head to head
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is reads, and it is a single point.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Optimizing pair-up chains and offspring builds to steamroll deterministically scripted maps.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Specializing magical cities and unlocking spells to dominate a randomly generated arcane world.
Fire Emblem Fates leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Warlock: Master of the Arcane leans Optimization (Pure Optimization).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem Fates
Turn-based menu play; no hand-speed demands
Warlock: Master of the Arcane
Fully turn-based hex strategy; no physical precision ceiling
Warlock: Master of the Arcane leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Fire Emblem Fates
AI follows scripted attack priorities, not player modeling
Warlock: Master of the Arcane
AI lords use scripted expand-and-attack patterns without real modelling
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem Fates
Dual-strike/guard procs and hit rates inject meaningful RNG
Warlock: Master of the Arcane
Random spell research results and dungeon encounters add genuine unknowns
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem Fates
Offspring seals, asset/flaw selection, and supports are deeply planned
Warlock: Master of the Arcane
City specialization and spell unlocking form the dominant solvable layer
A matching score does not mean a matching test. Two games can both sit at 10 on execution and demand completely different things of you - which is why the reasoning above matters more than the number beside it.