Mountain King: are you really worth buying?

[Navarp]

I have played about 35 games so far.
I have played versus 4 different factions.
I have playtested with 5 different casters.
I have kept an excel spreadsheet to log my playtesting.

I am a scientist IRL and I believe that I have approached it with an analytic mindset.

I have playtested for other game systems before as well though I wouldn't call myself a professional.

You will find that my claims don't focus on possible fixes for the Mountain King. I know that it is bad. I honestly don't know what needs to be done to fix it.

[Cannibalbob]

Sure it does...warhogs don't have reach, which means spawned whelps from the first warhog can cause serious complications with getting that second warhog in to finish him off.

Then change your order of activations and use a gunboar, razorback, rorsh dynamite, or some brigands and shoot the whelps to clear room for a second warhog.

[TrollSlayer]

I finally got too see the Colossal book today and I think I know what the MtK needs. The Colossals either brought something new to there faction or were a conglomeration of several different 'jacks bundled together in a cheaper package. They also had a plethora of ranged attacks that allowed them to influence the battle from 10-16" out. The MtK needs +1 MAT/RAT/ARM, ROF 2 on his roar and either a Slam or Pitch on his fists. How does that sound?

Then change your order of activations and use a gunboar, razorback, rorsh dynamite, or some brigands and shoot the whelps to clear room for a second warhog.

I told them this already. Shoot the Whelps, send in the second heavy.

[HellecticMojo]

It's funny, troll players are upset about the Mountain King, whereas on the Minions forum everyone is fretting about the Mountain King. Stormwall are easy to crack with some Warhogs, but Mountain Kings have been proving difficult.

please cite, I'm not seeing a thread on the Mk, someone bagged a storm wall, but no talk i can see of the MK.

[Minute]

I finally got too see the Colossal book today and I think I know what the MtK needs. The Colossals either brought something new to there faction or were a conglomeration of several different 'jacks bundled together in a cheaper package. They also had a plethora of ranged attacks that allowed them to influence the battle from 10-16" out. The MtK needs +1 MAT/RAT/ARM, ROF 2 on his roar and either a Slam or Pitch on his fists. How does that sound?



I told them this already. Shoot the Whelps, send in the second heavy.

I was thinking it would be really cool if all of his melee attacks that hit automatically threw models directly away. Or something where every time a non power attack (even bought attacks) hit you could could throw the model. Something about a giant rampaging troll throwing everything in sight appeals to me.

[eliassmith27]

By my math, Rorsch has a high likelihood of doing at least 1 damage to MtK with his RoF2 pig iron and boosting damage. Brine, under Carver's feat turn, does 41 damage to MtK by himself, leaving the remaining ~45 points in the list to do put the last 6 boxes on.

While it's true that masterful wall placement can control much of an initial engagement, the reality is that with a 4.5" base, MtK is going to be the only model protected by it (either that or there are big gaps to base up to MtK with). That means that your battlegroup is going very, very slowly with Janissa leapfrogging the wall 5" every turn and models jockeying around to screen her from harm, or Something Important is going to be left vulnerable to attack, especially if swarmed and tarpitted by mass cheap infantry.

so what you're saying is a character solo and beast(9PC), with really good play, caster synergy, and a little support from the army, can take out 20pc worth of model/s. This is nothing new, it's called game balance. I've had Ghetorix, with an Forced Evolution, Kill Stormwall on multiple occasions. I've Taken the Conquest 3/4th of the way out, survived his retaliation and finished him off under eBaldur. I've even killed an undamaged Carnivian and an undamaged Angelouse with a single unit of bloodweavers under pKrueger.(5pc Vr 20pc)

My point is, with good play, you can way out-preform your point value or, with good play from the other side of the table, you can loose key models to models costing a fraction of the point cost. That's how the game is balanced.

[sourclams]

No, I'm calling BS on the claim that 'Hogs are having trouble killing MtK'. I don't actually see a thread over there with a subject line 'I can't kill MtK', and by the numbers either a WarHog with Agg Dial or Brine with his animus and the free charge kill 85% of a MtK by themselves under Carver's feat. Hogs have never had trouble cracking armor before, so I don't see the DOOOM now, either through theory or through faction outcry. If hogs are having trouble killing MtK then the higher Def, higher ARM, 8 more boxes of Stormwall must be impossible. Except there's a thread there saying they killed it...

If your point is, 'with good play, you can way out-perform your point value', that's fine. That actually epitomizes the troll playstyle. Most Troll stuff is a bit stats-weak or points-rich because of the buff layering of the faction. The general point, however, is that it's a 20 pt model that requires another 10 pts of models to perform about as well as 20 pts of the preexisting models is a bad model.

[MadJack]

This is absurd. This is a game where models cost points. If the model costs too many points it doesn't matter what it brings to a faction. If no one will ever field it because it is points inefficient then, in point of fact, it doesn't actually add anything to that faction. A model has to be fielded to add something to a faction.

No. This is flat-out wrong. If a model does something that no other model in the faction does, then it brings something new to the faction. End of story. If it's not worth fielding that model for whatever reason, then that's an entirely separate thing that has absolutely no relation to whether the model brings something new to the faction. Maybe the new thing it brings is something that isn't that good. Doesn't matter - it still brought a new option. Just because you don't plan to ever use that option (and I guarantee that whether you think no one will ever field it or not, there will be players who will field it for that option, or for other reasons), that doesn't mean that a new option hasn't been given to you.

[MadJack]

The Colossals either brought something new to there faction or were a conglomeration of several different 'jacks bundled together in a cheaper package.

As I've already shown you, the Mountain King does bring several new things to the Trollblood faction. Maybe it's not the new stuff you wanted it to bring, or maybe the new stuff doesn't make it worth the points, but don't say that it didn't bring anything new when anyone who checks the rules for it can see that what you're saying simply isn't true. Sheesh...

[Whiteout]

please cite, I'm not seeing a thread on the Mk, someone bagged a storm wall, but no talk i can see of the MK.

Sure. Here's just a couple comments found on the subject.

Stormwall is not a problem for farrow, especially on Carver's feat, Gators will think otherwise. The Mountain King will be harder, since it spawns whelps, so you can't charge in with another beast/unit to finish the job and we don't have enough shooting power to get him down in ranged combat.

Whelps on the MK are going to be problematic ... since there doesn't appear to be anything which prevents the MK from two whelps anytime it gets damaged, so long as the troll player is willing to pay the 2 points for 5 additional whelps.

[Navarp]

As I've already shown you, the Mountain King does bring several new things to the Trollblood faction. Maybe it's not the new stuff you wanted it to bring, or maybe the new stuff doesn't make it worth the points, but don't say that it didn't bring anything new when anyone who checks the rules for it can see that what you're saying simply isn't true. Sheesh...

Again I have shown that it point of fact it actually doesn't bring anything new. Also you have to have a pretty specific definition of "new" for your comments to be correct.

Let me help you out.

When someone says "He doesn't bring anything new to the faction" you should read "He doesn't bring anything good and new to the faction for a reasonable point cost."

[Navarp]

Sure. Here's just a couple comments found on the subject.

So 2 comments mean "everyone [on the minion forum] is fretting"

In fact this exchange occurs just below what you quoted:

I killed a Mountain King yesterday with calaban, a wrastler, and a swamp horror. Shocked the hell out of me.

The Mountain King is a sore subject with us Troll players. Unfortunately, he looks awesome, but is pretty terrible.

We hope to kidnap the Woldwraith in the middle of the night, steal his rules, and get Dr. A to perform some surgery on The Mountain King... It's the only way.

[sourclams]

As I've already shown you, the Mountain King does bring several new things to the Trollblood faction.

If you're referring to your post about a page back, Trollbloods already had many of those characteristics you labeled "new", as I subsequently showed you. Already had ARM19 huge bases, already had POW16 shooting, already had P&S19 (and higher), already had whelp shedding, and even have a (not that it ever sees play) MAT5 Heavy with Virtuoso, which is actually better than Killshot or Gargossal shoot-while-engaged rules.

Amuck and the Spray aspect of the Pow 16 gun are what's new. Everything else is what we've already got in a bigger, Mat5 package with generally a worse animus.

[freelancerebel]

Of course this thread has mandatory whining that the model is not autowin..There should be a rule that if you haven't played a model 20 plus times you shouldn't write an extensive and subjective argument about the capabilities of the model. Does anyone think the mountain king was play tested less than 20 games?

[TrollSlayer]

The guy at the top of the page, kinda blows you out of the water...

[HellecticMojo]

Of course this thread has mandatory whining that the model is not autowin..There should be a rule that if you haven't played a model 20 plus times you shouldn't write an extensive and subjective argument about the capabilities of the model. Does anyone think the mountain king was play tested less than 20 games?

If you bothered to read at all our complaints at all it before condemning to whining is not the fact that's it's not auto win, but rather that it's very incompetent at anything you give it to do compared to our preexisting stuff. It's bad at living, it's bad at shooting, it's bad at punching, it's bad at supporting, only boon coming from the rules that by default comes to everyone else.

People have tested him, Navarp himself has done 35 games of it. Tell me, did you play 20+ games and are you still convinced that he is worth more than 20pt of anything other that we can have? because I'm not seeing it on your post.

[Soulblighter]

MK seems fine to me other than the fact he only has 5 fury. Seems kinda silly to pay 20 points for a warbeast that only has 5 fury when you could instead have two 10 point warbeasts with 5 fury each. But thats a problem all gargantuans will have.

[Navarp]

I pulled my spreadsheet and have some data now.

I have played 37 games so far with the Mountain King in an attempt to make the most of him.

Let me start by saying that I have only played the Warcasters that I normally play.

Those are Borka, eMadrak, eDoomshaper, and Gunnbjorn.

So it could be that eGrissel makes him really shine. I highly doubt that, but in my playtests I was trying to control for as many factors as I could.

Some lists I have played 2-3 times against the same list by my opponent, but for the most part I have only played the lists one time.

I tried a few games at 35 points, but I rarely play at 35 points myself anyway (I honestly prefer 42) and I truly believe that the Mountain King was never intended to be played at 35 points, so while I did log those games I didn't have high expectations going into them.

It isn't that I cannot win when I take the Mountain King. In some games he has performed very well. That doesn't make it a great unit however. I can see though where someone could playtest 5 times or so and reach the conclusion that he isn't all that bad ("maybe a point or 2 overcosted, but still pretty good because he is blue.")

This is unfortunately not the case however. It is an easy trap to fall into. I was honestly hopeful when I first started, but after several games the reality became obvious.

As he is, he is bad. Like I said it isn't that I cannot win with him, but it feels like I am playing 5 points down to my opponent in several games.

Also 2 of my opponents are factions that can take out big single target beasts (Circle and Skorne), so I am kind of putting him in a trial by fire. I could see how he could look almost balanced when played versus Cygnar (as an example, I haven't playtested him versus Cygnar because I don't normally play versus Cygnar.)

I am not a game designer. I can understand balance, but honestly the weakest I am as a playtester is that I am fairly poor as suggesting fixes for broken models (esp. models that are too weak.)

Someone earlier in this thread suggested that the Mountain King is a victim of playtesting, and I can say from experience that they likely hit the nail on the head. The first couple of incarnations of the Mountain King were likely too strong and he was "nerfed" in playtest. The problem is that this seems to have happened at the end of the playtest cycle. I have seen this happen before in other games that I have playtested (and by that I mean playtested for a company (though never for money)) These companies get a lot of feedback and we usually only received 2-3 "incarnations" of a card before that card was fixed. And usually we could find the problems with only a couple of different variances. Still some slipped through, and usually those were the cards that had been the strongest, and they were "overcorrected."

I hadn't had that thought about the Mountain King, but looking at him now that is very likely what happened with him.

I honestly don't know what else to say about the Mountain King. I have honestly been a proponent of him receiving a boost from the first second I saw his card. If I am to understand it correctly every faction will only receive 2 new models in the new book for Hordes. It will be terrible if 50% of a faction's models are as bad as the Mountain King.

As others have said before, having a 2-3 bad units in a faction doesn't really hurt anything. So what if no one plays Bushwackers. Heck, maybe an awesome Unit attachment can even fix a poor unit (or improve one that doesn't see much play except in certain lists so it becomes viable in more lists.) Gargantuans aren't like that. It will require Errata or a new edition to fix one. Maybe I am fighting a lost cause and I will shut up once the book is published, but until then I am going to bang my drum and try to draw as much attention as possible to this issue because I care about the game and want it to be as great as possible. Great Gargantuans for EVERY faction do exactly that.

Also comparing Gargantuans to Colossals isn't really fair. If one of them has to be the worst it should be a Colossal. Hordes players are supposed to "gain the benefit of being second." after all, and Beasts are typically better than Jacks because of the mechanics of the respective games.

[freelancerebel]

All the nerd raging in this thread is beyond epic. Dooooooooooooommmmmmmmmm. Six months from now, no one is going to care about the nerd data spewing and theorymachining subjectivity. PP is not going to "FIX" it, let that sink it for a minute.

[sourclams]

Do you understand a single point made in the post directly above yours? Did you even read that post?

Can you, unlike so many others of the kneejerk 'EVERYTHING IS FINE, IGNORE THE ANIMANATRAX' crowd actually make a balanced, competitive list featuring the MtK that would not be obviously better through substitution of other models? I'm more than fair, let's say only 3 different 50 pt lists with 3 separate warlocks.

[Bruan]

Navarp,

If I could like your posts, I would. I don't even play trolls, but I do appreciate the clarity and effort with which you're explaining your experiences with the Mountain King. I am excited to see if PP will be receptive to all of these changes. The Mountain King is an absolutely beautiful model.

[mathieu]

I had a chance to purchase this model during the week end. Seeing the studio model assembled and painted in the flesh, right next to its war machine counterparts, really made me realize how incredible the Mountain King is compared to just about every Colossal thus far!

But between the very high retail price for what you get and the underwhelming rules, I decided the model was not worth buying for me. I won't purchased it until I can get it at -20% at the LGS, and unless I decide to get it just for the sake of painting an amazing model, not until it gets a patch that makes him reasonably playable.

[PG_petegrrrr]

All the nerd raging in this thread is beyond epic. Dooooooooooooommmmmmmmmm. Six months from now, no one is going to care about the nerd data spewing and theorymachining subjectivity. PP is not going to "FIX" it, let that sink it for a minute.

At this point the Forum world filter should just replace any "doom" with more than 2 O's with "I cannot respond to any of the points you just made, so I ignore you".

Also, I don't think anyone really believes PP is going to change the model rules.

[Asdrubael]

Navarp, I really respect the effort and the play testing. I admire the thorough approach, and I hope you guys get lucky and receive an unforeseen errata.

Curious if I read it right. Did you say you prefer 42 point games? If so, why? Seems curious.

[HellecticMojo]

Navarp, I really like your input and agree pretty much with everything you've posted.
i can vouch from experience against Cygnar (my most frequent opponent) that Lightning army eats the MK like crazy mostly due to the elc leaps zapping the whelps. Storm clad carving it up, with the blade's electric leap killing the whelp that was spawned from previous attack. Especially with the stormwall now, it's really brutal getting hit.

@freelancerebel - Are you back after fulfilling your own demand of 20+ playtest? I would build up my own credibility before tearing down someone else's

[Edwars]

I pulled my spreadsheet and have some data now.

I have played 37 games so far with the Mountain King in an attempt to make the most of him.

Let me start by saying that I have only played the Warcasters that I normally play.

Those are Borka, eMadrak, eDoomshaper, and Gunnbjorn.

So it could be that eGrissel makes him really shine. I highly doubt that, but in my playtests I was trying to control for as many factors as I could.

Some lists I have played 2-3 times against the same list by my opponent, but for the most part I have only played the lists one time.

I tried a few games at 35 points, but I rarely play at 35 points myself anyway (I honestly prefer 42) and I truly believe that the Mountain King was never intended to be played at 35 points, so while I did log those games I didn't have high expectations going into them.

It isn't that I cannot win when I take the Mountain King. In some games he has performed very well. That doesn't make it a great unit however. I can see though where someone could playtest 5 times or so and reach the conclusion that he isn't all that bad ("maybe a point or 2 overcosted, but still pretty good because he is blue.")

This is unfortunately not the case however. It is an easy trap to fall into. I was honestly hopeful when I first started, but after several games the reality became obvious.

As he is, he is bad. Like I said it isn't that I cannot win with him, but it feels like I am playing 5 points down to my opponent in several games.

Also 2 of my opponents are factions that can take out big single target beasts (Circle and Skorne), so I am kind of putting him in a trial by fire. I could see how he could look almost balanced when played versus Cygnar (as an example, I haven't playtested him versus Cygnar because I don't normally play versus Cygnar.)

I am not a game designer. I can understand balance, but honestly the weakest I am as a playtester is that I am fairly poor as suggesting fixes for broken models (esp. models that are too weak.)

Someone earlier in this thread suggested that the Mountain King is a victim of playtesting, and I can say from experience that they likely hit the nail on the head. The first couple of incarnations of the Mountain King were likely too strong and he was "nerfed" in playtest. The problem is that this seems to have happened at the end of the playtest cycle. I have seen this happen before in other games that I have playtested (and by that I mean playtested for a company (though never for money)) These companies get a lot of feedback and we usually only received 2-3 "incarnations" of a card before that card was fixed. And usually we could find the problems with only a couple of different variances. Still some slipped through, and usually those were the cards that had been the strongest, and they were "overcorrected."

I hadn't had that thought about the Mountain King, but looking at him now that is very likely what happened with him.

I honestly don't know what else to say about the Mountain King. I have honestly been a proponent of him receiving a boost from the first second I saw his card. If I am to understand it correctly every faction will only receive 2 new models in the new book for Hordes. It will be terrible if 50% of a faction's models are as bad as the Mountain King.

As others have said before, having a 2-3 bad units in a faction doesn't really hurt anything. So what if no one plays Bushwackers. Heck, maybe an awesome Unit attachment can even fix a poor unit (or improve one that doesn't see much play except in certain lists so it becomes viable in more lists.) Gargantuans aren't like that. It will require Errata or a new edition to fix one. Maybe I am fighting a lost cause and I will shut up once the book is published, but until then I am going to bang my drum and try to draw as much attention as possible to this issue because I care about the game and want it to be as great as possible. Great Gargantuans for EVERY faction do exactly that.

Also comparing Gargantuans to Colossals isn't really fair. If one of them has to be the worst it should be a Colossal. Hordes players are supposed to "gain the benefit of being second." after all, and Beasts are typically better than Jacks because of the mechanics of the respective games.

I am curious to know how you played the mountain king? what lists did you use and what were your tactics?

It is very easy to say that "you have the data", but I would like to hear your experience in more detail.

Personally, I have tried the MtK in several games, concentrating on the "Armour brick" tactic (ie MtK + Earthborn + Janissa + KSB for ARM 23) with both eDoomshaper and Grim angus, both with mixed success. This list uses high arm and wall/infantry to screen the MtK from heavies before making a "second wave" retaliatory attack with the MtK.

I do find this set up rather limiting due to its high cost and am now moving onto "lone MtK" tactic (ie MtK + KSB as a module in a "normal" list). I am yet to try this yet but have high hopes for its effectiveness due to my practice with the Stormwall.

I find that the Stormwall works best when it is treated as a single module (with ubiquitous Journeyman) used either to told the flank or centre of the board. While the ranged weapons of the Stormwall make it ideal for this role, I believe that the spray, and regeneration potential of the MtK will allow it fulfil a similar role.

I understand the frustration that much of the playerbase has with the MtK as it is quite easy to bemoan it statistics with the role with which it is perceived (or rather desired) to fulfil. Personally I think it is more constructive to create tactics which work with the MtK rather than to cry "to make it work the way I want it too, it NEEDS X, Y, Z."


All that being said, I have long felt that trolls have lacked the support that many other factions receive. While we do have the fell caller (who lets face it, is awesome), we don't have an analogue to the choir, shifting stones, pain givers, mechanics, etc. If trolls were to get such a unit/solo it would need to fit in the faction (fluff fixes that) AND keep the faction balanced.

Personally I would love to see a solo who gives abilities to warbeast (beast caller if you will), to fit in the faction it realistically cannot add to a beast ARM or STR as these are already generally high, but I think it could quite effectively add to the regeneration or fury management abilities of troll warbeasts. Excessive healing, immunity to grievous wounds, medicate, etc, would all easily fit into the troll toolbox without significantly overpowering the faction

[PG_malfred]

Personally I would love to see a solo who gives abilities to warbeast (beast caller if you will), to fit in the faction it realistically cannot add to a beast ARM or STR as these are already generally high, but I think it could quite effectively add to the regeneration or fury management abilities of troll warbeasts. Excessive healing, immunity to grievous wounds, medicate, etc, would all easily fit into the troll toolbox without significantly overpowering the faction

I think ours is meant to be ksb with elder while whelps
provide the medicate.

[HRM]

I finally got a look at the model. Pretty sweet. Makes Conquest, for my Khador, look fairly pedestrian by comparison (and I even LIKE how the Conquest looks).

[Falkman]

If I am to understand it correctly every faction will only receive 2 new models in the new book for Hordes. It will be terrible if 50% of a faction's models are as bad as the Mountain King.

No, that was only the Warmachine: Colossals book. the Hordes: Gargantuans book will come with a normal amount of releases per faction.

[Cannibalbob]

PP is not going to "FIX" it, let that sink it for a minute.

Which is why I won't purchase it. Problem solved. The ball is in their court if they want more sales.

[PG_Shi_no_Kami]

If I am to understand it correctly every faction will only receive 2 new models in the new book for Hordes. It will be terrible if 50% of a faction's models are as bad as the Mountain King.

I would normally avoid this festering pool of negativity and angry posting, save that I need to make one comment - a comment that has nothing at all to do with the Mountain Kings quality. That comment is as follows - 'The above snipped quote is incorrect.' Gargantuan's is going to be a Full Sized Book, its meant to be the catch-up book to Warmachine. I doubt it will cover the whole ground, but it is there to fill the gap. As it is, all we have confirmed from the book is 1 Gargantuan, 1 Lock per faction, save minions whom we know are getting 2 Locks and at least 1 Unit, but no Gargantuan.

Oh, and the Lock for Trolls is "The Hunters Grim," just in case anyone missed it.

I wish I had the exact info from L&L, but this ^ is what memory retains.

[MadJack]

When someone says "He doesn't bring anything new to the faction" you should read "He doesn't bring anything good and new to the faction for a reasonable point cost."

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you don't seem to understand the difference between an absolute objective statement and a subjective statement with qualifiers. Why should I just assume that somebody meant something completely different from what they wrote? I'm sorry, but what you actually wrote in your post is simply factually incorrect. If you had actually written "He doesn't bring anything good and new to the faction for a reasonable point cost" I would have said "fair enough" because that's a matter of opinion. Instead you wrote some gibberish about him not actually bringing anything new because nobody would ever field him, and that was simply factually incorrect. You really seem to have extreme difficulty understanding the difference between having an option available and deciding whether it's a good option to use. Just because you've decided it's not a good option to use doesn't mean that all of a sudden it's not an option that you have available to you.

If you're referring to your post about a page back, Trollbloods already had many of those characteristics you labeled "new", as I subsequently showed you. Already had ARM19 huge bases, already had POW16 shooting, already had P&S19 (and higher), already had whelp shedding, and even have a (not that it ever sees play) MAT5 Heavy with Virtuoso, which is actually better than Killshot or Gargossal shoot-while-engaged rules.

Amuck and the Spray aspect of the Pow 16 gun are what's new. Everything else is what we've already got in a bigger, Mat5 package with generally a worse animus.

Go back an re-read. You keep saying that Trollbloods already had some of the things I called new, but that's a lie. They may have had things similar to some of them (and, in some cases, possibly things better than some of them), but each thing that I pointed out was something new (and please note that I said nothing about ARM 19 huge bases or P+S 19). I'm sorry, but that's really not something that can be debated - it's black and white. If you want to complain that those new options don't make the Mountain King worth taking, that's another story, but don't pretend that it doesn't bring anything new.

Since you can't seem to admit that you're wrong, I challenge you to show me anything the Trollbloods already had that can do one of the following:
1) spray at POW 16 while engaged
2) do the 2 new power attacks
3) can't be moved or placed or knocked down or taken control of by any means
4) pop out 2 whelps each time it's damaged

Once you've failed to find anything that meets those exact criteria (which are the specific new things that I first mentioned), then maybe you can start talking about whether those things are worth the points. I suspect you'll say they're not, and frankly I won't argue with you on it, because I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other.

[TheNoob]

I just first want to say, I have not play tested the MK, i do not play trolls and I am not saying its worth the points or a good model.

But i would like everyone to take a breath and remember that you have not seen the book that the MK is coming out with. Trolls, (along with the other Hordes factions) are getting things other than the Garg and a Lock. They are getting units/solos/UA etc. You don't know how the MK will look at the end of the release.

Yes, i know some people are going to say, that another model just boosts the price of the MK and that any model that helps the MK will help anything else. But thats just not tru.

Example: Fiona the Black, was rated as one of the worst casters in the game (definitely arguable for worst Merc caster) ENTER GALLEON. now people are saying Fiona = auto win button.

So yes, play test the MK and find all its flaws/make all the opinions you want. But remember PP has done an exceptional job of balancing 90% of their models in the context of everything else in the game/faction. When they playtested the MK, they playtested it with the other models in the Garg book. You are not.

[bouncymischa]

The ball is in their court if they want more sales.

One of the things that I find both amusing and puzzling about these discussions is the argument that Privateer should issue fixes for sub-par models in order to increase sales... and yet, one of the complaints I hear about Games Workshop is that they'll revise models and indulge in power creep in order to... increase sales.

So is it a good thing for a company to make revisions to its models and cause power creep in order to benefit their bottom line, or isn't it? X3

[PG_Steampunk Jim]

One of the things that I find both amusing and puzzling about these discussions is the argument that Privateer should issue fixes for sub-par models in order to increase sales... and yet, one of the complaints I hear about Games Workshop is that they'll revise models and indulge in power creep in order to... increase sales.

So is it a good thing for a company to make revisions to its models and cause power creep in order to benefit their bottom line, or isn't it? X3

1) buffing a model to increase sales does not mean making it overpowered. Power Creep is not a required part of that process.
2) It's a single model clocking in at $125. If there's ever been a model that warrants a buffing errata, it's one that costs the consumer that much.

[Navarp]

I would normally avoid this festering pool of negativity and angry posting, save that I need to make one comment - a comment that has nothing at all to do with the Mountain Kings quality. That comment is as follows - 'The above snipped quote is incorrect.' Gargantuan's is going to be a Full Sized Book, its meant to be the catch-up book to Warmachine. I doubt it will cover the whole ground, but it is there to fill the gap. As it is, all we have confirmed from the book is 1 Gargantuan, 1 Lock per faction, save minions whom we know are getting 2 Locks and at least 1 Unit, but no Gargantuan.

Oh, and the Lock for Trolls is "The Hunters Grim," just in case anyone missed it.

I wish I had the exact info from L&L, but this ^ is what memory retains.

No, that was only the Warmachine: Colossals book. the Hordes: Gargantuans book will come with a normal amount of releases per faction.

These posts make me happy. I didn't realize that it was going to be a full release, but that is awesome. I am not a fan of Grim, but I know he is a popular troll warlock, so that is likely great for the community.

[Navarp]

One of the things that I find both amusing and puzzling about these discussions is the argument that Privateer should issue fixes for sub-par models in order to increase sales... and yet, one of the complaints I hear about Games Workshop is that they'll revise models and indulge in power creep in order to... increase sales.

So is it a good thing for a company to make revisions to its models and cause power creep in order to benefit their bottom line, or isn't it? X3

Let me say that I don't really think a small power creep is necessarily that bad of a thing. As adding options to a faction will make it more powerful then a small amount of power creep is actually inevitable.

With that said I don't think anyone is asking for actual power creep when it comes to the Mountain King. I can only speak for myself, but I only want him to be as good as our other great heavy warbeasts. So no power creep at all, just equal. At the moment he is not. I want there to be a question of whether it is better to take a Mountain King or 2 Axers, 2 Champions, and 5 whelps.

But it isn't just about increasing sales of Mountain Kings.

One of the ways that people are attracted to the game is to walk into a hobby store and see the game being played. The Mountain King is a beautiful centerpiece model, and the more it is on the table, advertising for Privateer Press the better it is for the game as a whole. I am a bit biased, but of ALL of the Gargantuans or Colossals I think it is the best looking. It is a shame and ultimately hurts the game for it not to be on the table being played as often as possible.

[Blackraine]

At the end of the day, for me, it comes down to looks. If I played Trollbloods, I'd own the Mountain King. Maybe even two of them... not because they rock, but because they look cool (and two of them would look *really* cool). I don't have to win every single game I play. It may be a $250 investment in something I only use in casual games. But I don't think that's a sufficient reason to say, "Well, this cool model is clearly worthless, so I'm never buying it and you shouldn't either." I am, definitely, buying two Judicators and one WoldWrath, because the Judicator model is awesome and the WoldWrath model is meh. I expect my double Judicator pSeverius list will be at least a little competitive. (I'm also thinking two Judicators and a swarm of light 'jacks with Amon at 75 points might be a ton of fun).

[Navarp]

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you don't seem to understand the difference between an absolute objective statement and a subjective statement with qualifiers. Why should I just assume that somebody meant something completely different from what they wrote? I'm sorry, but what you actually wrote in your post is simply factually incorrect. If you had actually written "He doesn't bring anything good and new to the faction for a reasonable point cost" I would have said "fair enough" because that's a matter of opinion. Instead you wrote some gibberish about him not actually bringing anything new because nobody would ever field him, and that was simply factually incorrect. You really seem to have extreme difficulty understanding the difference between having an option available and deciding whether it's a good option to use. Just because you've decided it's not a good option to use doesn't mean that all of a sudden it's not an option that you have available to you.

I am a professional technical writer and currently work as the training manager for an environmental company that specializes in hazardous waste.

What you are saying is technically true, but because this is a game with points what you are saying makes no sense. I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse at this point.

When people say "he doesn't bring anything new to the faction" for ANY model unless he is an exact copy of another model they are technically wrong. However what they mean is that the new model doesn't bring anything good and new to the faction in a points efficient way.

Models are a package. We are talking about a game. I don't know why this appears to be so hard to understand.

[Navarp]

At the end of the day, for me, it comes down to looks. If I played Trollbloods, I'd own the Mountain King. Maybe even two of them... not because they rock, but because they look cool (and two of them would look *really* cool). I don't have to win every single game I play. It may be a $250 investment in something I only use in casual games. But I don't think that's a sufficient reason to say, "Well, this cool model is clearly worthless, so I'm never buying it and you shouldn't either." I am, definitely, buying two Judicators and one WoldWrath, because the Judicator model is awesome and the WoldWrath model is meh. I expect my double Judicator pSeverius list will be at least a little competitive. (I'm also thinking two Judicators and a swarm of light 'jacks with Amon at 75 points might be a ton of fun).

This is a strawman at best. I don't think anyone is saying:
"The Mountain King is clearly worthless; I am not buying one, and neither should you."

What many of us are saying is:
"The Mountain King is poorly balanced. Please Privateer Press address this issue for the good of the game as a whole."