Moz wrote:The problem with cost in WM is that you'll have a good 750 point army (equivalent of 1850 in 40k as the standard tournament size list), but it didn't sink your bank account and it fits nice and easy into a carrying case (fewer models). So you think: "Hey, I've got the room, I'll get some more figs in case I want to play the list a different way". 6 months later you own every fig PP produces and are complaining about the cost vs. 40k.
If you limit yourself to a tourney list, the way that most 40k players do. I think you'll find the cost is significantly in the advantage of WM/H.
I play both equally now, but 40k is quickly losing it's grip on me. It feels so basic and stale compared to all the crazy things that happen in a WM/H game. I call 40k 'Scoophammer' now, because it seems like all we're doing is just scooping models. Each player has a shooting phase and a scooping phase, repeat until one of you gets sick of it or the game ends.
WM/H is incredibly difficult though and can be a real ego bruiser for the casual player that is more interested in pushing mini's around than actually competing for the win. There are so many powers in the game that will change every match and every combination that you've really got to live the game in order to keep up with it fully.
I think you hit it right on the head with your first point.
When I build an army for
WHFB or
40k, I generally build a list that works, without a whole lot of variation on that style. Because generally in
WHFB or
40k, there isn't much variation on what works, or if there is, it's small. The current Daemon army I'm building is pretty limited in what it's using: Horrors, Flesh Hounds, Flamers, Furies - then you add characters. I will change things around slightly with the list, but generally it will be composed of those elements.
For
WM and Hordes, if I just built one list and stuck with it, I'd be well under what I spend on a
GW army. But with
WM/Hordes the ability to swap and customize your list based on different selections is far more immense than what is available with most
GW armies. At least in terms of being able to switch to different styles of play or changing out units but still have the army be decent in the game.
Boring Maths & Analysis
On some level it sure does suck when comparing models between
GW and
PP. Metal unit prices are fairly comparable, I'm looking at doing a Circle army and one unit I want is a full unit of Wolves +
UA. That's 12 Metal Infantry Models which will cost: 33 (box of 6 w/ leader) +11 (blister of 2) +11 (blister of 2) + 18 (unit attachment of 2 models) = $73 (or $55 without command)
Compare that to
GW's metal infantry for
WHFB (with command) which under their new scheme is generally $20 for 5 models, and $22 for 3 command models + 2 more generic dudes. So you're looking at about $62 for what ends up being 15 models instead of 12.
The difference or illusion of cheapness is that for
PP games, those 12 guys will make up anywhere between 14% - 22% of your army. In
GW games, you're looking at the same number of models representing a very small percentage of your army and most importantly just having 15 guys with command
generally isn't a very useful unit, where as the equivalent in
PP games is about as good as it gets for that unit (generally).
So on a pure "I get X number of models for Y amount of Dollars" I believe
GW is going to win. And when you start comparing a set of 10 models for a unit for Warmachine to a plastic regiment box for
WHFB or
40k, there's just no contest on this level.
On the other hand, there are many instances of
GW just screwing you over model-to-unit wise. If I wanted to build a Dark Elf army, that would include say 3 units of 5 Harpies, a very solid and near mandatory choice for the army, that will cost me $120, and net me an extra model I don't need buying from
GW. The same thing applies to Shades, who are also a very good unit that many people will take, that will come in similar configurations. You will pay through the nose for units like that.