Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Chute82 wrote:
I feel that the games of 40k and warmhordes don't really have much in common besides being TT game played with miniatures and dice.
The companies are polar opposites of each other.

Indeed. The mechanics are totally different, so really beyond using miniatures, tape measures, and 6 sided dice, the games have almost nothing in common.

Even the dice are different.

GW use d6 in their games, Warmahordes uses a 2d6 system.

Thanks guys, really helpful stuff. Interesting that people suggest picking a faction and then picking the rulebook that corresponds. As a player I enjoy the preparation side of the battle, theorising about the best units and tactics and the skill of army design. To do that I thought I would need to understand the rules of the game properly.

As a player I prefer an army that isn't one dimensional, has different options so that I can play a different army from one game to the next, and rewards good tactics. I don't particularly want a plod forward or sit back sort of army if that makes sense. Something that is flexible and interesting basically!

Every faction can be flexible again it depends on the caster. Getting a new caster can completely change how your army works.

My Dominar Rasheth list tends to sit back and spell sling a where say my (p/e/3)Makeda lists which are in your face asap.

Haha! As a newbie means little to me! I guess I'm going to have to research the different casters as well as the different factions! Sounds easy.....!

dragonelf wrote:
Haha! As a newbie means little to me! I guess I'm going to have to research the different casters as well as the different factions! Sounds easy.....!

Not sure if anybody mention it but battle college should give you a little idea on each faction

https://battlecollege.wikispaces.com

dragonelf wrote:
Haha! As a newbie means little to me! I guess I'm going to have to research the different casters as well as the different factions! Sounds easy.....!

People are suggesting you choose a faction because in general each faction is pretty flexible. So you should choose a faction that appeals to you in other ways, you like the models, fluff, or other reasons.

Is there a particular playstyle you like? We can give recommendations based on that.

Thanks for that. I mentioned my playstyle earlier in the thread.

dragonelf wrote:
Thanks for that. I mentioned my playstyle earlier in the thread.

I didn't see anything specific. Every army buffs to a certain extent. And synergy as a whole is very prominent.

Gotta be more specific.

Really. What sort of info do you need to know? I am not an all out aggressive player, I prefer to pick an opponent's weaknesses, counterattack, pull him out of position etc. I like fast manoevrable army and I don't like to be predictable.

dragonelf wrote:
Really. What sort of info do you need to know? I am not an all out aggressive player, I prefer to pick an opponent's weaknesses, counterattack, pull him out of position etc. I like fast manoevrable army and I don't like to be predictable.

Sounds like Circle might be your faction...

dragonelf wrote:
I am not an all out aggressive player.

This will have to change. WArmachine is a game that favours aggression this is not 40k. You can't hang back and hide. You cant 'castle' or 'gunline'.

dragonelf wrote:
, I prefer to pick an opponent's weaknesses.

This is a generic tactic, not faction specific. In other words, all the factions can do this.

dragonelf wrote:
counterattack.

Counter attack is part of the game. It's a part of dealing with alphastrikes, and beatastriking. Generic tactics, not faction specific. In other words, all factions can counter attack. Some. Such as trolls, protectorate and khador may lean slightly more towards it than other factions

dragonelf wrote:
pull him out of position etc.

Various spells and feats can accomplish this. Generally the realm of 'control casters' and they're not faction specific. Most factions can play this game to some degree.

dragonelf wrote:
I like fast manoevrable army.

Most factions can be built this way, both through unit choice (eg cavalry) and through specific casters (eg strakhov, vlad, borka) generally though, cryx and circle would be regarded as fast manoeuvre able armies (circle particularly so!) but to an extent, most factions can play fast and manoeuvrable to some extent.

dragonelf wrote:
I don't like to be predictable.

Changing a caster or a unit can change how the whole army plays. Again, this is simply the nature of the game, rather than a faction specific 'thing'.

Hope that helps!

Haha, well it seems that whatever tactical approach I like, any faction can accommodate it! What is essentially the difference between them then? They can all be manoevrable, aggressive, counterattack, and basically employ any strategy. So does it boil down to fluff and model preference?

dragonelf wrote:
Haha, well it seems that whatever tactical approach I like, any faction can accommodate it! What is essentially the difference between them then? They can all be manoevrable, aggressive, counterattack, and basically employ any strategy. So does it boil down to fluff and model preference?

Models and fluff is definitely a thing.

While we say most factions have a variety of plays, don't mistake that for meaning that factions are interchangeable. Some have preference for one style,vor more limited options in others (circle, for example is a very complete faction, but lacks long ranged ranged options) Think of it in terms of 'questions' and 'answers'. Questions are the problems your army poses for your opponent, or else tactical 'hurdles' you need to overcome (hoe do I deal with x, y, z etc) and answers being how you address the 'questions' your opponent asks you. Thing is, different factions might ask the same question in different ways, and they will all answer those same questions differently as well.

If you said, for example you like ranged combat, I'd say cygnar and ret are kings of small arms - rifles, machine guns, and general infantry firepower. Khador also plays an excellent ranged game with its snipers, heavy weapons and artillery (crude and inaccurate - but they lay big holes in the ground! Thry have mortars, flamethrowers and other sprays and the excellent winter guard rifle korps). Menoth plays an excellent ranged game in that while their infantry doesn't have much bar the occasional crossbow, their jacks make excellent mobile artillery pieces,vand with vassals, the choir, and other support elements are extremely accurate and powerful. Even cryx can do ranged with mercenary support and exploding bile thralls.

See what I mean? The same 'question', but answered different ways by the main factions.

I play khador, and circle. Khador is generally infantry centric and attrition based, with a focus on applying damage. But I can do blitzkrieg, control, ranged, melee, assassination attrition, And all with specific builds. With circle, I have better options ofr assassination, Control, but suffer a bit in ranged and attrition. That said, blood trackers, woldstalkers and Nyss mercenaries offer great shooting options, and skinwalkers especially when teamed up with morvahna offer a brilliant attrition ability. Both migbt have a preference for certain things, but still offer a varied playbook.

Yep I get what you mean now. But how is someone who hasn't played the game or owns any of the army lists to know the differences that you describe.

In other words how can I tell the way that each faction answers questions as you put it.

dragonelf wrote:
Haha, well it seems that whatever tactical approach I like, any faction can accommodate it! What is essentially the difference between them then? They can all be manoevrable, aggressive, counterattack, and basically employ any strategy. So does it boil down to fluff and model preference?

Every faction can at the very least use every playstyle. Not every faction is good at every playstyle and they each have some specialties.



You have to be aggressive in this game as others have said, relative to 40k anyway.

Like Darefsky said, you might like circle. Although they don't perfectly fit your chosen style(no faction is all of those things)


Circle is a faction of non-linear threats. They will teleport their heavy beasts into combat, or charge your infantry, kill a bunch, and then run away. Their infantry are fast, hard to hit, but squishy. They have a lot of movement shenanigans.

They're very aggressive and usually get the alpha strike, but they rely on it succeeding as they can't take the counter punch.

One exception are Wolds. They have 2 basic varieties of beasts. Living and Construct. The living beasts are faster, hit harder, and are very fragile. The Wolds, which are animated constructs, are slow, rather pillowfisted, and are insanely durable. Only a couple of their casters can really run Wolds effectively as they're a little more niche.


If you'd like to start Circle, I would pick up the following,

Warlock of your choice. I would pick either version of Kaya, Kromac, or either version of Kreuger.

2 Warpwolf heavy kits. These can be magnetized to give you whichever version you'd like to run at the time.

Gorax. This guy is an all around workhorse. He is Fury4, which is way above average for a light beast, and he hits pretty hard. but he's taken for his animus which lets you have one of your heavies kill something you need dead. There isn't much a Primal'd Stalker can't kill.

1 Shifting Stone unit and their Unit Attachment. This unit exists to teleport your beasts around, but it can also serve as a late game contester. The stones can also help manage your Fury and healing too. Later you'll get a second unit(but no 2nd UA as you can only have 1 of those)

Now you'll want some units. The two mainstays of Circle are Tharn Bloodtrackers and Warpborn Skinwalkers.

Bloodtrackers are a fast hit and run style unit. They have short ranged, but rather powerful, throwing spears. They have really high defense, and Stealth, but have bad armor.

Skinwalkers, with their UA, are a sturdy melee unit. They're fast for heavy infantry and they have good offensive output. You can get the unit really cheap on e-bay because it comes in the 2 player boxed set.


After that, you should be able to make your own choices beyond this level once you've had some play experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dragonelf wrote:
Yep I get what you mean now. But how is someone who hasn't played the game or owns any of the army lists to know the differences that you describe.

In other words how can I tell the way that each faction answers questions as you put it.

Well, there is asking questions on forums. Which is free.

Alternately, the app Warroom is a useful reference tool. You can purchase the miniature rules for each faction on the app for $8 each, or you can buy them all for a discount. The app also has list building and damage tracking and general rules reference features. The damage tracking part really only works well on a tablet due to screen size, but as for reference its good on any device, and you get 3 devices per account.

dragonelf wrote:


In other words how can I tell the way that each faction answers questions as you put it.

Ask questions yourself?

It's not hard!

'Wow, I really like the look of khador models. Thst butcher guy is a beast (awesome model!) and those pikemen dudes are really cool. How does khador generally play, and what kind of things are in their toolbox? '

Or something.

Interestingly, I like the hordes imagery a bit better than warmachine but probably prefer the warmachine mechanic slightly better. The armies that I like the models of are Skorne in hordes and Cygnar in Warmachine. I do like Circle and Khador models as well. But my favourite is probably Skorne.

dragonelf wrote:
Interestingly, I like the hordes imagery a bit better than warmachine but probably prefer the warmachine mechanic slightly better. The armies that I like the models of are Skorne in hordes and Cygnar in Warmachine. I do like Circle and Khador models as well. But my favourite is probably Skorne.

Skorne are a very brutal army. Their beasts hit like trucks and their infantry is brutal and tough. Thryre excellent At running 'meat mountain' type lists - ie super heavy infantry.

It's interesting that you say you prefer warmachine mechanics - I find the hordes mechanics far more 'interesting' in game terms due to hoe warbeasts and warlocks interact. There are far more interesting tricks possible between a warlock and a warbeast than a warcaster and a warjack. every piece relies on every other piece.

dragonelf wrote:
As a player I prefer an army that isn't one dimensional, has different options so that I can play a different army from one game to the next, and rewards good tactics. I don't particularly want a plod forward or sit back sort of army if that makes sense. Something that is flexible and interesting basically!

Neither a plodding forward or a sit back army will really work in this game. Flexible can be useful. As others said, you are giving out pretty general type of things. Maybe since you have played 40K you can let us know what you liked there and we can advise something similar (or different if you choose).

Ret and Cygnar both tend to be combined arms types of armies. You often get a little bit of everything, though you can certainly skew towards other things. Cygnar also has the largest access to mercenaries which can alter their playstyle even more.

Khador tends to be infantry heavy. They can both shoot and melee well. They are not really all that slow.

Cryx is fast, aggressive glass canons. Another faction full of great infantry. However, they have much fewer legitimate shooting options. Their ranged game tends to be spell slinging warcasters.

Menoth gives you the best options for running multiple warjacks. Also some great infantry. They also can be ranged, though their range tends to be inaccurate balls of fire rather than sniper bullets. Still effective, just different.

Circle is similar to Cryx, but can be a bit more hit and run or teleport around. They also have more options for a good ranged game. One big difference is the fury model instead of the focus model. So you will be bringing more warbeasts.

Legion tends to be very shooty from my experience, though they have some powerful melee as well.

Those are the factions I have the most experience/knowledge of. I either play them or play against them a lot. Battlecollege can give you a run down on things, but some of the info (including faction info) can be very out of date. IMO you are best off picking a faction and/or warcaster that you think you will enjoy then come here and get feedback on the idea. Again, the more specifics you can provide about what you are looking for the better feedback we can provide.

dragonelf wrote:
But my favourite is probably Skorne.

I play skorne, I love skorne. As a skorne player, I'm going to punch you in the face, hard, repeatedly, until you die.

We don't really have fancy tricks or finesse tactics besides "See this thing? Do you see it? It hits like a truck. I'm going to make it hit HARDER and FASTER"

Sure zaal and mordikarr can get tricky, but even then it's still very much punch you in the face. Our units do exactly what you think they will do and they're quite good at it.

Skorne can run extremely beast heavy but do best in a combined arms style. Usually swordsmen / berserkers backed up by Incindiarii and a bronzeback.

Did I mention hitting like a truck? A bronzeback can kill a COLOSSAL/GARGANTUAN in one round & still not be full on fury. Of which we torture it's babies & use the agonized wails as a weapon.

So yea if you like roman legion style, samurai honour disciplined, torturous, god-killing (Seriously we killed our gods) dark elves/dark eldar, we're your ticket.

Chain attack podcast just did a episode on skorne. It's a what to expect when playing skorne episode. If you do a search of the chain attack feed you can find the other faction in WMH.

http://www.chain-attack.com/category/newplayerseries/

Their new player series has what you are looking for.

They haven't gotten through all the factions in their "What to expect" series yet so its still ongoing.

And if you can spare the membership fee, the Dojo is a decent investment.

thanks guys, I will check it out! really appreciate it.

I have to ask, what 40k armies do you play, and do you want something that has the same play style or something that is completely different? I will freely admit that I have 40k Tau and WM Cygnar, which have complimentary tactics on the table top.

When my flgs branched out into PP, it was because you could viably play smaller games with the WM & Hordes rulesets (something that I should have taken with a grain of salt as they immediately went to 50 and 100 point games), and you can get much enjoyment from 10-25 pt games as well.

Play like you got a pair can be misleading. If your warcaster is injured and you can disengage you can reliably heal them by camping focus for a turn or two. Every game doesn't have to devolve into a scrum for you to play like you got a pair.

Something that irks me about some of what was said above is the difference between strategy and tactics. Strategy is determining what you are going to bring to the table. Tactics is what you do with those models on the table.

And yes, swapping up your caster in your list can entirely change how you play. for instance, I have (and enjoy using) Kara Sloan/ she is fun, but she rarely wins many games. I like to play her with a trio of Hunters, a Squire, Reinhardt and a max unit of Tempest Blazers. If I decide to switch it up and use Kraye instead, I can totally change how I play the game by changing only one model.

 carldooley wrote:
I have to ask, what 40k armies do you play, and do you want something that has the same play style or something that is completely different? I will freely admit that I have 40k Tau and WM Cygnar, which have complimentary tactics on the table top.

When my flgs branched out into PP, it was because you could viably play smaller games with the WM & Hordes rulesets (something that I should have taken with a grain of salt as they immediately went to 50 and 100 point games), and you can get much enjoyment from 10-25 pt games as well.

Play like you got a pair can be misleading. If your warcaster is injured and you can disengage you can reliably heal them by camping focus for a turn or two. Every game doesn't have to devolve into a scrum for you to play like you got a pair.

Something that irks me about some of what was said above is the difference between strategy and tactics. Strategy is determining what you are going to bring to the table. Tactics is what you do with those models on the table.

And yes, swapping up your caster in your list can entirely change how you play. for instance, I have (and enjoy using) Kara Sloan/ she is fun, but she rarely wins many games. I like to play her with a trio of Hunters, a Squire, Reinhardt and a max unit of Tempest Blazers. If I decide to switch it up and use Kraye instead, I can totally change how I play the game by changing only one model.

100 point games? I wouldn't do that unless we had teams of two. I would find the game too unwieldly at that size. My flgs plays 35 to 50. I think I may prefer 35.
And the "play like you got a pair" doesn't mean charge in recklessly. Of course you can camp and heal. What it's saying is that you have to play to win. If winning means camping and healing, then do it, but WM does favor aggressive tactics, not mindless tactics.

At the shop we mostly play 35 pt games or less. Most people at the shop try to get in as many games as possible that night. 100 pt games is a little big for my choice I prefer quick games then ones that take a couple of hours to play.
I played Orks when I played 40k gave up 40k back in 6th edition, did not like the direction the game was going. Plus I relied on PUG and it was a total nightmare for me. I find PUG a lot easier in warmhordes and I have never had as much fun gaming until now. My 40k Orks don't have much in common with my Menoth and Legion armies.

The first time you are getting hammered and losing miserably and pull off a long-shot assassination because of good positioning and maybe a touch of luck, you will understand why people switch to WMH.

If you are losing horribly in 40k, there usually isn't much to change that. In WMH, a game isn't over until it is over.

I like 40k in narrative/casual for-fun games that aren't serious. I enjoy WMH when I want to play hard and have my opponent bring his or her "A" game.

Just understand what you want from a game and go play ;-)

Thanks again guys, to answer the earlier question, I like playing in various ways with my 40k/fantasy armies.

I don't have one playstyle because I would get bored doing that so my armies reflect a mix of playstyles.

My 40k armies are: tau, dark eldar/harlequins and space wolves
My fantasy armies are: skaven, high elves, lizardmen and tomb kings. Although I haven't played fantasy for some years now.

I have been playing these games on and off for 15 years!