick up his stick and paper...but either way, nobody really expects a pow 13 to be hitting their little guys at the back with RAT 11...

[Corevak]

to I know this dose not partane much to this form but Orboros has the worst artillery model in the game. It has no SPD, STR, MAT, RAT, DEF, ARM, or name. Orboros has no artillery model. I'm not saying this to complain I'm just pointing it out.

I play Cygnar and Orboros and while I have not used the TCC I can see some potential to it but I will save any final judgment for after I use it.

[Typhael]

I disagree with this. I mean isnt the point of mk2 to have models that are equally competetive with each other? Until the first expansion of course. I dont have anything to quote but im pretty sure PP said that that was one of the points of mark2. If that was one of thier point and they release unplayable models then mk2 pretty much had no point at all. I get that as the game develops with more and more expansions then it is impossible to have game balance. From a bussiness standpoint you have to provide an excuse for the people to buy the new expansion but in the beggining all models should be in the same power level, moreso in a non-collectable game like this.

on the defender. Fine a lot of people feel that it is a vastly superior piece to the trencher cannon but then what about the cannon? If we get a defender then its ok to have a useless slot?

Ok, cool. So if I read your reading of my post correctly...can I have my Cryxian Long Gunners now, please?

I don't think either of our artillery pieces are garbage, but I don't think they are competitive with the other stuff we have in our arsenal.
The problem comes down to a farily simple thing, threat range. The chain gun has one of the smallest threat ranges of any of our models, and the cannon crew isn't that great either. I would say the cannon crew is better just for the fact it does have a longer threat range. Personaly I think both models have their place, just it takes the right scenario, which there hasn't been one made yet.

And the chain gun is a model that other factions would kill for (even as an artillery piece), so perhaps it's more of a question of "what is better in-faction" than "what is better, period".

[Stevo]

All I can say is there is not a chance the thumper is staying as good as it is.

At best they can hope for it remain as a crit effect.

Really? I don't agree with your assumption that it will be changed just because it is "too good". Especially given the Thumper's terrible showing in MK I. By your standards, the Charger should have been changed from the Field Test to MK II. The Commodore has Momentum, too. It costs only a point more.

I think that the TCC might see some benefit in a Theme Force, as may many of the other Trencher Units. At this point I don't see much benefit in complaining about the Cannon because it probably won't help.