|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Aug 20, 2017 22:53:56 GMT
Simply put Imagine if the Battle Mechanics had the "Winter Gaurd" Keyword.
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Aug 21, 2017 1:16:30 GMT
The difference with these Trencher mechanics is they are a unit I would take every opportunity I got if I was playing Cygnar. Put Snipe on them while dug in and you have a unit that has RAT 6 Range 14 does not suffer blast damage and is DEF 17 against ranged attacks. If you stick one or two dug in Grenadiers B2B with them then each Grenadier has RAT 6, ROF 3, AOE 3, POW 13 shots and can be repaired easily by the B2B mechanics on the off chance they are hit. It's a great synergy to me and costs 14 points for the combo. So it's the same cost as a Destroyer only you have 3 RAT 6, AOE 3, POW 13 shots and 3 RAT 6, POW 10 shots. That sure seems like quite a bargain. But none of this is something that mechanically could not be already achieved (at the same cost per model), using regular Trenchers. If you play a Snipe caster and 3 POW10s with no special effects are your best target for a 4" range increase, that doesn't seem like a great list design. I would seriously consider the Grenadier + Mechanik package (with a jack marshal), but I don't think it's possible to highlight certain aspects of it and present it as simply superior to a Destroyer (which is a jack I like). The Grenadier combo is good, but: (1) Very weak in melee (unlike a Destroyer); (2) Lose dig in once engaged; (3) Very static to obtain good defensive abilities - this makes it predictable; (4) Only RNG10 - important because firing places it in melee threat range; (5) Multiple shots are vulnerable to infantry being picked off - Eliminators are great for this; (6) The POW13 shots will only get one boost across those three attacks unless Focus is allocated. It would actually be a good jack to marshal, but there's only jack marshal for Trenchers.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Aug 21, 2017 2:03:00 GMT
So it's the same cost as a Destroyer only you have 3 RAT 6, AOE 3, POW 13 shots and 3 RAT 6, POW 10 shots. Where you getting that focus from? Trencherjr/jakes/etc is good, but that cost should be accounted for too. Very few warcasters want to fuel grenadiers. I could see it with nemo2?
|
|
|
Post by jonnyboy on Aug 21, 2017 2:45:34 GMT
The difference with these Trencher mechanics is they are a unit I would take every opportunity I got if I was playing Cygnar. Put Snipe on them while dug in and you have a unit that has RAT 6 Range 14 does not suffer blast damage and is DEF 17 against ranged attacks. If you stick one or two dug in Grenadiers B2B with them then each Grenadier has RAT 6, ROF 3, AOE 3, POW 13 shots and can be repaired easily by the B2B mechanics on the off chance they are hit. It's a great synergy to me and costs 14 points for the combo. So it's the same cost as a Destroyer only you have 3 RAT 6, AOE 3, POW 13 shots and 3 RAT 6, POW 10 shots. That sure seems like quite a bargain. Great synergy. But the grenadier was designed that way and performs just as amazing with regular trenchers. So i don't think it's a knock against the mechanics
|
|
|
Post by tapecrawler on Aug 21, 2017 4:19:51 GMT
I don't disagree completely with any of the counter arguments to my points. It's just frustrating to me that you have Cygnar (and to a lesser extent, Cryx) that have been designed from the botttom up as an integrated force with a lot of synergy in the interactions between models and Khador where the individual models are very strong in melee but are lacking the synergy combinations other factions have. gobber - the Grenadier has a ROF 1 but if there are trencher models B2B it gets a manual reload for each model up to a maximum of 2. So it could be in the caster's battlegroup and would only need a focus to dig in.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Aug 21, 2017 4:50:19 GMT
gobber - the Grenadier has a ROF 1 but if there are trencher models B2B it gets a manual reload for each model up to a maximum of 2. So it could be in the caster's battlegroup and would only need a focus to dig in. Understood. You want to boost those damage rolls though or you'll have mighty limited target selection, which is the reason for a trencher junior or whatnot. Otherwise charger is probably more advantageous.
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Aug 21, 2017 5:07:06 GMT
I don't disagree completely with any of the counter arguments to my points. It's just frustrating to me that you have Cygnar (and to a lesser extent, Cryx) that have been designed from the botttom up as an integrated force with a lot of synergy in the interactions between models and Khador where the individual models are very strong in melee but are lacking the synergy combinations other factions have. Why is that frustrating? Different factions have different playstyles, different design philosophies. Personally I like the relative simplicity of Khador's "each model is pretty good on it's own and doesn't NEED another model to work". Pick the faction who's playstyle you like, right?
|
|
|
Post by tapecrawler on Aug 21, 2017 5:56:04 GMT
I guess it goes back to playing Soviet infantry in Flames of War a couple of editions ago. In a lot of ways Khador has a similar play style, but there was a good synergy between the artillery and infantry that I can't find in Khador. The design philosophy is too distinct with each model, where instead of meshing together, they play independently. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well, Khador hits super hard when in melee similar to Soviet Guard infantry, but doesn't support each other very well. It reminds me of reading about the Celts fighting against the Roman legions. Individually the Celts were superior warriors but were defeated by the well trained and disciplined Roman soldiers. I don't think it would break the game if there was more synergy in Khador like a little better RAT on ranged jacks. I think that would be a promising start. It's a shame that Cygnar melee only jacks have higher RAT than our ranged jacks outside of two character jacks we have and their RAT ties with the melee jacks. But I'll hush, I love the character of my Khador models, I just wish they were a tiny bit better.
|
|
Munindk
Junior Strategist
Posts: 210
|
Post by Munindk on Aug 21, 2017 6:16:22 GMT
I honestly dont mean to sound rude but if you dont like the playstyle, why not switch to a faction that plays more like you want? I think you'll get more enjoyment from the game that way. Complaining that the synergy based factions get more synergy models isnt going to change anything.
|
|
|
Post by zerosequence on Aug 21, 2017 12:03:13 GMT
I don't disagree completely with any of the counter arguments to my points. It's just frustrating to me that you have Cygnar (and to a lesser extent, Cryx) that have been designed from the botttom up as an integrated force with a lot of synergy in the interactions between models and Khador where the individual models are very strong in melee but are lacking the synergy combinations other factions have. Why is that frustrating? Different factions have different playstyles, different design philosophies. Personally I like the relative simplicity of Khador's "each model is pretty good on it's own and doesn't NEED another model to work". Pick the faction who's playstyle you like, right? Well, that is kind of the point of the whole discussion - if that style was working for Khador right now no one would care about the stupid Trenchers, but it's not. So when you see Cygnar getting all kinds of cool synergies to make them better it's pretty frustrating. It's not that I think these Mechs are OP, and let's face it they should be 3pts given how hard it is to make use of support units in SR, it's that, once again, Cygnar gets another cool option and Khador gets...?
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Aug 21, 2017 12:36:54 GMT
Well, that is kind of the point of the whole discussion - if that style was working for Khador right now no one would care about the stupid Trenchers, but it's not. So when you see Cygnar getting all kinds of cool synergies to make them better it's pretty frustrating. It's not that I think these Mechs are OP, and let's face it they should be 3pts given how hard it is to make use of support units in SR, it's that, once again, Cygnar gets another cool option and Khador gets...? Is it not working right now? I'm pretty clueless about, I dunno, let's call it "the bigger picture" when it comes to Warmachine, so the idea that "Khador's style isn't working" is news to me. And to be honest, this is the first time I hear someone say it; when I do hear anything it tends to be along the lines of "Khador is in a pretty good place right now". Honestly I don't know either way, but if you do think we're not in a good place, I'd be interested to hear why you think that? Though I think I can be forgiven for hoping that you're wrong of course. Is a small unit of trenchers who can repair a bit really that cool? Is it really cooler than, say, the frikkin Hoff 2? Or maybe the Old Witch with a walking house? Or even just an angry ice wizard in a steam-powered suit of MOW armour? Right now it's Trencher's time in the sun, they had damned well better get some cool stuff or else PP is not doing their job. Soon it will be the Greylord's time to shine (or maybe the MOW? Not sure which comes first), if we don't get some cool stuff then, sure, we'll complain. What I'm saying is, don't give in to the green-eyed monster and begrudge the Cygnars players their fun (so long as the game is balanced of course); we'll have our turn for new shinies, and in the meantime we have plenty of old shinies to play with.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Aug 21, 2017 14:05:41 GMT
Well, that is kind of the point of the whole discussion - if that style was working for Khador right now no one would care about the stupid Trenchers, but it's not. So when you see Cygnar getting all kinds of cool synergies to make them better it's pretty frustrating. It's not that I think these Mechs are OP, and let's face it they should be 3pts given how hard it is to make use of support units in SR, it's that, once again, Cygnar gets another cool option and Khador gets...? Is it not working right now? I'm pretty clueless about, I dunno, let's call it "the bigger picture" when it comes to Warmachine, so the idea that "Khador's style isn't working" is news to me. And to be honest, this is the first time I hear someone say it; when I do hear anything it tends to be along the lines of "Khador is in a pretty good place right now". Honestly I don't know either way, but if you do think we're not in a good place, I'd be interested to hear why you think that? Though I think I can be forgiven for hoping that you're wrong of course. Is a small unit of trenchers who can repair a bit really that cool? Is it really cooler than, say, the frikkin Hoff 2? Or maybe the Old Witch with a walking house? Or even just an angry ice wizard in a steam-powered suit of MOW armour? Right now it's Trencher's time in the sun, they had damned well better get some cool stuff or else PP is not doing their job. Soon it will be the Greylord's time to shine (or maybe the MOW? Not sure which comes first), if we don't get some cool stuff then, sure, we'll complain. What I'm saying is, don't give in to the green-eyed monster and begrudge the Cygnars players their fun (so long as the game is balanced of course); we'll have our turn for new shinies, and in the meantime we have plenty of old shinies to play with. Yeah - I think that GENERALLY Khador is in a decent place. It seems (for reasons I can't fathom) it is stronger oversess than in the US, at least as shown at the biggest cons. My four concerns: I _DO_ think that one thing that is of SLIGHT concern is the near auto-include of rocket spam. But I guess that asks an important question and that is a good thing in warmachine. Our new casters have been "meh" and not really in new design space. I LOVE strak2 but he sits in a place pretty similar to Butcher1 and the Irusks. Ditto Lord goat. OW2 is definately unique but hasn't gotten much table time since that was a big model both to buy ($) and transport. We haven't really gotten a Jack that has also jumbled up the design space. Maurader definately reemerged but now with scenario being less of a thing I wonder if he will crawl back in favor of the usually harder hitting Juggernaught. Torch, Drago, Beast 09 are all frustratingly "not that good" and thus while others get the fun of THEIR characters we sorta as stuck with Ruin and Behemoth. Finally, it feels as if (probably not but still feels like it) that PP can't figure out new units for us. AK and Bombers? No more needs to be said. MowDemo Corps? sad face. Greylords just have such a hard time getting up the field for how much they cost and, once getting there, POW 12s just isn't that much of a "thing" in a world of overboosting and ARM 18+. It is, I think, some design space dead ends. I am hoping smarter game designers than I can figure out how to blow through that back wall and open up new opportunities for game play PS. That said, still digging on Loud Chris's Vlad2 list though I may have to give his Irusk2 list a whirl but that means buying a second unit of Kayazy ;-)
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Aug 21, 2017 14:58:04 GMT
WGK and LegoS both have great internal synergy.
In terms of new meta lists I think Koldun theme will innovate our pairings quite a bit. Obviously mow theme also will, but mk3 mow theme is more of a fantasy than real at this point.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Aug 21, 2017 16:51:16 GMT
We haven't really gotten a Jack that has also jumbled up the design space. Maurader definately reemerged but now with scenario being less of a thing I wonder if he will crawl back in favor of the usually harder hitting Juggernaught. Torch, Drago, Beast 09 are all frustratingly "not that good" and thus while others get the fun of THEIR characters we sorta as stuck with Ruin and Behemoth. What khador arguably lacks is support jacks. Greylords usually fill this role and are due for some expansion soon; I'd love to see another Orgoth artifact-laden jack for that role. Preferable non-character and <14pts.
|
|
|
Post by zerosequence on Aug 21, 2017 17:15:43 GMT
Yes. Khador is bad, bad, bad. SR2017 has killed the faction until Something comes along to innovate.
|
|