Warmachine/Hordes - Masters 2015 and Active Duty Roster

A Summary of Change

So before I get into the nitty-gritty and start the contentious bits, here's a quick rundown of what really changed in Masters from 2014-15:

1. Reduction of the number of total scenarios from 12 to 8.

2. Two list format instead of three (AMEN).

3. 50% of all possible scenarios now have Killbox, an increase from previous editions. [edit: actually, 3/6 scenarios had killbox in 2014, so the percentage remains the same. Thanks to Trevor.]

4. Players select an objective during army construction. Objectives give different buffs.

5. Many scenarios have changed. I'll discuss this in depth later in the article.

6. Active Duty Roster. Four warcasters/warlocks are selected from each faction for a time span running from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2015. If a player selects two of the four warcasters/warlocks on Active Duty when building army lists, that player receives the special rule "Vanguard." This rule allows the player to take 20 points of specialists for each army list. A current question that I have (which may or may not have already been answered on PP's main forums) is whether or not you can select another objective for your specialists. I'm going to have a section discussing this alone. So let's get to it.

The Good

Reducing the number of possible scenarios is a welcome change, alleviating numerous problems from previous SR packets. First, it lessens the burden of the already massive knowledge base that a competitive Warmachine player needs to know. Second, it makes practicing scenario packets easier, as there's just less scenarios to learn. Finally, it (hopefully) gives PP more time to playtest them all, diminishing the likelihood of unbalanced or odd scenarios (Fire Support 2014, I'm looking at you).

Another change I'm particularly fond of is the change from a three list format to a two list format. The three list Masters format always rubbed me as a bit like a pre-game "rock, paper scissors" match where someone could gain a large advantage by outguessing an opponent. It spread list building resources thin and placed more strain on character restrictions, moving players towards tailoring lists to beat certain match ups, rather than moving them towards more generalist list builds. Three list formats created a game exterior to gameplay, and I find in-game decision making to be far more valuable than exterior decisions. So a great deal of thanks to PP for that change.

The Meh

Though increasing the likelihood of Killbox makes me cringe as a Protectorate player, I don't find this change to be particularly good or bad. What I dislike is the continuous refusal to bend or bow to whether or not Killbox should be in the packet at all. My preference always leans towards less randomization - make it in every scenario or put it out to pasture. I'm tired of looking across the table at Tom Guan's Mortenebra list and having the scenario do a coin flip for me; i.e. "Is there a turn two assassination?: YES/NO."

As for the objectives, I'm fairly neutral to them except Arcane Wonder. Given that objectives may have granted benefits depending on the scenario, I find giving players a decision preferential. However, I'm unsure as to why these bonuses have to exist at all. To make the game more interesting? To increase list building complexity? I don't know the justification, and I won't waste my time trying to figure it out to attack or defend PP. At the end of the day, I'm just sad that they gave a buff to Deneghra1.

The Scenarios

Quick disclaimer - I view things from a Protectorate perspective (my army is slow and doesn't change its X axis position often).

1. Destruction: Still boring. Sure, the objectives changed, but I think they'll largely be irrelevant in this scenario.

2. Two Fronts: I dislike scenarios with Friendly Zone: Dominate = 1 CP, as it encourages castling and non-aggressive play (especially if terrain allows for a safe zone for the opposing warcaster/warlock), but I suppose this scenario is fine.

3. Close Quarters: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

4. Fire Support: The change to off center the flags and make the closer one friendly was a good change. It means that players can deploy with an offensive or defensive posture for controlling scenario elements. For example, if I were playing my Hierarch Severius list on this scenario, I would deploy judicator centered with a lean towards my friendly flag. Severius and the Reckoner would also deploy on that side to aid in contesting. My TFG would deploy on the right flank to contest the enemy flag and screen the Judicator as it moves up to help contest my friendly flag. Unlike the Friendly Zone: Dominate = 1 CP of Two Fronts, the flags are positioned too far up to safely dominate without aggressive play, encouraging engagement while giving players an important decision during deployment.

5. Incoming: See Two Fronts, then add a complaint that the zones are extremely far apart, granting advantages to faster factions that don't require close support elements.

6. Incursion: Now this is a weird one. While I like that the random element of removing a flag is gone, the inclusion of three flags means that its likely both players will be scoring points at the same time, and score those points early on. The likelihood of either force being capable of contesting or controlling all flags seems pretty low, even at 50 points. The ability for a player to secure the points needed to pressure a next turn win after scoring an early point off of one of the flags creates an artificial tempo to the game - and I don't think I like that.

7. Outflank: This is my favorite scenario out of the packet. Though easy to contest, the openness of the scenario allows players to make extremely meaningful decisions during deployment. Choosing to commit to a zone, backing out of a zone, ceding a zone - all of these are options that don't run the risk of an opponent physically blocking contesting models from running in, unlike many box zone scenarios. This classic holds true, and I'm glad PP kept it.

8. Recon: This scenario is busy. Much too busy. I'll devote a post to this later on, as this one bears a lot of play testing.

Active Duty Roster

Aight, we're going deep on this one boys. We've gotta rate the choices of who made the cut as Immoren's least desired (i.e. least played at events). So who gets to join the Vanguard?

Cygnarly

- Constance Blaize: Laughable. No amount of specialists can save her from sinful suckage.

- Captain Jeremiah Kraye: Viable, but I don't envision specialists actually helping him much.

- Commander Adept Nemo1: Also viable. Perhaps specialists allow him to swap a Stormwall (19) for a heavy and infantry of some kind? The real issue is that he wasn't much too viable in the first place.

- Commander Coleman Stryker1: Very viable. See the Nemo analysis.

Then the next question you have to ask is whether or not two of these four play nicely with each other. After that, you have to ask whether or not the benefit of Vanguard is enough to choose that pairing over other pairings of warcasters in the faction. Unfortunately for ya'll, I cheated and will continue to cheat in my analysis of the Active Duty Roster. I skipped step one because I didn't see Haley2 and moved on to the next faction.

The Best

- Reznik2, Wrath of Ages: Viable(?). Though this guy still makes me sad, he isn't in the Constance tier. Specialists might actually allow him to drop against Cryx and another infantry faction such as Khador, as you can take the optimal infantry package against the threat. Against Cryx you can take Steelhead Halberdiers and Attendant Priest (8) with Zealots and UA (8). Against Khador, you can run TFG and UA (8) with a Reckoner (8). The packages are quite flexible, especially if the mainboard runs the Avatar, standard 'jack support, and Tristan + Redeemer package. This is something I'm planning on testing with...

- Hierarch Severius2: I'll just leave this for another post.

- Testament of Menoth (awkward, adding a number doesn't make sense here): Viable, but I don't like him in this meta. Too many things RFP/steal souls these days. His defensive stats are rather lack luster for someone who wants to be 10'' away from the front lines. I don't think highly of him.

- Thyra1, Flame of Sorrow: Laughable. See Constance Blaize.

Altogether, the only pairing I find interesting is Reznik2 and Hierarch Severius. Both can benefit greatly from specialists, as Reznik2 can swap massive infantry packages and Severius2 can drop the Judicator for a heavy kit. My only worry is that they have a similar set of match ups, but I need more time to fully develop this idea.

Khador

I'm just gonna say it. The only list that interests me is Butcher1, and since I don't see a pair for him in Strakhov, Zerkova, or Harkevich, I'm just gonna let this one go.

Cryx (or, the real best)

Since everything is pretty good in Cryx, you can do whatever you want and still win. Follow your heart. Just practice it.

Angry Angry Elves

I wouldn't play Retribution without Vyros2 or Issyria. Sorry I'm not sorry.

CoC

Lucant.

Mercenaries

I almost wrote a longer section for this, but halfway through I deleted it when I realized that mercs don't really need specialists. All of their army lists are essentially built for you by PP. Granted, you can swap out one unit for another, but the unit choices are largely irrelevant in my mind. Mercs are a Galleon or Earthbreaker/Cephalyx pair. Exulon isn't on that list, and neither list really needs specialists anyways.

Trollbloods

I can't write about these guys. I have little experience with Trolls, and they hold my worst win/loss record. Mostly thanks to JFlanz.

Circle of Bradigus (or, also the real best)

See title.

Skorne

Morghoul2 and Naaresh1 can go play with Thyra1 and Constance1, so I'm going to skip to the relevant portion.

Hexeris1 and Mordikaar1 can be a good pairing. Hexeris covers Khador, Cryx, Menoth (tenatively), and most other infantry drops. Mordikaar can be built to handle armor and Legion. Though I'm no expert in mortitheurgy, I'm tentatively excited to see a strong Skorne player try this pairing.

Legion (Basic)

No Vayl2. No Saeryn1. No Absylonia2. No Lylyth2 or 3. I'm all for creativity, but unless your name is Jason Flanzer, I'd just leave this alone.

Minions

PP should've put the whole faction here, because these dudes are definitely missing from tournament data.

On the whole, I think Active Duty Roster has a lot of potential for good and bad. It largely depends on how much you trust PP. Here's what they claim Active Duty Roster will do:

"To further distinguish the gameplay experience, we wanted Masters to promote and incentivize creative list building using as much of a faction’s roster as possible, but we didn’t want to penalize anyone who preferred to use their traditional lists.

"This new rule presents an exciting option for competitive players and list builders. You can stick with what you know and what has produced proven results in the past, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you are inclined to experiment with your faction, however, you now have a powerful tool to do so. Twenty points of specialists, over a third of your army list, is nothing to sneeze at. With that many points of flexibility, a player can cover a great many of an original list’s weaknesses or further augment that list’s strengths."

I think the above is largely true for individuals that will actively choose to go against the current meta. It will provide fun and interesting ways to create lists, and for that reason alone, I'm all aboard. Despite the somewhat tongue-in-cheek analysis above, the Active Duty Roster actually makes me quite happy with Masters 2015. PP created a system that opens the doors more innovation, and I think it will prove to be affect the game in a positive way.

This all comes with one caveat: PP has to be very careful as to what makes the Active Duty Roster at the same time. Some warcasters and warlocks must never be allowed to get on the roster - Haley2, Morvahna2, and Harbinger immediately come to mind. On a similar note, therein lies another danger: new releases being placed immediately on the roster can be very dangerous to the balance of the format. Play testing and design now have to think of how a new warcaster or warlock affects the current Active Duty Roster for the season.

In Closing

Overall, I'm satisfied with Masters 2015. Not happy. Not sad. Not even mad. Just satisfied. Nothing too crazy has happened (yet), and the Active Duty Roster actually worked out in my favor (for now). So now that you know how I feel about it, I'd like to know your opinions on anything and everything. Do you like Active Duty Roster? What pairings and lists do you believe are viable? How do you feel about the objectives? Scenarios? Let me know.

Brandon