Cygnar’s New Theme Force Set Digs In

Cygnar’s got an all new Trencher Theme force boxed set digging in and fortifying for battle!

via Privateer Press

Once More unto the Breach!

The trenchers of Cygnar are among the most tenacious soldiers ever to take the battlefields of the Iron Kingdoms. The first into the fight and the last to leave it, the soldiers of the Trencher Corps form the vanguard of Cygnar’s army, holding ground against all odds on behalf of their comrades in arms. Any enemy who tries to assault their fortified positions faces a force of tough-as-nails troopers ready to cut them down with rifles, bayonets, and even the blades of their shovels.

Take command of these veteran soldiers with this box, which contains a full complement of trenchers ready to support your warcaster’s battlegroup. Dig in and hold the line!

Cygnar Trenchers Theme Force $109.99

  • Metal, Resin, Plastic
  • Model Count: 20
  • Release Date: October 11, 2017

This box contains:

  • • 8-Page Trencher Primer
  • • Commander Anson Hitch character Solo
  • • Patrol Dog Weapon Attachment
  • • Trencher Cannon Crew unit (3)
  • • 2 Trencher Infantry Rifle Grenadier Weapon Attachments
  • • Trencher Infantry Officer & Sniper Command Attachment
  • • Trencher Infantry Unit (10)
  • • Trencher Master Gunner Solo

Combine this box with the Cygnar battlegroup box to build a complete 35-point Trencher army.

~Dig in soldier!

  • Marco

    100 dollars? It’s amazing how Warmachine has gotten expensive. They’re imitating GW in a bad aspect.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      WMH has never really be “cheap” per sae to begin with. Thats a fallacy notion that was concocted by GW-moaners as way to feel better about themselves. They only way WMH were (and are I suppose) “cheaper” is that fundamentally you require less miniatures to play and thus less expenditure; ergo “cheaper”.

      • CloakingDonkey

        Oh no they certainly used to be a fair bit cheaper in Europe. Not so sure about US but the old metal heavy warjacks are still being sold for 15-20 Euros. It’s when they get a PVC version or get repacked that PP jacks up the prices to the new standard 😉

      • Stephen Lakowski

        And they’re right. If I bought that plus the starter I’d have a basic army to play. If I bought GWs Start Collecting box for about the same price, it wouldn’t bring me anywhere close to a start up army. Nevermind that there’s nearly twice as many models in the pp one, depending on what you think a basic transport compares to.

        • Benandorf

          But you don’t have a full army, you have about the equivalent of ~1200 pts for 40k, since most games are 50pts in WMH.

          It’s definitely still cheaper to get to a full, playable army in WMH than in 40k, but since size has grown considerably since Mk1, and models have gotten more expensive, the difference isn’t huge.

          Either one is fairly reasonable for a hobby, if you enjoy it and spread it out. More expensive than some (board gaming, hiking, Frisbee golf), much less expensive than others (boating, golf, MTG).

      • ZeeLobby

        In the end it all comes down to the games targeted size. WMH is still significantly cheaper to buy a force equal to the recommended size point battle for play. This is not changed and honestly has never changed. From here you can make all kinds of arguments about cost of competitiveness, etc. But GW being the most expensive game is a fact. Doesn’t matter that you can play 500 pts instead of 2000 pts. For the recommended and most widely played game size, it is the more expensive game.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          All true. When I looked into at a little bit, out of curiosity, it seem to be roughly £20-25 difference to get a reasonable sized starter* army for either. Yet, £20-25, and not meaning to sound flippant about money, is not a whole lot in the grand scheme of hobby costs. It’s the notion that WMH is somehow massively cheaper that winds me up.

          *Admittedly using starter boxes and deal sets, to get as much bang for your buck. Evidently, this restricts your choice of army.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well it probably depends on location, but locally most 40K games are 1750+. To reach those heights (outside of certain elite lists) you’re spending way more than that. WMH army boxes, which are the PP equivalent, have a full force for around $150. That’s for any faction in the game, and full retail.

            GW’s Strike Force Ultima, when released, was $250 (around $120 in savings), and formed maybe a third to one half of a 1750pt army.

            That is a pretty significant price jump. The fact that I can switch out a gargantuan in WMH, for around $125, and half a WMH, while an Imperial Knight costs $140 and is only a 5th.

            I mean it’s OK that it’s more expensive, but those people who claim that it is are right.

      • The Basement Gamer

        Yeah, really not true. I haven’t played Warmachine since the plastic “push”, but there was a time where you could buy a heavy warjack for $25-ish whereas a Dreadnought was $40+. Solo mini blisters were under $10 and GW’s were minimum $18. I’ll listen to the argument of “you get what you pay for” and the options/details of GW being superior to PP, but there was definitely a significant difference on a model per model basis. I am not a GW-moaner by any means.

    • marxlives

      Makes sense. The box is 41 points worth of models (most tourneys are 50-75 points, but 50 points are more common). If a new player buys a starter box that is 160 dollars. Throw in rangers and you got 190 dollars for a tournament size army. Plus with the new trencher theme hitting the pavement, its a great deal for new players.

      • Apocryphus

        Out of curiosity, where do you encounter tournaments at 50 points? In my area 75 is the expected standard.

        • Gregory Heyes

          75pts? If I remember the rulebook correctly, that’s listed as an “Apocolypse”-level battle.

          Geez, I remember when an entry level-game was just the battlebox, and 25pts was considered large…

          • Apocryphus

            Haha, I remeber that too. Are you sure you’re not remembering MK2 points? 50 was definitely the standard then, but since MK3 I haven’t played under 75. 50 sounds like it could be a good challenge though, it would really force important decisions during list construction.

          • Gregory Heyes

            Yeah, Mk I had completely different point values – it changed to what we know now in Mk II (I stopped playing part-way through Mk II, just after the Cyriss list was released).

            But if I’m remembering the recommended points values from Prime, 15 pts is considered Mangled Metal, 25 pts was a Clash, 35pts was a Battle, 50pts was a War, and 75pts+ was an Apocalypse. Part way through Mk II, they brought out the large-scale rules, which allowed 200pts+ games. IIRC, also, the standard tournament set (at least in Australia) was ~35 pts, since that required you to make choices in what you were going to take.

            From what I saw, 50pt games came about because collections were growing, and the players wanted to use as much as possible, plus it made taking a Colossal less of an overall risk.

            All of the above is why I find it somewhat amusing that PP is bringing out a new set of rules designed for “small scale” games.

            Of course, things have probably changed with Mk III.

          • Apocryphus

            In MK1 it was 500, then 750 because people wanted to use epic casters. 35 in MK2 translated to roughly 500 and 50 to 750, now in MK3 you just knock a 0 off. I don’t see much 50 point games now outside of the Rumble format, even the PP staff builds everything to 75 in their articles and CID. I don’t think smaller games are bad, but it just surprises me, as players I know scoff at playing 50 points. I think 75 is classified as a battle now, but I don’t have a book in front of me so I can’t say for certain.

          • marxlives

            You haven’t played in awhile, point values have been adjusted and are higher in MKII. I remember in MKI when it was 500-750 points for army point values, so you know….”changes changes, learn to take the strain, changes, changes”.

          • Apocryphus

            Upvote for David Bowie reference. 🙂

        • marxlives

          Usually happens in the desert south and has to do with size and time. Takes longer to run a 75 point game than a 50 point game with a death clock running. Even with that though Brickhouse is 60 dollars, Stormsmith Grenadiers are 25 dollars. Total cost of a PP army at 75 points = 275 dollars.

          Start collecting sets are 165$ at retail, with about 500 points worth of army. 75 point equivalent for 40k is at 2000-2500 points. So you know, that is maths.

          For the cost of one full 40k army, I could have two – three different army lists depending on my load out for a Warmahordes force.

    • zeno666

      These comes with playtested rules though 🙂

      • marxlives

        True that, good to see more effort being put into playtesting rather than marketing. Seems every other company has figured that out…except for a on…a couple.

      • UnpluggedBeta

        zing

    • UnpluggedBeta

      Combine that with a 40 dollar battle box and you have a complete army though; not quite the same.

  • euansmith

    “… Metal, Resin, Plastic…”

    Ow!

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Holy-trinity of modelling.

    • Hahboo

      I imagine the Trencher infantry is plastic, parts of the cannon are resin (wheels), and the solo’s are all metal.

      • euansmith

        Yeah, probably not a horrible as Mantic’s old Chaos Dwarves where you had to cut off the restic heads and glue on metal replacements :O

  • UnpluggedBeta

    Why is no one talking about how amazing that patrol dog looks?

    • zeno666

      Good point! Its adorable