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.

Battle at Calph looks like a standalone game, not a full 40K army. Per GWs website:

The Horus Heresy: Betrayal At Calth is a fantastic standalone boxed game of claustrophobic tunnel combat, set during the Word Bearers’ invasion of the Ultramarine world of Calth. Emphasising fast-paced squad-based combat during six exciting missions, it allows players to choose their side and command a force of beautifully detailed Citadel miniatures in a brutal war for survival, during one of the iconic battles of the Horus Heresy.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/The-Horus-Heresy-Betrayal-at-Calth-Book

So I don't think that is a valid comparison. You need to look at the cost of an entire army if you are going to even try to compare to a 2 list tourney pairing for WMH.

 Mordekiem wrote:
Battle at Calph looks like a standalone game, not a full 40K army. Per GWs website:

The Horus Heresy: Betrayal At Calth is a fantastic standalone boxed game of claustrophobic tunnel combat, set during the Word Bearers’ invasion of the Ultramarine world of Calth. Emphasising fast-paced squad-based combat during six exciting missions, it allows players to choose their side and command a force of beautifully detailed Citadel miniatures in a brutal war for survival, during one of the iconic battles of the Horus Heresy.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/The-Horus-Heresy-Betrayal-at-Calth-Book

So I don't think that is a valid comparison. You need to look at the cost of an entire army if you are going to even try to compare to a 2 list tourney pairing for WMH.

How is it not valid? How is it not a full 40k army? 40k doesn't have to be, not is it defined as '1850 pts itc tourneys'. Both myself and my mates want to play 40k as a small scale skirmish, and to me, the contents of battle at calth are perfect in terms of both scope and scale. MoO, for example was quite happy to make his arguments based on the size of his WMH army of 22 models, I am doing precisely the same here with bac in terms of scale.If anything, I also argued the point with MoO using an alternative WMH single list as a comparison, not multi list formats - I gave two examples with my charge of the horselords list which comprises a similar amount of models, and cost me over£300 with a discount and my butcher 3 double back dragon build, or my steelhead boat.

you'll need to define an 'entire army' for the proposes of this debate if you want what you say to stand. And that won't happen, it's far too nebulous. Battle at calth will represent my 'entire army'. It is its own project.

The simple truth is there is a gradient. For both games. Which is why I am so hesitant to state 'categorically' how one is more expensive than the other. There is a reason I try and be very specific when I say that WMH is cheaper to get into, and cheaper to expand, with reasonable 'upkeep'. These are the truest, most honest statements that can be made on the subject. But beyond that, wmh is not necessarily either 'cheap', or 'cheaper than 40k'. Its simply not honest at worst, and misleading at best. It's why I am so loathe to state something along the lines of 'but WMH is the cheaper game' because when any bit of scrutiny is applied, that claim rapidly unravels. Because for every example of a cheap WMH list that 'proves' the game is cheaper,I can either point to something similar for 40k, point out an alternative approach to 40k gaming or point out an expensive WMH list that disproves the point. (It's why I also am very hesitant to push the 'price angle' as one of the best selling points of WMH. It's an awesome game, there are far better ways of selling its strengths to new players.) I love WMH. I think it's a great game. I'd love it if more people got into it. Two things I won't do about it is (1) lie about it, or (2) mislead people when I make my pitch.

There is a big difference between what 40k costs if you are 'chasing the meta', and what 40k costs you if you just want a small basic army for skirmishing around, which is what I want. There is a big difference between what WMH costs if you are building a single list which, as MoO demonstrated - it can be quite reasonable, and which, as I demonstrated can be ruinously expensive. This is only exacerbated with multi list formats if you choose to go down that route and want to comtinuallt compete in tournaments- and the games 'upkeep' costs will also expand if you go down this route. Cheaper than 40k? Debatable.

Battle at calth is great. You can use it as an entirely 'standalone game', or a 'standalone army' or use it as the core of a marine army (considering it's got a chaplain, termite captain, thirty marines and five terminators) for future expamsion or even a full one. Plenty people bought it, with no intention of ever playing the board game, and with every intention of using the models, considering what great value they are. This might surprise you, but there are folks (myself included) who enjoy smaller scale 'raids' in how they play. WMH spoiled me. The scale of the game (thirty odd infantry, plus a few big stompies) is just what I want. And when I see battle at calth, I see precisely the same thing. It's what drew me to it. And who are you (not you, in particular mordekeim, but a general 'you') to claim I am doing it wrong (and btw I'm not saying this is what you are claiming, I'm saying it as a rhetorical device) in seeking that kind of scale to play my games at?

It's disingenuous to compare "Charge of the Horse Lords" (a full army list) to a starter game. If you want to compare things then it should be on an even level.
The "Battle of Cath" is a starter game.The equivalent to that is one of the two Two Player Starter Sets from PP. In the US the "Battle of Cath" has an MSRP of $150 it is a single player game with one core army. The PP starter sets have an MSRP of $100 with two starter armies.

If you want to compar Charge of the Horse Lords, you should compare it to Eldar Bike Spam.

Also, there is no officer warmachine size either. Yes a lot of people do play 50pt steamroller. But 35 is common and Germany tends to play at 42. Heck, I've even been in 15 point tournaments and they were a blast.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:It's disingenuous to compare "Charge of the Horse Lords" (a full army list) to a starter game. If you want to compare things then it should be on an even level.
The "Battle of Cath" is a starter game.The equivalent to that is one of the two Two Player Starter Sets from PP. In the US the "Battle of Cath" has an MSRP of $150 it is a single player game with one core army. The PP starter sets have an MSRP of $100 with two starter armies.

I was comparing charge of the horselords to MoO's 22 model cryx army and using it as an example to counter his point about how his army cost less than a single 'minor component of my imperial guard army'.

Original quote:Let that sink in for a second: My entire Cryxian army plus extra caster cost me less than a single minor component of my Imperial Guard army.

And Leo, I am comparing things on an even level. I'm looking at the big picture here. Some lists in WMH are quite reasonable In price. And I've stated as much. Some are ruinously expensive. I have stated this too. Some approaches in 40k (chasing the meta) are ruinously expensive, some approaches (the equivelant of a 22 model cryx army, like, say battle at calth?) are very reasonable in comparison. Or are you denying any of these statements? Regarding that coth list, bear in mind that is often only the start of the story too, if you want to consider two-list formats, and there won't be huge crossover between that list and the other one you take.
The simple truth is that there is a gradient for both games, which is the point I have been illustrating. There are more ways to play 40k than 1850pts lists where you are chasing the meta all the time. And while you are correct In that Battle at calth is a starter game(that's why it's appealed to me), it also can very easily be a 'whole' army. 30 marines, dreadnought, 5 terminators, chaplain and termie commander are not an insignificant chunk of points, nor is it necessarily irrelevant, depending on how you choose to approach the game (Ie not chasing the meta)but it's still equivelant in scale and scope to a lot of single lists for WMH.

welshhoppo wrote:If you want to compar Charge of the Horse Lords, you should compare it to Eldar Bike Spam.

Why? It's a low model count legal list, compares to a low model count legal list, on the topic of how much lists cost and initially made with reference to the point that WMH is great because lists don't cost £300.

It's perfectly OK for MoO to bring up a 22 model cryx army that didn't cost him much, but it's not ok for me to bring up a ruinously expensive WMH list? Like I said, all you are proving is that WMH can be more expensive than a lot of WMH players want to admit to.

Lists are lists. I'll repeat what I said above. Some lists in WMH are quite reasonable In price. And I've stated as much. Some are ruinously expensive. I have stated this too. Some approaches in 40k (chasing the meta) are ruinously expensive, some approaches (the equivelant of a 22 model cryx army, like, say battle at calth?) are very reasonable in comparison. Or are you denying these points?

welshhoppo wrote:
Also, there is no officer warmachine size either. Yes a lot of people do play 50pt steamroller. But 35 is common and Germany tends to play at 42. Heck, I've even been in 15 point tournaments and they were a blast.

Generally 35-50 is the norm. 50 is what's 'typical'. And yes, I've been to 15pt tourneys - they're fun, but ridiculously vulnerable to skew.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Because of the way warmachine works, if you are playing totally casual you can literally play with cardboard cutouts. With free rules and being able to use Warroom, you can play games for less than a tenner.

That's not much different than any other game, though. My first dozen games of 40k were with cardboard cutouts. Actually, with the squares that were supplied in the back of rogue trader With any wargame, this is the best way to 'test' a unit.

Also, keep in mind that while the core rules are free, the rules for the units are not. You either have to buy the faction book or the model to get the rules for most of the models (or share them with a friend/club, again, the same as most other games).

Well it is harder for 40k because you have true line of sight. Whereas wmh has models shaped like dones to a specific height.