Besides, WM mechanics usually need base to base to achieve repairs, plus they need to pass a ridiculous skill check. Whereas a Warlock can heal a beast 10 to 16 inches away. It is precisely these aforementioned reasons that WM players go "infantry-machine", and only field jacks when they grow their own focus -- ala Deathjack, Avatar, etc.
The repair mechanic is "irreparably" (ugh, lol) broken, when compared to hordes healing/medicate.
Last edited by GaspysInhaler; 07-19-2012 at 04:15 PM.
Originally Posted by shaner
With Hordes the decisions are much more complex as not only do you have to spend correctly to ensure you have the right amount of fury out but it also carries over and affects turn after turn after turn....
Also the calculations change as you go through the turn, instead of CTRL phase and done, as in WM you have to realise that each beast you activate has its potential in part determined by the previous activations unless you go over fury!
Warmachine if you make a mistake, no big deal, all is reset next turn and you start from scratch.
Hordes if you make a mistake you can lost activations from expensive beasts and they can even attack your own stuff.
This is all devils advocate of course but you can see its not as clear cut as you say.
Its easy to say Warmachine is the Easy Mode of the game (But then you have to counter with Forsaken/Shepherds and Beast Handlers basically being like riding with stabilisers).
I don't believe there is any inherent advantage of fury over focus, but the capability of spending up 4, or in special cicumstance more than 4 on a single beast is definitely a plus over the rule of three focus.
In terms of defensive capability the two systems have different weaknesses. Warlocks usually die to multiple low power attacks. They can avoid suffering damage from the big hits (though it's shunted off somewhere else with negative effects, usually in a bonus to damage and a single point of damage to the warlock). Warcasters die to a couple of big hits, but sitting on focus means that damage literally is negated - it just vanishes, unlike with a warlock where it's essentially shuffled. Jacking your ARM up to 18 or higher means those pow 10's +2d6 aren't very impressive, but being stuck at 15 means you're going to have a bad time with those accurate pow 10's.....
It's really an interesting balance. Most warcasters can afford to sacrifice any and all of their warjacks, because they're just losing a tactical asset. It doesn't actually hurt them more than the loss of the damage the model can do (and in some cases help, because now there's more focus for the caster). Most warlocks can't afford to sacrifice many beasts because they're literally losing access HP, a spell, and a source of Fury generation, as well as the raw damage the beast puts out.
I think the biggest disadvantage the Fury system has is that you can't "wait and see" what happens during your turn to decide if you want to advance with your warlock, like you can with a warcaster. By that I mean you can use a warjack very aggressively to take out a serious threat to you, etc, before you actually move into it's threat range. I find that often with my warlocks (Circle and Farrow) I have to advance into some kind of threat range I'd really rather not be in so I can force the beast I want to use to kill it or do whatever (for example, slam and follow up into a warcaster/lock - I have to make sure I can force from the follow up position, where a 'jack could just move and do it, and I could decide to move up later). If I come up short on distance or wiff hits/damage, I can have a serious problem. You can usually avoid this problem with a warcaster. I like the balance though, you really manage a lot of risk with Hordes. You get some insurance pieces to help, but once you start losing things can really go downhill very quickly.
Ask them if they're sure that Fury gives an advantage over Focus. If they respond "yes"; then grab a Gaspy, Skarre, or Deneghra and some random Cryx models. Tell them that you are about to take them to school, and the lesson for the day is exactly how limited their little warlock is. Laugh evilly when you do this.
The truth is that they have kept track of quite a few tournament results over at focus and fury. The results have been pretty even with the only faction showing any sort of an edge being Cryx. Even in the case of Cryx, it's not anything very far beyond the pale.
A warlock has to sacrifice one or two fury to shunt that damage and his damage out put that turn is not reduced at all.
Common Sense is a Myth.
I don't want to fuel the flames or anything, but let me tell you about a game i had last night.
So i was playing as the Butcher against an Ethagrosh beast only (except for a forsaken) list. I had already captured both incursion flags on turn 2, so he decided to go for an assassination, He moved Thagrosh up and killed a bunch of Iron Fangs with Rapture, he ravager left a scather template so it was almost impossible for all of my infantry to charge Thagrosh. Good move on his part.
He floods the objectives with beasts in order to hold them.
So next turn I start my attacks. Butcher Feats, casts fury on the Iron Fangs, Fully boosts a Blunderbuss shot to kill a shredder in the way, camps 2 (should have Iron Fleshed himself).
My Rifle Corps with Joe start firing, with all 8 hitting and each one doing small amounts of damage to Thagrosh, 2's, 3's. One 5 is made and a Harrier pops out.
So Thagrosh is left on Zero Fury after giving damage to all of his beasts and on around 5 wounds left. My first Manhunter is in melee range of the Shredder and the Harrier, he kills the Shredder, giving 2 more Fury to Thagrosh! Then moves over and kills the Harrier.
My Second Manhunter Charges Thagrosh in the Rear, Both damage rolls get pawned off to his beasts, killing some.
So ive used my entire army at Thagrosh now, and he's still alive.
He starts his turn, Typhon Tramples through my force, kills 1 model with it, and dies to Free Strikes! This then gives Thagrosh 2 more Fury! So he's up to 5.
Thagrosh charges through, gets to the Butcher, and kills him on his last attack.
Now im perfectly fine, i was outplayed and the Butcher was in a bad position.
BUT, there were 2 times in this battle in which killing enemies resulted in a worse position for me. I mean, that just sucks in a game that is about aggression, isnt it? I would have won if i hadnt killed those models, which just seems wrong to me.
Looking forward to Epic Vlad on his Battle Cattle.
I know someone who'd be interested in giving war games a try, however I don't have multiple hordes or warmachine forces... and where I usually visit him, there isn't a local game store. Would you guys think in general the menoth and skorne battle boxes are fairly balanced against each other? or would hordes vs wm be a bit much at once for someones first play?
As someone who plays Legion exclusively, IMO Fury ridiculously outclasses Focus. It isn't even close. But like many have said, there is far more to the balance mix than just Focus and Fury. My experience is that the Fury mechanic shines most with high Fury casters who have reliable means of protecting their beasts from trading attrition (eVayl is the poster child for this).
Fury works better than Focus because of the defensive properties behind it. Camping 2 fury goes a long way to keeping your warlock alive. Camping focus generally doesn't do much unless you camp lots of it. Something I've never really understood about Warmachine; keeping your caster alive is critical, but most of my opponents go out of their way to make it easy for me to kill their caster by casting random stupid spells.
Not having to plan out your turns in advance is another advantage, and the "risk management" idea is a joke. If I have my beasts go nuts and blow all of their fury to smite my opponents, I usually don't have to worry all that much about counterattacks since my heavies are so destructive. If 4 of my 5 beasts frenzy, I lose their activations and take a few boosted high-powered hits. It's going to be much less damage than what my opponent would have done to them with his guys.
Originally Posted by Klebert L. Hall
Fury is better then Focus but there is more too it then that.
Though fury makes it easier to run beasts then for casters to run jacks.
Is anyone else going to realize that everyone's saying the exact same thing over and over again?
Feora's favorite Proverb from the Canon of True Law: "Light a man a and you warm him for a night. Light a man on and you warm him for the rest of his life."
Fury is better in terms of flexibilty, not having to plan out your turns in advance, the end game where your warlock can sling spells and warbeast can go on rampage. But warlocks needs warbeast to make them better, ones warbeasts start dying they lose punch and warlock becomes weaker and weaker.
An other thing that makes focus a little bit better, it replenish automatically, with 3+ focus they can resist most low power attacks (while a warlock must take them or transfer them). Warjacks are an option and not a must, this gives them more options for infantry machine.
I think that both systems are balanced...
The duality of this conversation is part of the problem I'm having with it. You talk about the damage you're doing to the caster as if he should be concerned, because it's making it that much easier for you to kill him later. But at the same time, you're acting like the Warlock loses nothing when he transfers a boosted damage roll against his 14 or 15 armor to his 17 or 18 armor warbeast, but that's not true. If it's going to matter down the road because the warcaster took some damage, it's also going to matter down the road that that Warbeast just took 10 or so damage wouldn't have otherwise (which is nearly half of a Warpwolf's hitpoints, and almost a third of a heavy Wold's hitpoints). It's going to matter, in either case, if there's a "next turn" to go to because either the warcaster is that much closer to death, or the Warlock's going to find himself that much closer to not having any beasts to generate fury for him. But if there's not going to be a "next turn", then it has an equally unlikely chance of mattering for either character. Either the Warcaster takes a statistically improbable damage roll and gets killed somehow, or the Warbeast that gets transferred to takes that statistically improbable damage roll and gets taken out, potentially before he can contribute that turn. One case loses you the game and one doesn't, granted... but both are fairly unlikely (and, honestly, it's a lot easier to kill off that beast through transfers from his Warlock than it is to kill that 20-something armor caster).
Last edited by Blackraine; 07-20-2012 at 08:39 AM.
It's not a question of win or lose, it's a question of whether or not you want to have friends afterwards.
I can't believe this thread is still going on. It's really simple:
Focus has an opportunity cost for use. Fury does not. End of story.
Evaluated strictly in a vaccuum, Fury is dramatically more powerful than Focus. It isn't until the debate moves from Focus vs. Fury to the game systems that use those both resources, that they become balanced. (Which they do, unquestionably.)
Playing aggressively doesn't mean "kill everything that moves, even if it's dead it's counter-productive". It was REALLY needed to kill that shredder with the manhunter, knowing that he could catch back the fury on it? You were playing with attrition in mind (so killing more models is usually good) or you were going for a casterkill (so giving furies back to him was not a good move)?
Chess is about eating enemy pieces, but you wouldn't sacrifice a queen or a tower to eat 2 pawns, usually.
Vinter climbed out of the wreckage of a flying machine in the middle of a barren, empty speck of nothing and immediately punched people in the face until he became an emperor.
Sacrificing, or better, trading is vital, yes, if done with cognition. For sure if killing those two pawns open me the victory, i will sacrifice everything it's needed.
But in his example he sacrificed the chance to kill the caster (so a victory) to kill a shredder, "because in aggression game killing more is supposed to be good". Not a very good trade.
In any event, sitting on fury does affect a warlocks potential impact in the game - it leaves them less fury to cast spells and less that they can leach on the next turn, and if they transfer they may have to heal a lost aspect from a beast (costing them fury for spells on the subsequent turn), or they might lose a beast altogether (which certainly reduces what they can do). Each fury point they sit on is two they could have been using for offensive purposes - one for their spells, and one for forcing a beast. They can still force the beast but run the risk of frenzy. My experience is with Circle and Farrow warlocks, so take that as you will.
Two focus might save you from dying to a bunch of low power attacks, but two fury probably won't. But two focus isn't going to save you from dying to a pair of boosted pow 19's, while two fury probably will.
Fury mechanic is much stronger early game and much weaker late game. Sounds like balance to me.
Most recent post on my blog is Data geek fun with game record and battle journal update and I tweet game stuff @somnicidal
I think that's the issue newer players have. They don't get to see the weaker late game because they have been wiped off the board by the stronger start.
I think Warmachine and Hordes are balanced though
Well it didn't help me win last night.
I like Tiberion.
Once they get a handle of the basic rules, Hordes players seem to have an easier time at first. If I were to guess why this is, it'd be because beginners tend towards alpha instead of attrition, and a Hordes alpha is in general stronger than a Warmachine one. It also doesn't help that almost all beginner armies are beast / Jack heavy.
Like I said, once you get a lot of games under your belt, things definitely even out. Hordes is not an 'easy mode', in that you won't beat an intermediate warmachine player just cause you're using a Hordes army, but it definitely comes easier at first.
Maybe things would be different if the games were called Warbeast and Infantry as someone said, and most first warmachine armies were mostly infantry.
That said, this is just my experience. If beginners playing Hordes and Warmachine both seem to win equally using either system, then sure, tell people they're equally easy / hard for beginners. That just hasn't been the case for me.
Khador (Harkevich 150+pts, 5 casters, painted), TrollBloods (Gunnbjorn 100+ pts, 3 casters painted), Mercenaries (Ashylnn 65+ points, painted ), Cygnar (Constance 60+ pts, 2 casters, painted), Cryx (Coven 50+ pts, 2 casters, painted), Skorne (Makeda 35+pts, painted) - 80 % Paint Complete
Beasts tend to be faster, higher defense and with plenty of movement tricks. It is not impossible but it certainly isn't as easy as 'Remove the fury source.'
I think that WM/H are basically balanced and I think the differences are not big enough to ever pose a real problem, but I do think that fury has a few perks that just don't shore up on the other side.
Common Sense is a Myth.
Fury is so obviously better then focus that it has to be intentional.
Luckily it was, and thus PP balanced to account for it.
Warmachine wins more tournaments. Fact.
Also i play both, there are no hordes casters that overtly scare me. Several warmachine ones really have me scratching my head. Go figure.
Hordes is just harder for new players to get used to. Theres a reason i teach new players using my khador not legion.