Focus verses Fury disparity

[theorymachine]

The intent of this thread is to discuss the disparity of Focus verses Fury, it is not to fuel rage nor insight anger. Please add only pros or cons to the Fury verse Focus discussion so that there might be a list of advantages and disadvantages. It is felt that this might be not only a useful exercise for the field test but also a resource for new players to get ideas and help them decide if Hordes holds the mechanic of choice or Warmachine

Focus

Pros:
~Always available (Eyriss may argue with this point but who listens to an elf?)
~Simple and easy to track
~Can immediately be spent for shake effects
~(arguably, can someone confirm with a number crunch?) higher average focus statistic on warcasters then Fury statistic on warlocks
~unspent focus adds to the warcaster's base armour statistic
~Jack Marshaling mechanic allows a marshaled Jack to receive an allocation of focus like resources that do not count towards the total allocation limit of the warcaster leading theforce

Cons:
~Must be preallocated
~limited to a maximum jack allocation of three
~can be "disrupted" and or directly denied
~incapable of spending more focus in a turn then focus generators permit
~Marshaled Jacks are incapable of receiving allocation from warcasters as they do not count as being within the warcaster's battlegroup


As a mainly Warmachine player (with much experience playing against Hordes forces however) This poster makes no claim to be the definitive source for Fury pro's and con's, if this was not the case, this poster might instead be called hordesoftheory. So please, post legitimate pros and cons of the Fury mechanic and add to the list of pros and cons of the Focus mechanic. However, if one is merely adding to this thread to infuriate or insight rage, one is encouraged to read the posts pined at the top of all mark 2 forums about tone and aggression.

Good Hunting!
http://privateerpressforums.com/images/styles/blacksmart/statusicon/user_online.gif http://privateerpressforums.com/images/styles/blacksmart/buttons/report.gif (http://privateerpressforums.com/report.php?p=19058) http://privateerpressforums.com/images/styles/blacksmart/misc/progress.gif http://privateerpressforums.com/images/styles/blacksmart/buttons/edit.gif (http://privateerpressforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=19058)

[Devilsquid]

Not to be a naysayer, but this is pretty much doomed from the get go. There's a rather heated discussion on this very subject in the MKII Hordes forum, and it's been a matter of contention for a long time on the forums.

My Opinon: Comparing Focus to Hordes is pointless, because they're different mechanics. Yes, there are similarities, but there are far greater differences. Apples and oranges, and all that.

Anyway, i wish your thread well.

[Brandubh]

My Opinon: Comparing Focus to Hordes is pointless, because they're different mechanics. Yes, there are similarities, but there are far greater differences. Apples and oranges, and all that.


Quoted for truth. Focus =/= Fury and the two mechanics can't really be compared in terms of competitiveness because of this.

For competitiveness, I say that you should look at the tournament circuit and realize that both Warmachine and Hordes lists end up near the top. Take a look at the Master Tournament found in NQ 27. Final three are Cryx, Cyngar and Cryx. Hardcore results are Skorne, Cyngar, Circle. Of 6 top lists, 4 are Focus based and 2 are Fury based. That's pretty balanced, IMO.

[megatron0]

when did 4 and 2 become balanced? thats half a difference!
But really they shouldnt be compared it is 2 different games running on the same system.

[Tamwulf]

Threads like this are getting very tiresome. You have an apt name there Theorymachine. I wish it was more like "Actualmachine".

[Devilsquid]

Oooh, how about Mysterymachine? I dig that one.

Jinkies!

(Not picking on you Theory, but as I mentioned above, comparing the two is an act of futility because they're two different mechanics from two different games)

[Jack Spratt]

Comparing Focus to Hordes is pointless, because they're different mechanics. Yes, there are similarities, but there are far greater differences. Apples and oranges, and all that.

I quote for truth also, but have no problem with theorymachine in general by the way (What else am I supposed to do at work?)

[Fearless]

Oooh, how about Mysterymachine? I dig that one.

Jinkies!

(Not picking on you Theory, but as I mentioned above, comparing the two is an act of futility because they're two different mechanics from two different games)

I disagree, I do not view Hordes and Warmachine as separate games, but two halves of one complete game.

[whitekong]

Oooh, how about Mysterymachine? I dig that one.

Jinkies!

(Not picking on you Theory, but as I mentioned above, comparing the two is an act of futility because they're two different mechanics from two different games)

OOh me to.
Zoinks!

[Brandubh]

when did 4 and 2 become balanced? thats half a difference!
But really they shouldnt be compared it is 2 different games running on the same system.

I guess my point was that both games had representation in the top 6. One tourney was won by WM the other by Hordes. That suggests to me that the games are fairly balanced.

[Devilsquid]

I disagree, I do not view Hordes and Warmachine as separate games, but two halves of one complete game.

Well, you're certainly welcome to disagree, but since Privateer Press, creators of Warmachine and Hordes, have stated time and again that they are indeed two separate games, I'm afraid you're just shouting at the sky.

[Mutton]

Well, you're certainly welcome to disagree, but since Privateer Press, creators of Warmachine and Hordes, have stated time and again that they are indeed two separate games, I'm afraid you're just shouting at the sky.

At this point, where most tournaments run them together, the only difference between them are when the books come out; there are really a single game in most gamer's minds.

[necronomitron]

I'm in no position to say what is and is not. But I view them to be two different sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter what side of the coin is facing up when you are looking at it, it's still worth the same.

[Devilsquid]

At this point, where most tournaments run them together, the only difference between them are when the books come out; there are really a single game in most gamer's minds.

I never said they weren't compatable...just different games, with different rules.

The Fury system works within Hordes, just as Focus works within Warmachine.

Trying to fit the square peg of Fury into the round hole of Focus isn't going to work, no matter how hard people try.

[althai]

Whether they are "two games" or "one game" is irrelevant semantics. Can we at least agree that since the two systems often face each other, both in casual games and in tournaments, PP should strive to balance the two systems?

That said, it's kind of silly to compare focus to fury because it's not like you have the option to choose whether you play with focus or with fury. You have the option to choose your faction, and some factions use focus, while others use fury. So the pertinent question is not whether the focus/fury systems are balanced, but rather whether the factions, with all their various pros and cons, are balanced. In other words, faction balance is what matters, not "mechanic balance".

[ResurrectioN]

Is this 5th foc VS fury topic?

[The Happy Anarchist]

Trying to fit the square peg of Fury into the round hole of Focus isn't going to work, no matter how hard people try.

You keep saying this, but nobody is doing this. We get that they are different systems, all we want is for them to be balanced against each other. This requires some basis of comparison, though admittably the factors involved are baffling complex. The interactions of the differences between the two systems are pretty major. This is why I try and focus on specific areas where individual models have problems. Right now, the main problems I have with beasts are twofold. Some of them are unreliable fighters, but are priced as if they would be fighting. This is particularly true of trollblood elemental light beasts for instance.
More distressingly, I don't want to take beasts because they are extremely vulnerable to the knockdown/stationary frenzy check 'o doom (patent pending)
Jacks are mildly inconvenienced by being knocked down or rendered stationary. Beasts have a very good chance of getting you killed, getting themselves killed or killing other models. Sure, it is just a chance, but it is also an unmanageable chance.

Are there other things that might make up for this? Maybe, looking at the systems as a whole. But those other things don't make me want to take more beasts. Right now that is my biggest concern. I like beasts. I want to be able to take them without feeling like I am gimping myself by not taking the minimum necessary and using them as buff bots. That's all.

[bouncymischa]

More distressingly, I don't want to take beasts because they are extremely vulnerable to the knockdown/stationary frenzy check 'o doom (patent pending)


This comment, for me, exemplifies my bafflement at why people are panicking so much over the field test. It's already been stated by the design staff that the shake/frenzy interaction will be changed, with an update due sometime later this week. I'm hardly participating in the field test, and yet I'm aware of this.

So the design staff are aware of the issue... the design staff have made changes to deal with the issue... and yet we still get treated to comments like "the knockdown/stationary frenzy check 'o doom". Sorry, but it's just hyperbole, at this point.

I realize that people are passionate about the game, but I have a feeling it's getting to the point that it's obscuring effective, constructive discussion.

[JTY]

Focus is better than Fury in the same way that Baboon is better than Weasel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Weasel)

Pointless debate is pointless; they are two different games that use similar core mechanics and principles allowing them to be played against one another if the players wish (excelent, as they share background fluff).
That's always been the way it was intended and remains the way it is.
MKii will make such crossover games easier, but that isn't automatically always going to mean better.

[FalseAngel]

Dear God, can we stop beating this horse in every forum?? At least keep this in the field test thread that's already there.

I swear, if I see this in the painting section...

[SkinnyGuy]

Like "how to paint models that use focus vs how to paint models that use fury" or some such? Lol.

[BENDER]

Focus is better than Fury in the same way that Baboon is better than Weasel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Weasel)



In that it doesnt need pants for a victory dance? :D

[The Happy Anarchist]

So the design staff are aware of the issue... the design staff have made changes to deal with the issue... and yet we still get treated to comments like "the knockdown/stationary frenzy check 'o doom". Sorry, but it's just hyperbole, at this point.


Holy cow! I read Gen Discussion before anything else and haven't checked back on the FT forums! If that is true, I am happy as a clam! Now it is just down to individual beasts that need tweaks, which is easily done!

Consider the biggest problem solved for me. Testing the elemental lights for me and then we'll call it square on beasts!

[Peregrine]

After reading the rules real quick...it seems that you leach fury in the control phase. You can THEN FORCE THE BEAST to stand up. No risk of frenzying it looks like to me, because you leach before you check for frenzying which occurs before shaking effects...

[JTY]

In that it doesnt need pants for a victory dance? :D

Damn right.

[Brandubh]

Like "how to paint models that use focus vs how to paint models that use fury" or some such? Lol.

^ Win.

Someone needs to do a Mac vs PC parody with Warcasters and Warlocks.

"Hi, I'm a Warcaster."
"Hi, I'm a Warlock."

"I use my inherent magical abilities to guide hulking war machines into battle."
"I use my inherent magical abilities to guide hulking warbeasts into battle."

"The nature of my magical abilities requires me to carefully plan out my attacks so I don't run out of power."
"The nature of my magical abilities requires me to carefully plan out my attacks so I don't end up with too much power."

"My unused magic can be used to produce a forcefield that reduces incoming damage."
"My unused magic can be used to avoid damage altogether by passing it to one of my warbeasts."

"..."
"What?"

:D

"Hi, I'm a warlock."
"Hi, I'm a warcaster."

"I have access to a number of minions that I can hire to help me kill enemy warbeasts more efficiently."
"I have access to a number of mercenaries that I can hire to help me kill enemy warlocks more efficiently."

"..."
"What?"

[PrudentMantis]

Focus is better than Fury in the same way that Baboon is better than Weasel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Weasel)

Great, now I'll have that song in my head all day. Thanks a lot, JTY. And I didn't even click the link! I just remembered that damn song!

Also, Brandubh, have you seen the Marvel vs DC (http://www.youtube.com/user/ItsJustSomeRandomGuy#g/p) series? Wonderful stuff.

[Ger]

I've wanted to talk about how Fury is the better mechanic for Power Attacks for awhile now. However, I haven't felt like getting into a discussion on the forums about it so I've just kept my thoughts to myself.

[theummhmmguy]

Okay here we go again with the 'Grass is greener on the other side' effect.

Hordes players commence with your discussion on Focus and its glory.

WM players do likewise but with Fury.

Discuss...

[Peregrine]

Okay here we go again with the 'Grass is greener on the other side' effect.

Hordes players commence with your discussion on Focus and its glory.

WM players do likewise but with Fury.

Discuss...

I could build world wonders with Fury. The Hanging Gardens or Orboros?

On a side note...potatoes.

[theorymachine]

Sadly, this thread required the will of the community to be effective and as there was no such collective will the thread has derailed. Congratulations.

[Peregrine]

It didn't help that this horse is about as old as the 7 wonders of the world...It's been beaten sooo many times it's starting to not be funny anymore.

[blue loki]

It didn't help that this horse is about as old as the 7 wonders of the world...It's been beaten sooo many times it's starting to not be funny anymore.

And yet, the Field Test is active now. Feedback can be submitted now. Discussion should occur now.

The horse may have been dead, but its been ressurected for the time being. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with timely and serious discussion.

[The Happy Anarchist]

Wouldn't the field test forum be the proper place for such a discussion?

[whitekong]

Wouldn't the field test forum be the proper place for such a discussion?
Are lot's of people playing warmachine for the fieldtest? General is where this discussion belongs.

[Kaptain Von]

Sadly, this thread required the will of the community to be effective and as there was no such collective will the thread has derailed. Congratulations.

I know you want to dictate the discourse, whether out of concern for the game or a belief that you have the authority to do so, but I'm afraid it doesn't quite work like that. The discussion is occurring elsewhere, and has been for some time now. People have said their piece (several times) and don't want to behave like stuck records, spattering the same few words until someone comes along to lift the needle. At least that's how I feel. I wouldn't presume to speak for the community as a whole.