How much would you pay for a solid warcaster?

[OMM_Lukav]

As we all know by now Santa Lylyth is coming to town in the next expansion for hordes, riding on a 120mm base. This has lead many others to hope/speculate/pray that the next Warmachine caster on a 120mm base will be epic Karchev (there may be other theories too, but as a mainly Khador player i choose to ignore them! :P ).

Anyhoot this started the inevitably thread about "What if Karchev was in a colossal body?"! Following this line of reason, that means Epic Karchev would be at minimum $135.00.

So i pose the question, if PP released a warcaster/warlock on a 120mm with very solid rules, how much would you be willing to pay. Would a totally awesome caster that cost $100+ be out of the question?

In my opinion, I don't think PP would go near $100 for a single caster since they are supposed to be the most accessible model in your list. However we still don't know of much Santa Lylyth cost though. I hated paying $40 for Vlad 3, but i did. I would even be willing to say for myself if the model was truly awesome and i know i would be fielding it a lot I would pay upwards of $80.

[x3tsniper]

I am somewhat unhappy myself about the huge base warcasters. I like owning all of the warcasters, whether I play them or not, but I doubt I will be willing to shill out for something like that if I don't like it. Vlad3 I have no problems with. I can split with 40 bucks for a single model relatively easy. It is when I can buy an entire 10 man unit for less than the cost of one model, that I start to be unhappy.

I also happen to like Vlad3.

[DrFish]

This is a similar question Trollblood players are asking about the Mountain King, except we already know its stats. The question becomes, if he's $100 or more dollars, should his stats reflect that? Is he allowed to be poor and expensive? If his rules weren't good, would the necessarily have to lower the cost despite the size?

[ForestZ]

The problem is, if you invest the high amount required for a Battle Engine or a Colossal, you can use that one investment in multiple lists. Its cost is mitigated by its versatility. Your ability to play with the same model most of the time makes it a worthwhile investment.

A warcaster/warlock, by comparison provides a much more limited return. Unless you plan on making the caster one of your primary play pieces, it will by default show up on the table much less often than any other model. This alone means it's not going to make its monetary cost back for you as readily as the other high priced models, and so makes it a tougher sell.

That's just my opinion though. At the end of the day, people will still buy cool models with good rules just to have them, even if they are expensive.

[Quizboy]

For me it's less the power level and more whether a Colossal 'caster would actually do anything interesting. $135 for a high statline and recycled spell list? Probably not, barring a really exceptional sculpt. $135 for a 'caster who offers a significantly different play experience with other faction models I already own? I'd certainly be interested.

[Lich_Lord_X]

This is a similar question Trollblood players are asking about the Mountain King, except we already know its stats. The question becomes, if he's $100 or more dollars, should his stats reflect that? Is he allowed to be poor and expensive? If his rules weren't good, would the necessarily have to lower the cost despite the size?

You can preorder him already, I believe he's $125.

Honestly how good a model is should in no way impact the price. This isn't Magic.

[x3tsniper]

You can preorder him already, I believe he's $125.

Honestly how good a model is should in no way impact the price. This isn't Magic.

Should I mention at this point, that I am perfectly happy with putting a WGI model on a huge base and calling it the colossal karchev? I bet I could even get it through a local tournament. Oo

[Patryn]

Colossals are much more affordable ordered from ebay in my experience. My Stormwall was $85 with free shipping.

That said, I wouldn't be amiss to paying that much for a warcaster, but I don't think that a huge base warcaster is a good idea at all.

Though, now that I think about it, I wish I could field n3mo on the walkway of my stormstrider instead of the stormsmiths.

[Vex]

This has lead many others to hope/speculate/pray that the next Warmachine caster on a 120mm base will be epic Karchev (there may be other theories too, but as a mainly Khador player i choose to ignore them! :P ).

I think Karchev would make a fine 120mm base warcaster... for Cryx.

Having said that, though, I don't think 120mm base warcasters are a good idea in general. Having a low DEF warcaster, that your opponent always has LOS to, doesn't seem like a stunningly good plan, IMO. Heck, just keeping other models in front of it to prevent charges is a lot of real estate to cover. I mean, it is one thing to have a massively tough gun platform with these limitations, but a warcaster is never going to be as tough or powerful as a colossal. (Unless you give them significantly negative warjack points, or something equally silly.)

Playability aside, there is also the fact that $100+ for a warcaster is different from a model that can go in multiple lists. It is a harder sell. That doesn't mean that it can't happen (obviously), but PP would probably do better focusing their resources elsewhere.

[OMM_Lukav]

I have mixed feelings. I don't want anyone to be forced to pay a lot of money for something powerful ( i still have hard feelings toward magic the gathering and that @#$%@ black lotus from when i was a kid), but if I am going to pay a lot of money for a model I want it to perform. For me it would have to be something like this:

Epic Karchev with awesome model in colossal armor
- Solid Jack Caster like current form
- Gives speed buff to Man o War units.
- +0 Warjack Points

I now have a caster I would play. He does more than his current, thus bringing more to the table with a single line of troops (not the whole Khador army). Is it balanced, i dunno. But he hits two areas i want him to..Man o Wars and Warjacks. I would pay $100 for a model that fits all of that.

[IronComrade]

In PP I trust, honestly, I have never known a more balanced game (subject to release schedules). If Karchev is in fact going to Colossal form, I'm sure they'll do right by it. In fact, I encourage every idea to make this game as diverse as possible. Lately I feel like release schedules for armies have been fairly predictable based on what kind of unit type a faction doesn't already posses.

For instance Khador, we dont have light cav, hence outriders, got a unit that doesn't have a solo that buffs them? You can plan on the release of one. Circle is getting heavy cav because they don't have one, etc., etc. I want every faction to feel, look, and play as different as possible from other factions. What I don't want is for every faction to have their own spin on a particular unit.

So yes, I would probably pay for an epic Karchev.

[Lighten]

It's going to be a hard sell for me. I've got everything Circle, so a Circle huge-based caster would get bought. But for my other factions? Spending $80-$135 on a warcaster that's going to be one of my 8/12/16 options for 'caster is too much. Unless it does something amazing I can't get elsewhere, it's going to stay on the shelf.

[rocksalt]

That is why we are getting a Legion warlock as our first huge based warlock/warcaster. You know it is going to be really powerful, break most of the already established rules for huge bases and be worth every penny.

[tonyzahn]

Honestly, I don't really correlate price to performance.

$$ is for models, points are for rules.

I'll pay more $ for a fantastic model, even if the rules are lousy.

[Wishing]

Personally, I would definitely buy a huge caster, specifically because casters are the centrepiece of any army and I therefore want them to be huge and impressive. I love buying casters, much more than any other type of model. For me it would depend on whether I thought the model was sufficiently beautiful or not. But the fact that casters are effectively free, and therefore doesn't increase the size of your collection in terms of how many points you can field, does make it a little bit iffy in terms of cost effectiveness.

[Lich_Lord_X]

Colossals are much more affordable ordered from ebay in my experience. My Stormwall was $85 with free shipping.

Support you local stores...before there are none.

[FearLord]

Warcasters are the life blood of the game - even if you don't buy any of the other releases, getting the new warcaster/s shakes up your collection with a single purchase. Within reason, it would be difficult to release a caster for a faction I play without me rushing out to pick it up...

[gaminguy]

You can preorder him already, I believe he's $125.

Honestly how good a model is should in no way impact the price. This isn't Magic.

Truth.

Dollar cost should be strictly related to cost of production, point cost strictly related to table-top performance. If it worked otherwise Paingiver Beast Handlers would be $50 per model and Karax would come with a 95% mail-in rebate and an apology letter.

[Seventhprophet]

He would have to be significantly better than conquest to be worth spending conquest level money on. I seriously doubt This will happen.

[x3tsniper]

If it happens, and I end up buying it, it will probably be one of those models that sits at home on the shelf. These things just aren't logical to transport if I want to take the rest of my army, and I don't go to the LGS for normal games already having planned out what I want to play.

[Lighten]

Warcasters are the life blood of the game - even if you don't buy any of the other releases, getting the new warcaster/s shakes up your collection with a single purchase. Within reason, it would be difficult to release a caster for a faction I play without me rushing out to pick it up...

Sure, but that only applies to factions you own a lot of, and/or all casters. Circle caster, absolutely. But I own about 70 points and three casters in Menoth; if I want to shake up my Menoth collection, I'd be better off buying 8 new menoth casters than 1 caster for $135.

[OniBeowulf]

To be honest I'm against 120mm warcasters/warlocks period

[Deo85]

agree that price =/= playability if it did then PP would of ramped up there prices and this game would become vary expensive vary fast.

[Wishing]

When it comes to rules, the only thing that would make me hesitate to buy a gorgeous battle engine warlock (thinking of Lyl here) would be if the rules were somehow really really boring. If the rules are interesting, I don't care much if they are powerful or not. If she is not powerful at all, I will just give her to my friend who always beats me to play to make our games more interesting.

[Binz]

That is why we are getting a Legion warlock as our first huge based warlock/warcaster. You know it is going to be really powerful, break most of the already established rules for huge bases and be worth every penny.

Yep.

I bet eeLylyth has Stealth, can still transfer, cant be seen behind clouds or forests, while still retaining all of the benefits of collosals - cant be knocked down etc.

Goooood times

[Patryn]

Support you local stores...before there are none.

I buy from my local store when I can, but I can't overpay by $40-$50. I tend to buy painting supplies and smaller models where the markup isn't as huge.

[Flindo]

10-40$?
(10 characters)

[traeplien]

I buy from my local store when I can, but I can't overpay by $40-$50. I tend to buy painting supplies and smaller models where the markup isn't as huge.

As a FLGS owner, you'd be amazed just how small that markup is. And, it's the exact same percentage between glue, paints, other PP models, etc. Basically, each distributor has either a set markup percentage for each manufacturer or a small range of percentages. The reason most gaming stores don't last all that long? That markup is incredibly low compared to most other retail industries. If you expand that into food service, it gets even more ridiculous (I.E. after being involved in the buying process at a starbucks-esque coffee establishment, I can tell you that the markup on your standard coffee or latte is somewhere around 900 times higher percentage-wise than any gaming supplies) Likewise, your clothing has a markup that's easily 10-20 times higher than a gaming store's markup. If you buy higher-end labels (Banana Republic as opposed to Old Navy, designer names, etc.) that markup increases even more so. For a different perspective: If I was to sell nothing but paint to customers with everyone thing else being bought online, I would have to sell almost 2000 bottles of paint each month just to keep my doors open. Please, support your local stores as much as humanly possible, or pretty soon there won't be any left.

/end desperate plea

On-Topic: If the 'Caster had interesting rules, a really nice model, and something that made them balance effectively without being incredibly squishy (Perhaps +0 jack points and a small point cost on the model depending on the rules?) I would totally pay $125 for it. Heck, people pay $50 for Terminus and Karchev because they're good, and (barring Terminus's wrist disorder) really nice models. I don't see why a colossal-sized caster shouldn't carry a colossal price if a heavy jack sized caster carries a heavy price (please ignore the awful pun-ish wordplay in that last sentence).

[Navarp]

agree that price =/= playability if it did then PP would of ramped up there prices and this game would become vary expensive vary fast.

I don't think that better models should be more expensive, but I do believe that Privateer Press is responsible to ensure that more expensive models are the best balanced models in the game.

If they are over powered they hurt the game. If they are underpowered they hurt the game. If balance is ever critical it is with single models that cost $100.00+

With that said I would personally LOVE to have a Troll Warlock on a 120mm base. I would happily pay $150.00+ for Epic Borka riding a dire troll, or something else similarly awesome.

It is terrible for the game though when every faction receives awesome looking 120mm based models, but some of them are poorly balanced.

[Drzombieface]

Support you local stores...before there are none.

I buy all of the new things/minor army supplements all from my LGS's.


If I'm in need of a fairly large order, though, chances are my LGS won't have what I need. That's where places like the war store and other online shops come in. Discounts and cheap shipping are way too enticing for me to ignore for a huge order.

[x3tsniper]

I buy all of the new things/minor army supplements all from my LGS's.


If I'm in need of a fairly large order, though, chances are my LGS won't have what I need. That's where places like the war store and other online shops come in. Discounts and cheap shipping are way too enticing for me to ignore for a huge order.

Shizam! I have discovered who you are!

[The Happy Anarchist]

I think a caster is actually a better investment of the money, presuming that they are at least decent. One of the first things newer players are told is to pick up casters, because just that investment changes how you use the entire rest of your armies.

[Drzombieface]

Shizam! I have discovered who you are!

You saw nothing!

[The_Trent]

I don't know why but I imagine lylyth3 to be a 120mm dragoon type caster. Its the only way I can see them making such an important piece of the army viable with the current 120mm base rules. Plus if you look at the fact that it is legion something like a kill it twice caster doesn't seem all that implausible but still nothing solid out yet.

[Wishing]

I don't think that better models should be more expensive, but I do believe that Privateer Press is responsible to ensure that more expensive models are the best balanced models in the game.

I do agree with this. Balance issues are significantly worse on a huge expensive model that they are on, say, a UA or solo. The problem is just that making sure that something is seen to be balanced isn't something that PP can ever guarantee, no matter how much time and money they spend on it, because it is relative and based on subjective public opinion. Predicting public opinion can be very difficult.

[Navarp]

I do agree with this. Balance issues are significantly worse on a huge expensive model that they are on, say, a UA or solo. The problem is just that making sure that something is seen to be balanced isn't something that PP can ever guarantee, no matter how much time and money they spend on it, because it is relative and based on subjective public opinion. Predicting public opinion can be very difficult.

I must disagree with the premise of this statement. I am unfortunately going to stray into the philosophical now, and it will be very verbose.

In Warmachine and Hordes I believe that there are 2 kinds of balance.

Objective balance is the true balance of a model. This doesn’t include any “cool factor” for having a great sculpt, or a really neat sounding ability. This is simply a quasi mathematical algorithm that ends with a number. This is what Privateer Press should strive to have its entire set of models meet. The objective balance is what actually controls the meta, and what helps drive the community. Objective balance is relative however.

Subjective balance is what you seem to be talking about. Subjective balance includes things like “cool factor.” Subjective balance is driven by psychology as much as it is driven by the above quasi mathematical algorithm. I honestly don’t think that Privateer Press should concern themselves with subjective balance. They should strive to ensure that their models are as objectively balanced as possible, and that they are as cool as possible so subjective balance should follow, but not necessarily. Subjective balance is much harder to predict. Subjective balance is also relative.

So what kind of scale is balance. I have been thinking of this quite a bit, and I believe that balance is on a scale much like pH. Balance (both subjective and objective) is a logarithmic scale. A balance number of 5 would be a model that is perfectly balanced. A model with a balance number of 0 would be terribly balanced as would a model with a balance number of 10. A 0 would be an extremely underpowered model while a 10 would be an extremely overpowered model. The majority of models in the game(s) should be a 5, but there are lots of 4s and 6s and it is very hard to tell a 4 from a 5 from a 6. Models with balance numbers between 4 and 6 all appear to be balanced by the majority of players (there is no accounting for taste, but most will find these models balanced.) Once you get into the 3s and the 7s though it is fairly obvious to the majority of players that the models are poorly balanced. Tournament and highly competitive players for example play with many of the 6s and 7s in their lists because those models are objectively and subjectively better than the 3s, 4s, and 5s.

With that said Privateer Press is an amazing company and I don’t believe that there are many 2s and 8s out there. I don’t know enough about all of the factions, but there are a handful of 2s and very few 8s. I might be wrong, but it is possible that there are no models that are balanced worse than a 2 or an 8 (So no models that have a balance number of 0, 1, 9, or 10 even exist.)

I believe because of the nature of the more expensive, “centerpiece” models that Privateer Press has MUCH more incentive to have them all be balanced to an objective balance number of 5.

Far and away the best thing for the game is to have all of the Colossals and Gargantuans be balanced to a 5.

Again sorry this is so verbose, thanks for reading.

[Lich_Lord_X]

I don't think that better models should be more expensive, but I do believe that Privateer Press is responsible to ensure that more expensive models are the best balanced models in the game.

If they are over powered they hurt the game. If they are underpowered they hurt the game. If balance is ever critical it is with single models that cost $100.00+

With that said I would personally LOVE to have a Troll Warlock on a 120mm base. I would happily pay $150.00+ for Epic Borka riding a dire troll, or something else similarly awesome.

It is terrible for the game though when every faction receives awesome looking 120mm based models, but some of them are poorly balanced.

People will buy anything regardless of the rules if it's to their liking. Sure it sucks to drop a lot of money on something that is sub-par but playing this game is still only half of it people do buy things just to paint them or field armies that are a particular flavor. In any case any model can under perform in this game regardless of the rules and it's even more frustrating I'd say when a great model that's supposed to be amazing gets murdered turn two after a botched charge or something.

[Wishing]

Objective balance is the true balance of a model. This doesn’t include any “cool factor” for having a great sculpt, or a really neat sounding ability. This is simply a quasi mathematical algorithm that ends with a number. This is what Privateer Press should strive to have its entire set of models meet. The objective balance is what actually controls the meta, and what helps drive the community. Objective balance is relative however.

Thanks for the reply, it is interesting to read. With regards to the above, I feel like you are contradicting yourself a bit. You say (I think) that you think that all models have an objective balance which can be determined as a mathematically verifiable number. Then you go on to say that this objective balance is relative.

I don't know anything about maths, so maybe that is my problem, but as I see it, that something is relative means that you cannot put a specific number on it and say that this is a universally valid number, because when the number is relative, it means the number will be different depending on the person who is looking at it.

To explain in more real terms, one player (yourself for example) will play with the MK and think that he sucks, and say that he only gets a 3 out of 10. Another player will play with him and think that he does real well, giving him a 6 out of 10.

Neither of these numbers is more "correct" than the other, because they are influenced by a myriad of factors, not least of which is the psychology of the person who is giving the score. This game cannot be reduced to mathematical formulae, because it is played in an environment where player psychology is of huge importance. Like chess, I'm sure you can make mathematical calculations about what is the best move at any given time once the game has started... but you cannot mathematically calculate what is the best way to spend your points when building an army list for a future game, because this simply depends on too many unspecifiable variables, in my opinion. Such considerations have to be based on personal feeling and intuition - and personal feeling and intuition are relative factors that will vary from person to person.

PP know that when they release any new model, opinions on its effectiveness on a scale from one to 10 will vary a lot in between these two extremes, and will vary from person to person. What they will (or should) hope for is that most people will judge it around a 5-6 mark, ie. balanced. But there is no mathematical way to calculate what percentage of players will value the model at which number, so they have to play it by ear and simply use playtesting and reflection through intuition and personal feeling to get to what they hope will be that sweet spot of balance.

[Navarp]

Thanks for the reply, it is interesting to read. With regards to the above, I feel like you are contradicting yourself a bit. You say (I think) that you think that all models have an objective balance which can be determined as a mathematically verifiable number. Then you go on to say that this objective balance is relative.

I don't know anything about maths, so maybe that is my problem, but as I see it, that something is relative means that you cannot put a specific number on it and say that this is a universally valid number, because when the number is relative, it means the number will be different depending on the person who is looking at it.

And here is your problem. That is the difference between objective and subjective. A subjective number is different depending on who is looking at it. A relative number is not.

Let me give you an example. IQ is a relative number. The people who measure IQ set the mean at 100, and they set the standard deviation to 15. I know this is math speak, but it amounts to this fact.

Let’s say that you go out and obtain an IQ test now at your current age. Let’s say you score well and score a 130 on the IQ test. Now let’s say you wait 20 years and take another IQ test. On the new test you score a 115 instead of a 130. This doesn’t necessarily mean that your IQ has fallen, but it could mean that on average people’s IQ have gotten higher.

IQ scores are dependant on the scores of every other person taking the test.

To explain in more real terms, one player (yourself for example) will play with the MK and think that he sucks, and say that he only gets a 3 out of 10. Another player will play with him and think that he does real well, giving him a 6 out of 10.

Neither of these numbers is more "correct" than the other, because they are influenced by a myriad of factors, not least of which is the psychology of the person who is giving the score. This game cannot be reduced to mathematical formulae, because it is played in an environment where player psychology is of huge importance. Like chess, I'm sure you can make mathematical calculations about what is the best move at any given time once the game has started... but you cannot mathematically calculate what is the best way to spend your points when building an army list for a future game, because this simply depends on too many unspecifiable variables, in my opinion. Such considerations have to be based on personal feeling and intuition - and personal feeling and intuition are relative factors that will vary from person to person.

Right this is true. We each assign the Mountain King a subjective balance number. BUT I posit that the Mountain King still has an objective balance number. How we would determine what its objective balance is to look at lots of games and the opinions of lots of gamers (so we control for the subjective nature.)

Let’s look at a different example: The Troll Skinner. The majority of the community believes that the Troll Skinner is an underpowered model. Their subjective balance number for him is below 4. There are very few people who believe that the Troll Skinner’s subjective balance number is 4 or higher. His objective balance number is very likely below 4.

PP know that when they release any new model, opinions on its effectiveness on a scale from one to 10 will vary a lot in between these two extremes, and will vary from person to person. What they will (or should) hope for is that most people will judge it around a 5-6 mark, ie. balanced. But there is no mathematical way to calculate what percentage of players will value the model at which number, so they have to play it by ear and simply use playtesting and reflection through intuition and personal feeling to get to what they hope will be that sweet spot of balance.

This is exactly correct. Privateer Press should strive for an objective balance number of 5. This number is relative, but it is none the less real.

Honestly the really hard thing to do is produce a model with an objective balance number of 5, but a subjective balance number of 7.

[Rapier]

First of all PP said a long time ago that prices were to cover model costs not power - everything suggests this is true. So a warcaster the size of the conquest will cost the same as the conquest more or less.

What's more likely if Karchev were to get a huge base and go epic is not a full on Collosal body but a half way size. (huge base - no where near the hight and mass) he would still end up bigger than a heavy and would cost more than a heavy but not up to the Conquest size and mass.

One reason for this is PP wants to sell it; while cost will be based on production values if they make it smaller it will cost less - people will only buy one and they want all the people that play Khador (or love this new model and decide to dip into Khador) to have it on the radar. They don't want people to say; is Karchev2 or 2 units a better fit - and Karchev2 won't compete against the Colossal directly.

The second reason is balance. Warcasters and Warlocks have a nebulous price essentially determined by how many bonus points you get. Less bonus points = more power. However that caps at +0 (it gets too complicated and inelegant imo to reduce your point cost to take warcasters). Nemo3 is +3. Santa Llyeth may well be +1 or +0. (Arguably the large base penalties will actually be a negative and she'll get more).

Karchev in a colossal would be +0 at best; the huge amounts of armour would more than make up for the huge base penalties. His spell list and in built weapons would have to be suitable to be a believable Colossal - that's why I think if he does get a huge base it won't be a full sized Colossal (he'll get 2 weapons, maybe 3 but not 4 or 5, + 1 armour + 6-8 damage boxes lose 1 spell); with that he may be +1 or +2 and more balanced.

Would I buy it? Maybe. Karchev's fluff has been growing on me with Wrath and Colossals and for me that's the main factor. I own quite a few of the donkeys of the two main factions I own because they're nice models and nice fluff.

As an aside - Karchev could go epic the other way. Rescued with no body they give him a smaller body (MAN-o-War say) because it's quicker and faster to get him out into the fight that way - and present him as a more magic orientated caster, since he's obviously supremely powerful (arguably the strongest willed of all the Khador casters).

Since I like curve balls he could be a magic caster with slow speed (carried by some winterguard) and no melee or ranged attacks to go along with Haley being reduced to a Character solo because she has focus but no magic.