UCM needs some love (and help)

The ground game set in the Commanderverse.
Councillor
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:53 pm

Re: UCM needs some love (and help)

Post by Councillor » Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:30 pm

The broadsword complaints are issues all heavies with one shot have. Take more than one. It's cheap. There's no reason the weapon needs to shoot through passives and do 3/6 points of damage for 75 points. (And making other faction's one-hitters better is not what I'm advocating!) How does this improvement help internal balance? Why bother with Gladius or Sabres?

Menchit, Tormentors, and Fire Wagons all have the same problems. Fireblades don't need to have 2+ Accuracy. I do not know why they lost their smoke launcher special rule.

The demo crutch was UCM to the bone, though! Take a pack of discount tanks and rattled a building down with a bucket of attacks. Volume, not quality. (The easy demo faction doesn't want to wreck the cities it captures in the fluff. Hilarious.)

It sucked to play against. There's little to do but wait and you could just go down the line from objective building to objective building. You can still knock down buildings and circumvent interacting with your opponent's infantry if you like. You just can't guarantee you'll melt the building in one activation without committing a much larger chunk of your list to do it. I suppose that's one good thing about the new searching rules. Most of the time you only need one roll to locate it.

UCM is not the quality faction or the space magic faction. Don't give them different crutches, give them something that fits the faction as a whole.

kimek
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: UCM needs some love (and help)

Post by kimek » Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:07 am

i disagree: while UCM is more of quanity they also definetly NOT an orcs/tyranids of Dropzone. Just like Imperia Guard/Astra Militarum from WH 40K they're Hammer/Anvil fraction. I agree that Sabres and Gladius NEED a love and buffs, but UCM as whole also need a powerful hammer that can struck down even the heaviest of enemy's combatants.

While Broadsword is really powerful now, I think THIS is how he should be. Okay, price definetly can go up, but , please, KEEP all other stats the same as they now.

The smae with fireblades, they're so good, because UCM infantry is BAD. Especially after Focus-rule rebalance nerfed Hazards into the ground.

Nobody
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: UCM needs some love (and help)

Post by Nobody » Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:50 pm

Pretty sure you still need at least a squad of Sabres (and given they’re the cheaper option; you’ll be taking those over Katanas most of the time).

Gladius is there for volume of fire, but really I don’t think most people played them anyway even back in 1.X. Air Cav was always better than Armor Brick except in some outlier metas.

Personally I’m fine with Broadswords getting a price increase, they’re worth taking now for more than holding backfield objectives.

As for flame units, you mentioned the factions who all have solid CQC options (and some with solid demo), they don’t need to rely on flame units to do anything.

We’re in agreement on the UCM demo though, I hated that aspect of UCM in 1.x, but I don’t see it as a viable playstyle in 2.0 for them.


Personally I think UCM should be the synergy faction where combining different units to work together achieves better results, and we’re already close: Kodiaks and Ferrums, Broadswords and Sabres (and Longbows), Fireblades and Hazards.

In 1.x the niche seemed to be aimed at airpower (3 fast movers, 4 gunships, one of them a commander), but it kind of feels like they had to pull back on that for 2.0.

Lorn
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: UCM needs some love (and help)

Post by Lorn » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:00 pm

How did they put back on air power for 2.0? I am curuious, while the Ferrum is in a sorry state the UCM can take 2 command slots now which in my opinion improves air cav, in addition to that one can take BGs which only include Support Squads (Vanguard BGs) and you can take 2 of those and each can take 2 Support Squads.

So how is UCM air cav not the way to go in V2 as it is?

User avatar
Bushman101
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:16 am
Location: Columbus,Ohio-USA

Re: UCM needs some love (and help)

Post by Bushman101 » Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:09 pm

Nobody wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:50 pm
Air Cav was always better than Armor Brick except in some outlier metas.
Armor Bricks can be effective if your opponents aren't prepared for them.....especially if they over invested in Anti-air. A wall of Armor 15 can make a lot of an opponent's force useless. But it is a skew list like any other

Nobody
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: UCM needs some love (and help)

Post by Nobody » Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:28 am

Dammit, I thought I had saved my draft and welp, it's gone.

I didn't say that air cav was useless now, I stated that it felt like they had backed off of it a bit. Mostly with overall changes such as AA-X to reduce evasion and losing the ability to go to the deck, also, I might be misremembering 1.x aircraft rules, but I seem to remember LOS was based on the flight stem, not the model (it's been over a year and my books are not at hand to confirm).

Coupled with the Ferrum nerf I don't feel it's as strong, but I never said that it wasn't still strong.
Bushman101 wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:09 pm
Nobody wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:50 pm
Air Cav was always better than Armor Brick except in some outlier metas.
Armor Bricks can be effective if your opponents aren't prepared for them.....especially if they over invested in Anti-air. A wall of Armor 15 can make a lot of an opponent's force useless. But it is a skew list like any other
My experience (in 1.x) was that most TAC armies were better prepared to deal with armor bricks than they were to deal with Air Cav. Mostly from bringing a lot of high E weapons for their own demo, but also because they were loaded for the heavy walkers for Scourge and PHR.

Lorn
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: UCM needs some love (and help)

Post by Lorn » Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:04 am

I agree on the visibility of aircraft (due to taking into account the model not the flight pin) though with actual flight hight instead of fictional 6", even with the loss of to the deck, in my limited V2 experience this evens out.

AA-X would have made a difference if gunships would not have gotten enough Evasive for it not to make a difference. Falcons got E+4 now, while most AA reduces that to E+2 which is their old stat. Frankly E+X is very overdone for all factions.

User avatar
Bushman101
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:16 am
Location: Columbus,Ohio-USA

Re: UCM needs some love (and help)

Post by Bushman101 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:11 pm

Any thoughts on the new tank?
New stats are up on the army builder

kimek
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: UCM needs some love (and help)

Post by kimek » Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:32 am

Well, I just plainluy love UCM super-heavy chassis right now. Both Broadsword and Claimore give UCM the so needed boost in areas of heavy tank killing and building-demo, which they needed for a long time IMHO.

Post Reply