Plus, they didn't change the Covenant between the field test and MkII. I can't believe that all the none Protectorate players thought it was priced right at 2 points. I'm pretty sure even the Protectorate players thought it too cheap.
Well I had slowly been picking up trolls as my first hordes faction and from a personal level I am quite thrilled the thumper is awesome.
However here's the deal.
Rat 7 hits Def 14 reliably. Warbeats and Warjacks, with a few exceptions, are 14 or less. In fact most heavies are Def 13 or less.
Sure POW 14 is nothing fancy but momentum is hands down awesome.
You can say the Thumper isn't scary since the Commodore also has momentum and no one said boo. However you would be wrong because the Commodore has a shot choice which grants it a momentum-esque ability.
I'll grant you they are comparable but its like comparing Gala apples to Granny Smith apples.
Thumper is FA: 2 and fieldable with any troll caster.
The commodore is FA:C and fieldable with only one caster.
Every turn that your heavy beasts/jacks are exposed at all (remember screening is gone) and within 14" they can get slammed back 1" to 6" which can also damage other units.
Who needs to kill heavies when you keep them 14" away from your cannon?
The thumper is awesome.
Perhaps its my cygnar pessimism showing but we had a tonne of awesome in the FT. 7 focus SCs, PNemo turning heavies into bullets with 12"+ of movement etc.
I think the thumper will be tuned down but if its not well my trolls will be happy.
I mostly made this thread because I love Trenchers, and artillery, and Privateer basically spat all over them in Mk II. "If you want to play Cygnar, play very specific auto-include lists. We don't really have any interest in giving you good Trencher models -- especially artillery, which everyone else gets special abilities from... except you!".
So I wanted to rant. XD
Last edited by bouncymischa; 11-27-2009 at 10:03 AM.
I dont know why, but i always feel that one TCC isnt enough, if you ever field them...
Btw anyone tried the following combinations?:
- 2xTCC + Finn or Rangers + 2xMagic Bullet
- 2xTCC + Finn or Rangers + pHaley(feat-turn)
- 2xTCC + Finn or Rangers + 2xDefender(with explosive) + Siege
- 2xTCC + Finn or Rangers + Snipe-Caster
The point is to get the most out of the first 2 turns.
Last edited by DrBaltar; 11-27-2009 at 10:44 AM.
The first is magic bullet delivery. Gun Mages are FAR, FAR better systems.
The second is volume of fire. The quantity of your shots are usually doubled with pHaley. The problem is, the quality of TCC fire is zero. 0 times 2 equals zero. Buy better guys.
The third doesn't mean anything. Those Defenders are the good stuff, not TCCs. If you want blasts, Herne and Jonne are three times better than one TCC.
Snipe? You're wasting snipe on a TCC instead of Long Gunners?
Honestly, I can see one of three things to do to make the TCC better. Bring the AOE up to 4, bring the Pow up to 14, or drop the cost to 2 pts. It may not make him amazing, but certainly more usable.
The AD and Dig in means that the TCC can start threatening things a lot sooner than most artillery (especially in a faction with so many range buffs), but he currently lacks anything to make him a real threat other than forcing your opponent from clumping up his light infantry. I don't think it needs much to be usable, just a little something extra.
I personally don't expect our TCC to improve until we get our own version of mcdougal.
As for the grenadier, the new formation rules have made 3" AOEs a lot less useful vs. infantry, even before the POW6 blast damage. The grenadier is more about putting out a lot of arcing fire POW12s, the AOE is just icing. Icing made out of Splenda, but still icing.
Last edited by Arkady; 11-27-2009 at 07:17 PM.
Well, at least they're better than GW.Balance, I'm afraid, is not something that PP excels at.
Meh, I don't know. The new format 'dexes are actually quite well written and balanced, with no more lemons or b0rken stuff per book than PP. The 5th edition rule-set is solid, and the price and material differentials no longer exist. I don't think Privateer can claim the "kewl indy company run by players for players and awesome" tagline they've brandished with pride for so long.
Before any nerd-rage is triggered, this is more an observation than a criticism.
Admittedly, I look at the AD as being essentially an extra 6" of range, which makes it comparable to most of the other artillery. Dig In does make it the second-most survivable piece (after the Cryx cannon, which can hide behind any obstruction to shoot).
It really wouldn't work as a 2 point piece, because it's probably straight-up better than the Khadoran Field Gun, which is 2 points. AOE 4... maybe, but I do look at it as more of a precision gun that the mortar and Skorne catapult. Personally, I'd say if they just boosted it to POW 15, it'd at least be more menacing.
But maybe that'd make it too over-the-top against solos? I dunno... but I think it's the best solution, unless they wanted to take off the AOE and give it a critical or something.
AoE4s are able to hit multiple models reliably. AoE3s aren't really, unless you miss and deviate into the right spot with the center between multiple models... which isn't what the TCC does with it's rat. To make it worse, everything in Cygnar has the same rat or better. 7s and even 8s are pretty common.
Really, the TCC, like the Sentinel and TCG, is just a bit shy of being useful. Not particularly strong, but useful.
I dont see how the Trencher Cannon Crew is all that bad compared to other artillery. It seems pretty equal to the Scather Catapult to me. Maybe give the Trencher Cannon Crew +1 POW, but I think thats all it needs. Now if you wanna argue the Trencher Cannon Crew has no real place in your army because you have better options for similar points, well thats a completely different gripe. But as far as artillery pieces go, the Cannon Crew seems to be about on the same level as most of the other artillery pieces in the game (excluding the stupidly good ones like the mortar).
Last edited by Soulblighter; 11-28-2009 at 01:20 AM.
Hmmmm. I look at it and I see a 15" 13 POW attack and 2 10" 11 POW attacks at RAT 7 for 3 points. They are pretty hard to kill too. If you guys don't like them, don't take them. If you think there are better options out there feel free to say so. Please don't call them worthless. I would honestly take them if I could.
OR you could look at it as a MkI Charger. =)
Completely unassuming and innocent and ignored until a key solo eats a Pow 13.
I would dump my 2 Trencher rifles in a heartbeat for actual badass rules, instead of responses like "Well you also have 2 Rifles with the cannon so..." I don't want to pay for more Range 10 weapons. Seriously, it's a Cygnaran niche that doesn't need anymore models.
I don't care that the cannon can redeploy and take 2 shots while doing, because the chances are I'll have models performing a similar roll, but actually managing to be effective. If I want to pepper a unit with AoEs, I can just take Herne and Jonne at the same cost and pay for 3 AoEs with the same blast damage pow. If I want accurate fire I can pony up for three Stormsmiths. If I just want to absolutely destroy the cannon in comparison I'll spend 1 more point and grab the Black 13th.
That Skorne Thingie
Scather (Although it does provide a cloud of killing)
Revanant Cannon (Though it can shoot through walls and grants a buff to the army...)
So out of all the artillery, it's definately on the low end of things. Not to mention that indeed, it's outclassed within it's own faction by literally 3 or 4 different choices.
The Sunburst is good? Thats gotta be the easiest 3 points to kill in the game. DEF12 ARM11 on a unit that has to bunch up? Its AOE bait. I think DEF13 ARM13 and Dig In is really being underestimated on the Trencher Cannon Crew. It actually gets to survive long enough to fire more than one shot.
Yes, the Sunburst is good. Because it has a lot of firepower, and is accurate. The Trencher Cannon has survivability, but it doesn't do any damage.
And the Sunburst's 16 inch range means that if you want to kill it, you're sending something out ahead of your army to die. That's game experience against a bizzare new Menoth shooting meta. It's a lot of effort to kill for 3 points, for the same reason that the Mortar is a lot of effort to kill for 3 points (although the Mortar is even FARTHER back).
As to PP, I think that if you honestly feel they aren't an indy company run by players for players then you should shred your Hordes Field Test manual and cards. GW will NEVER give that kind of power to their players. Shame on you.
As to the OP, I think that with certain Warcasters the TCC is better than others. I think that the theme lists in the Forces book will be a place where some of the less than awesome items may become better.
1) The Trencher Cannon was thrown in there to give Cygnar an artillery option so that people wouldn't cry "foul" when other factions got artillery;
2) The Trencher Cannon is a back-bencher because it is outdone by other in-faction options.
In the first case, I think that PP shouldn't have tried to release the same "type" of model for each faction in this case (just look at Khador, who doesn't get light warjacks...Cygnar could have just as easily gone without "artillery"). In the second case, I lament the release of a piece that looks neat, but doesn't do what the faction wants it to do. If you have better options, you should definitely use them, but that doesn't change the fact that this "useless" (or less useful) model is still on some people's shelves.
But thats not really part of the topic so back to the trencher cannon.
Im actually surprised so many people are defending it and feel it is a competetive piece that can compete at the highest levels. I guess i will be seeing cygnar lists this year that get in the top 8 of masters or any other big tournament with the trencher cannon.
I have never been convinced that PP really wanted artillery and support weapons in the game.
Players wanted them, and they make for some cool models, but the rules have for the most part never really lived up to the what one would expect from this class of weaponry. Almost as if PP was afraid to give them their due.
Being that WM is a skirmish game and highly focused on melee perhaps this sort of weaponry just doesn't belong...
By that token, the Khadoran mortars around here give Cygnaran firing lines something to be afraid of, so I hesitate to say that *all* artillery is unnecessary...
Btw i see all these comments about how the tcc is a rat 11 weapon. so im seeing rat 5 +2 for the base unit. Impossible to aim so no +2 from there and another +2 from finn so thats rat 9? where is the other +2 coming from? a unit of rangers?
Also finn says he gives trencher "troopers" models get the bonus. So is that like only grunts? or all trenchers grunts + leaders?
yeah isawatsuke you have it right. they are base 7 from them selves and then gain a +2 from Finn and a +2 from the Rangers.
edit: A trooper is the word for all warrior models that are not warcasters or solos.
See page 29 of the rule book.
I mean i can see TCCs in a Siege Trencher Theme list supported by the TCGs as an AD Firebase.
however, the weakness of all trenchers is magnified in our artillery pieces. The TGC used to be cool in the FT when you could move and suppressing fire. The TCC has unforunately never been cool. A single POW 13 AOE 3 shot just isn't impressive. Pow 15 or AOE 4 would be good enough.
While I am wishing, I wish we had a solo (a trencher solo! :P ) that could grant snipe.
Last edited by Professor Lust; 11-28-2009 at 06:35 PM.
Can the TCC start the game dug-in and still fire? If so, that might be part of why it costs "so much" for what it does. Playing a relatively static line (or even one with slight movement), the TCC has a huge def boost, and is immune to blast damage.
Not that I'm justifying use of the cannon; I'm just trying to figure out why it might be the way it is. I know that most players don't play this way, but I've played against some who do. It certainly isn't a "play like you've got a pair" approach.
I'll admit, Dig In has been growing on me (probably from playing the new Trenchers, and having them survive to actually shoot a variety of things). The TCC can survive an attack from any of the other artillery pieces and shoot back. I figure that's why Privateer sees it as being "balanced". It's survivable, and AD gives it a virtual extra 6", so it can (kind of) match even the Mortar for range.
My only issue is that, aside from other artillery crews, no one really cares if the TCC shoots them. If it was POW 15, like pretty much all of the other PC 3 artillery, then it could at least be a threat to light warjacks and warbeasts, or random solos. It wouldn't be Mortar/Thumper great, but I think it'd be good enough.
POW 13 isn't bad especially on the most usable, defensible, survivable artillery in the game.
On average rolls it's hitting Arm 20, that's a dead solo, troop, w/e. It's going to be a few damage on a heavy and a 3~5 on a light depending on the faction your facing.
It's not huge damage, but it's definitely annoying and diverts the opponents focus from the rest of your army. If they don't deal with it, then they willtake damage every turn they're in range. If they do deal with it, then good luck hitting the darn thing.
Either way, the Cygnar artillery hits early, often and more then any other artillery peice.
Sure Sunnies are powerful, but I have to dedicate either Jacks to escort them into position or just hope they don't get hit trying to get into position. Then I can get a shot or two off before they get squished by just about any ranged weapon in the game.
So, you gotta ask yourself. Is the spike of damage better or the consistency and usability?
The TCC really just needs one of the following: More AoE, More Range, More POW or More Value.
If it was AoE4, it'd be able to engage and destroy light armored targets far easier.
If it was RNG18 or 20, it'd be a perfect counter-battery and harrassment piece.
If it had POW15, it'd be solid enough to dent things like the Great Bears or Bastions.
If it was 2 points, it'd be cheap enough to take on a modest whim.
If you want a 2 point gun, you can take my winterguard field gun off my hands, and I'll take that aoe blasting, advanced deploying, dug in work of art any day.
I have to agree with some of the above posts that we didn't really need an artillery piece. Heck, I think by fluff, few of the factions beyond Khador and possibly Skorne should have had field artillery. We seem to be as a faction devoted more to direct fire then scattering.
We "should get" artillery in the same way as we should get medium base multi-wound heavy infantry. "Because everybody else has them" is not sufficient reason for me.
Yes, it would be nice if it was better, but I'm not complaining too much. I didn't buy it, I'm not using it. Which, admittedly, makes me biased.
It might be that it works surprisingly well in some Mk2 niche we haven't found yet, but I'm not too bothered.
Hmm, it interacts with rangers, doesn't it?
Done deal, but I have to tell you that we're robbing you.If you want a 2 point gun, you can take my winterguard field gun off my hands, and I'll take that aoe blasting, advanced deploying, dug in work of art any day.