[Disclaimer – The following words are quite opinionated. If you don’t want to read them, just hit ‘back’ now. They are also written as a gamer, not as a Press Ganger. Privateer Press cannot be held responsible for my maniacal raving nor my world domination plans.]
The release of Hordes is something without precedent, really. It’s a miniatures game that’s compatible with Warmachine, but it’s also a viable miniatures game in its own right. Some call it “four more Warmachine factions.” Others think it would be best if the two were kept completely separate. Mixed events will take place, however, as will Warmachine-only and Hordes-only events. While some players will dive right into one camp or another, others search for what this release will really mean for the gaming landscape.
I’m not going to talk about how it will affect local scenes – maybe your local players will choose one game over another, maybe they’ll insist on always mixing the two, or maybe both games will thrive independently. I’m also not going to give a full “product review” of Primal. Plenty of other folks have already done that, and that sort of thing strays from my area of expertise anyway. What I will talk about is some of the differences in the game mechanics between Warmachine and Hordes and talk about what that will mean when mixing the two games together in tournaments and other competitive arenas.
Let me begin by saying that these differences aren’t intrinsically “good” or “bad;” they’re simply differences. Some people may prefer one system or another, but, for many, they’ll just be different aspects of the two games. Let me also say that I do enjoy Hordes. I think the core game mechanics are practically a work of art. Privateer Press succeeding in making a game that’s compatible with Warmachine but that also avoids stepping on its toes, a game rich with its own open design space and a game that I expect to succeed for many years to come. I can think of no other spin-off game that succeeded in this regard which, naturally, brings us back to considering how these two games will interact.
Focus versus Fury:
The most obvious place to start is the difference between Focus and Fury and what that difference means in terms of game play and game balance. On the surface, the two mechanics are very similar – warlocks cast spells just like warcasters do but use Fury instead of Focus, warbeasts have limits on how often they can boost a hit or damage roll just like warjacks. But there is a massive difference here that lies beneath the surface. Let’s take a 7FOC warcaster and a 7FURY warlock and compare the two. Leaving spellcasting out of the equation for simplicity’s sake, our 7FOC warcaster and his warjacks are capable of boosting 7 attack rolls or damage rolls or make extra attacks – 7 total boosts. But our 7FURY warlock can boost 7 attack rolls or damage rolls or make extra attacks AND his warbeasts can boost 7 attack rolls or damage rolls or make extra attacks – 14 total boosts. That’s almost like having Iron Lich Axphyxious’s feat every turn (well, not exactly, but you get the point).
When it comes to game balance, however, this is clearly a major difference between the two systems. 7 boosts per turn can’t compete with 14 boosts per turn for very long assuming all other factors are equal, so the other factors must be rebalanced. This occurs in a number of ways. The primary way is that the strongest warbeasts deal less damage per attack than the strongest warjacks. Sure, you can find an exception here and there, but, on average, the heavier warjacks outclass the heavier warbeasts in damage dealt.
This doesn’t mean a whole lot in the median range of things. A Destroyer’s P+S18 and 3 boost limit can be fairly comparable to Titan Cannoneer’s P+S15 and 4 boost limit depending on the target, but what about at the extreme end of the range? The P+S18 can chew through an Arcane Shielded Centurion (ARM24) a whole lot better than P+S15 ever could. With a few exceptions, Hordes armies will struggle with ARM values in the 23+ range. There’s a reason you don’t find any warbeasts in Primal with the ARM of a Centurion (Arcane Shielded or otherwise).
The difference between overboosting a power field and transferring damage also comes into play here. I suppose it could have its own section, but the Focus V/ Fury game mechanics are the reason for this difference as well. A Hordes army will have great difficulty defeating an ARM24 Butcher, for example. And when he does finally get a chance to play, a warlock can only shunt away 16+4d6 damage so many times before it’s too late. The ability to move damage X times instead of negating X damage from each attack allows the Fury system to run smoothly and prevents warlocks from “tanking” for long.
An additional aspect of the balancing act is that the Hordes Feats, for the most part, are inferior to Warmachine feats. Since every Hordes warlock can play with Asphyxious’s feat every turn (sort of) – it makes sense that feats are an area of their power Privateer Press chose to dial back a notch or two.
Proximity:
This is a small matter that almost didn’t get its own section, but proximity makes more of a difference than many Warmachine players realize when first picking up Hordes. Skarre, for example, can allocate focus from 12” away to the Deathjack. It can charge a model up to 9.5 inches away, and it can unload with all the focus Skarre chose to provide. If Kaya’s Warpwolf stands 12” away and chooses to charge a model 9.5” from there, you’ve screwed the pooch.
In a game where killing the warcaster or warlock is the key to victory, the ability of a warcaster to stand back from the action while warlocks are forced to stand in the thick of it makes a big difference, especially in competitive play where assassination techniques are a very common strategy.
That Whole Frenzy Thing:
Going back to our 7FURY warlock; he’s not really limited to 14 boosts per turn. If he sticks to that number, the system remains in equilibrium, but such an equilibrium is not required. At times, it isn’t even desired. On that critical, explosive turn, a warlock can boost the hell out of every available resource, generating as many boosts as the FURY stat of every model in the army. At the extreme end of things, a 500-point Vayl/Shredder army could utilize the equivalent of 44 Focus in a single turn (much more, actually, if you factor in the fact that Rabid virtually doubles your potential number of boosts). Such a thing is entirely unheard of in Warmachine. Even the Harbinger with Wracks and the Avatar wouldn’t come close to that.
But this course of action does not come without price. On the following turn, those beautifully efficient little boosting engines are liable to tear each other to shreds. Well, about 42% of those with full Fury will, anyway. The Frenzy mechanic grants players the option to push the limits. I wouldn’t go nearly so far as to equate Warmachine to chess and Hordes to poker as one forumite recently put it, but the concept is valid. There is more gambling involved in Hordes and more determinism in Warmachine. Shrewd players will often seek to minimize the gamble and maximize the destruction of their enemies, but that element remains. You don’t know for sure at the end of your turn whether an opposing warbeast will Frenzy or not.
And those Threshold checks can make quite a difference. Consider a Carnivean with 3 Fury on him. Pass the Threshold check, and he gets to boost one roll this turn. Fail the check, and he Frenzies – free charge, free attack roll boost with the maw, free damage roll boost with the maw, free attack roll boost with the talon, talon damage roll, other talon attack roll, other talon damage roll – 7 effective focus spent, all free. Oh, and depending on board position, that amazingly efficient attack run just went into a friendly model. Sorry.
This is definitely something that different players will view different ways. The degree of determinism and the degree of chance is something each player sees differently. One simple measure is to consider whether you would prefer 2 attacks or d3 attacks. The average quantity of attacks is identical, but the game mechanics of Warmachine lean more towards the 2 while the mechanics of Hordes lean more towards the d3.
High DEF:
No, this section has nothing to do with TV, but the title does fulfill my quota of bad puns for the article. In Warmachine, a high DEF model without any ARM is often a dead model. Between all the skyhammers, firebombs, mortar shells, bombards, purges, doomspitters, and arc noded spells, it’s a borderline miracle when short-range, high DEF models like Satyxis survive long enough to do the job they were meant to do.
Now flip through Primal. Sure, there are some warbeasts with AOEs, but the cheapest of them costs more than a whole unit of Holy Zealot firebombers. Beyond that, we only have a Cleanser-esque group AOE and a few spells with very minimal options for getting them out over a great distance. The Tharn Bloodtrackers, a unit that would often die to random shrapnel in one turn on a Warmachine table, becomes a powerful weapon for the Circle Orboros. They’ve got that neat Prey rule and are scantily-clad chicks (always a plus), but, most importantly, they can actually live long enough to do their job.
Play Style Blues:
Another huge difference between the systems is that Hordes really doesn't have the same faction distinctions as Warmachine. There is no "ranged faction" or "armored faction" or "synergy faction" or whatever. Almost everyone has a CRA unit with decent range. Everyone has a warbeast with ARM18+. Everyone has some Choir-esque units and/or solos. It leads to a game that is very open to accommodating a gamer’s play style regardless of faction choice, but it also means that the factions don't have quite as much intrinsic style in how they play.
The feel of fighting a Titan Gladiator and a bunch of Venators really isn’t too different from fighting a Dire Troll Mauler and a bunch of Pyg Bushwhackers. It's not like fighting against a bunch of Skyhammers and Firebombs and then facing off against bonejacks and Bile Thralls followed by a game against Long Gunners and a Centurion. The warlocks, more than warcasters even, define the feel of the list (which is kind of ironic considering that half their spell list has nothing to do with which warlock you choose).
In terms of game play (competitive game play, in particular), this means that optimized lists are less dependent on the opposing army list. Defending against Venators or Bushwhackers makes little difference. Destroying a Mauler or a Gladiator works the same way. There are a few notable outlying models/units (like Lesser Warbeasts, for example,) but the general feel of the factions isn’t nearly as diverse.
Those are the main things I would single out as key differences between the two systems, but what do those differences mean?
Warmachine and Hordes, despite their similarities, are two different games. Things that are great in a Hordes V/ Hordes game might border on useless in a Hordes V/ Warmachine game. For the casual player, this might make little difference. If words like ‘efficiency’ and ‘threat range’ never enter your mind while playing, then, for you, perhaps these differences mean very little.
For the tournament player, however, these differences mean a bit more. For one thing, it means that the most efficient selections for army lists is very different if you’re playing Hordes V/ Hordes than it is if you’re playing Hordes V/ Warmachine. Perhaps more importantly, however, you must evaluate the pros and cons of the two systems. The Focus/Fury difference is a big advantage for Hordes, but it’s an advantage carefully balanced with the power level of Hordes feats, the lower maximum P+S values, and the differences between overboosting and transferring. The other key differences tend to go more in Warmachine’s favor, differences like proximity. Assassinating an enemy warcaster from 26” away with arc noded spells is quite different from lumbering up the field with your beasts. It’s not difficult to guess which is the riskier of the two. The determinism of Warmachine is also a plus when it comes to competitive play. When your own models don’t always stick to your plan, it’s a lot more difficult to develop effective strategies. Warmachine’s increased ability to ignore high DEF or Stealth is another point in its favor. And yeah, that play style thing is mostly a wash, but it, too, gives a slight edge to Warmachine armies. In a mixed-game tournament, the same Warmachine army is well-equipped to take on any Hordes army, but a Hordes army strong against Cryx might struggle with Khador (or vice versa).
PPS_People promised us a “compatible” game and promised us a “feral twin” for Warmachine. On both those counts, they really delivered. One thing they never promised, however, was a game full of factions that were “competitive” with Warmachine armies. If nothing else, Warmachine has almost three full years of releases on Hordes. Add in the differences I’ve highlighted in this article, and I think we’ve got a game that’s fully “compatible” but not fully “competitive.” Mostly for that reason, I plan to enjoy the two games separately for the most part. I’ll play the occasional crossover just for fun, but when mixed events roll around, I’ll probably volunteer to run those more often than play in them.
I admit it’s possible that I’m wrong. Maybe some crafty Hordes player will figure out a surefire plan to beat casters like Sorscha or The Coven of Garlghast at GenCon, and I’ll be forced to eat my words. I wouldn’t recommend betting on it, though.
What do you think, Compatible? Competitive? let us know Here.
