What do you think of the rules for Colossals and Gargantuans?

There are my favorite models in the game but I am new to Warmachine.

1 Like

They are in an interesting place. They are expensive but strong pieces.
Some casters and lists run them better than others do. An Infantry centric caster for example won’t want them as much as one that has more battlegroup focused abilities.

I like mine. Seems like they’ll be fun to play since they all have bulldoze and loads of strong weapons.

I am glad that they were streamlined this edition. I am glad that Sweep and Power Strike are gone, considering I could count on one hand the number of times I used both of those attacks combined. :slight_smile:

My only, only regret is that Conquest’s main guns are still ROF 1 despite having two barrels. :stuck_out_tongue:

(That’s not really a complaint. I’ve just always found that amusing.)

This is interesting to me because in previous editions you would get times where an infantry caster who has maybe a single cohort buff like Superiority might take a colossal to quickly hit their battlegroup points and have a strong target for their single spell. I know there were Issyria and Ravyn lists for a while that would take a single Hyperion as the prime target for Ancillary Attack or Open Fire while the rest of the list would be infantry.

With battlegroup points changing to minimum cohort model count and colossals not counting as more than 1 model it definitely seems to push them more to the realm of dedicated battlegroup-centric casters.

1 Like

Yeah. In a 75 points game you are sinking around half your points into a Colossal (~27 points) and a 6 point light.
That’s a lot there.

Can’t you take colossals at 100+ points only?
The Warmachine App don’t let me add a colossals at 75pt or smaller lists.

Edit: the rulebook forbids colossals explicit at 50pt and smaller but not for 75pt, so this could be a bug.

that’s a known bug for 75-point games.


Yeah, I read your comment in the other thread just after the post of mine.
Would be great to have a known bugs thread here on the hub.


I think most of the gargossals were very well done. I really like the Blightbringer for my Anamag list and the Archangel even has me glaring at Kallus2 again.

My Denny3 is really happy about the Sepulcher as well being able to fire 2D3 RAT9 POW17 into large bases.

The Storm Raptor finally makes Kromac2 maybe see play again. Sadly his feat is really bad (just like Doomie2s feat) and doesn’t work on regular movement but just charges (and slams).

Glacier King probably makes Borka2 a force to be reckoned with which means sad Storm in the North players went from 99% Kolgrima to like 70/30 Kolgrima/Borka. Which is good. (PP, fix Doomie2!)

Mountain King with Gunnbjorn and Earthbreaker with Gorten are scary for one similar reason; Rock Wall. That’s such a good spell for Gargossals. As well as Snipe (which Gunnbjorn and Ossrum both have).

Conquest is looking so good maybe it’s even worth taking 2 of them with certain casters.

Overall it’s a pretty nice relase this :slight_smile:

1 Like

In general it seems a pretty good job on balancing them. It makes totally sense they become cheaper, with some nerfs vs mk3 versions and with the requirement of 2 extra cohort models per list.

Moreover, some of them are bringing new angles to their lists, recovering or adding some very interesting variations on the meta (hi Montador!)

On the other side, some collosals (few) may be difficult to be played on mk4 as they are now. Slaughterhiuse is an example. Independently of its power level, so many points without a reliable healing mechanic is just not working from design perspective (snaking is too dependent on enemy and happening too late on activation for a collosal to be reliable). For sure it makes no sense to just keep mk3 healing design as it would be too strong, but having some light mechanic such as “heal d3 once per turn when activating” would not make it significantly stronger, but would avoid having so many points useless after loosing an aspect, which i guess is not the design objective.

But those design issues are quite isolated and can be easily fixed. In general i believe collosals wil bring a nice meta shake and rebalance vs infantery spams.

1 Like

How are you getting this to RAT 9 and POW 17 vs RAT 7 and POW 15?

I counted Dennys Mortality as well for maximum output :slight_smile:

I’m pretty happy with Hyperion on paper. It’s still fairly basic as colossals go, but the main gun remains very strong and the cost seeeeeems reasonable. I’m not sure how it’ll fit into lists exactly; in Mk3 I’d often take one with Ravyn or Issyria as their only warjack and that isn’t possible in Mk4 so the points might get a bit weird.

Helios… I dunno. The big no-damage movement gun at least can do damage now, but I still find it hard to see what role it will fill in lists.

Slaughterhouse I’m not sure. I’ve yet to put it on the table in any edition because of life and lockdown so I never got a handle on how a gargantuan fits into Grymkin lists in the first place. I’ll still use it when I get the chance because it’s very pretty and I’m bad at the game anyway lol

Do we know when the 75-point bug will be fixed? I’m using a 100-point army as a container for a 75-point army with a colossal.

The Protectorate colossals are interesting. Most Protectorate warjacks are melee-focused, but the big lunks are largely range-focused, with only their big fists for melee weapons.

It should be fixed now, I’m able to add them to a 75 point list. You may need to update the app.

1 Like