Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well in a positive news I just bought a haul of metal trenchers for a project.

Seriously ugly models when you think.about it but they have their own charm too.

With that and going back to the topic, PP has some nice models in the past, even if the game was hard to play, if the models looked great you could easily use them elsewhere, but their heavy theming really makes it hard to mix it with other games, A lot of Khador models have a giant logo blazon on most of the models that are a pain to remove if you thought the model would look better without it. What could the privateer press do to win back customers? I think in part they don't have models that make nonplayers want to buy them. Their designs just seem to stagnate compared to other companies, I have a number of Infinity models and I don't play the game, but if I need something for a Sci-Fi rpg game, like star wars or something, they have some great models to pick from. I have always been a big fan of giant monkeys, most of the Monsterpocalypse Ape models just seem off and most reviews say they are a pain to put together. Wiz Kids recently released a Giant Ape model that looks great, but if you compare it to a Mosterpocalyse model, there just seems like theirs is missing something or needs to be re-edited or better reviewed.

Part of the problem is that what they've done for Mk4 is what they need to do, they just haven't delivered.

The Preview Battleboxes need to be an actual SKU and not a limited product. Getting them down to $60 or so would be a huge improvement.

The Army boxes are honestly pretty great.... they just need to exist. Of the 6 armies they've announced only 3 have been released and have JUST gotten their expansion boxes nearly a year later. I know people very excited about the new Legion successor, but that was months ago and at the rate things are going I can't see that army available by March. They need to hype and deliver product within a reasonable timeframe. Not a year later.

They need to promote smaller point games. 50 is honestly a great format and 75 feels like a very full experience. Letting the community push it to 100 when all the new armies really feel tuned to 75 is just a massive blunder. More than anything, they NEED scenario support for something other than 100 points.

They need to stop with the sloppy fixes. Trample had two obvious issues with the new rules they fixed with weird major core rule changes that removed a lot of interesting elements from things that didn't need fixing. They've returned to the habit of siding on balance over fun and are quickly making things duller than they need to be.

I really enjoy Warmachine, but at the moment PP is just not making a product I can sell. In some ways I mean than metaphorically, which has been a problem since the late days of Mk2. Lately though, that's been a literal problem and one I think means Mk4 is kind of sunk before it even left port.

 LunarSol wrote:

They need to stop with the sloppy fixes. Trample had two obvious issues with the new rules they fixed with weird major core rule changes that removed a lot of interesting elements from things that didn't need fixing. They've returned to the habit of siding on balance over fun and are quickly making things duller than they need to be.

What's wrong with Trample in Mk IV that wasn't wrong with it in Mk II? (Or Mk I for that matter?)

Mk I Trample is pretty much a classic "These mechanics would be fine in an RPG" set of rules, where it'd be perfectly fine to spend several minutes carefully working out each attack as the model moved. But if you're playing in a timed setting, you need to have mechanics that can be resolved in a timely manner or no one will ever use that attack.

Now, what trample could really use is some way to make room for the trampling model, and it would have been really nice if Trample included a stipulation that each of the attacks were resolved as if the trampling model were in base contact each of the models, so that things like Soul Taker would work on that model that got trampled over but is now out of range when the attack is resolved.

But, again, that's been a limitation of Trample since it got simplified for MkII.

https://www.loswarmachine.com/mark-3-5/2023/7/24/mark35-beta-10?fbclid=IwAR2Rs8o44P5ylbSPk-M9a3GGJlVwGOPvB3PYos9dmJPsp97gefnAlJNC4F4

Good initiative, the community was getting so large that dividing it seems like a great move.

 LunarSol wrote:
Part of the problem is that what they've done for Mk4 is what they need to do, they just haven't delivered.

The Preview Battleboxes need to be an actual SKU and not a limited product. Getting them down to $60 or so would be a huge improvement.

The Army boxes are honestly pretty great.... they just need to exist. Of the 6 armies they've announced only 3 have been released and have JUST gotten their expansion boxes nearly a year later. I know people very excited about the new Legion successor, but that was months ago and at the rate things are going I can't see that army available by March. They need to hype and deliver product within a reasonable timeframe. Not a year later.

They need to promote smaller point games. 50 is honestly a great format and 75 feels like a very full experience. Letting the community push it to 100 when all the new armies really feel tuned to 75 is just a massive blunder. More than anything, they NEED scenario support for something other than 100 points.

They need to stop with the sloppy fixes. Trample had two obvious issues with the new rules they fixed with weird major core rule changes that removed a lot of interesting elements from things that didn't need fixing. They've returned to the habit of siding on balance over fun and are quickly making things duller than they need to be.

I really enjoy Warmachine, but at the moment PP is just not making a product I can sell. In some ways I mean than metaphorically, which has been a problem since the late days of Mk2. Lately though, that's been a literal problem and one I think means Mk4 is kind of sunk before it even left port.

Sorry if I missed something really obvious in the past but do you own a games store Lunar?

If so, what is the retailers perspective and opinion of PP next to other "smaller than GW" games makers like Wyrd or Covus Belli. My understanding was that game stores (if they were stoking anything other than GW) were really happy to work with those other makers and have a good view of them, where as PP, its largely a straight "no".

 solkan wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

They need to stop with the sloppy fixes. Trample had two obvious issues with the new rules they fixed with weird major core rule changes that removed a lot of interesting elements from things that didn't need fixing. They've returned to the habit of siding on balance over fun and are quickly making things duller than they need to be.

What's wrong with Trample in Mk IV that wasn't wrong with it in Mk II? (Or Mk I for that matter?)

Per the original MK4 rules you couldn't make trample attacks at all because during the trample movement you moved out of an enemy melee range and couldn't attack via the disengagement penalty. Yes, everyone knew that wasn't how it was supposed to work, but instead of making an exception for trample, they just removed screening altogether by making disengagement only if you started engaged to resolve it.

The other issue is a side effect of the proliferation of Dual Attack. The ability was pretty rare in Mk3, but notably let you trample and shoot for a significant threat range extension. Since it was limited to mostly stuff like the Blitzer it was just kind of a neat interaction but when you put it on dedicated ranged platforms it gets pretty abusive. Rather than limit it to not working with trample, they decided to just say you can't power attack and shoot with dual attack anymore, which removes the entire design of a lot of mk4 weapons that were designed with an open fist/gun combination that lets you throw a model then shoot it knocked down.

Both were pretty minor issues exclusive to trample solved with sweeping changes that broke more than they fixed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunno wrote:

Sorry if I missed something really obvious in the past but do you own a games store Lunar?

If so, what is the retailers perspective and opinion of PP next to other "smaller than GW" games makers like Wyrd or Covus Belli. My understanding was that game stores (if they were stoking anything other than GW) were really happy to work with those other makers and have a good view of them, where as PP, its largely a straight "no".

I do not. I just act as a community manager for an eclectic group that plays a lot of different systems. I demo a lot of different games and work with stores to figure out how to get players what they need, but I don't have any financial stake in the matter outside of needing people to play all the games I own.

PP's history with stores is a strange one. I feel like their challenges are pretty similar to Wyrd/CB and the like in terms of problems with SKU bloat and the changes to distribution, but they bore the brunt of those issues and absolutely failed to pivot to address them. When online stores really took off, local shops felt very burned, being completely unable to compete to support their players in either selection or price. By the time PP put some discount caps in place, wholesale distributors had become their primary point of sale and got left with huge volumes that shops weren't ordering. Distributors just aren't stocking PP anymore and that makes it a nightmare for most stores to get at a viable price. A few have tried to work with PP's direct distribution but the stocking requirements weren't worth it, particularly with a lack of good starter products.

Part of the problem is just that Warmachine had gotten too big and jumped on the PVC bandwagon as a mid-tier solution that didn't pan out along with going way too deep on 120 mm resin centerpieces. They ended up with this huge game with a million SKUs that couldn't be bundled efficiently. Distribution for most games has shifted to way more of a FOMO model of big one off releases with far less emphasis on carrying things long term. Wyrd repackaged its crews into box sets for M3E, CB has had huge success with army bundles and Code One and obviously GW has a new big army in a box set every other month. You just don't see this with PP products. They dabbled with it in Warcaster but the pandemic and use of metal and Kickstarter distribution meant that wasn't taking off in stores. Theoretically that's the goal of mk4 as a whole, but the high model count resin puts it at a rather unattractive sticker shock for shelves. Funny enough, even at an unattractive price, those army boxes have generated more buzz than anything they've done in years. Unfortunately, none of that matters when they've completely failed to get them delivered to players and instead let mk4 float along on the backs of legacy armies.

LunarSol wrote:

*snip for brevity*

I do not. I just act as a community manager for an eclectic group that plays a lot of different systems. I demo a lot of different games and work with stores to figure out how to get players what they need, but I don't have any financial stake in the matter outside of needing people to play all the games I own.

Thank you for your service comrade. Although I did it a lot during Mk2 and some of Mk3 I just couldn't in good conscience or faith do it for PP any more.

Now im happily teaching and being a friendly face in our local Malifaux community (i.e. that schuck who is just about average and happy to paly anyone).

Sunno wrote:

LunarSol wrote:

*snip for brevity*

I do not. I just act as a community manager for an eclectic group that plays a lot of different systems. I demo a lot of different games and work with stores to figure out how to get players what they need, but I don't have any financial stake in the matter outside of needing people to play all the games I own.

Thank you for your service comrade. Although I did it a lot during Mk2 and some of Mk3 I just couldn't in good conscience or faith do it for PP any more.

Now im happily teaching and being a friendly face in our local Malifaux community (i.e. that schuck who is just about average and happy to paly anyone).

Yeah, I pull in a lot of players with Malifaux, though the game duration has made it a little difficult compared to stuff like MCP lately. One of my top games though. I've definitely got players that are interested in Mk4 and have really enjoyed playing it as well. I just can't really turn that hype into momentum for the game when there's no product available to turn hype into real games on the table.

We had a giant WM/H group locally at the end of MKII into MKIII, but that all evaporated early on thanks to several missteps which lead to the big LGS clearancing out their stock and repurposing the shelf space for more Warhammer or whatever Star Wars game it was that month.

I don’t get down there as much anymore, but I can honestly say I haven’t seen any WM games played since mid-3rd nor have I seen PP products on any of the nearby store shelves.

 Noir Eternal wrote:

What I think the game really needed was a complete redesign from the ground up, changing everything about the game including the stats on the models, the health/damage system, dropping steam roller and redesigning how missions work. Make it look and feel like a whole new game just like AOS was to Fantasy.
However, I would have also kept more of the old factions while dropping their old ranges and starting with fresh sculpts.

For what it's worth, I started with MkI. Skipped MkII completely due to other commitments (although was still slowly collecting models, because they were cool and I was totally going to start playing again) and then tried to get back in with MkIII, but was bamboozled by all the extra complexity. It wound up being too steep a learning curve to relearn the game along with all of the stuff that had been added in the interim, and my limited game time went elsewhere. MkIV killed my interest completely by droping the original factions... but completely redesigning the game would have killed it just as effectively. I don't want to have to learn a new game... I want a more accessible version of MkIII. Or, probably more accurately, I want MkI, but with a more balanced ruleset and all of the faction expansion from MkII and III.

For my money, what they should have done is returned to something more like MkI, concentrated on balancing the game and making it easier for beginners and casual players to pick up, and doubled down on streamlining the model range by combining similar Jacks into single kits with options.


No idea if that would have been a profitable enough option for them... but it's the one that would have convinced me to buy back in. As is, I'll hang onto my old models and, if and when I find an interested opponent, maybe look at trying out MkIII again and just ignoring themes.

 insaniak wrote:


For my money, what they should have done is returned to something more like MkI, concentrated on balancing the game and making it easier for beginners and casual players to pick up, and doubled down on streamlining the model range by combining similar Jacks into single kits with options.

I think I would have preferred something like this as well. But maybe that is just because the new designs have left me cold, for the most part.

Reboot, pare down a lot of the redundancy (especially in the core factions) and have nice minis in a material that isn't awful to work with. The aesthetic/setting was the best part of WM/H IMO and the only thing that didn't need an overhaul.

Schmapdi wrote:
I think I would have preferred something like this as well. But maybe that is just because the new designs have left me cold, for the most part.

That definitely didn't help... I really dislike the more scifi styling of the MkIV models. The aesthetic of the original models was a very large part of what kept me buying them even when I wasn't playing. I have no interest in any of the new stuff I've seen so far.

 insaniak wrote:


For my money, what they should have done is returned to something more like MkI, concentrated on balancing the game and making it easier for beginners and casual players to pick up, and doubled down on streamlining the model range by combining similar Jacks into single kits with options.

I'd never go back to mk1 personally. It wasnt balanced. Like, at all. That game was all sorts of abuseable shenanigans (Vladimir 2 and the flying dragoon?) and incredibly poorly constructed/conflicting order of activation issues. Plus jacks were terrible. And remember the novel worth of rules they'd put in tiny font on thr cards?

Plus it was a vastly smaller game then. Now if you want to condense the rosters and shrink the factions ro mk1 levels that's fine - plenty faff could get cut (seriously, would anyone miss kossites or zervoka?) but you're still deleting while swathes of factions.

Mk2 was where it all came together. Mk2 cleaned up most of the issues with mk1. Early mk2 is the 'golden' era imo.

Deadnight wrote:

Plus it was a vastly smaller game then. Now if you want to condense the rosters and shrink the factions ro mk1 levels that's fine - plenty faff could get cut (seriously, would anyone miss kossites or zervoka?) but you're still deleting while swathes of factions.

I mean, I wouldn't be sad to see far less emphasis on infantry. Jacks were always what this game was supposed to be about.

Mk2 was where it all came together. Mk2 cleaned up most of the issues with mk1. Early mk2 is the 'golden' era imo.

As I said, I skipped MkII, so I don't really have a basis for comparison. Don't remember if I even got the MkII rulebook... Might have to have a dig through the storage boxes and check.

I think the only real problems MK2 had were

1) Some gamey elements - eg how charging and running worked in that it was better to declare charges that would fail to move further earlier in the game than it was to run. Things that the rules allowed but you wouldn't pick up on reading them etc...

2) By the end it was confused as to its identity. You had a skirmish game trying to be a wargame.
This is mostly because the armies expanded a LOT during MK2 across Warmachine and Hordes and people got bigger collections so they wanted to use more models and that meant bigger forces. However it was still built around a system for smaller forces and the caster was still a massive focal point of every army.

Honestly they should have split the game at the end of MK2 into 2 formats - a skirmisher and a wargame so that both sides could have been satisfied. However MK3 tried to combine the two, was rushed out and also cme with all the other problems and issues that we've been over already.

 insaniak wrote:

I mean, I wouldn't be sad to see far less emphasis on infantry. Jacks were always what this game was supposed to be about.

I mean, it's in the name. Warmachine. Singular. :p it's ironic. Hordes isn't about literal hordes either. Infantry has always been q big component, inbgge model line and lore (irusks 4th assault battalion had 20,000 infantry and 80 jacks...)

But yes, jokes aside I get your point though I disagree warjacks were meant to be what the game was 'about', I do think their profile needed to be... enhanced? 2-3 jacks would be the sweet spot

Biggest issue was focus as a mechanic. Outside of a handful of casters and yhe protectorate obligatory choir, it was really difficult to run more than one or two jacks.

Imo convergence was 'peak' focus with every caster having a field Marshall ability and jacks using the warcasters mat and rat.

 insaniak wrote:

As I said, I skipped MkII, so I don't really have a basis for comparison. Don't remember if I even got the MkII rulebook... Might have to have a dig through the storage boxes and check.

I played both mk1 and mk2. 2 was lightyears ahead of mk1 in pretty much every aspect. I honestly felt even et the end, it needed mk2 prime rather than mk3... Peak pp.

Yeah, for the game to be about warjacks it had to have a lot of infantry in it.

If everone is big and special then everyone is totally average. Warjacks needed this backdrop of dozens of regular Joes to feel unique and powerful.

Mk4 is the best jack edition by a long shot, but still uses infantry well. Reducing units to 5 is an enormous improvement. I'd say its as close to feeling like what Mk1 was going for as they've ever gotten.

As much as Mk2 was the glory days, I could never go back. Half of my sprawling collection is just a result of wanting some jacks that kind of work, but they just don't. Mk3 is significantly better, but the bloat is very noticeable and games can really drag. Scenario support for 50 point games might be the overall winner, but hard to say. I really like Mk4 at 75, but PP doesn't seem to be keeping the ship on course.

I do think the concerns of the aesthetic of mk4 aren't really as prevalent in the actual models as it is in the build up to release. Part of it is simply that Cygnar has always been a bit more high tech and renders tend to make lines look a little sharper than they do with an actual coat of paint. Orgoth similarly look signfiicantly better without the garish NMM scheme. Overall, I quite like the look of the new armies in person.... when I can actually see models in person....

Orgoth still need trousers though....

Deadnight wrote:
Orgoth still need trousers though....

You can certainly paint tights on them if you like.

 LunarSol wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Orgoth still need trousers though....

You can certainly paint tights on them if you like.

I mean plate armour; bug-eyed sperm helmets and tights is a look, i suppose.

I just don't know if it's a good look. :p

I'm in the "Mk2 was the golden era" camp. There were some gamey elements that needed to be addressed for sure, and many steamroller widget fetishism issues in the community that needed to be stamped out, but overall the game was solid. Mk3 in many ways could have improved on that if they didn't launch half-finished, unplaytested, and without any of the theme lists ready to go. I think they tried too much with the mk3 rollout (and did similar with mk4), and would have benefited from dialing it back and trying to go evolutionary rather than revolutionary with their approach. I do partially agree that late mk 2 armies got too big - that was one of the flaws of mk3, is that they went bigger, when they really should have scaled back slightly.

And I agree the aesthetic issues are overstated a bit. The new look does definitely skew more futuristic than in the past, but I dont think you can look at Brineblood Marauders, Khymera (as far as the artwork isconcerned) or the new Magnus and say "this looks scifi". Orgoth would fit well with the previous aesthetic if you tone down the paintscheme (as LunarSol pointed out), Dusk are about as scifi as Ret and Convergence were. Only Cygnar and Khador really took a bend towards scifi, but Khador got their by way of dieselpunk so they are a bit more grounded.

I feel like Mk3 and Mk4 are both improvements on Mk2, they just don't benefit from being clearly the best game systems of their era the way Mk2 did. So many games built themselves on the Mk2 foundation; Malifaux 2E, Guild Ball, even eventually 40k. Since then we've had a generation of games that built on those games that built on Mk2. In many ways the biggest issues with Mk3/4 is that they haven't kept up.

I get the rose tinted glasses for the edition, but I feel like people forget just how miserably bad Jacks were and how completely backbreaking Cryx and Cygnar were to play against (though Mk4 will quickly remind you with the stupidity that is Wolfe).

I've never quite understood some of the things people got so upset about with mk3. Like Skorne being bad was some kind of new feature of the edition and not a continuation of Skorne being one of the worst factions of all of mk2. In a lot of ways I've always seen the heat Mk3 took at launch as more of people lashing out at their frustrations with mk2 and feeling like not enough changed to fix it.

 LunarSol wrote:
I feel like Mk3 and Mk4 are both improvements on Mk2, they just don't benefit from being clearly the best game systems of their era the way Mk2 did. So many games built themselves on the Mk2 foundation; Malifaux 2E, Guild Ball, even eventually 40k. Since then we've had a generation of games that built on those games that built on Mk2. In many ways the biggest issues with Mk3/4 is that they haven't kept up.

I get the rose tinted glasses for the edition, but I feel like people forget just how miserably bad Jacks were and how completely backbreaking Cryx and Cygnar were to play against (though Mk4 will quickly remind you with the stupidity that is Wolfe).

I've never quite understood some of the things people got so upset about with mk3. Like Skorne being bad was some kind of new feature of the edition and not a continuation of Skorne being one of the worst factions of all of mk2. In a lot of ways I've always seen the heat Mk3 took at launch as more of people lashing out at their frustrations with mk2 and feeling like not enough changed to fix it.

I think its also important to remember that MK3 wasn't the only issue that caused so many to leave. It was kind of the focal point around where things changed, but there were lots of other little and small things, both within PP and outside of PP that contributed to the decline.

Again taken in isolation its not that bad, but when you add in all the other things that happened, including GW taking some good lessons and improving for a while - you get a snowball effect where all together they caused a big change.

For sure. I think one of my great frustrations with the community in Mk3 is just how many people were looking for a sword to fall on and actively blew up anything they could into an excuse to quit. Even GW fans rarely grind axes as hard as Warmachine fans have since Mk3.

 LunarSol wrote:
For sure. I think one of my great frustrations with the community in Mk3 is just how many people were looking for a sword to fall on and actively blew up anything they could into an excuse to quit. Even GW fans rarely grind axes as hard as Warmachine fans have since Mk3.

They blew up their forums, which was a community hub, and nothing in its place.
They instituted a MAPP policy and called the players who bought from online source ‘Free Riders’.
The policy was even named that.
Then they killed the PG program.
Then they forced retailers to buy direct.
Then they liquidated stock as mystery boxes.

They did a lot more to stymie their efforts to grow and expand the game and community.
But this is what I can just recall off hand. It really felt they almost had a disdain for their own community and did their best to destroy the relationships between the company, retailers and players.
It was a lot more than a mere edition change that caused all of this. And all of it was preventable and every decision they made was theirs to make.
I think it has less to do with players wanting a sword to fall on and more to do with the egregious decisions that PP made outside of the edition change that caused all the hate. They’ve basically alienated nearly the entire community that supported their games.
It has very little to do with edition changes. But more in how those rollouts were handled and how the interactions with their communities basically fell apart.
Now they’re having trouble with a new edition yet again, because their roll out is half baked at best.
It’s obvious they aren’t doing great financially, otherwise they would have waited to get MK4 out with at least 4 factions, and rules for Legacy armies. Instead we have a poor attempt at a launch with two and a half armies and everything getting pushed out farther and farther.

I personally feel it has more to do with *how* they’ve launched new editions vs the editions themselves.

+1 to many of the points Ghool made.

PP as I recall did a panic reaction to MTG event organisers going up against Wizards about pay whlist being volunteers and panic struck a huge chunk of their volunteer system - mods on the forum, the pg program and such.

Thing is even though forums back then were dwindling, PP's was pretty darn active and their social media wasn't active and the 3rd party options (fan run) weren't as active. Their forum was and whilst it had your normal ups and downs, it was by no means hotbed of hostility - until they blew most of it up.


Again I agree that PP made a series of mistakes around the MKIII edition which cause a snowball effect. People might blame one part more than the others (eg I often blame shutting down the PG system as a major contributing factor) but in the end it was all them combined.

Ontop of that Games Workshop at the time was having a big turnaround in attitudes. So not only did PP burn a lot of bridges, but GW opened a golden gate for many. So not only were people looking for a reason to leave, but another firm was giving them a reason to welcome them in.

I can also agree, PP aren't in a good spot. Warcaster the honestly did really well in getting their models out even during the Pandemic, but launching a new game during a pandemic was freaking hard. Heck Warcradle paused their Dystopian Launch for a year or more and shifted from full resin to plastic and resin during that time because it just wouldn't work for them.

So Warcaster was dead in the water and never got the support after hte Pandemic to grow and right now seems to be stuck in limbo after the last KS.

Monster Apoc is honestly doing well and I would not have blamed PP to go all in on it - however their recent KS by another firm has blown up in their face and even if it funds its going to be a nightmare. Still its their strongest line right now I wager.


PP need a steady earner that's getting media attention, products being released and growing community. The only game of theirs I really see going that is Monster Apoc. Everything else is either in limbo or lifesupport and some of that are the choices PP have made over the years.


Heck I woudln't be surprised if they wound up being an STL selling firm at some point because its clear that their production side is seriously struggling.

Oh, I remember how disgusted I was by the toxicity of the forums at the start of mk3 (and even a bit earlier, after the card leak) and how absurd the accusations were. I could see it for my faction, Protectorate, where so many people were just hell bent on moaning how unplayable it was (because some of the mk2 broken things were toned down) even though it was just a perfectly good, powerful, well balanced faction, which for me was obvious from playing games with them in the pretty competitive Polish meta where they fared great.

But no, there were pages upon pages of whining on how the change of the timing of fire damage (could use Focus now) completely neutred the faction...eh.

Oh true as soon as MK3 hit things turned toxic, but it didn't help that they'd gutted the forums just before and shut down the PG and that MK3 was somewhat rushed out etc...