warmachine and hordes, two different games?

[Circle noob]

hi guys,

i would like your opinion on the matter of warmachine and hordes being two different games with two rulebooks. in my opinion both books could easily be merged into one big set of rules.
both systems have a common base ruleset. solos, unit work the same way for both "systems". movement, melee and range attacks are done in identical ways. even the scenarios are the same in both sets. of each book has fluff that is different and only introduces armies of one system. the only real difference lies in the ways of managing caster and jacks vs. locks and beasts. all other aspects are identical.
so why are the rules for casters, locks, jacks and beasts not in one complete rulebook. to understand and learn the rules for those i have to buy another book, containing 85% of what i already know from the already purchased (if i m a hordesplayer or prime if i m a warmachine player).

am i the only one who feels this distinction is unnecessary?

[Northern Ronin]

Because it's generally easier to learn just warmachine or just hordes first, then expand when you're just getting started.

[Rynth]

Ed and DC were asked about this at Warmachine Weekend. They said that there were legal reasons and benefits to keeping the two systems distinct rather than merging them.

[Circle noob]

pity with that legal thingy.

[Hansel]

It also seems like smart marketing. I want to play Warmachine, but not necessarily Hordes. I feel like I'm buying into a much larger game if the rulebooks are combined (and what would the game be called? Warmahordes?), even if that's not true. It feels right to buy one book, say, "I play Warmachine," and then down the line if I want to get into a Hordes faction I can easily expand with my knowledge. Smart marketing.

[CeltKhan]

Also, if you combine the rules, you have to combine the model sections and you end up with a $60 book, which kills buyin for most people. Wasn't that one of the main complaints about $40k as far back as 3rd ed?

[GreenJello]

(and what would the game be called? Warmahordes?),

I suspect this is the big kicker. I've yet to see the forums settle on a good name combo to combine the two, and new name they come out with will essentially negate all the existing marketing and buzz.

[Kamahin]

Could always call it ya know, The Iron Kingdoms.

[Alex C]

Could always call it ya know, The Iron Kingdoms.

Which only covers some of the Warmachine factions

[Kamahin]

Which only covers some of the Warmachine factions

Okay, how about Adventures in Caen?

P.S. Yes I ran out of ideas.

[IMakeGoodwin'sLawHappen]

I can't think of a good name for combining Warmachine/Hordes either. I do have to agree though, having started out recently only having to learn one system, over tossing both together, has made the game easier for me to get into. That and having a $60 starting book would hurt a bit more, at least for those of us perpetually low on funds... like this guy.

[jandrese]

Also, if you combine the rules, you have to combine the model sections and you end up with a $60 book, which kills buyin for most people. Wasn't that one of the main complaints about $40k as far back as 3rd ed?

How many of the rules are basically the same for both though? 95%? The control phase stuff in Warmachine is 1/4 of a page, for Hordes it is about half a page. Most of the remaining rules that reference focus or fury require only minor changes to include both. Overall, I'd be surprised if the combined rules were more than maybe a couple of pages longer than the separate ones.

Now if you have 8 factions in the book, that will bloat it up, but I think PP missed the boat by not combining the WM and Hordes rules together and publishing the full set in both books. The extra page or so of content would be really handy when you're a WM player playing against a Hordes player who forgot his book and can't remember exactly which model gets chosen when his beast frenzies.

[AJ the Ronin]

Considering that the RPG will cover everything from Cygnar to Trolls and is called Iron Kingdoms RPG I don't see why the game can not be called Iron Kingdoms the Miniatures Game.

[Mod_Redphantasm]

Considering that the RPG will cover everything from Cygnar to Trolls and is called Iron Kingdoms RPG I don't see why the game can not be called Iron Kingdoms the Miniatures Game.

It will do all of this over half a dozen books though.

[AJ the Ronin]

It will do all of this over half a dozen books though.

(with all due respect) And?

The main political powers on the setting call themselves the Iron Kingdoms. The conflicts between the different factions occurs in the territories that belong to those nations that forms the Iron Kingdoms (or are part of the IK as the treaty even if they didn't signed it like Ios and Schardes(sp?) Islands).

Also, the Iron Kingdoms is catchy, carries a brand name and is already identified with the factions that are in the game.

[The_Bionic_Labrat]

money. 2 rulebooks make more moneys than 1.

also, 1 gigantorulebook with fluff and bios for 11 factions? lots of pages mate. lots of photos too.

and tedious legal reasons. different people might own the rights to warmachine mechanics, and hordes mechanics. id assume there are reasons they're kept as distinct entities, rather than different pages

imo, i think its fine as it is.

[Wishing]

Back before Hordes was released, everyone I knew assumed that Skorne were going to be the new warmachine faction, because the Kodiak was a spoiler that beasts with life spirals were coming at some point. Nobody I knew guessed that it was going to be a whole new, separate but compatible game instead.

However, I think it makes sense thematically. Warmachine is a game about big robots and steampunk industrial warfare. Hordes is a game about savage beasts and primal energy. Even though they co-exist in the same world and share the fluff, in terms of look and feel, WM and Hordes inhabit different worlds. By playing them as separate games, you avoid the whole "fury is better than focus and it makes me angry, grrr" issue that we see on the forum so often. People often forget that this was how Hordes was introduced... originally, mixed games were an oddity, and tournaments were either WM or Hordes as standard, not both.

So I'm quite happy with the fact that they are still technically separate games, even though the tournament scene and greater fanbase seem to consider them to be the same thing nowadays.

[bouncymischa]

Now if you have 8 factions in the book, that will bloat it up, but I think PP missed the boat by not combining the WM and Hordes rules together and publishing the full set in both books. The extra page or so of content would be really handy when you're a WM player playing against a Hordes player who forgot his book and can't remember exactly which model gets chosen when his beast frenzies.

I can see how this idea would be appealing, if the concern is that people playing one game won't be familiar with the rules of the other. On the other hand, the counterargument is that new players already likely have enough difficulty learning the rules for their own game -- giving them an additional set of rules that no model in their book uses, but someone else does, might just add to the learning curve.

On the other hand, I can't really see what the appeal of combining the two games would be. Trying to combine both core rulebooks into one would produce an incredibly bloated document. The only way to solve that problem would be to split off the section of the book with the models and stats into their own separate book, meaning you'd have a "rules only" book and a "models" book -- which I know some people would like, but still results in the problem of buying two books to play the game.

Not to mention the fact that every expansion book would become huge. Although recent releases have been smaller, I think there's still around an average of 8 to 10 releases per book, meaning a combined game expansion would need to contain something on the order of 100 new releases. There's also the issue of how one would resolve the currently two separate storylines. Again, I know there's some people that would love to see their factions impacting the storyline of the other game -- particularly Hordes factions who want to feel that they're actually affecting the world war raging on, instead of just playing in the shadows. But how do you weave together the storylines of 11 separate factions into one whole without some factions getting overshadowed? Would the impending dragon war overshadow the efforts of the massive Warmachine kingdoms, or vice versa?

As it is, I'm satisfied with seeing the two games maintaining their own distinct identities, giving each the chance to flourish on its own, rather than try to cram them together into some single bloated game.

[HRM]

I never understood why they were marketed as seperate systems, either, but I'm new. *shrug*

[Wishing]

On the other hand, I can't really see what the appeal of combining the two games would be. Trying to combine both core rulebooks into one would produce an incredibly bloated document. The only way to solve that problem would be to split off the section of the book with the models and stats into their own separate book, meaning you'd have a "rules only" book and a "models" book -- which I know some people would like, but still results in the problem of buying two books to play the game.

To be fair, Prime and Primal are basically rules books only. The model selection in them only showcases a small fraction of the model line. If you want model rules, you have to buy the appropriate faction books. If PP had wanted to/been able to merge the two games, they could have easily reduced the unit entries in the rulebook to only the battlebox models, and put the rest of the unit entries in with the rest of the faction book content at the time of the Mk2 relaunch.

[Akiosama]

To be fair, they kept the models identical to the Mk I rulebook release models, plus one (iirc) warjack/warbeast addition. I think they wanted the rulebook to feel like the the original Mk I rulebook, with enough models detailed that one could play with just the rulebook.

I think it's much better than the 'simplified stats' that other rulebooks put in for units, to ensure that one has to buy an army supplement book just to field anything on the board with it's full stats.

My 2 crowns,

Lieutenant-Adept Akio

[MadJack]

I suspect this is the big kicker. I've yet to see the forums settle on a good name combo to combine the two, and new name they come out with will essentially negate all the existing marketing and buzz.

I've always liked Hordesmachine. I think it's got a good ring to it. Much better than Warmahordes as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: hmm, it seems wordfilters are censoring my name combos and replacing them with something much more boring and less catchy. Seriously, this forum used to have fun wordfilters (bringer of guffaws, etc), now it only has ones that are just flat-out stupid, and take a lot of the fun out of posting. Clearly somebody at PP has a stick up their *CENSORED*

[Crimsus]

My friends and I have had several long talks out in the smoke pit about games that pit a Warmachine army against a Hordes army.

While they are two sides of the same coin in theory, we're noticing that for Warmachine to have a fair chance against Hordes, players are forced to invest more and more into using units and fewer 'jacks. We're also a bit skeptical about the slight differences, such as Hordes can "Frenzy" but Warmachine, well, explores their inner-child but as far as combat is concerned they don't have a half-penalty/half-perk like Frenzy. Add to that the fact the Warjacks in general, IN GENERAL, can't take more than 3 focus, which kind of hamstrings them. You can get more via certain casters, but that pretty much pigeon-holes a players options if they want to participate in a tournament.

I'm not unhappy with the game, I think the rules are solid, but I caveat that statement by saying only if you go WM vs. WM -or- Hordes vs. Hordes. I've watched several tournaments where Hordes pretty much dominated unless the Warmachine player decided to go heavy on the number of units and solos they used and light on the number of 'jacks. Heck, I saw one tournament where the guy only played 1 Khador Juggy and the rest were Man-o-War units of different type, and he won that tournament. I guess what I'm also trying to say is that I'm concerned that if the game is going to start becoming infantry heavy, how is it really different than others like Warhammer?

Just my personal thoughts. Troll if you wish.

[quindraco]

Heck, I saw one tournament where the guy only played 1 Khador Juggy and the rest were Man-o-War units of different type, and he won that tournament.

Even under eIrusk, talk about a hard list to win with. I have tremendous respect for whoever managed it.

[gaminguy]

When players on both sides of the game are complaining about the advantages on the other side of the fence things are probably pretty well balanced; Warmachine players think Fury is unfair, Hordes players think Warmachine having better stats across the board is unfair.

[Chip]

I would buy a combined rulebook with both rules. But then I got all the Forces of Warmachine/Hordes books out of a pure completionist nature.

Also, I like referring to both systems combined as "Hormachine" because it forces everyone to stop for a second to process the word Other, less controversial, ideas would be The Iron Kingdoms (as opposed to Iron Kingdoms RPG) and Anarchy in the IK.

[WarpedWolf]

Also, if you combine the rules, you have to combine the model sections and you end up with a $60 book, which kills buyin for most people. Wasn't that one of the main complaints about $40k as far back as 3rd ed?

Yeah, one of the reasons I dropped Warhammer for Hordes was the cost of the Warhammer core rulebook. $75 for an item you pretty much can't play the game without doesn't make sense to me.

[WarpedWolf]

[double post deleted]

[HRM]

Also, I like referring to both systems combined as "Hormachine" because it forces everyone to stop for a second to process the word.

I'm officially stealing this.

[scout's honor]

Primal Mk II (never mind Mk I) still needed to be playtested when Prime Mk II was released. Obviously this meant the Hordes rules couldn't be included in the Warmachine book. Including the Warmachine rules in the Hordes book would mean the Warmachine-only book would become largely pointless. Now releasing a new version of the rulebook with both systems in it would do the same.

[The_Bionic_Labrat]

My friends and I have had several long talks out in the smoke pit about games that pit a Warmachine army against a Hordes army.

While they are two sides of the same coin in theory, we're noticing that for Warmachine to have a fair chance against Hordes, players are forced to invest more and more into using units and fewer 'jacks. We're also a bit skeptical about the slight differences, such as Hordes can "Frenzy" but Warmachine, well, explores their inner-child but as far as combat is concerned they don't have a half-penalty/half-perk like Frenzy. Add to that the fact the Warjacks in general, IN GENERAL, can't take more than 3 focus, which kind of hamstrings them. You can get more via certain casters, but that pretty much pigeon-holes a players options if they want to participate in a tournament.
.

Warjacks are war machines, but they are not WARMACHINE. people need to realise that. whats wrong with units? IMO, 2 jacks is perfectly manageable for the vast majority of casters in the game, and at 35pts feels right.

Warjacks also dont need more than 3 focus. whereas hordes players need their beasts to generate fury. kill the beast. see the effect it has on the other army.

I'm not unhappy with the game, I think the rules are solid, but I caveat that statement by saying only if you go WM vs. WM -or- Hordes vs. Hordes. I've watched several tournaments where Hordes pretty much dominated unless the Warmachine player decided to go heavy on the number of units and solos they used and light on the number of 'jacks. Heck, I saw one tournament where the guy only played 1 Khador Juggy and the rest were Man-o-War units of different type, and he won that tournament. I guess what I'm also trying to say is that I'm concerned that if the game is going to start becoming infantry heavy, how is it really different than others like Warhammer?

.

pfft. inter-game balance is fine. Ive crushed plenty hordes factions (including beast heavy ones) with my Khador, and i've crushed plenty warmachine factions with my Circle.
and to counter your example, we had a 35pt tournament recently (and fyi one of the players was a UK masters champion several times back in the day, and still does extremely well) and of the top 5 factions, mine was the only Hordes faction there. of those WM factions that did well, most fielded at least 2 jacks.

i dont see it as a fault that i "must" take infantry. you make it sound like a failing. its not. its merely a different synnergy. Hordes is very battlegroup centric, with supporting elements. Warmachine factions tend to have the opposite synnergy. Honestly, i'd love to be able to go infantry heavy with my Hordes faction, but outside of very specific builds its hard to do. When i play Circle, i'm always envious of the inherent freedom available to my Khador faction in terms of builds, in that, no, i dont have to spend over 50% of my points on a battlegroup.

And how is it different to warhammer? is this the mechhammer 5th ed you're on about? Or the MC spam that seems to define WFB in my area? Do i need to point out the balance, the tight, well written rules, great models and a company that actually gets down in the trenches with its players?

[Tyr852]

For me it would lose appeal if it was just one giant tome with everything in it and yeah cost wise would mean one or two less unit of models (not to mention I'd hate carting it around) . For myself just printing off the quick start rules from the Privateer Press Website for Hordes is more then adequate when dealing with with X faction games and supplementing it with my rulebook.

[scout's honor]

I'm not unhappy with the game, I think the rules are solid, but I caveat that statement by saying only if you go WM vs. WM -or- Hordes vs. Hordes. I've watched several tournaments where Hordes pretty much dominated unless the Warmachine player decided to go heavy on the number of units and solos they used and light on the number of 'jacks.

You'd see the reverse if the Hordes players didn't go heavy on the beasts and prefered to go infantry-heavy, except for Trollbloods (who, aside from a couple specific casters, actually should load up on infantry and solos).

That's just building your lists according to the strengths of your casters/locks and by extension of your faction. You'll see the exact same issue even if you stay within a single system with both opponents.

I guess what I'm also trying to say is that I'm concerned that if the game is going to start becoming infantry heavy, how is it really different than others like Warhammer?

I don't play Warhammer, never have, but I thought for one thing that GW systems don't have anything equivalent to the function of a warcaster or warlock. I'd say that's pretty significant as differences go, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

[Tyr852]

GW has a HQ unit which while similar in flavour is very different in function as it's more of a super solo then anything else , losing it tends not to be the end of the world and you can't pick any HQ at will as they have point costs associated with them.

There is many differences between WH and WM that even if all you ran was infantry they would still play totally different as the systems are just built differently with chance being less of a factor in WM then WH

[Chip]

I'm officially stealing this.

Oh take it, it's my gift to the forums! The more people that use it, the less I have to hear the hideously clunky and poorly thought out "warmahordes"

[PG_The Captain]

I guess what I'm also trying to say is that I'm concerned that if the game is going to start becoming infantry heavy, how is it really different than others like Warhammer?

Balanced rules that don't need you to guess what the game designer may have been thinking when writing the rules, with actual terminology learly defined and unambiguous. Also, rules that don't randomly change every few years to suddenly make your whole army suck because it dominated in the previous edition.

The 2D6+stat system, although nothing new in wargaming (Battletech did this decades ago), gives a nice bell curve instead of linear results. In games where individual dice rolls matter, this allows players to estimate probabilities better. (GW games use bucketfuls of dice, which tends to even out the odds over the course of the game, whereas the PP system does this, to a lesser extent, for every roll.)

Activation order that gives you plentiful tactical options every turn in a way that encourages bold and imaginative maneuvers. (Admittedly, Blood Bowl does this pretty well, too, but then again, it is GW's best game.)

Regular updates evenly among all factions. There are no Space Marines to hog half of new releases.


To address our concern for "infantry-heavy": The game has options for all types of play. If you want to play 'jack- or beast-heavy, you can. If you want to play all infantry except for a token filler for your warjack points, you can. Often, finding a balance between the two extremes is the most effective way to go.

The game setting is about armies of men clashing against each other with warcasters and their battlegroups as the strongest spearhead, not about warcasters and their jacks dishing it out with a bunch of men as spectators. The Hordes factions, with the exception of Skorne, tend to have limited manpower at their disposal, so it actually makes sense that they play more beast-heavy in order to be able to fight the more numerous civilized enemies.

[quindraco]

Oh take it, it's my gift to the forums! The more people that use it, the less I have to hear the hideously clunky and poorly thought out "warmahordes"

TIL there's a forum filter on warma.hordes - I went to reply to your post, and your original use of the term is in the quote, despite the visible version saying Warmachine/Hordes.

[Chip]

TIL there's a forum filter on warma.hordes - I went to reply to your post, and your original use of the term is in the quote, despite the visible version saying Warmachine/Hordes.

Yeah, I went to edit my previous post to say I thought it had an autocorrect, but it seems to... Not, any more.

Curiouser and curiouser...

[Temoinlanuit]

It also seems like smart marketing. I want to play Warmachine, but not necessarily Hordes. I feel like I'm buying into a much larger game if the rulebooks are combined (and what would the game be called? Warmahordes?), even if that's not true. It feels right to buy one book, say, "I play Warmachine," and then down the line if I want to get into a Hordes faction I can easily expand with my knowledge. Smart marketing.

Ultra Warmahordes Battle Royale 2012 Tournament Fighter Edition.

I would buy it.

[Circle noob]

Ultra Warmahordes Battle Royale 2012 Tournament Fighter Edition.

I would buy it.

yup, same here. one consolidated version, nu fluff, no model rules just the core stuff from both rule books, sr scenarios and up date (errata included) in the same format as the small rulebook. that would be a solid buy!