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.

Preface: apologies for another recommendation thread! I'll be as thorough as possible.

So I've decided to get into Warmahordes, w/ a strong preference to Hordes, just b/c I like the general aesthetics and the Fury mechanic (at least from what I understand of it) compared to the Focus mechanic, though I still plan on getting a Warmachine army at some point. Anyway, I don't plan on making a real purchase at least for another 1~3 weeks, as I plan to do more research before making any commitment.

But I figure I'd do some researching by getting ideas here.

So, when it comes to tabletop gaming, fluff is probably the most important thing I consider. If I don't like an army or character's fluff, I won't play it!

Next would be aesthetics. I love a visually appealing army. If it's ugly, I can still get over it, if the fluff is strong enough. Unless it's unbearably ugly. Maybe.

Lastly, play style. I don't really have a preference of play style. I'm open minded enough to try to adapt myself to any play style. My style history, from 40k and WHFB, ranges from elite to horde, melee to gunline, fast to slow, intricate hit+run/movement to point+click bullrushing, etc etc. So, yeah, no real preference I suppose. However, it an still be a factor, as mentioned below.

As for the armies, I've narrowed it to Trollboods, Skorne, and Circle, as my friend is starting Legion. But here's the thing, no one army seems to stick out as satisfying all that I desire. Here's the breakdown:

- Trollbloods - I like their fluff, but man are they uuuuugly. Like, I don't think a single model looks desirable to me.
- Skorne - I like the aesthetics and some characters have decent fluff. But I'm really not digging the whole sadomasochism thing.
- Circle Orboros - I like the aesthetics here a lot too. Fluff seems ok...I'm not a fan of eco-terrorists, and am definitely not a fan of cannibalism. Though I haven't read enough detailed fluff to get the whole picture. Their play style seems really interesting, however I've heard it could be way too advanced for beginners. So I'm a bit reluctant. This is the current favorite choice, but still unsure about the fluff and possible advanced gameplay for a beginner.

So anyway, that's about it. If I have years of casual experience in 40k and WHFB, would Circle be too advanced for a new Warmahordes player? Should I just go w/ Trollbloods as they seem to have the highest rating in the category I value most, despite the lowest rating in the 2nd most valuable category? Should I just wait til I buy the books and do some thorough fluff reading? Any input or advice is greatly appreciated.

Go for Circle if its what you drawn too as you will enjoy playing them more, if you like the faction. Like any faction some Warcasters/locks are more difficult to play with than others. My advice would be buy the battle box and go from there, as the prime warlocks are easier to play and would give you a chance to learn, they are also more forgiving, allowing mistakes that won't cost you the game, once you've mastered them move on.

I agree trolls are ugly as well. Skorne also have a lot of the torture flavor in their rules so they probably won't stick for you. I agree with gangreen that circle seems like the most sensible option for you.

To call circle Eco-terrorists is oversimplifying things. What they are meant to do is maintain the balance between law and chaos, civilization and wilderness, progress and entropy. They are trying to prevent one of the gods, the devourer wurm, from manifesting in physical form and ending the world.
In recent fiction there has been a division between those that embrace the apocalypse and those trying to prevent it. Many of the characters within the faction are spit between good and evil with most of them being tugged both ways.

Reading whats been posted and my own knowledge skip Skorne, the work best by having Pain-Giver Beast Handlers (PGBH) torture their beasts from great into amazing.
Skip Trollbloods, If you don't like the sculpts it's not worth it.

That leaves Circle, first off their problem for new players is that they are more prone to lists requiring finesse while the other armies have plenty of options for point and click lists.
You like the aesthetics, great! this means you'll be more interested in them. Finally fluff, as Dias said they aren't so much Eco-terrorists as they are wardens of balance, mostly they want to slow civilizaton down not kill it as that would also bring in the Wurm. That said they do share the Wurm's hatred of Menoth and everyone belief Legion and Cryx are abominations that should be put down. (Dragons are bad news and just shy of gods round here)

I'll also back the decision to choose Circle - you like the models and you're going to spend a lot of time with those models as you buy, clean, assemble, paint and maybe even convert along the way all before you play with them.

Tactics wise if you like the game and like the army and do some research you can generally do well with any faction. Yes some might be a bit more tricky, but its more a case that you can't just throw stuff down and beat-stick style win easily. You're already researching so you'll do well once you've read a few army lists and theories of play and read battle reports.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
Preface: apologies for another recommendation thread! I'll be as thorough as possible.

So I've decided to get into Warmahordes, w/ a strong preference to Hordes, just b/c I like the general aesthetics and the Fury mechanic (at least from what I understand of it) compared to the Focus mechanic, though I still plan on getting a Warmachine army at some point. Anyway, I don't plan on making a real purchase at least for another 1~3 weeks, as I plan to do more research before making any commitment.
.

welcome to the iron kingdoms! here is your complimentary goggles and dire troll mauler plushie

for what its worth, research is a good route to take.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

So, when it comes to tabletop gaming, fluff is probably the most important thing I consider. If I don't like an army or character's fluff, I won't play it!

Next would be aesthetics. I love a visually appealing army. If it's ugly, I can still get over it, if the fluff is strong enough. Unless it's unbearably ugly. Maybe.

Lastly, play style. I don't really have a preference of play style. I'm open minded enough to try to adapt myself to any play style. My style history, from 40k and WHFB, ranges from elite to horde, melee to gunline, fast to slow, intricate hit+run/movement to point+click bullrushing, etc etc. So, yeah, no real preference I suppose. However, it an still be a factor, as mentioned below.

fluff, aesthetics, and then style. hmm, fair enough.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
As for the armies, I've narrowed it to Trollboods, Skorne, and Circle, as my friend is starting Legion. But here's the thing, no one army seems to stick out as satisfying all that I desire. Here's the breakdown:

- Trollbloods - I like their fluff, but man are they uuuuugly. Like, I don't think a single model looks desirable to me.
- Skorne - I like the aesthetics and some characters have decent fluff. But I'm really not digging the whole sadomasochism thing.
- Circle Orboros - I like the aesthetics here a lot too. Fluff seems ok...I'm not a fan of eco-terrorists, and am definitely not a fan of cannibalism. Though I haven't read enough detailed fluff to get the whole picture. Their play style seems really interesting, however I've heard it could be way too advanced for beginners. So I'm a bit reluctant. This is the current favorite choice, but still unsure about the fluff and possible advanced gameplay for a beginner.

trolls: the 'bad' aesthetics. you need to realise two things. bear in mind, warmachine/hordes aesthetics are probably different from what you're used to. it can take a lot of people a while to get over that hump, and realise that they need to like the WMH aesthetics on their own merits, rather than against a preconceived notion of what things 'should' look like, based on nothing more than what teyre used to from other games/genres. So are the trollblood aesthetics 'bad' or are they simply 'not what youre used to?' i find once you jump in, you start to appreciate the looks a lot more once you're involved with them.

the second thing is PP is notoriously bad at photographing their minis. a lot of minis look terrible in the galleries online, but once you have them in hand, for some reason, they look a whole lot better.

Skorne: their magic represents the 'alien east' and coming from an utterly different and alien point of view. its not just sadomachoism. its literally pushing the flesh beyond its limits, and reaping the rewards. Its a whole philosohpy that takes the meaning of "no pain, no gain" extremely literally!

Circle: not all the druids are cannibals- just the tharn 'beastmen' that are allied to them. as for eco terrorists - to use the famous quote "one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter". the circle of orboros are less 'terrorist' and more about natural balance, and the natural order. plus they've got werewolves!
as for advanced gameplay - they have plenty tricks to use, but they're not tricky to use, at least in my estimation. i had no problems hitting the ground running when i joined the pack

Going to back Circle as a choice for you as well. If it helps, folks can pick them and do well over time. I started on Circle and while it does lack the usual "point and click" stuff, if you get good at it it actually helps your ability to do a lot of neat tricks with the game as a whole.

On the fluff, Circle is not so much eco-terrorist as a lot of fantasy settings migth amke it out to be. Their power is not nature as a whole, but the more violent, turbulent aspects of it like storms, earthquakes and predatory animals. The goal isn't to protect nature because "nature is important" but to keep the balance with Order and Chaos as even as they can since if it swings one way or another too hard, everyone dies (including them). This results in that eco-terrorism from their side being a lot of "necessary evils".

On the cannibalism, it is not something practiced by most druids themselves most the time. That said, their inclusion was actually a thing that sold me on Circle, personally. It might be a bit of general "meh" at more "hippy druids" I guess. Cannibals, avatars of eldritch gods and carnivorous trees all seem neat ways to go compared to more elemental or life magics.

And stuff.

The awesome thing about this game, especially if you are coming from warhammer/40k is that armies are pretty cheap, especially if you do the starter boxes.

My recommendation is you and your friend get the two player hordes battlebox. It comes with both legion and circle and will get you guys started with some decent armies.

As you play more it isn't too expensive to pick up a second faction that catches your interest later on. Pretty much everyone I know who plays with any regularity has at least two different factions.

Deadnight wrote:

Circle: not all the druids are cannibals- just the tharn 'beastmen' that are allied to them. as for eco terrorists - to use the famous quote "one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter". the circle of orboros are less 'terrorist' and more about natural balance, and the natural order. plus they've got werewolves!
as for advanced gameplay - they have plenty tricks to use, but they're not tricky to use, at least in my estimation. i had no problems hitting the ground running when i joined the pack

I was going to post almost exactly this. Fluff-wise, only the Tharn models practice cannibalism in the fluff. But Tharn aren't really human, so is it cannibalism? I don't recall if they eat each other. Rules-wise, the only time cannibalism shows up is with the Heart Eater special rule. Heart Eater shows up on Tharn Ravagers (unit), Tharn Blood Pack (unit), Tharn Ravager White Mane (solo), and the Lord of the Feast (solo). And the Lord of the Feast is an aspect of the Devourer Wurm so it's not cannibalism and eating people is kind of his job.

If you want to avoid those four selections, you still have a large amount to choose from. If you throw the other three Tharn units and Kromac (warlock) out, you might feel somewhat constrained with your lack of choices. But you'll still have Druids, Reeves, Wolves, Skinwalkers, and Woldstalkers. You can make very effective lists with those units.

Yeah, you certainly don't need tharn to be competitive. The only tharn model that I'd say is especially strong is Kromac, and there are a ton of other very strong choices out there.

also: circle are only hard to play because they pretty much require shifting stones and a gallows grove, who have simple rules, but you can use them in pretty complicated ways, its all how clever you get with them which determines how good you are at circle.

Circle definitely seems like your best option.

They are a bit more finicky compared to the other armies.


Most of their lists are based around hit and run tactics. You can't expect any of their beasts(except the constructs) to take a hit and survive.

Starting Circle, I would buy the Battlebox, a Warpwolf heavy kit(make a Stalker or Magnetize the kit), and a unit of Stones with the UA to start with. Next purchase should probably be a Gorax(so much better than the Argus the battlebox comes with for the same price)

After you have the hang of that you can start experimenting.

- Circle Orboros - I like the aesthetics here a lot too. Fluff seems ok...I'm not a fan of eco-terrorists, and am definitely not a fan of cannibalism. Though I haven't read enough detailed fluff to get the whole picture. Their play style seems really interesting, however I've heard it could be way too advanced for beginners. So I'm a bit reluctant. This is the current favorite choice, but still unsure about the fluff and possible advanced gameplay for a beginner.

You can build simple circle lists. Also of all the things circle could be described as, "Eco Terrorists" is probably the furthest from the truth. They'd probably be more accurately described as a conflicted doomsday cult. I mean sure they might try to destroy cities and save forests, but this isn't because of any particular love of the trees. It's that when there are too many cities and too few people like savages, a primordial predator god descends to the world and feths everything. Basically, it's a good idea to go around breaking some eggs if your psychotic neighbor is going to come around and blow up your whole house for having too many eggs in it. That was a terrible analogy.

Dont be listening to these crazy spear chucking worm worshipping hippies, and their fruit punchin drinkin cultists!

Join Skorne, At least we admit we are a little crazy

Seriously tho, while Skorne has some sado masochism themes to it, overall they are overall very Spartan in nature. Very focused on the Warrior Caste, People who fight from distances are often seen with disdain because they are too cowardly to fight hand to hand. They also have a lot of Samurai theme to them, in that the people believe in perfecting their fighting style into an Art Form

Thanks for all the replies. I'm really eager to pick up the Circle book now and read it. I'm glad they may not be as questionable in character as some summary sites suggest. Skorne is still pretty close due to their aesthetics mostly, but I'll probably set on Circle.

Deadnight wrote:

fluff, aesthetics, and then style. hmm, fair enough.

yeah, but don't get me wrong, I know play style can make a big difference in a competitive game like WM/H. It's just I have no tactical preferences. I'll play whatever works. I'm well aware of Page 5 and such. But part of me relishes the challenge of playing a competitive game while I have a priority on non-competitive factors. I mean, don't get me wrong (again) - I'd rather win w/ an ugly/unpainted army than lose w/ a pretty army. But in regards to the actual tactics or play style of the army, I try to be as open-minded and flexible as possible. But the other aspects are still important to me.

though, now I kinda wonder if that's a good thing or bad thing... I'm usually pretty narrow-minded w/ tactics in other competitive venues - football and basketball specifically - but for some reason in wargaming, I'm open-minded and flexible? Man...starting to reflect now if I should change that mindset lol. I guess football and basketball don't have fluff variables...

No tactical preference... just get the one that looks the best to you. I think any army can win a tournament. Also don't leave warmachine out as a option.

 fables429 wrote:
Also don't leave warmachine out as a option.

heh, I'm not. I'm already pretty committed to starting Retribution in the near future. But just wanted to start Hordes first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also, I suppose another quick question:

I know WM/H is about building a list around your Warcaster/lock, right? Could a reverse approach work too? Say, for Circle, I wanted to go a construct-heavy list or a no-Tharn-no-Wold list, could I then see what Warlock fits? Or is that approach too difficult to pull off a sensible list? (i see Baldur can heal constructs, so perhaps reverse list-building is viable?)

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:


I know WM/H is about building a list around your Warcaster/lock, right? Could a reverse approach work too? Say, for Circle, I wanted to go a construct-heavy list or a no-Tharn-no-Wold list, could I then see what Warlock fits? Or is that approach too difficult to pull off a sensible list? (i see Baldur can heal constructs, so perhaps reverse list-building is viable?)

Of course, that is a perfectly viable way to build a list.

People usually do it the other way around because they prefer certain warlocks. But you can just as easily choose whatever models or theme you like and then choose a warlock to complement those models / theme.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

I know WM/H is about building a list around your Warcaster/lock, right? Could a reverse approach work too? Say, for Circle, I wanted to go a construct-heavy list or a no-Tharn-no-Wold list, could I then see what Warlock fits? Or is that approach too difficult to pull off a sensible list? (i see Baldur can heal constructs, so perhaps reverse list-building is viable?)

That is the way I'm going about building my Mountain king list and how I usually build my Khador lists. I build the list at +5 points and make sure I have a 1pt model available or a simple swap for +1pt because I know my casters are all +5/6pts and that It depends on my list as to who I should take.

I find it works well because I build the list and then take the caster who will support it the most.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:


I know WM/H is about building a list around your Warcaster/lock, right? Could a reverse approach work too? Say, for Circle, I wanted to go a construct-heavy list or a no-Tharn-no-Wold list, could I then see what Warlock fits? Or is that approach too difficult to pull off a sensible list? (i see Baldur can heal constructs, so perhaps reverse list-building is viable?)

It is, but as the warlock adds the most flavor to a list in that how it plays, most players like a certain style and then build around it.
battlecollege would be a good place to start to investigate individual warlocks, but remember its the internet they cant tell you what is actually good, it just gives you a better idea on what works with what and why.
but yeah baldur is the construct caster iirc.

Then there are those few RARE magical moments where the Caster you want and the Units you want are one and the same and everything coincides perfectly

 Grundz wrote:
battlecollege would be a good place to start to investigate individual warlocks, but remember its the internet they cant tell you what is actually good, it just gives you a better idea on what works with what and why.
but yeah baldur is the construct caster iirc.

yeah, I've been scouting on Battle College a lot the past few days.