Mountain King: are you really worth buying?

[Navarp]

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

I have tried the armor brick the most with the Mountain King.

Here are the lists that I have played multiple times (Mostly 2, but sometimes 3)

And my success has been mixed as well.

I have tried the “Lone Mountain King” as well and those have been the worst games for the Mountain King because it consolidates my points too much into a single section of the board without enough survivability.

When I have done that the Mountain King is usually killed and then I can sometimes counter assault and kill about 15 points of models.

At that point it isn’t like I can’t win, but it feels like I am playing down by 5 points (or a 10% handicap.)

Borka Kegslayer
Mountain King
Troll Bouncer
Earthborn Dire Troll
Krielstone Bearer and 5 Stone Scribes
Krielstone Stone Scribe Elder
Trollkin Champions (Leader and 2 Grunts)
Skaldi Bonehammer
Janissa Stonetide
Troll Whelps
Swamp Gobber Bellows Crew (Leader and 1 Grunt)

and

Madrak Ironhide, World Ender
Mountain King
Troll Bouncer
Earthborn Dire Troll
Krielstone Bearer and 5 Stone Scribes
Krielstone Stone Scribe Elder
Trollkin Champions (Leader and 2 Grunts)
Skaldi Bonehammer
Janissa Stonetide
Troll Whelps
Swamp Gobber Bellows Crew (Leader and 1 Grunt)

Where pretty easy to swap between. I know that both eMadrak and Borka work better with more infantry. I really wanted to try out Skaldi to see if counter charge and bump could somehow make him more survivable.

To that end I also tried:

Hoarluk Doomshaper, Rage of Dhunia
Troll Bouncer
Earthborn Dire Troll
Krielstone Bearer and 5 Stone Scribes
Krielstone Stone Scribe Elder
Trollkin Champions (Leader and 2 Grunts)
Skaldi Bonehammer
Janissa Stonetide
Stone Scribe Chronicler
Troll Whelps

And


Hoarluk Doomshaper, Rage of Dhunia
Troll Bouncer
Earthborn Dire Troll
Krielstone Bearer and 5 Stone Scribes
Krielstone Stone Scribe Elder
Trollkin Champions (Leader and 2 Grunts)
Skaldi Bonehammer
Janissa Stonetide
Troll Whelps
Troll Whelps

For much the same reason.

Borka Kegslayer
Mountain King
Troll Bouncer
Earthborn Dire Troll
Krielstone Bearer and 5 Stone Scribes
Krielstone Stone Scribe Elder
Trollkin Long Riders (Leader and 2 Grunts)
Fell Caller Hero
Janissa Stonetide
Troll Whelps

Madrak Ironhide, World Ender
Mountain King
Troll Bouncer
Earthborn Dire Troll
Krielstone Bearer and 5 Stone Scribes
Krielstone Stone Scribe Elder
Trollkin Long Riders (Leader and 2 Grunts)
Fell Caller Hero
Janissa Stonetide
Troll Whelps

Again I know that Borka and eMadrak work best with more infantry, but I almost never take a list normally without long rider, so I tried them in this list as well.

Then I tried more Infantry with these lists:

Hoarluk Doomshaper, Rage of Dhunia
Mountain King
Troll Bouncer
Earthborn Dire Troll
Kriel Warriors (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Kriel Warrior Caber Thrower x3
Kriel Warrior Standard Bearer & Piper
Krielstone Bearer and 5 Stone Scribes
Krielstone Stone Scribe Elder
Janissa Stonetide
Troll Whelps

Madrak Ironhide, World Ender
Mountain King
Troll Bouncer
Earthborn Dire Troll
Kriel Warriors (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Kriel Warrior Caber Thrower x2
Kriel Warrior Standard Bearer & Piper
Krielstone Bearer and 5 Stone Scribes
Krielstone Stone Scribe Elder
Janissa Stonetide
Troll Whelps

Borka Kegslayer
Mountain King
Troll Bouncer
Earthborn Dire Troll
Kriel Warriors (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Kriel Warrior Caber Thrower x2
Kriel Warrior Standard Bearer & Piper
Krielstone Bearer and 5 Stone Scribes
Krielstone Stone Scribe Elder
Janissa Stonetide
Troll Whelps

Some of the tactics involved here were to try to screen with most of the warriors and use the Cabers to knock down things so the Mountain King could hit them consistently.

Other than these my lists have been all over the map to be honest.

[Navarp]

I know have I have already said a lot this morning, but I feel the need to say this as well:

First off let me apologize for being so verbose. It is a character flaw and I recognize that often I type WAY more than is necessary. Thank everyone who actually digested all of my prose.

Secondly let me apologize if at any time I come off as “raging.” I am NOT meaning to “rage” on this topic. I am very passionate about this game, and about trolls in particular.

Finally I am sorry if I have come across as demanding or even requesting an overpowered model. I am biased towards trolls, and I do want them to be the best faction in the game. To that end however I do NOT want the Mountain King to be an “I win button.” I have said this before, but I think that balance is a difficult thing to achieve and I applaud Privateer Press for the wonderful game they have constructed to date. I just want the debate to center around whether it is good to take the Mountain King, or if it is better to take a different 20 points of models not how much you are handicapping yourself by taking the Mountain King in the first place.

Also I for one will buy a Mountain King regardless of his rules. I would just like to actually be able to play him on a regular basis.

[Minute]

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.

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.

The reason people keep telling you you're wrong is because by your logic, all it takes is for a model to have a stat value that no other model in the faction has to "bring something new".

I could argue that if the Mountain King was SPD 1, it was bringing something new to the table because nothing else is SPD 1.

Everyone disagrees with you because while the exact way the rules work may be slightly different from what we had before, it doesn't bring anything knew to the table in terms of ways to go about achieving victory. It doesn't allow for new tactics, it doesn't allow for anything new gameplay wise.

So sure, he has a rule no other model has. But that doesn't mean he has brought something new to the faction in terms of gameplay.

[bouncymischa]

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.

Admittedly, part of the issue from my point of view is how I choose to define the term "power creep", particularly since I tend to view it in a statistical sense.

Given the fact that the forum tends to be rather fond of arguing about the relative quality of models in an objective/absolute sense, let's say an objective observer decides to quantify the value of different models. Each model in each faction is assigned a value on a scale of 1 to 10 depending on how "good" it is, with 10 being a "competitive auto-include you'd have to be a fool not to take" and 1 being "so bad even the most scrubby casual player would be loathe to use it in their list".

Once this was complete, one could evaluate the strength of a faction by taking the arithmetic mean of the values assigned to its models, and -- presuming the game is relatively balanced, which it appears to be -- one would expect that these average values would be relatively close to each other. Of course, there will always be discrepancies, since the game can never be perfectly balanced. A faction with a high predominance of more powerful models -- for example, Cryx -- would likely score higher than a faction with a high predominance of weaker models, such as, say, Cygnar.

The problem in my mind, then, occurs when you decide to adjust the values of a particular model. For example, it can be argued that Privateer has been making an effort to increase the power level of Cygnar by releasing some of the best new models for that faction, in the form of the Storm Strider and Stormwall, which are considered by many to be the top of their respective classes. By giving Cygnar models that rank higher and other factions that rank lower, you increase the arithmetic mean for Cygnar while decreasing that of other factions, bringing them closer to parity.

In other words, increasing the value assigned to a model by giving it a buff causes the mean value of a faction, or even the game as a whole, to increase. Since value is typically associated with "power", one can arguably define this process as "power creep". Of course, the most obvious means to counterbalance such an increase is to assign a corresponding decrease to another high-ranking model -- a "nerf". Through that means, one can maintain balance in the game as a whole.

So what happens if Mountain King receives a corresponding buff? The value of Mountain King goes up, as does the averages for both the faction and the entire game, which as I said, could be considered to be "power creep".

You did say that power creep could be considered to be inevitable -- although the release of "bad" models along with "good" models in any particular book could be actually seen as an effort to stem power creep, by keeping the overall balance of any new releases to the average. But if we work on the assumption that, yes, power creep is inevitable, then I have to question why power creep -- and seeking to profit through power creep -- is considered a bad thing? It still seems to devolve to the argument that "a company that seeks to make profit by increasing the power level of models in order to entice people to buy them is bad" and yet that's still the crux of the some of the arguments made in this thread -- that Privateer should, as a company, seek to increase its profit by increasing the power level of models in order to entice people to buy them. Heck, Steampunk Jim makes the argument that, because Mountain King is expensive, it should be made more powerful. Wouldn't this, then, be an argument that the more expensive a model is, the more powerful it should be? Or vice versa, that the more powerful a model is, the more expensive it should be? This does, arguably, occur with other games and other companies (such as Magic: the Gathering) where valuable elements of the game are expensive... and is one of the reasons that some people dislike said games.

I realize that, ultimately, the argument will be that the situation is more complex than the simplified one I've presented -- that the Mountain King is, in many ways, in a unique position that makes it deserving of being an exception to the normal policies and philosophies that people follow. But I'm cynical about human nature, and I have the suspicion that any exception will inevitably be expanded upon to other situations. If the Mountain King is deserving of an increase in its power level because of its relative cost and significance as an attractive showpiece model, what about the Animantarax? If we're willing to extend this situation to include the Animantarax, what about character models such as Triumph and the Thunderhead? In the end, you'll have to end up drawing a line somewhere -- but how do you argue that "the Mountain King deserves a buff because it's an expensive, showpiece model, but the Animantarax doesn't because of X"? Is the Animantarax not expensive enough? Is it lacking as a aesthetic showpiece? If it's because Mountain King is a warbeast, what about warjacks like Triumph and the Thunderhead?

In the end, I do view this argument in a rather abstract, analytical, and philosophical light. I can understand that certain apparent contradictions appear to be argued on the basis of exceptional circumstances... but I simply can't hold any optimism that such circumstances would remain exceptional. Ah well. In the end, it's all up to Privateer to choose what to do.

First off let me apologize for being so verbose.

Pfft, I bet I can be more verbose than you! :P

[mcdermott]

To be honest you haven't used him with the one caster I personally think he'll shake out to be best with, pmadrak. Theorymachine to follow.

I like the concept of sure foot on him, solely because his base size will easily let you spread the +2 defense to many more models than it would on another beast or character. He suffers the most from inaccuracy without the use of his animus, so carnage can bring him up to a respectable mat7, which if combined with his animus should let you sweep even WGDS level defenses if not kayazy level defenses reliably.

Here's a rough concept of what i was thinking, bearing in mind most of my troll experience is across the table from them.

Chief Madrak Ironhide (*6pts)
* Troll Axer (6pts)
* Troll Bouncer (5pts)
* Winter Troll (5pts)
* MTK (20)
*
Kriel Warriors (Leader and 9 Grunts) (6pts)
* 1 Kriel Warrior Caber Thrower (1pts)
* Kriel Warrior Standard Bearer & Piper (2pts)
Krielstone Bearer and 5 Stone Scribes (4pts)
* Krielstone Stone Scribe Elder (1pts)
Janissa Stonetide (3pts)
Troll Whelps (2pts)


So...the mountain king and three utility beasts, winter troll can be replaced with wtfever, there's a loose point there but it could be used to either shrink the ksb and get a nice 2 pt solo or another caber or whatever. Kriel warriors over fenns in order to maximize bodies in an army that's going to be using a big expensive beast. If you feel like he's about to get worked by multiple heavies, throw bump onto him, that should keep him alive long enough to heal, use the kriel warriors to clear infantry that may find itself headed toward the MTK, keeping them close to his surefooted advance on the way in, and hopefully close enough to benefit from surefoot and the ksb.

[West996]

And my success has been mixed as well.

Here is the point right here. It seems to me that the opinion on the MK is pretty much 50/50. Confident Troll players have come on this thread and said that they were able to do well with it and it was fun to play. That is all we should ask of any model.

The Colossal release was never about wanting you to include a Colossal in all, or even most of your list. Just another option to add flavour to the game.

It should not be your 'go to' beast. Just because it is big and costs a lot doesn't mean it should be fielded any more then any other model.

As people have said there are models out there that are in need of a fix far more then the MK and I don't think PP will respond to threats of 'fix it or I won't buy it.' From a business stand point if they didn't sell a single MK but the rest of the Colossal line sold according to plan they would be doing just fine and we all know that is not going to be the case, many of the posters on this thread said they would buy an MK for looks alone.

The truth is there are only a few out spoken players on this thread that are making it seem like the whole Troll faction is raging about the MK. The reality is that people who post on these forum represent a small percentage of players as a whole and of the people who post on these threads only a few are filling it with negativity.

I went to my local club to see what the opinion was of the MK. Now our club is not a big one but all the troll players there said that it wasn't a model they would play all the time but that it would see play time in a few of their list.

They actually told me that Trolls has never been all about their beasts. It could be said that the Troll faction is actually the infantry faction of Hordes, and that they couldn't really expect an amazing Colossal no more then Cryx could. With such great infantry that is where the faction focus is.

When I take a look at the Cryx reaction to their Colossal. We have tried it out in a few lists, there are certain situations and casters where we might use it but it is nothing spectacular and I don't think it is going to change the Cryx meta a whole lot. I think that many players may purchase one just for the look and feel of the model, but like the MK, no Cryx player will really go wanting if they decided to go with out a
Colossal.

It seems to me like Troll players were expecting a Storm Wall and when they didn't get one, some of them decided that their Gargantuan was broken and needed a fix.

[PG_malfred]

Here is the point right here. It seems to me that the opinion on the MK is pretty much 50/50. Confident Troll players have come on this thread and said that they were able to do well with it and it was fun to play. That is all we should ask of any model.

The Colossal release was never about wanting you to include a Colossal in all, or even most of your list. Just another option to add flavour to the game.

It should not be your 'go to' beast. Just because it is big and costs a lot doesn't mean it should be fielded any more then any other model.

As people have said there are models out there that are in need of a fix far more then the MK and I don't think PP will respond to threats of 'fix it or I won't buy it.' From a business stand point if they didn't sell a single MK but the rest of the Colossal line sold according to plan they would be doing just fine and we all know that is not going to be the case, many of the posters on this thread said they would buy an MK for looks alone.

The truth is there are only a few out spoken players on this thread that are making it seem like the whole Troll faction is raging about the MK. The reality is that people who post on these forum represent a small percentage of players as a whole and of the people who post on these threads only a few are filling it with negativity.

I went to my local club to see what the opinion was of the MK. Now our club is not a big one but all the troll players there said that it wasn't a model they would play all the time but that it would see play time in a few of their list.

They actually told me that Trolls has never been all about their beasts. It could be said that the Troll faction is actually the infantry faction of Hordes, and that they couldn't really expect an amazing Colossal no more then Cryx could. With such great infantry that is where the faction focus is.

When I take a look at the Cryx reaction to their Colossal. We have tried it out in a few lists, there are certain situations and casters where we might use it but it is nothing spectacular and I don't think it is going to change the Cryx meta a whole lot. I think that many players may purchase one just for the look and feel of the model, but like the MK, no Cryx player will really go wanting if they decided to go with out a
Colossal.

It seems to me like Troll players were expecting a Storm Wall and when they didn't get one, some of them decided that their Gargantuan was broken and needed a fix.

Yup yup, I'm looking forward to trying it in a few lists. At least I know the bees
knees isn't to protect it until I can unleash it. I will need to consider
bringing other threats first.

[Navarp]

Heck, Steampunk Jim makes the argument that, because Mountain King is expensive, it should be made more powerful.

First off before I address anything else that you said let me address this. Steampunk Jim’s argument isn’t:
that because the Mountain King is expensive it should be made more powerful.

His argument is:

Because Mountain King is expensive AND BAD it should be properly balanced.

I happen to share his point of view, but take it a step further. Because Mountain King is expensive and bad, and amazing looking (huge, awesome sculpt, “attractive” to players of other games, etc.) it should be properly balanced.

Now to address the rest of your post:

Given the fact that the forum tends to be rather fond of arguing about the relative quality of models in an objective/absolute sense, let's say an objective observer decides to quantify the value of different models. Each model in each faction is assigned a value on a scale of 1 to 10 depending on how "good" it is, with 10 being a "competitive auto-include you'd have to be a fool not to take" and 1 being "so bad even the most scrubby casual player would be loathe to use it in their list".

Once this was complete, one could evaluate the strength of a faction by taking the arithmetic mean of the values assigned to its models, and -- presuming the game is relatively balanced, which it appears to be -- one would expect that these average values would be relatively close to each other. Of course, there will always be discrepancies, since the game can never be perfectly balanced. A faction with a high predominance of more powerful models -- for example, Cryx -- would likely score higher than a faction with a high predominance of weaker models, such as, say, Cygnar.

The problem in my mind, then, occurs when you decide to adjust the values of a particular model. For example, it can be argued that Privateer has been making an effort to increase the power level of Cygnar by releasing some of the best new models for that faction, in the form of the Storm Strider and Stormwall, which are considered by many to be the top of their respective classes. By giving Cygnar models that rank higher and other factions that rank lower, you increase the arithmetic mean for Cygnar while decreasing that of other factions, bringing them closer to parity.

In other words, increasing the value assigned to a model by giving it a buff causes the mean value of a faction, or even the game as a whole, to increase. Since value is typically associated with "power", one can arguably define this process as "power creep". Of course, the most obvious means to counterbalance such an increase is to assign a corresponding decrease to another high-ranking model -- a "nerf". Through that means, one can maintain balance in the game as a whole.

So what happens if Mountain King receives a corresponding buff? The value of Mountain King goes up, as does the averages for both the faction and the entire game, which as I said, could be considered to be "power creep".

You did say that power creep could be considered to be inevitable -- although the release of "bad" models along with "good" models in any particular book could be actually seen as an effort to stem power creep, by keeping the overall balance of any new releases to the average.

There is a promise with the way you are evaluating power creep. No player of any faction is forced to take every model in that faction.

Let’s keep the numerical evaluation of “power” for a faction, and lets say that at the moment Cryx is power 8.0 with 100 models. (I am making these numbers up.) Now let’s say that a new book comes out with 10 new Cryx models. Let’s say that their power level is 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10, 10. That would appear to only be a “2” on the power scale right? And by that token it would appear that the Cryx power level would change to approximately 7.5 after the release of this book.

The reality is that the Cryx power level would actually increase to nearly 10.

The only power levels that matter are the models that are actually played, not all of the models that exist, so you can’t release “bad” models for a faction and actually expect its power level to decrease, players simply won’t play the new models and their faction’s power level will remain the same.

[T]he more powerful a model is, the more expensive it should be? This does, arguably, occur with other games and other companies (such as Magic: the Gathering) where valuable elements of the game are expensive... and is one of the reasons that some people dislike said games.

This isn’t a fair comparison because Magic cards are randomly assorted. Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro doesn’t actually charge more of a Birds of Paradise than it does for a Mahamoti Djinn. All of their prices come from the after market. It isn’t really a fair comparison.

I realize that, ultimately, the argument will be that the situation is more complex than the simplified one I've presented -- that the Mountain King is, in many ways, in a unique position that makes it deserving of being an exception to the normal policies and philosophies that people follow. But I'm cynical about human nature, and I have the suspicion that any exception will inevitably be expanded upon to other situations. If the Mountain King is deserving of an increase in its power level because of its relative cost and significance as an attractive showpiece model, what about the Animantarax? If we're willing to extend this situation to include the Animantarax, what about character models such as Triumph and the Thunderhead? In the end, you'll have to end up drawing a line somewhere -- but how do you argue that "the Mountain King deserves a buff because it's an expensive, showpiece model, but the Animantarax doesn't because of X"? Is the Animantarax not expensive enough? Is it lacking as a aesthetic showpiece? If it's because Mountain King is a warbeast, what about warjacks like Triumph and the Thunderhead?

In the end, I do view this argument in a rather abstract, analytical, and philosophical light. I can understand that certain apparent contradictions appear to be argued on the basis of exceptional circumstances... but I simply can't hold any optimism that such circumstances would remain exceptional. Ah well. In the end, it's all up to Privateer to choose what to do.

I agree that this is a slippery slope. We are just in a unique place with the Mountain King. It is very easy for Privateer Press to come out and say “We made a mistake and the Mountain King wasn’t done with playtesting before we printed the batch of cards that were included in the pre release models.” Or something. . . They can save face in this situation without really setting a precedent.

[Po the Barbarian]

...
The truth is there are only a few out spoken players on this thread that are making it seem like the whole Troll faction is raging about the MK. The reality is that people who post on these forum represent a small percentage of players as a whole and of the people who post on these threads only a few are filling it with negativity....

Do keep in mind that this statement cuts both ways. Just because most players aren't posting here does not mean most players think the Mountain King is a model that will ever make a list more competititve than 20 points of different models. All it means is that most troll players aren't posting here. It takes a certain personality to want to argue with an internet troll like freelancerebel in a forum where there's next to nothing to be gained.

TL;DR the fact that not everyone is posting decidedly does not mean everyone who is silent supports your position.

[PeregrineP]

I agree that this is a slippery slope. We are just in a unique place with the Mountain King. It is very easy for Privateer Press to come out and say “We made a mistake and the Mountain King wasn’t done with playtesting before we printed the batch of cards that were included in the pre release models.” Or something. . . They can save face in this situation without really setting a precedent.

I think this is the crux of why people are being so outspoken about this and why I asked earlier in the thread if the Mountain King is technically released or not.

[HellecticMojo]

Here is the point right here. It seems to me that the opinion on the MK is pretty much 50/50. Confident Troll players have come on this thread and said that they were able to do well with it and it was fun to play. That is all we should ask of any model.
And plenty of people saying it's not, it's lackluster, boring, and same o same o, without the same efficiency.

The Colossal release was never about wanting you to include a Colossal in all, or even most of your list. Just another option to add flavour to the game.
Mk is a poor option to our already existing stuff. We already have very comparable stuff that it takes up. All the other colossals and Woldwrath fill up a role or function that wasn't there.

It should not be your 'go to' beast. Just because it is big and costs a lot doesn't mean it should be fielded any more then any other model.
Oh, we don't want it to be our go beast, we want to be an option that was worth sacrificing 20pts worth of stuff in there.

As people have said there are models out there that are in need of a fix far more then the MK and I don't think PP will respond to threats of 'fix it or I won't buy it.' From a business stand point if they didn't sell a single MK but the rest of the Colossal line sold according to plan they would be doing just fine and we all know that is not going to be the case, many of the posters on this thread said they would buy an MK for looks alone.
Praise to the sculptor on that one, might have saved the entire product.

The truth is there are only a few out spoken players on this thread that are making it seem like the whole Troll faction is raging about the MK. The reality is that people who post on these forum represent a small percentage of players as a whole and of the people who post on these threads only a few are filling it with negativity.
few are filling it with positive too, and I'm having a harder time finding people who've actually played the thing and are still very happy with it.

I went to my local club to see what the opinion was of the MK. Now our club is not a big one but all the troll players there said that it wasn't a model they would play all the time but that it would see play time in a few of their list.
Did they say why? Because I've ran things for the sake of running them plenty of times before.

They actually told me that Trolls has never been all about their beasts. It could be said that the Troll faction is actually the infantry faction of Hordes, and that they couldn't really expect an amazing Colossal no more then Cryx could. With such great infantry that is where the faction focus is.
​Conquest was a serviceable release for the other premier infantry faction. Trolls lack beast control, but traditionally we had a great chassis. Our lesser used beast descriptions always start with "it's a fine beast, but we have better" except the winter troll... The MK description starts with " it's a sub par beast and we have much better"

When I take a look at the Cryx reaction to their Colossal. We have tried it out in a few lists, there are certain situations and casters where we might use it but it is nothing spectacular and I don't think it is going to change the Cryx meta a whole lot. I think that many players may purchase one just for the look and feel of the model, but like the MK, no Cryx player will really go wanting if they decided to go with out a Colossal.
I don't think any one of us really want a meta changer. We want something that can actually add something substantial to our army, and atleast not be a hinderence.

It seems to me like Troll players were expecting a Storm Wall and when they didn't get one, some of them decided that their Gargantuan was broken and needed a fix.
No something along the line of Hyperion or Conquest or Judicator or the Kraken (the relatively disliked colossals) would've been fine too

10 characters wooooooh

[Navarp]

Here is the point right here. It seems to me that the opinion on the MK is pretty much 50/50. Confident Troll players have come on this thread and said that they were able to do well with it and it was fun to play. That is all we should ask of any model.

The Colossal release was never about wanting you to include a Colossal in all, or even most of your list. Just another option to add flavour to the game.

It should not be your 'go to' beast. Just because it is big and costs a lot doesn't mean it should be fielded any more then any other model.

As people have said there are models out there that are in need of a fix far more then the MK and I don't think PP will respond to threats of 'fix it or I won't buy it.' From a business stand point if they didn't sell a single MK but the rest of the Colossal line sold according to plan they would be doing just fine and we all know that is not going to be the case, many of the posters on this thread said they would buy an MK for looks alone.

The truth is there are only a few out spoken players on this thread that are making it seem like the whole Troll faction is raging about the MK. The reality is that people who post on these forum represent a small percentage of players as a whole and of the people who post on these threads only a few are filling it with negativity.

I went to my local club to see what the opinion was of the MK. Now our club is not a big one but all the troll players there said that it wasn't a model they would play all the time but that it would see play time in a few of their list.

They actually told me that Trolls has never been all about their beasts. It could be said that the Troll faction is actually the infantry faction of Hordes, and that they couldn't really expect an amazing Colossal no more then Cryx could. With such great infantry that is where the faction focus is.

When I take a look at the Cryx reaction to their Colossal. We have tried it out in a few lists, there are certain situations and casters where we might use it but it is nothing spectacular and I don't think it is going to change the Cryx meta a whole lot. I think that many players may purchase one just for the look and feel of the model, but like the MK, no Cryx player will really go wanting if they decided to go with out a
Colossal.

It seems to me like Troll players were expecting a Storm Wall and when they didn't get one, some of them decided that their Gargantuan was broken and needed a fix.

2 things about this.

Just because I have had mixed success doesn't mean that the model isn't poorly balanced. I would have had more success playing NOT Mountain King.

Also I challenge you to find an equal number of forum posts claiming that the Mountain King is Good and claiming that it is bad. Or even Just an equal number of posters who play trolls.

I did a quick search and I would estimate that about 15% on these forums are saying that the Mountain King is good.

[bouncymischa]

Lunchtime means time for more pedantry! XD (At least on my part.)

First off before I address anything else that you said let me address this. Steampunk Jim?s argument isn?t:
that because the Mountain King is expensive it should be made more powerful.

His argument is:

Because Mountain King is expensive AND BAD it should be properly balanced.

I happen to share his point of view, but take it a step further. Because Mountain King is expensive and bad, and amazing looking (huge, awesome sculpt, ?attractive? to players of other games, etc.) it should be properly balanced.

I was specifically responding to this post by Steampunk Jim:

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.

In the context of that post, at least, he only mentioned the monetary value of the model, and indicated that cost was a factor in whether or not a model should be buffed. He never mentioned that it needed to be buffed because it was bad. While you have pointed out that the cost of the model is only one of the factors in your argument that it should be improved, I felt that the fact that he was willing to single out that aspect of it deserved to be examined briefly.

Of course, your argument still begs the question of "where should the line be drawn"? What about the Aminantarax, another expensive, bad, and arguably awesomely sculpted model? And beyond that, what about a model like, say, the Thunderhead? Eventually you have to say "sorry, this model isn't expensive enough/attractive enough to warrant a buff, despite being bad"... but who decides what point that is?

Now to address the rest of your post:

There is a promise with the way you are evaluating power creep. No player of any faction is forced to take every model in that faction.

Let?s keep the numerical evaluation of ?power? for a faction, and lets say that at the moment Cryx is power 8.0 with 100 models. (I am making these numbers up.) Now let?s say that a new book comes out with 10 new Cryx models. Let?s say that their power level is 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10, 10. That would appear to only be a ?2? on the power scale right? And by that token it would appear that the Cryx power level would change to approximately 7.5 after the release of this book.

The reality is that the Cryx power level would actually increase to nearly 10.

The only power levels that matter are the models that are actually played, not all of the models that exist, so you can?t release ?bad? models for a faction and actually expect its power level to decrease, players simply won?t play the new models and their faction?s power level will remain the same.

Which brings up another issue I've encountered. Competitive players voluntarily restrict themselves to a subset of the available models -- typically those of a power level high enough to warrant them being "competitive". If we say, for the purposes of this discussion, they only play models that rank a 7 or above, then it would happen as you describe -- only the 10s get played, and the others get ignored. However, not every player plays in this fashion. I know myself I've played plenty of casual games, eschewing the more powerful models and playing my average-to-weak ones against similar armies played by other players, and had fun and tense games. It's probably fair to say that average models are balanced against other average models, and weak ones are balanced against weak ones.

Which then leads to the question -- why should Privateer choose to balance its models based on the playstyle of a subgroup of their playerbase that voluntarily chooses not to player weaker models? From what I can tell from the various No Quarter battle reports and such, the staff at Privateer have a tendency to play a more casual style of game than most competitive, tournament players. They'll make wacky, thematic lists or throw in random models they want to try out, much like casual players do. I suspect many models are released based on playtesting from this kind of environment -- rather than being tested against only competitive models, they're tested against the sucky sub-par models as well, and balanced accordingly.

I know there are various arguments that the game would be better off if it was balanced only to competitive play standards, with a kind of "trickle down" relationship to casual players, but I suspect that argument is probably best served in a different thread as it was be rather off-topic.

Returning to the example you proposed, however, it does suggest that even trying to balance models to be "more competitive" may not in fact solve the problem. As I said, competitive players have a tendency to choose to play a subset of available models. Even if all of the models in the game were buffed to be ranked "7 or better", competitive players would likely not play the entire range of models -- instead, they would restrict themselves to a higher standard, say, models ranked "9 or better". If the models were then buffed again, up to a standard of 9 or better, competitive players would then restrict themselves again, only playing models ranked 10. And so on.

The issue I've often seen when it comes to buffing/nerfing models isn't so much the actual ranking/power level of the model, but the disparity between the top and bottom. Narrowing the field is always a good thing, but there will always be a gap, and competitive players are selective enough to eschew certain models within that gap. Buffing models to bring them up in power level will narrow that gap, but will not increase diversity in competitive models as much, which is why I consider the process of buffing models to be somewhat irrelevant, and possibly even dangerous in that it sets certain philosophical precedents.

This isn?t a fair comparison because Magic cards are randomly assorted. Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro doesn?t actually charge more of a Birds of Paradise than it does for a Mahamoti Djinn. All of their prices come from the after market. It isn?t really a fair comparison.

You do have a point there -- all boosters cost the same, regardless of what cards they have (particularly considering the presence of jank rares). On the other hand, most of my encounters with obtaining Magic cards have been through the after market, as I suspect most players have been. I know I've seen a large number of complaints about the cost of things like dual lands and other chase rares considered essential for competitive gameplay, so that was my perspective.

I agree that this is a slippery slope. We are just in a unique place with the Mountain King. It is very easy for Privateer Press to come out and say ?We made a mistake and the Mountain King wasn?t done with playtesting before we printed the batch of cards that were included in the pre release models.? Or something. . . They can save face in this situation without really setting a precedent.

I recognize that the Mountain King is in somewhat of a unique situation, but I can't help but feel it isn't quite as unique as you say. The Animantarax is an excellent example -- last year it was in the exact same spot as the Mountain King. Battle Engines were expensive, and had the aesthetics of showpieces, something to entice players into the game. They were innovative and new. But the Animantarax was pretty much the weakest of the bunch, and the Skorne players lodged their own complaints and protests about it... but Privateer remained silent and no errata has come down to "fix" the Animantarax.

Sure, the Mountain King could be different, and prompt a different response... but any such response will inevitably be applied by someone retroactively, to argue that other models that have been released are equally deserving of buffs. If something like that does occur, it will at least be interesting to see the arguments that get applied as to why Model A deserves a buff, while Model B doesn't...

[West996]

Another thing is that we don't even have all the Stats for the other Gargantuans to even make a comparison. It is being compared to the Circle Gargantuan and then to Colossals which doesn't take a scientific writer to know that isn't a great basis for comparison.

So as of right now we don't know what the power level should even look like of a gargantuan. Everyone who is saying the MK is bad doesn't seem to have thought for a second that it is exactly where PP wants it to be in terms of power. You all assume PP has made some grand mistake.

I'm not so sure about that.

[Kamahin]

Another thing is that we don't even have all the Stats for the other Gargantuans to even make a comparison. It is being compared to the Circle Gargantuan and then to Colossals which doesn't take a scientific writer to know that isn't a great basis for comparison.

So as of right now we don't know what the power level should even look like of a gargantuan. Everyone who is saying the MK is bad doesn't seem to have thought for a second that it is exactly where PP wants it to be in terms of power. You all assume PP has made some grand mistake.

I'm not so sure about that.

If both the remaining gargantuans should be as underwhelming as the Mountain King, THAT would be a grand mistake on PP's part.

[Navarp]

If both the remaining gargantuans should be as underwhelming as the Mountain King, THAT would be a grand mistake on PP's part.

Pretty much this. Again this is a game based on points. A single 20 point model should be worth 20 points of separate models. That is balance. The Woldwrath seems to do that very well as do several of the Colossals.

Bouncymischa I don't think they should balance models to be "more competitive." just Competitive.

I feel like I am banging my head against the wall here.

Is is so unreasonable to request that a 20 point centerpiece model be actually worth 20 points?

Also because no one has answered the 50/50 split argument, let me post the results of my forum searches.

If your forum name is here and I mispreresent your opinion please comment and I will edit the post. As it is it appears that 18 people on the forums think that the Mountain King is bad and 3 people think it is Okay. I didn't find anyone claiming that it was good. So about 15% of people think it is okay and about 85% of people think it is some degree of bad. That is hardly a 50/50 split, but if you disagree with these numbers please post your evidence.

Sour Clams = Terrible Rules
PG-Wordsmith = Terrible Rules
Petegrrrr = Doesn?t like it
Thegreatblah = Overcosted (?Costs too many points to field?)
Cryptomancer = Essentially useless
Beckman = Mountain King is broken and needs to be fixed
Scottagain = Mountain King is broken and needs to be fixed
Celedor = Mountain King is broken and needs to be fixed
Kamahin = Mountain King is broken and needs to be fixed
Silopolis = Mountain King is broken and needs to be fixed
Benopotomus = Doesn?t like it
Goris = He is so bad that a model designed specifically to fix him couldn?t help
Bakaryu = Mountian king is bad, trolls have better options
Raizieldragon = Mountain King is broken and needs to be fixed
Vagabondaeon = Woldwrath isn?t awesome, but WAY better than MK (By a long shot)
Sevwall = Woldwrath isn?t awesome, but WAY better than MK (By far better)
Tinyninja = Mountain King doesn?t have enough damage boxes


Spume = "One of the few that thinks it can be made to work"
Digestive = Mountain king is balanced within the faction
JoeGuardsman = Seems to like it.

[rwould]

Also I challenge you to find an equal number of forum posts claiming that the Mountain King is Good and claiming that it is bad. Or even Just an equal number of posters who play trolls.

To be honest the negativity in this thread is a deterrant to bother posting. Comments like the one above are the problem. My objection is the categorisation of good/bad. I don't think it is either.

Is it an optimal choice? No
Can it be used effectively in a three list environment? Probably
Is it so utterly awful that it will be extremely rarely fielded? No

It is not even the worst Troll model, never mind the worst model in the game. Yet the portrayal in this thread is that is of that level of uselessness. This is probably down to it's cost and that some people don't want to spend that much on a model for occasional use. I can perfectly understand that, I held off getting Destors for Ret for the same reason. An arguably sub optimal choice that is difficult to justify spending the money on rather than being unusable.

[Hug a Gorax]

Is is so unreasonable to request that a 20 point centerpiece model be actually worth 20 points?

That is more than one question surely.

"Is it worth twenty points out of a hundred point list?"
is a different question to:
"Is it worth twenty points out of a thirty-five point list?"

This would be true in any case with any rule system, but it is especially apposite with the fury leaching mechanism meaning that a diminishing returns effect applies to warbeasts (or specifically the fury points on them). Whelp shedding ought to help here too in lowering the "fury cost" if not the point cost, in a list size where the former becomes more important than the latter.

You might not think you get a different answer to the the two questions above, but I would think that you ought to consider them independently. Would it make any difference if the option was "as well as Mulg" rather than "instead of Mulg"?

[bouncymischa]

Bouncymischa I don't think they should balance models to be "more competitive." just Competitive.

Well, I'd argue that taking a noncompetitive model and making it competive would count as an increase in competitiveness (or power level, or whatever).

I feel like I am banging my head against the wall here.

Well, that's internet discussions for you. <.<

Is is so unreasonable to request that a 20 point centerpiece model be actually worth 20 points?

Well, part of the problem is the question of "what makes a model worth its points"? If I compare Stormwall and Conquest, which model is worth its points, and which one is over/undercosted? Everyone's going to have their own idea as to whether or not Mountain King is balanced/fair or not, and whether or not it needs to be "fixed". In that sense, then, it's not unreasonable to make such a request -- but it is rather unreasonable to expect everyone else to agree or conform to your assessment, particularly Privateer.

Also because no one has answered the 50/50 split argument, let me post the results of my forum searches.

Well, my own point of view is ambivalent. I don't play Trollbloods, so the issue of buying it or not is irrelevant to me. My brother does, and will likely buy it for sheer aesthetic value. He also doesn't mind playing with most of the Trollbloods' weaker units (he readily uses Scattergunners and the like), so it's likely that I'll end up fighting against Mountain King in any event.

As for needing to be "fixed", personally I feel that it would set a problematic precedent, so I would probably prefer if Privateer simply shrugged and left it at "Hey, we thought it was good enough, so we'll leave it for now until the next game revision". If Privateer decides to go ahead and errata it, well... that's their choice. I'm certainly not going to try and tell them what to do. X3

To be honest the negativity in this thread is a deterrant to bother posting. Comments like the one above are the problem. My objection is the categorisation of good/bad. I don't think it is either.

Is it an optimal choice? No
Can it be used effectively in a three list environment? Probably
Is it so utterly awful that it will be extremely rarely fielded? No

It is not even the worst Troll model, never mind the worst model in the game. Yet the portrayal in this thread is that is of that level of uselessness. This is probably down to it's cost and that some people don't want to spend that much on a model for occasional use. I can perfectly understand that, I held off getting Destors for Ret for the same reason. An arguably sub optimal choice that is difficult to justify spending the money on rather than being unusable.

I've always had a personal dislike for the usage of the terms "good" and "bad" myself, as I suspect they are largely oversimplifications that can't fully represent the complex dynamics of a model within the game, and they carry emotional baggage that ultimately interferes with reasoned discussion.

There's also the fact that many internet discussions have a tendency to degenerate into extreme views, simply because people on both sides of a moderate viewpoint feel the need to accentuate their point in order to convince the other side of the validity of their argument. So a model that is viewed by both sides as "average"/"mediocre" ends up becoming "great" and "worthless".

[HellecticMojo]

To be honest the negativity in this thread is a deterrant to bother posting. Comments like the one above are the problem. My objection is the categorisation of good/bad. I don't think it is either.

Is it an optimal choice? No
Can it be used effectively in a three list environment? Probably
Is it so utterly awful that it will be extremely rarely fielded? No

It is not even the worst Troll model, never mind the worst model in the game. Yet the portrayal in this thread is that is of that level of uselessness. This is probably down to it's cost and that some people don't want to spend that much on a model for occasional use. I can perfectly understand that, I held off getting Destors for Ret for the same reason. An arguably sub optimal choice that is difficult to justify spending the money on rather than being unusable.

And comments like these aren't helping. Have you actually used the King? have you actually faced the king, and did he pose enough of a loss potential from you?

It isn't just a negative attitude, we have negative results. I've yet to see anyone (seriously quote me wrong on this) who've used it, and found it to be a favorable option compared to even bringing our under appreciated stuff. All my opponents can be quoted to saying "huh, that's was surprisingly easy" or "It really didn't do much" It doesn't even have the element of fear for the enemy. opponents don't care it exists.

I can't ctrl F anyone who've said "I'm glad to have brought the MK instead of XY" or "I was concerned about his MK on my lines"

[PG_strangedane]

I have faced the MK twice so far, and I think it is a fine model. Not OP but also not as bad as some people make it.

First game; He shielded the MK with a light beast, forcing me to take it out before I could get a clear lane to the MK. Not a problem I thought, Skorne has enough beasts to do the job. I took the light down easy enough BUT it spawned 2-3 whelps, who were now in the way. It ended up being the difference, my Bronzeback had to use it's initial to hit a whelp standing in the way, and so did not kill the MK. Next turn it ate an army of whelps and trashed my army.

[rwould]

So in other words people are saying it is not the optimal choice which is what I have said above yet you've chosen to ignore..... Congratulations on demonstrating why it is not worth posting on this thread HellecticMojo.

[HellecticMojo]

Thank you, finally some positive light with some experience.

The light is the one that spawned the whelps right, not the Mk right? what was your list? I'm just wondering why you decided to charge anyway on the MK when the Bronzeback is the premier undercosted killer of the MK?

[HellecticMojo]

So in other words people are saying it is not the optimal choice which is what I have said above yet you've chosen to ignore..... Congratulations on demonstrating why it is not worth posting on this thread HellecticMojo.

I'm "ignoring" because you've not said anything about experience with the MK of any explanation on your counter points

You've mentioned not optimal choice, you won't explain the reason for not sucking in a 3 list environment, you won't qualify it's decency.

What am I supposed to say? That I take your "No, probably, no" at sheer face value when you won't provide any examples, or experience, or explanations for those answers?

[bouncymischa]

It isn't just a negative attitude, we have negative results. I've yet to see anyone (seriously quote me wrong on this) who've used it, and found it to be a favorable option compared to even bringing our under appreciated stuff. All my opponents can be quoted to saying "huh, that's was surprisingly easy" or "It really didn't do much" It doesn't even have the element of fear for the enemy. opponents don't care it exists.

I can't ctrl F anyone who've said "I'm glad to have brought the MK instead of XY" or "I was concerned about his MK on my lines"

I suspect part of what rwould is trying to get at is, "Are these qualities necessary for the Mountain King"? Does a new model have to inspire fear in the enemy, or outclass or replace existing options?

Given some of the balance problems Privateer has had in the past, I'd rather see an underpowered model than an overpowered one, and Privateer has even said in the past they feel that overpowered models produce more negative play experiences than underpowered ones. Now, admittedly, the inevitable response is going to be "We're not saying we want it to be overpowered, we just want it to be as good as the rest". But I suspect it's still valid to question exactly how high your standards are set. Mulg, for example, is one of the best beasts in your faction -- so why do people keep comparing Mountain King to Mulg. Are they saying that they want it to be as good, if not better than, the very best beast you have?

Ultimately, a more in-depth exploration is probably necessary, and has likely already been conducted (although a glance at the Trollbloods forums didn't turn up any recent threads discussing how to maximize Mountain Kings effectiveness, or possible builds he might shine in). As strangedane's post indicates, there may still be strategies and such that can help him out, but such things will likely take time to appear as the meta shifts and evolves.

There's also the point that I mentioned before, that using terms such as "bad" and "good" can be problematic for reasoned discussion. Even some of the most maligned models in the game I can see potential in, so it's hard for me to qualify anything as being "bad", particularly if being "bad" is a requirement for needing to be "fixed". Even if a model is extremely situational and has only marginal potential, it still has that. So the argument then spirals back into some of my earlier ones about "why do we need to fix things at all?"...

[rwould]

It's pretty simple, Mulg is the premier warbeast in the faction and with limited lists he can go in one list. MK gives you a beatstick for other lists to compensate for the one Mulg. Bearing in mind the number of players who have said 'why take him when you can take Mulg' there clearly is a want for that style of beast.

In points comparisons he is not a straight 20 points of beasts due to the whelp ability, and in my mind i would want an EBDT in there too both for the animus and because in my book it is the best non character beast available. So your lists are already starting at the equivalent of using 3 melee based heavies which instantly rules out a whole series of casters. I'd also try a Bouncer with him which would make him a lot harder to kill in one go.

Ones I'd like to try him with? Either Doomshaper seems like the two obvious ones to me, Madrak1 as a possibility (Carnage and Sure Foot) but wonder if the caster is then trying to support the one model too much, and Calandra with Bullet Dodger and Starcrossed can help deliver the MK to the destination and under feat help him eat things.

As for games with him none so far. Not a fan of proxying, and don't play on Vassal, and no one will post me one I've also been pretty busy with Stormwalls recently. But after twenty-odd years of competitive gaming I'm a pretty good judge of lame ducks and whilst he is not the best 20 points you can spend in Trolls he can certainly work. Especially as I see the meta shifting towards being able to deal with low def high arm options (not that Trolls are not already ok against that)

[sourclams]

Are they saying that they want it to be as good, if not better than, the very best beast you have?

A 20 point model should be as good as a 12 point model, yes.

[sourclams]

As for games with him none so far.

Why is your opinion worth as much as that of people who have playtested?

[HellecticMojo]

It doesn't have to inspire fear, but it should be enough of a factor. I would not want the MK to really outclass or replace anything really. It's bad for the game, it's bad for the faction.

underpowered models are fine, but even underpowered they should still be able to do what they were intended to do.
I play a lot of sub par or not the best choice I should say for both Khador and Trolls. But even the ones I do play, I play them because their usage is clear and they provide enough of their quality for me to maximize on.
Sluggers, I wrote an guide on, so I'll use it as my example. Sluggers are purposed to lay down a static firing base where unusually high powered guns at rifle range ( a rarity in trolls) can be deployed. From there I've learned to leapfrog and consider my target selections, making for a limited usage but adequate for what little purpose I have for them.
Assault Kommandos I use with either vlad to overcome their inaccuracies and target each other with the bombs once engaged to make the rest of the attacks connect against light infantry. Not optimal, but atleast I know what I'm supposed to do with them.

MK, I can't figure it out. It seems to market itself as a infantry cleaner with amuck, but it can't hit Ironflesh, boasts the lowest STR stat so the damage is lackluster against MOWs. Animi don't stack so I can't use Primal or Rage to fix it while using amuck.
It seems to show itself as a durable thing with the whelp shedding, but it boasts the least HP so it dies in melee before getting to use it.
It seems to be wanting to smash big stuff, a part that is already in hot competition, but it can't hit anything outside colossals and Khador jacks with certainty.
It has a good gun, but it can shoot only once, no lingering effects, and a low RAT on something that needs to roll to hit.
What is the MK? Miserable little pile of secrets? tell me the secret because i don't see it.

I personally think i've put my bar for my ideal Mk pretty low. Mat 6, regenerate. I don't want or care that it competes with Mulg, but at the current stats, it's the closest comparison unfortunately. High melee damage, high armor, just screams mulg, and it's also the closest thing we got in pt cost so it's the closest comparison we can make at the current state, barring cross faction stuff.

I personally just think it's inferior to two maulers. I don't think that's too much to ask considering that Mauler is our bare bones heavy akin to the Crusader or the Juggernaut

I want the MK fixed because it's a lost opportunity for something good to happen for everyone. I don't know, maybe it could be fun or engaging to fight with or against the MK instead of "meh" Right now he isn't even really extremely situational, what ever task he is assigned to he seems to be miserable at it. If someone ask for my list I would say my justification "I brought XYZ because I'm hoping the XYZ to ABC." Currently the MK is. "It's in there because I have hope, and am a masochist"

[rpavers]

It doesn't have to inspire fear, but it should be enough of a factor. I would not want the MK to really outclass or replace anything really. It's bad for the game, it's bad for the faction.

It does inspire fear though. Terror.

[Navarp]

To be honest the negativity in this thread is a deterrant to bother posting. Comments like the one above are the problem. My objection is the categorisation of good/bad. I don't think it is either.

Is it an optimal choice? No
Can it be used effectively in a three list environment? Probably
Is it so utterly awful that it will be extremely rarely fielded? No

It is not even the worst Troll model, never mind the worst model in the game. Yet the portrayal in this thread is that is of that level of uselessness. This is probably down to it's cost and that some people don't want to spend that much on a model for occasional use. I can perfectly understand that, I held off getting Destors for Ret for the same reason. An arguably sub optimal choice that is difficult to justify spending the money on rather than being unusable.

When have I said it was the worst model in the game?

In fact I can't even believe that people are arguing. Far and away the consensus is that he is sub optimal. This is only my point.

I guess I don't see how you can be at a place where you say:

"I think he is poorly balanced, he hasn't been released yet, but I don't want Privateer Press to fix him for the betterment of the game."

Where are we even arguing?

[HellecticMojo]

to the opponent.

also as previously mentioned, you send jacks/beasts/ weaponmaster infantry after him, which are all likely to be fearless or have high enough command to not give a damn.

[bouncymischa]

"I think he is poorly balanced, he hasn't been released yet, but I don't want Privateer Press to fix him for the betterment of the game."

Except that he has been released...

[PG_thegreatblah]

I think a better question/comparison any Troll player should ask is thus.

What do I give up in my list in order to bring a Mountain King?
Are the benefits to having a garguantuan in my list greater than the benefits of having an additional Dire Troll Instead?

The Mountain King can certainly fill the shoes of any Dire Troll by itself easily including Mulg. But can the Mountain King fill the shoes of 2xDire Trolls and a Pack of Whelps? This is why I say he is probably overcosted. In my mind they gave us a 16to17 point garguantuan and then added 3to4 points to his cost to account for whelps.

That and from a playing standpoint you can certainly see why the MK's statline is the way it is because of some very good Troll buffs. I think Troll buffing makes it difficult to not make a Troll model overpowered. There are a handful of Troll models that with a very small buff go from not working to broken good (i.e. Thumper,Skinner,Mountain King, Winter Troll) and I think it might be difficult sometimes to get the balance right on with Troll models. Admitedly though I think PP and their playtest group to a very good job, sometimes though we just don't see things the same way they do.

I'll stick with my earlier assessment though, to make a long story long, the mountain king currently is just too expensive to field for what he brings to the table and its hard to say what could be done to quote "Fix" him.

If I had my choice it would be something seemingly minor like ROF 2, virtuoso, -2 points, OR MAT/RAT 6. Any or some of those things would help (or all of them). But long history has shown us that once a model gets printed it is very unlikely that it will get changed.

[rwould]

A 20 point model should be as good as a 12 point model, yes.

So if the Mountain King was 12 points but you could only take him or Mulg you would take Mulg?

And you question the worth of my opinion? Good sense of humour clearly...

[Navarp]

Except that he has been released...

Well this depends on the definition of release. He hasn't been "mass released" he has only been "pre released."

So add the word "mass" to my sentence.

[Wishing]

I guess I don't see how you can be at a place where you say:

"I think he is poorly balanced, he hasn't been released yet, but I don't want Privateer Press to fix him for the betterment of the game."

Where are we even arguing?

I'd say we are arguing (well, some are) because there are essentially two conflicting opinions, not specifically about whether the MK is seen to be competitive or not, but about what can or should be done about this.

Opinion A: I think the MK is not competitive and PP really should fix him because it really sucks to have such a cool and huge model never see play. Such a wasted opportunity is intolerable.

Opinion B: I don't know whether the MK is competitive or not, but I know that my opinion is relative anyway and you cannot put models into categorical "good" and "bad" boxes - the game isn't that simple. So we just have to play with it if we want or not play with it if we don't want. Such is life.

Both are valid opinions I think, but I (of course) lean towards B. That the MK is underpowered is not fact, it is simply opinion. Yes, it would have been nice if more people thought the MK was worth fielding, it's never fun when models are badly received. But PP simply cannot release models, ask for public feedback, and then adjust the model afterwards when they release a new model. That would be horrible. Just deal with it and move on.

[HellecticMojo]

So if the Mountain King was 12 points but you could only take him or Mulg you would take Mulg?

And you question the worth of my opinion? Good sense of humour clearly...

what's with the snark?

I think it would be a good coin toss actually if Mk was 12pt at current incarnation. Mulg brings anti magic, warlock protection, accuracy, goad and refuge possibilities.

[Ninja5]

It seems to market itself as a infantry cleaner with amuck, but it can't hit Ironflesh, boasts the lowest STR stat so the damage is lackluster against MOWs. Animi don't stack so I can't use Primal or Rage to fix it while using amuck.

ironflesh may give you some trouble but that depends on what it's cast on. high def typically has low arm so no need to up the damage there... but the MOW thing.... you're annoyed that you can't virtually guarantee the hit on MOW and then paste them with the addition of primal or rage? you're still going to hit on 6s which means what? 3 out of 5? or close enough. then boost the other two attacks like everyone else needs to. sounds like how this game is supposed to be played to me.

sorry to butt in after 6 pages. i just thought the complaint about MOW was a little funny as mine get hit almost every time they're targeted.

look, i understand the desire to have a stat upped a little bit. i feel the same way about pow 6 blast damage.

[PG_petegrrrr]

He's talking about damaging them, not hitting them.