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.

Hey gang,

So, I am new here and I have been interested in trying out Warmachine/Hordes for a while. As someone who has played 40k for a number of years, I have some pre-investment concerns! Basically, here's my beef with Warmachine/Hordes:

1) The Theme Lists (even though I know you don't have to use them): They highlight a lot of the synergy between casters and their armies... and seemingly, if you break theme too much, then your army doesn't work well together. In other words, the game APPEARS to demand that you play the way it wants you to, and stifles creativity in the army-building phase before you've even hit the table... I've read a bunch of stuff in forums where fans say that this complaint often comes from 40k players who win on lists and not on strategy, and that warmachine is a game of strategy... But, can you guys expand on that?

2) Painting My New Minis: I'm pretty put off that I have not been able to find many examples of creative painting when it comes to armies (especially on the war machine side of things). Khador is red. Cygnar is blue. I've seen a lot of beautifully painted models online, but only a few that break these color traditions. The models that I've found where the painter did his own thing, despite their impressive paint jobs, feature comments that are hugely negative because the models aren't the "right color." Again, this concern stems from a place where I see creativity being stifled.

That's it! ...So... what am I not understanding about this game? Because, I want to learn how to play it, but I don't want to play it "their way" or paint my models "their way" and yet, I want to think I might still have a chance to win a game or two. Please help this uninitiated player!

 CryptCat wrote:

1) The Theme Lists (even though I know you don't have to use them): They highlight a lot of the synergy between casters and their armies... and seemingly, if you break theme too much, then your army doesn't work well together. In other words, the game APPEARS TO demand that you play the way it wants you to, and stifles creativity in the army-building phase before you've even hit the table... I've read a bunch of stuff in forums where fans say that this complaint often comes from 40k players who win on lists and not on strategy, and that warmachine is a game of strategy... But, can you guys expand on that?

This is an interesting point. WM/H is as much a list-building game as 40k, if not even more so. However it's a different sort of list building game. 40k list building is very much about first order optimal strategies: Find the most power per point, fill out as much of that as you can and then move on to the next most powerful option. Granted there is some slight depth beyond that in making sure can cover different model counts vs armor values but there just isn't a whole lot to it beyond finding the most efficient thing with no need consider context.

In WM/H building list has more depth. Models have specific roles to perform such as Tarpitting, Jamming, Zone Contesting that have to be used with consideration in how you form your overall win condition and these are far more sharply defined than they are in 40k. The difference in behavior between any two infantry models is huge in a way that's hard to put in 40k terms. If you're running imperial guard, or marines or whatever you can have some pretty wide expectations about the stat-lines your guys will have, and how they behave.The difference primarily being weapon load outs and armor values. While in WM/H it's super common to have a squad of slow-moving, hard hitting knights not only in the same faction as a team of super-fast moving ninjas that can back flip over enemy models but you have them at the same points cost and availability.

In addition the way a unit functions can vary wildly due to the huge impact warcasters & warlocks have with their abilities which really lacks any meaningful analogue in 40k.

A side note on theme lists: Most of them actually aren't *that* great. You're usually better off constructing your own list free form. There are some exceptions of course, but running a theme list to get more power tends to be the exception rather than the rule.

All that said. It's true there is more depth to the tactics. Models have a lot more options and positioning important and threat ranges can be dynamic. The models just have more ways to interact with the game state than they do in 40k, and that means more choices and more changes to outplay your opponent.

2) Painting My New Minis: I'm pretty put off that I have not been able to find many examples of creative painting when it comes to armies (especially on the war machine side of things). Khador is red. Cygnar is blue. I've seen a lot of beautifully painted models online, but only a few that break these color traditions. The models that I've found where the painter did his own thing, despite their impressive paint jobs, feature comments that are hugely negative because the models aren't the "right color." Again, this concern stems from a place where I see creativity being stifled.

That's it! ...So... what am I not understanding about this game? Because, I want to learn how to play it, but I don't want to play it "their way" or paint my models "their way" and yet, I want to think I might still have a chance to win a game or two. Please help this uninitiated player!

There is no requirement to paint in the studio colors, but people like doing it. Not only are the studio schemes very handsome (I'm no professional designer) but there is a lot more emphasis on the characters and story of the setting. 40k is largely a very static place, where people exist but don't actively do or change much. The WM/H setting is very focused on characters, doing things and changing the setting. Territory changes hands, people lose limbs they're even hinting at killing off the leader of the protectorate very soon. Because of that you're tend to get less focused on making things "Yours" than you are in sort of "Having" a know part of the setting. When the timeline advances and the setting changes *every* expansion it can be hard not to get sucked in.

EDIT:
That said, nobody is going to scoff at you for doing your own thing. Unless they're a jerk I guess.

I agree...

I run hordes...legion and circle from the box set, and I love ogres/ogrun so I did follow pThag's tiers...also my color scheme is frozen, so their skin is actually the P3 light blue (frozen) color, and the brown is red...
But for circle, I am going with morvhanna on the goat with a bunch of skin walkers for a non tiered list and a griffin...albeit in traditional green/gold

Both armies are super cheap..the brick mortar store sold me two starters for about 110 bucks...picked up thags, morvy, magnetized a couple legion heavies and bought the pot...

About $220 in for a couple of decent lists...

 CryptCat wrote:
... 1) The Theme Lists (even though I know you don't have to use them): They highlight a lot of the synergy between casters and their armies... and seemingly, if you break theme too much, then your army doesn't work well together. In other words, the game APPEARS to demand that you play the way it wants you to, and stifles creativity in the army-building phase before you've even hit the table... I've read a bunch of stuff in forums where fans say that this complaint often comes from 40k players who win on lists and not on strategy, and that warmachine is a game of strategy... But, can you guys expand on that? ...

As noted already, Themed lists actually don't highlight synergies very often. A few do (about a dozen or so out of 138 warlocks and warcasters, some with multiple lists). But the vast majority of them are kind of fluff-based, not mechanics based. In building the list, you are actually oftentimes giving up synergies due to the flavor of the list or the benefits hopefully creating neat trade-offs. Often a Themed force actually gives you alternate takes on a warlock, rather than optimal ones.

The best example I can think of for my Faction is Kaya the Moonhunter. Her Themed list was for a while the "go to" for her in the sense of what it gave. The list didn't buff her due to adding ot her synergies but giving her extra bonuses in the form of Advanced Deploying and cheaper heavy warbeasts. However, character heavy warbeasts like Ghetorix and infantry like Tharn Bloodtrackers work with her very well too, but are not allowed in the list. By taking the bonuses of the Theme, you restrict her options (you have to spend points to get the bonuses, which aren't always worht it as I have found over time) or you give up things you might want more (self-sufficient Bloodtrackers or super-hard-hitting Ghetorix in this case).

Other lists are simply just not very good. They were built for fluff and so play to that, bu tnot to real playability. The example for this for me is Morvahna the Autumnblade. It is fluffy in mostly being female Tharn, it has strong benefits in letting her get her spells out into play. But the list is crippled since it can't take heavy warbeasts. At all. None. Most lists are like this. In order to play them, you give up synergies that the Faction gets out of more broad options. They are made iwth a bit of an idea of what PP thought were interesting, not what they think is the optimal way to play a warlock or warcaster. This can be seen quite a bit with the rarity of such lists and the often divergent style of lists some warlocks and warcasters might have.

 CryptCat wrote:
... 2) Painting My New Minis: I'm pretty put off that I have not been able to find many examples of creative painting when it comes to armies (especially on the war machine side of things). Khador is red. Cygnar is blue. I've seen a lot of beautifully painted models online, but only a few that break these color traditions. The models that I've found where the painter did his own thing, despite their impressive paint jobs, feature comments that are hugely negative because the models aren't the "right color." Again, this concern stems from a place where I see creativity being stifled. ...

I guess this is just a matter of community. Most people I have seen just use the defualt schemes to just do it, but I have seen all sorts of things like digital camo Khador, blue Cryx, demonic Circle Orboros, deserty Legion of Everblight or Inquisition Red Protectorate of Menoth. It really is up to you on what you paint things. My Circle is mostly brown, grey and yellow, save a bit of steel and iron for the Wolf of Orboros ad Morvahna going around in nice bright maroon clothing (it's classier). I'm honestly not sure who is out there who really cares what's the "right" color for much save maybe non-redhead Strykers out there.

 CryptCat wrote:
That's it! ...So... what am I not understanding about this game? Because, I want to learn how to play it, but I don't want to play it "their way" or paint my models "their way" and yet, I want to think I might still have a chance to win a game or two. Please help this uninitiated player!

Themed lists are generally a trap, so just don't use them. Paint how you want, no one really is going to penalize you unless they're a prick.

And stuff.

Short answer: You have nothing to be concerned about in these two areas.

Long answers...

 CryptCat wrote:
Hey gang,

So, I am new here and I have been interested in trying out Warmachine/Hordes for a while. As someone who has played 40k for a number of years, I have some pre-investment concerns! Basically, here's my beef with Warmachine/Hordes:

1) The Theme Lists (even though I know you don't have to use them): They highlight a lot of the synergy between casters and their armies... and seemingly, if you break theme too much, then your army doesn't work well together. In other words, the game APPEARS to demand that you play the way it wants you to, and stifles creativity in the army-building phase before you've even hit the table... I've read a bunch of stuff in forums where fans say that this complaint often comes from 40k players who win on lists and not on strategy, and that warmachine is a game of strategy... But, can you guys expand on that?

The theme lists are more for fun than anything else. By no means do you have to use them. Very few people I play with run them. And you very rarely see them in tournaments.

Short version is you can build your lists however you want. Longer version is that synergy is very important in a warmachine list. So there are certain things that just don't work well together. And other things that when used in certain combinations become much much better. You can play with whatever you want. And when you start I would focus on a cool caster and maybe a cool unit or jack that you like and then build from there and get things that synergise with them.

Now while list building is important it is not going to win the game for you. Skill and strategy still play an important part of the game. The units and game is balanced enough that pretty much anything can succeed if used well.

 CryptCat wrote:
Painting My New Minis: I'm pretty put off that I have not been able to find many examples of creative painting when it comes to armies (especially on the war machine side of things). Khador is red. Cygnar is blue. I've seen a lot of beautifully painted models online, but only a few that break these color traditions. The models that I've found where the painter did his own thing, despite their impressive paint jobs, feature comments that are hugely negative because the models aren't the "right color." Again, this concern stems from a place where I see creativity being stifled.

That's it! ...So... what am I not understanding about this game? Because, I want to learn how to play it, but I don't want to play it "their way" or paint my models "their way" and yet, I want to think I might still have a chance to win a game or two. Please help this uninitiated player!

Warmahordes is primarily designed to be a competitive game. So there tend to be fewer hobbyists and more people interested in the game for the games sake. And for tournies they are much stricter on models. There are no "counts as" rules. and conversions need to incorporate the orginal model and be clear as to what it is. But in reality these are only there for people trying to abuse the system. There are some excellent conversions and even ideas for alternate models.

As for painting there are absolutely no rules in regards to colors. Most factions have 1 or 2 alternate paint schemes. I've seen blue khador and red cygnar. My Cygnar are purple and yellow. My Menoth are painted like medieval Crusaders. My Cryx are a mishmash of greens and grays. But also have red and other colors. I was going to paint my Circle blue, but I really want a nature theme so will be going with more green and browns. But while they will have plenty of green it won't be like the studio scheme.

If you haven't yet check out the painting and modeling forum on PPs board. Lots of crazy stuff, some of which blows away any 40k conversions I've seen.
http://privateerpressforums.com/forumdisplay.php?6-Miniatures-Painting-and-Modeling

On the painting side of things, it's pretty much how it is with 40k. Try painting Blood Angels in anything but red and you get questions. Paint them in a colour that's not a second founding to boot and you get weird looks. Paint them blue-and-white and you start being called names along the lines of "grey marines" or "fotmarines". (It's really a marine thing, the minority armies don't have that problem)

I'm painting my Retribution a deep green with blue and bronze details. Probably won't upload them since I'm a slow painter and not very good, but there you go.

My skorne are purple with gold and silver so far.

My cryx are blue and yellow, so you can pretty much do whatever.

1) Most theme lists suck. For Khador, other than eButcher tier spam, I can't think of a single theme list I would be interested in playing. And even that's an outlier. Again, the same for Menoth. And Cygnar.

http://pokeminiatures.blogspot.com/search/label/Painted%20Models

Absolutely nothing i paint is conventional scheme.

Maybe minions.

2) Painting My New Minis: I'm pretty put off that I have not been able to find many examples of creative painting when it comes to armies (especially on the war machine side of things). Khador is red. Cygnar is blue. I've seen a lot of beautifully painted models online, but only a few that break these color traditions. The models that I've found where the painter did his own thing, despite their impressive paint jobs, feature comments that are hugely negative because the models aren't the "right color." Again, this concern stems from a place where I see creativity being stifled.

As earlier posters have said there is less major conversion than in 40k, this is due to the rule that in tournaments and official events a model has to have 50% of the original parts. But the general rule of thumb is that you have to be able to tell what a model is supposed to represent just by looking at it. But this doesn't mean there isn't any amazing conversions out there. For example there is the R.E.C.O Stormwall conversion where the modeler gave his Stormwall lights, a working furnace, spinning chainguns, big guns that appear to fire, moving parts, sound effects, and smoke coming from the smoke stack. It's still looks like the out of the box Stormwall, however it's arguably the best conversions I have ever seen in over 3 years of playing mini-wargames.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqA6nbk2zos

 Mahtamori wrote:
On the painting side of things, it's pretty much how it is with 40k. Try painting Blood Angels in anything but red and you get questions. Paint them in a colour that's not a second founding to boot and you get weird looks. Paint them blue-and-white and you start being called names along the lines of "grey marines" or "fotmarines". (It's really a marine thing, the minority armies don't have that problem)

I'm painting my Retribution a deep green with blue and bronze details. Probably won't upload them since I'm a slow painter and not very good, but there you go.

This might be a local thing on that. As far as I have ever seen, no one gives a crap of the colors chosen for an army. Folks seem primarily to like painted at all first, and give high marks to better than tabletop quality. Unless the scheme is utterly garrish or off-seeming folks really seem to not mind that much.

And stuff.

 Mahtamori wrote:
On the painting side of things, it's pretty much how it is with 40k. Try painting Blood Angels in anything but red and you get questions. Paint them in a colour that's not a second founding to boot and you get weird looks. Paint them blue-and-white and you start being called names along the lines of "grey marines" or "fotmarines". (It's really a marine thing, the minority armies don't have that problem)

I'm painting my Retribution a deep green with blue and bronze details. Probably won't upload them since I'm a slow painter and not very good, but there you go.

The comparison to 40K space marines is very on point. My brother painted his marines green and people assumed they were Dark Angels. I painted mine black and white and people assumed they were Templar. I knew a guy who played space wolves and painted them black and gold and people complained.

If the complainers bug you in 40K then they will bug you in warmachine. Though really, I have had a lot fewer fluff Nazis in WM than 40K. But since it is a more competitive game and designed around the specific models that usually does not go very far. There are no paint scores in WM/H. There are no comp scores (ugh, worst idea ever). Nothing factors into how you place in the tourney other than how you did on the field of play.

But not to say people do not appreciate well painted models. I've played in a handful of local tournies and have won best painted in 2 of them. But it is a completely separate award from how you do overall.

 22cthulu wrote:

2) Painting My New Minis: I'm pretty put off that I have not been able to find many examples of creative painting when it comes to armies (especially on the war machine side of things). Khador is red. Cygnar is blue. I've seen a lot of beautifully painted models online, but only a few that break these color traditions. The models that I've found where the painter did his own thing, despite their impressive paint jobs, feature comments that are hugely negative because the models aren't the "right color." Again, this concern stems from a place where I see creativity being stifled.

As earlier posters have said there is less major conversion than in 40k, this is due to the rule that in tournaments and official events a model has to have 50% of the original parts. But the general rule of thumb is that you have to be able to tell what a model is supposed to represent just by looking at it. But this doesn't mean there isn't any amazing conversions out there. For example there is the R.E.C.O Stormwall conversion where the modeler gave his Stormwall lights, a working furnace, spinning chainguns, big guns that appear to fire, moving parts, sound effects, and smoke coming from the smoke stack. It's still looks like the out of the box Stormwall, however it's arguably the best conversions I have ever seen in over 3 years of playing mini-wargames.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqA6nbk2zos

Dear sweet Jesus, I quit. That video just what I don't hu I can't that who the how? ... No.

@ OP: 1) Theme lists are not mandatory which strips away most of your worries. 40k is rampant with marginal units and excellent units. WM/H has struck a far better balance in terms of unit power. There are still models that will perform better than others, but more often than not, they have mitigating factors that improve their usefulness in other ways. For instance, the Menoth Reckoner is widely considered possibly their best jack because it has charge range, damage and defenses that are very good. However, the castigator has two open fists which opens up power attack options, the crusader is cheaper and can deal more damage, the vanquisher has a ranged splash attack and the templar is tougher and can open charge lanes. 40k's mechanics allow it to be boiled down to mathematics or simple observation most of the time.

2) You just need to look harder. 40k has been around a much longer time and has a more dedicated hobbying base as well as a larger player base. This does not mean that WM/H is not conducive to creativity, it just means that it is much more unexplored as of yet. In spite of it's relatively short life, there have been very impressive conversions and paint jobs to have come out of the wood work.

Now I'm going to go make a propane powered Judgement to melt all the models.

 CryptCat wrote:
Hey gang,

So, I am new here and I have been interested in trying out Warmachine/Hordes for a while. As someone who has played 40k for a number of years, I have some pre-investment concerns! Basically, here's my beef with Warmachine/Hordes:

!

I'd encourage you to jump in. It's a great game. Dont forget the complimentary goggles and kodiak plushie!

 CryptCat wrote:
Hey gang,

1) The Theme Lists (even though I know you don't have to use them): They highlight a lot of the synergy between casters and their armies... and seemingly, if you break theme too much, then your army doesn't work well together. In other words, the game APPEARS to demand that you play the way it wants you to, and stifles creativity in the army-building phase before you've even hit the table... I've read a bunch of stuff in forums where fans say that this complaint often comes from 40k players who win on lists and not on strategy, and that warmachine is a game of strategy... But, can you guys expand on that?

!

I think you've got it wrong there. Theme lists are just that - themed. Oftentimes they evoke an image, or a story, or a famous formation linked to a warcaster in the fluff, but they're not necessarily 'the' standard when it comes to what the fluff is. Butcher is just as happy to go to war leading squads of winter guard instead of Men o war. (The former don't appear in his theme list, the latter do, despite the former being the backbone of the khadoran army). Caine often has stories where he has sentinels to hand, but his theme specifies lancers. Go figure.

Some theme lists are great fun - I run epic butchers mad dogs of war theme list with eight squads of doom reavers. It's nuts. Great fun though! Others are no where near as good, or even versatile.

Regarding how the game stifles army creativity, I will disagree. You've got it wrong. There is no 'set' way to build an army. Everything can be built into a viable, game winning strategy. List building is important, but not like 40k where you spam what's good - everything in warmachine can be good. Where list building is important is the synergy of the list. What do I mean by that? I mean it's not a game of two threes being equal to a six. Not everything is as useful against everything else, all the tine. Synergy is key. Take karchev and irusk - two khadoran casters. Karchev is a jack caster, whilst irusk is an infantry caster. Put bucketload of infantry with karchev, who can't support them, and you get a bad list. Put ten jacks with irusk and you get the same scenario - he just cannot fun them. It's not to say karchev is bad. Or irusk is bad. Or jacks are bad. Or infantry is bad. It's your synergy that is bad. Put those jacks with karchev and he'll run riot. Put those infantry with irusk, and be becomes obnoxious.

So yeah, you're kinda wrong. There is no one way to build a khadoran army. List building is quite open, in that, as I said, everything can be made to be viable. It's not like 40k where 'playing space wolves' for example means a lbare handful of effective builds. No sir, have no fear on army creativity.

 CryptCat wrote:

2) Painting My New Minis: I'm pretty put off that I have not been able to find many examples of creative painting when it comes to armies (especially on the war machine side of things). Khador is red. Cygnar is blue. I've seen a lot of beautifully painted models online, but only a few that break these color traditions. The models that I've found where the painter did his own thing, despite their impressive paint jobs, feature comments that are hugely negative because the models aren't the "right color." Again, this concern stems from a place where I see creativity being stifled.
!

I've seen my fair stare of alternate schemes. The most popular khadoran one is the fifth border legion (it's green), or the 111th (it's white - look at beast 09s colour scheme). Generally, I've seen no more negativity to non-traditional schemes than anything else. There are no rules as to how to paint your army.
My khador and are fairly close to the traditional scheme, but my circle diverges a fair bit as it features blue armour instead of green.

So no, don't feel stifled, just go for it.

 CryptCat wrote:
.

That's it! ...So... what am I not understanding about this game? Because, I want to learn how to play it, but I don't want to play it "their way" or paint my models "their way" and yet, I want to think I might still have a chance to win a game or two. Please help this uninitiated player!

Start with the battlebox and work your way up. This is a Game that rewards starting small and then building up. If you can, join an escalation league and have fun

Don't worry, your not the only 40ker to get trapped in Warmahordes. Bring whatever you want to a match and paint them whatever you want, this is your steam-punk universe. And when has steampunk ever been let down by colour coordination?

You can paint your models how you want, and run lists they way you want.

Certain theme lists are great, so upon looking at lists they are very common, but finding what models you like, rules you like and how to make it work also does really well.

My inital advice is if you like models that could be in your favorite casters theme, get them if you want them. Otherwise don't. Feel free to branch out and ignore theme lists.

 CryptCat wrote:


1) The Theme Lists (even though I know you don't have to use them): They highlight a lot of the synergy between casters and their armies... and seemingly, if you break theme too much, then your army doesn't work well together. In other words, the game APPEARS to demand that you play the way it wants you to, and stifles creativity in the army-building phase before you've even hit the table... I've read a bunch of stuff in forums where fans say that this complaint often comes from 40k players who win on lists and not on strategy, and that warmachine is a game of strategy... But, can you guys expand on that?

Entirely wrong. You won't ever field most of the theme lists because the units, etc. have little/no synergy with the casters or just flat out aren't effective, they only work in a thematic context, not a rules context. Usually there is a more effective unit, solo, etc. for that caster that isn't available in the theme list. Most of the most powerful/successful builds actually aren't theme lists at all. Don't get me wrong, there are a handful of theme lists that are extremely powerful (Butcher's Doom Reaver tier), but this isn't generally the case.

2) Painting My New Minis: I'm pretty put off that I have not been able to find many examples of creative painting when it comes to armies (especially on the war machine side of things). Khador is red. Cygnar is blue. I've seen a lot of beautifully painted models online, but only a few that break these color traditions. The models that I've found where the painter did his own thing, despite their impressive paint jobs, feature comments that are hugely negative because the models aren't the "right color." Again, this concern stems from a place where I see creativity being stifled.

Keep in mind that there is at least one alternate scheme per force (IIRC). I know Khador has the 5th Border Legion Scheme (cream/khaki with green accents), I assume this is true of other factions. For the most part, the other color schemes I've seen attempted simply don't fit the model. You can do an amazing job painting your Khador blue, it could be the nicest paintjob ever, better than Golden Daemon quality, and I would probably still dislike it because Khador models dont, IMO, look good in blue, and that is overwhelmingly true of many Warmachine players in my experience, for whatever reason some armies just don't look right in certain colors, or at least thats what our brains tell us. That being said, there is a local Cygnar player who did his army in yellow with blue as a secondary color (basically a reverse of the official colors), its one of the nicest Cygnar armies I've seen. Theres also a really nice albino blindwater congregation army.

Another thing is that its a more tournament driven game, doing something like blue Khador can and does annoy a lot of players in the tournament scne because it makes models harder to identify. It's like we're programmed to think blue = Cygnar, Red=Khador, etc. When tournaments are timed and you only have a few seconds to look at your opponents army its actually worse than facing off against an unpainted force, because suddenly your mind starts going "That blue Juggernaught is an Ironclad, those blue winter guard are trenchers, etc." Yes, that really does happen (at least to me and a couple others I know).

Also, keep in mind that the WMH setting is much 'smaller' than 40k/Fantasy, you don't have millions of different IG regiments or a thousand SM chapters running around, each with their own distinct traditions, heraldry, uniform, etc. You just have the Khadoran Army, Cygnaran Army, etc. It's a much smaller setting and a bit more restrictive, and very character driven. As others pointed out, the feel of Warmachine is less about it being "my army" and more about it being a part of "their army".

 CryptCat wrote:
Hey gang,

So, I am new here and I have been interested in trying out Warmachine/Hordes for a while. As someone who has played 40k for a number of years, I have some pre-investment concerns! Basically, here's my beef with Warmachine/Hordes:

1) The Theme Lists (even though I know you don't have to use them): They highlight a lot of the synergy between casters and their armies... and seemingly, if you break theme too much, then your army doesn't work well together. In other words, the game APPEARS to demand that you play the way it wants you to, and stifles creativity in the army-building phase before you've even hit the table... I've read a bunch of stuff in forums where fans say that this complaint often comes from 40k players who win on lists and not on strategy, and that warmachine is a game of strategy... But, can you guys expand on that?

Generally speaking, theme lists are weaker than normal lists, so this shouldn't be a concern.

2) Painting My New Minis: I'm pretty put off that I have not been able to find many examples of creative painting when it comes to armies (especially on the war machine side of things). Khador is red. Cygnar is blue. I've seen a lot of beautifully painted models online, but only a few that break these color traditions. The models that I've found where the painter did his own thing, despite their impressive paint jobs, feature comments that are hugely negative because the models aren't the "right color." Again, this concern stems from a place where I see creativity being stifled.

My experience has been completely orthogonal to yours. I have no idea where you're looking at people painting online- indeed, I've found that on the PP forums, for example, people tend to be /more/ excited by non-standard color schemes.

Hopefully that helps!

This has all been very helpful in convincing me to go berserk with some minis. Thanks, gang.

On point 1) you can play how you want ,just recently there was a discussion on the Khador forum about possibly the worst unit in Khador, the Kossites. (that point is arguable)

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?181252-Unorthadox-Strategy-Ideas&highlight=unorthadox complete with my bad spelling. It's a good discussion , sometimes the forums go through bad phases but the Khador one is in a good place now (one and a half years ago the Khador forum was terrible for ideas and tactics)

There are always naysayers who say you take this and this and this and win, but I don't feel it works like that.In fact I am ravenously against that kind of thinking, leave it in 40k

Bullockist wrote:
On point 1) you can play how you want ,just recently there was a discussion on the Khador forum about possibly the worst unit in Khador, the Kossites. (that point is arguable)

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?181252-Unorthadox-Strategy-Ideas&highlight=unorthadox complete with my bad spelling. It's a good discussion , sometimes the forums go through bad phases but the Khador one is in a good place now (one and a half years ago the Khador forum was terrible for ideas and tactics)

There are always naysayers who say you take this and this and this and win, but I don't feel it works like that.In fact I am ravenously against that kind of thinking, leave it in 40k

Due to a variety of causes, Cryx has drifted that way. Lamoron and Aduro keep it balanced, but it's become a lot of in jokes and banes.

I think it would help a lot of new players to think of each war caster as their own sub faction as generally speaking, there are ideal lists for each war caster. There are options for everything but most war casters have ideal units that function and sinergize better than other options. For instance, running pIrusk, I could use a destroyer and it would do OK but a spriggan wouldwork much better

from a new players perspective:

the faction lists are ok, but most of them arent very powerful, and really arent that fluffy. they're cool, like the sample army list you used to get in a boxed army from 2nd edition in 40k was "cool". it will get you in the game and get you playing without too much headache as to what to put in your army, but you will grow beyond that quickly in your first 50 or so games.

in terms of painting, no one will say anything. just the fact alone that your a warmachine player that is concerned about painting already means you want be bothered about how you paint your stuff. conversions arent that big of a deal, but it needs to be noted that the model must be armed with the same stuff the card says they have, in the same place the card says it has, otherwise its a no go. the model must also be easily identifiable as being what it is, but that isnt a problem. there are lots of really cool conversions, and great looking models to boot, so dont let that discourage you.

the game is a lot of fun, has a good story that evolves, and probably has the best rules set for miniatures i have played up to this point. however the rules have a deceptive layer of depth in them, so expect to get the floor mopped with your forehead the first 50 or so games you play. this game takes a long time to learn and you cant get discouraged.