Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Looking to get back into WM/HRDS, and was wondering if Cygnar was improved in the MK II rules.

Would love to play these guys, but will prolly go w/ Khador if they aren't at least a little better.

J

im not sure what you was wrong with them before but the faction as a whole is quite good now. cygnar is not better but never was bad, the core mk.2 rules are better in general.
some units were weakened and other strengthened so theres some internal shuffling around. screening is gone and jacks all got +1 mat and rat so the high power ranged attacks hit more reliably.
if you could expand on what you dislike about cygnar in mk1 it may help determine if that changed.

My big beef with them as that half their jink wouldn't work on warbeasts (which EVERYONE at my FLGS seems to be playing).

I admit I am a neophyte at this game and a 40K vet, both facts which are hurting me when I play.

I mainly just wanted to know how the MK II version played

J

Dais wrote:im not sure what you was wrong with them before but the faction as a whole is quite good now. cygnar is not better but never was bad

Agreed. I was about 90% pleased with the MKII changes overall.

Disappointments: trencher pt. costs too high, GMCA is subpar compared to other same cost choices, Darius sucks, centi feels "off" somehow

yea, i agree with ct gamer on all points but i think the two of us may be in the minority on gun mages, most people love them for reasons i cannot understand.
as for the issues of the OP: yes, disruption still only affects jacks, as do a few spells but most of the faction dose the same against hordes. of all the models i think only stormsmiths will feel any real adverse effect from playing against hordes and even they are worth the one point just to bypass high defense.

I have been playing regularly against a guy at my FLGS he plays Cygnar and they seem very combo happy to me the only issue with that is if you knock out a part of the combo they tend to have a hard time recovering from it. I think Cygnar has the most flexibility of any army out there. Try the black thirteen they have been just amazing for him every game.

What do you do against Hordes?

Shoot them.

Use your arc nodes.

Use a squire.

Duke it out with cheap, seven point Ironclads.

I think Cygnar has plenty of use against Hordes. Look past the Disruption limits and
remember that some Hordes models have abilities that only affect enemy fury or warbeasts.

I think that Cygnar has no additional troubles against hordes. Sure distruption is not happening and assassination is harder because warlocks can transfer, but the armor tends to be lighter than in WM and that makes it easier to score kills with the pow 12 cygnar has in bundles.

I always look at Disruption as being a nice bonus, but I don't field things just because it has Disruption. Especially in Mk II with improved Warjacks, Disruption doesn't stop a jack's activation. It will slow it up, hamper it, but ranged jacks can still shoot and melee jacks can walk into melee (if in range).

And while Stormsmiths lose some ability against Hordes, the fact that it's a skill check that bypasses DEF (as others have noted, Hordes generally is higher DEF and lower ARM) is still very useful.

I played Cygnar in MkI. I think they overall came out ahead in MkII, but to be honest, I haven't played a game with them yet.

Seeing the Ironclad, Sentinel, Charger, and Stormblades dramatically drop in point cost gives me an itch to field them.

Big wins for Cygnar:

Gun Mages -- true sight on the unit with the UA lets you nail just about anything you want at range. For a little fun you can marshall something on the unit as well (I like crit brutual damage on a hunter shot myself),.

Squire and Journeyman. No need to add commentary.

Ranked attack on 2 units -- Storm Guard and Precursors. Works great with all the shooting.

Black 13th is crazy good.

Rangers make it so your attacks never miss.

Charger is a super value at 4 points with powerful attack.

Siege rocks the house for ranged combat, negating any other LoS issues you might have for your jacks. Feat allows low pow 10s to kill just about everything.

Iron Clad is a solid value at 7 points.

If I weren't playing Trolls to make a point at Nationals 2010, I'd be running Cygnar all the way.

I very much like Cygnar in Mk2. Against Trolls who I never beat in Mk1, I have beaten both times I played them in Mk2. Most of my games have come down to one or two critical moments which I like. I don't like rolling people, nor getting rolled.

I've played them both as ranged shooting with Siege and Kara, magic heavy with both Nemo, and melee heavy with both Strykers. All three are pretty competitive and can hold their own.

7 pt Ironclads and 8 point Hammersmiths mean you can bring the pain on the cheap...