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.

This is a write in vote for confrontation 3.5.

Had the rules with the minatures, status tracking, low model count and the best minatures in the industry.

Pity about Confrontation 4.

May have to try Warmachine.

I play both games

I voted WM for a few reasons. The first is a very tight rules set that works very well with 5 models on the table or 80 models on the table ( the only eception to this is AOE's but even they can be done quickly), The other is the living rule book, they errata and FaQ every thing, they have a rules forums and problems get at least a we are looking at it quickly ( though the answer might not come quickly).

Now I do have a theory on WM tight rules, I honestly don't think they are that much better at editing the rules for the game. I think they are better at spinning some of their mistakes. Basicly with the somewhat over the top nature of warmachine a fig that is "overpowered" is much easier to pass off as intended than in a GW game. Now with that said unlike GW the guys a PP will correct the fig if it starts to cause real issues with game play.

Basicly lets take bane knights, they have had 3 fixes to tone them down, A GW example would be the eldar falcon ( with all the trim), PP would have fixed it after a couple months GW as let it zip around for almost 2 years now. If GW would put out a FaQ and Errata every 4 to 6 months for each army alot more people would play as it would be a much tigher rule set.

Now don't get me wrong GW makes great models, the rules aren't that bad really, and i honestly wish PP would get over the whole metal is better for mini's. I never really had problems with minis breaking and falling apart with 40k stuff, but you look at a warmachine fig wrong and it drops it shield.

Voted 40k.

While I like the background of WM and the rules for the most part, I find myself liking the WM models less and less with time. Something to do with all the weird/mutated faces they tend to give a lot of their models (though I suppose that's more Hordes...)

I voted for Warmachine. Considering you can lose all your mobility in the first turn of 40k and then spend the next 5 turns getting shot up before even getting close to CC, that never makes for a fun game for me. WM/Hordes encourages playing in your opponents face, even if you are a SAFH. You're penalized for being static in WM, in 40k it seems encouraged.

I've played Warhammer 40,000 since the 2nd ed box was released in the UK. I have had a number of armies, and I've adapted to rules and edition changes over the years. And I voted for Warmachine.

40k didn't break down at the release of 4th ed, but it might have broken down with the loss of Andy Chambers. I don't like the current ideology that they are using for the new codecies (we don't need everything to be simpler, and simple rules and no options aren't the same thing... Also, Chaos ought to feel less like some new Marines chapter).


The Hordes minis have had consistently superior quality to GW plastics (although the poses on the plastics is really nice). I really like the interplay between your own troops that you have to balance in Hordes and Warmachine, and the game balance is very solid (something that 40k has sometimes been lacking... does anyone else remember the 2nd ed Eldar?).

So, I prefer Hordes and Warmachine.

efarrer wrote:This is a write in vote for confrontation 3.5.

Had the rules with the minatures, status tracking, low model count and the best minatures in the industry.

Pity about Confrontation 4.

May have to try Warmachine.

OH, LAMENTATION!!!

How could Rackham betray us like this? How could they trade in their brilliant sculpts for Pre-painted plastics?

WM, I feel like I get to use my brain every once in a while when I play this game. 40k is won in army builder, not on the tabletop.

keezus wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:On the flip side, seeing the 923898398403849th Sorcha army with the same composition isn't all that different... (oh look, windrush-charge again?)

Hmm... I can see how being repeatedly thrashed by Sorscha's OMGWTF feat (while ignoring the fact that she has low ARM for a warcaster, and is easily killed once knocked down) might make Warmachine seem like an inferior game system compared to 40k.

Actually, I really haven't had too bad of an experience against her, its just that she seems to be in every other Khador army I see, which admittedly hasn't been many in the past few months as WM has practically ceased existing up here. It's not so much that she is overpowered, but relatively easy to use I think.

Personally I think Warmachine is a fine game, and has a much better maintained ruleset than 40k, however it does have its problems. Examples are how Warjacks are often a 2nd rate choice and that scaling into larger games tends to get messier much faster than 40k. Also some of the player attitudes are a bit odd, I know many people who play it as much out of protest at GW as anything else, although odd attitudes are definitely not unique to WM. It's also not quite as cheap as some make it out to be, what I paid for my 500pt Khador army was equivalent to the first 1500pts of my Tau army. Some of the Mini's are also rather badly designed, if *very* nice looking, such as the Behemoth (my favorite WM model so far) which requires a good deal of pinning and basework so that it will actually *stand* and not fall apart.

Didn't like MtG, don't like Warmachine.

Different strokes, sure, but it just wasn't for me. Plus, I like plastic models...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

warmachine, the level of depth in the gameplay leaves 40k for dead.

I'd like to re-iterate, it's not a game about 1 trick pony combo lists. Those exist, the same as the do in 40K, but they don't do well because it's very rare for two armies to line up and the game to be almost decided before the first dice roll.

That's all too common in 40K.

40K wins out on the hobby aspect imo though. The models are easier to convert, and I prefer the fluff.

Okay, a lot of people have compared WM to a CCG, but I think I'm missing the connection. I played Magic during my halcyon days of jr. high, but can't wrap my brain around grouping the two together. Anyone care to explain please?

warmachine, the level of depth in the gameplay leaves 40k for dead.

I disagree with that statement..and I'll leave it at that. LOL. And a game of 40k is most never decided by who goes first. That mantra is tired and old...and quite frankly...untrue.

Capt K

I've only recently started WM, so I'm biased here, but I'm saying WM because I honestly don't have any drive to play 40k ATM.

Right now I'm playing WHFB primarily and WM as my second game. I'm waiting for 5th Ed to come out before I think about building anything for 40k again.

I vote WM for many reasons I covered in the show (see sig)...

To sum up:

- Love the solid rules
- Love the way they relese new stuff
- Love the intense tactical options
- Dude ... it's guys in steam powered armor, force fields, giant steam powered mechs and Pirates!

Voted WM/Hordes.

Both are good. If you want a game of checkers play 40K. If you want chess play WM/Hordes.

Qoute: 40k is won in army builder, not on the tabletop.
I would have to agree with the current state of 4th edition.

The Power Cosmic wrote:Okay, a lot of people have compared WM to a CCG, but I think I'm missing the connection. I played Magic during my halcyon days of jr. high, but can't wrap my brain around grouping the two together. Anyone care to explain please?

WM Casters (Generals) have these once-per-game "Feats". These feats are usually very powerful, because they tend to affect everything within a particular radius. So if you can set things up well, you can get a very large effect that can be exploited to simply win the game.

This often results in players taking a very synergistic force to maximize leverage of the feat, to gain maximum advantage.

So when you have an army that is basically built around the caster and feat, it's very much like playing a combo deck in a CCG game.

Nothing wrong with that, but that's how many players choose to win their games.

This was a tough one, but I voted for 40k. This is mostly due to the hobby aspect that others have mentioned. While you can do some converting here and there on your WM/Hordes models, you really can't personalize your army to the degree you can in 40k.

It is also easier to get a 40k pick up game going and interest doesn't come and and go as much as with WM.

Still like WM/Hordes though.

You guys must have some bad player experiences with WM in your areas and I feel bad you for you because I think you're missing out.

Around here, people build their armies to be competative with or without feats. Synergy is always there but every game is close to the end and the common consensus, and my own personal experience, is that the game can go either way up until it is actually over. As a general rule. Certain scenarios or player mistakes notwithstanding.

In both games you go up against certain "builds" in certain armies (haley denail and nidzilla are two such examples) so they have that in common. Warhammer has had years to build up it's background and lore so I don't think it's terribly fair to compare the two. I think PP is getting better at drawing you into theirs but they are still relatively young so I cut them some slack. I'm not going to go into actual writing quality because in that arena, nobody wins.

I prefer to play WM/Hordes but the two aren't mutually exlusive of one another.

One area that I have to seriously disagree with people in is this: the hobby aspect. WM/Ho allow you plenty of opportunity for conversion and alternate paint schemes. Just because you can't take a large variety of weapons on your commander and jacks/beasts doesn't mean you can't convert them. A conversion is a lot more than a weapon swap and I think WM/Ho is getting an undeserved reputation.

40k, at the unit level, has a ton of options whereas WM has none. However at the army level, to me, WM has just as many. This is even more so when you consider that in WM most units retain their usefulness in a number of builds and as such are always a legitimate option to take.

Warmachine / Hordes in my opinion is a fun time throughout the whole hobby experience.

One of the things I enjoy about WM is that a unit consists of only 6 models. So that means I only have to paint 6 of the same models to begin using a unit. When I finish painting those 6 models there will be instant value added to my army. I could also just paint a new Jack, caster or solo and bam my army just changed dramatically. In 40k the minimum unit size is usually ten models and the only ones who will really add value are the special and heavy weapons. This is multiplied by the fact that in order to get a playable 40k army you need to paint around 1500 points worth of models.

Another aspect of WM that I like is that I can play a game in about 2 hours (casual social play). The game is also always in the balance for that two hours. Every unit has the potential to swing the game in crucial way. A game of 40k takes about 4 hours or so in a social setting. I also find that many of the games of 40k are over when the army lists are revealed during setup, so then I just spend 4 hours moving my miniatures with a predetermined outcome.

WM rules tend to be more flexible. I love how my unit can continue to function even if one member is engaged in Hand to Hand combat. I hate how a squad gets locked down in 40k because one squad member gets engaged.

Many people posted that the 40k background is so much more detailed. I must say I would hope so, 40k has been around for more than 20 years. WM has only been around about 5. I really love a lot of the 40k fluff, unfortunately GW hasn't found a way to translate fluff into a fun army. Many of the cool fluff armies are really unpleasant to play because one or two of your opponents choices render their army unstoppable or force you to choose certain units, etc.

I also don't think there is much difference between having a card by the table or a codex. The WM units are also printed in the books just like in 40k, so you aren't required to use the cards.

In the end I don't think that it is necessary for 40k and WM to be mutually exclusive. People should play the games that they enjoy. If 40k had a skirmish game that had decent rules, missions that rewarded all armies, and fluff armies that could win games I would definitely play it.

Well my favorite games in order are:

Flames of war,
AT-43
40k
WM/H

So I voted 40k as my choice of the two. Dont get me wrong, I think WM/H is a beautiful game with spectacular rules and cool models but it just comes down to the fact that I am a tread head, and the plastic tank kits in 40k are irresistable for me!

Flames of war is my favorite for the same reason, just cant beat tons of armor on the table for me, even if they are (in the words of Jeff Caroll from Podhammer)Matchbox tanks.

At-43 doesnt have tanks, but the walkers are cool and I think the ruleset is the best in the business to date.

Just to chime in here about the cost of playing - GW's revisionist policies can play havoc on army-lists through the invalidation of previously legal formations...

I'm currently working on tidying up a 1700 point 40k army for an upcoming tournament - and by tidying up, I mean, make "tournament legal", since the new Chaos dex invalidated my Iron Warriors list (deservedly so, that list was stupid effective) - small sized squads need filling, and left me with a huge glut of heavy support, since my formerly elite oblits made their way over to HS... so from my old army, I've been forced to compress from 5 usable troops units to two! (due to a shortage of bolter troopers and too many orphan heavy weapons and special weapons troopers), and stuck with a glut of 7 heavy support! So, in short, 60% of my 1700 point army had to be re-constructed from scratch! This hasn't happened with Warmachine YET.

I did a quick inventory of the new list... Granted, as a longtime player, I was able to dip into my considerable closet of figures to rebuild the chaos army - but looking at the contents of this army - I honestly can not see how army cost between 40k and Warmachine can be treated at par... I added the terminators, daemons and around 20 additional infantry and a rhino - which would have cost a lot, if I had to buy them - rather than repurpose some old space marine stuff.

Chaos 1700 - current MSRP cost (Infantry:46, Large Infantry:9, Vehicles/Jacks:2)

$15 - Sorceror on bike
$175 - (5x box) 40 Chaos infantry (marines - 20 in tacticals, 12 in chosen, 8 havocs)
$22 - 6 Daemons (New plastics)
$50 - 4 Terminators
$88 - 4 Obliterators
$60 - 2 Rhinos
--------
$400

My current Khador 500 tournament list: (Infantry:16, Large Infantry:5, Vehicle/Jack: 1)

$10 - Kommandant Irusk
$35 - Devestator Heavy Warjack
$75 - 5x Demolition Corps
$40 - 8x Assault Kommandos
$15 - Greylords Ternion
$18 - Widowmakers
$10 - Eyriss
--------
$203

So in conclusion... money-wise - tournament sized 40k is a better match for 1000 WM/Hordes - (the model counts match up better as well if you double the contents of the WM list to simulate 1000 points) Finally, a point of interest is that the 40k army is mostly plastic other than obliterators.

I got into Warmachine when it first came out. It was fine back then but after a few years the system became more like Magic the Gathering. It seems to me that the game shifted to a system of combos and how to do certain tricks. I gave up after that and sold everything. I hated Herohammer back in Warhammer Fantasy 4th edition and I don't like the Herohammer aspect of Warmachine.
40K is more tactical in my opinion. Cost is not as important to me.

The Power Cosmic wrote:Okay, a lot of people have compared WM to a CCG, but I think I'm missing the connection. I played Magic during my halcyon days of jr. high, but can't wrap my brain around grouping the two together. Anyone care to explain please?

I'll give it a try (though I never played MTG, Pokemon, Jyhad or any other CCG).

1. Killer combos: The way turn/unit activation works and the emphasis on harmony between units, caster, solos and warjacks/beasts gives it a (perceived) CCG feel: "I put 3 focus on this warjack. Unit X creates cover, Unit Y shoots up target, Solo 1 Charges from the left, knocking target over. Move caster up, cast spell. Warjack with 3 focus walks up and finishes target off."
2. Special rules: everything has a special rule, and the trick is to use the special rules in the right order, on the right opponent (as opposed to no one has special rules, and you're just trying to shoot/bludgeon the enemy, which is more typical of most tabletop miniatures games).
3. Synchronization/harmony (see above): building an army has the feel of building the 'right' deck.

Again, I don't play CCGs, but I think that's the perception. Someone feel free to correct anything on this list.

keezus wrote:Just to chime in here about the cost of playing - GW's revisionist policies can play havoc on army-lists through the invalidation of previously legal formations...

I'm currently working on tidying up a 1700 point 40k army for an upcoming tournament - and by tidying up, I mean, make "tournament legal", since the new Chaos dex invalidated my Iron Warriors list (deservedly so, that list was stupid effective) - small sized squads need filling, and left me with a huge glut of heavy support, since my formerly elite oblits made their way over to HS... so from my old army, I've been forced to compress from 5 usable troops units to two! (due to a shortage of bolter troopers and too many orphan heavy weapons and special weapons troopers), and stuck with a glut of 7 heavy support! So, in short, 60% of my 1700 point army had to be re-constructed from scratch! This hasn't happened with Warmachine YET.

I did a quick inventory of the new list... Granted, as a longtime player, I was able to dip into my considerable closet of figures to rebuild the chaos army - but looking at the contents of this army - I honestly can not see how army cost between 40k and Warmachine can be treated at par... I added the terminators, daemons and around 20 additional infantry and a rhino - which would have cost a lot, if I had to buy them - rather than repurpose some old space marine stuff.

Chaos 1700 - current MSRP cost (Infantry:46, Large Infantry:9, Vehicles/Jacks:2)

$15 - Sorceror on bike
$175 - (5x box) 40 Chaos infantry (marines - 20 in tacticals, 12 in chosen, 8 havocs)
$22 - 6 Daemons (New plastics)
$50 - 4 Terminators
$88 - 4 Obliterators
$60 - 2 Rhinos
--------
$400

My current Khador 500 tournament list: (Infantry:16, Large Infantry:5, Vehicle/Jack: 1)

$10 - Kommandant Irusk
$35 - Devestator Heavy Warjack
$75 - 5x Demolition Corps
$40 - 8x Assault Kommandos
$15 - Greylords Ternion
$18 - Widowmakers
$10 - Eyriss
--------
$203

So in conclusion... money-wise - tournament sized 40k is a better match for 1000 WM/Hordes - (the model counts match up better as well if you double the contents of the WM list to simulate 1000 points) Finally, a point of interest is that the 40k army is mostly plastic other than obliterators.

Again, it depends on your army build and what you have.

My 1500pts Iron Warriors army under the last codex was usually as follows:

Termi Lord-$17

4 8man Chaos marine squads $25 each/100 total

4 Predators $40each/160 total

$277 total.

32 infantry
1 Lord
4 tanks

for 2000pts I added a squad of terminators and 6 Oblits, bringing it up to about $450 MSRP I think (I only payed about $360 for the army however because my FLGS has 20% of everything basically)

Warmachine *is* generally cheaper, but it also generally has smaller armies. If you expand WM armies to be roughly the same size as Warhammer armies in terms of model #'s and points level, they become much more expensive. And Yes, most of the 40k stuff is plastic, but I have no problem with this, I like most of the GW plastics alot. Granted the PP metals are amazing, but they are also generally very easy to break and some are *very* heavy.

Another aspect of WM that I like is that I can play a game in about 2 hours (casual social play). The game is also always in the balance for that two hours. Every unit has the potential to swing the game in crucial way. A game of 40k takes about 4 hours or so in a social setting.

I find most of my games (for both systems) take about half that time, even for casual games. I don't think I've ever played a 4 hour game of Warhammer that wasn't a megabattle.

Vaktathi wrote:Warmachine *is* generally cheaper, but it also generally has smaller armies. If you expand WM armies to be roughly the same size as Warhammer armies in terms of model #'s and points level, they become much more expensive.

Oh, I don't disagree with you that 40k nets you more models and has better moldel/dollar value on a pure quantity basis.

However, I feel that you are misrepresenting the true cost of 40k models as you need to reach that 2x the price of Privateer to play standard sized games - there isn't the option to go half way. Also, whether or not your retailer discounts product or not is irrelevant, since many retailers discount the same amount off Privateer product. Current MSRP is the only even basis for comparison. Finally, IMO, it is hard to compare armies built on older rulesets against another system, as those armies may not be representative of common builds (different meta-game, models had different buy-in costs) and introduces unwanted variance into the comparison. The IW in particular have changed drastically in playstyle as they have been deprived of their formerly fearsome firepower and must take a more mobile approach.

I have tried to provide what I feel to be effective lists, that I have recently designed, with the intent to do well in competitive play. In fact, the described 40k army is actually cheaper than I have constructed it, as it was purchased a few years back at the then-bizzaro-land +30% Canadian prices, and I forgot to take special and heavy weapons troopers into account. The Warmachine army is also not especially cheap with the inclusion of the 86 point, $75 Demo Corps... It is simple to create a cheap Warmachine/Hordes army for purely arguementative reasons - For example, a 500 point Legion of Everblight army I own consists of the Battlebox, 2 seraphs, 2 forsaken and Vayl. It cost $112. It was a near unbeatable terror before Privateer errata'd Vayl, and is still very effective when used right. Is that type of army typical of what you see? Not by a long shot.

Of course, YMMV.

winterman wrote:It is also easier to get a 40k pick up game going and interest doesn't come and and go as much as with WM.

This varies from store to store. At my local game store, Flames of War is king with Warmachine/Hordes a strong second. If you want to play 40k you have to set it up in advance.

WM/Hordes. I play 40k too, but I find myself less involved in a game of 40k - it's more like watching things unfold than playing the game, as the tactical options are so limited in 40k. WM I'm scheming the whole time, weighing the risk of various tactics, setting up countercharges etc.

By far the main reason is that the game is exciting until the end. I've pulled off a caster kill when my entire army has been slain, and I've had the same done to me. Whereas in 40k, often by turn 4 it's pretty obvious who's going to win (sometimes it's obvious in the 1st turn, haha). I know lots of people who just give up on a 40k game and cede, rather than playing out the slaughter. But in WM/Hordes, it's FUN to pull off a comeback. You take more risks when you're losing anyways, so you just might pull off that slam with your headless/arcless bonejack, that knocks the enemy's biggest jack out of the picture to clear a charge lane to his caster.

Various tactical options is great: I can advance, or run double speed, or stand still to get an aiming bonus; I can charge attack, walk up and do a power attack (headbutt, throw, etc.), trample over infantry. Many of the infantry can attack individually or combo attack, so they can kill lots of weak stuff or gang up on a big thing. In 40k, I can walk 6" and shoot, possibly charge 6". There are no options, other than walk 6" or stand still to fire a heavy weapon. 40k is much more predictable than WM/Hordes. Also, the massive numbers of troops in 40k means that the law of averages kicks in, and that adds to the predictability.

WM/Hordes using a 2d6 mechanic gives a normal distribution rather than a linear one. This means that even a mostly-sure thing never is (I hellfired Vilmon 3 times one turn, needing to get a 6+ on 2d6, and missed every time), and it's possible to pull off ridiculously lucky shots too (like the Zealot who killed my DEF 15 bonejack...). As for the combo-MTG-like aspect: sure there are combos, but they're never a sure thing, due to the 2d6 mechanic.

The very 1st models from WM are still competitive (eg the Sorscha mentioned above, and Kreoss) - new models are neat, but the old ones still work. There are no "ratlings" (nor squats) in Warmachine.... Also the combo-able nature of the game means that new units can easily make previously underpowered stuff better (Unit Attachments, etc.). 40k has to change point costs and/or rulesets in order to acheive the same. Let's not even go into the quality and robustness of the actual rules, it's obvious that WM/Hordes wins hands down there.

I'll play 40k, but I always *want* to play WM.

As I demonstrated earlier, you can construct a legal (and fairly decent) 1500-pt SM force from 3 Battalion Boxes - or a little over $200 USD if bought from the Warstore.

If you're playing standard 1000 pts of WM/H on budget, you'll probably spend the same $200 USD for your stuff, but just have a lot fewer models.

keezus wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Warmachine *is* generally cheaper, but it also generally has smaller armies. If you expand WM armies to be roughly the same size as Warhammer armies in terms of model #'s and points level, they become much more expensive.

Oh, I don't disagree with you that 40k nets you more models and has better moldel/dollar value on a pure quantity basis.

However, I feel that you are misrepresenting the true cost of 40k models as you need to reach that 2x the price of Privateer to play standard sized games - there isn't the option to go half way. Also, whether or not your retailer discounts product or not is irrelevant, since many retailers discount the same amount off Privateer product. Current MSRP is the only even basis for comparison. Finally, IMO, it is hard to compare armies built on older rulesets against another system, as those armies may not be representative of common builds (different meta-game, models had different buy-in costs) and introduces unwanted variance into the comparison. The IW in particular have changed drastically in playstyle as they have been deprived of their formerly fearsome firepower and must take a more mobile approach.

I have tried to provide what I feel to be effective lists, that I have recently designed, with the intent to do well in competitive play. In fact, the described 40k army is actually cheaper than I have constructed it, as it was purchased a few years back at the then-bizzaro-land +30% Canadian prices, and I forgot to take special and heavy weapons troopers into account. The Warmachine army is also not especially cheap with the inclusion of the 86 point, $75 Demo Corps... It is simple to create a cheap Warmachine/Hordes army for purely arguementative reasons - For example, a 500 point Legion of Everblight army I own consists of the Battlebox, 2 seraphs, 2 forsaken and Vayl. It cost $112. It was a near unbeatable terror before Privateer errata'd Vayl, and is still very effective when used right. Is that type of army typical of what you see? Not by a long shot.

Of course, YMMV.

I used my old Chaos list because I had the prices right in front of me, I have no idea what I spent on my current Chaos stuff (don't want to think about it, I've bought way too much stuff just because I wanted to try crap out, and I don't stick to a single list )

I'll agree that it costs less to get a standard sized game of Warmachine going that an standard sized 40k game. It's cheap to buy the basic box and a couple extras. But to build much more than that, say if you want to have a couple of 500pt armies or a couple sideboard items, it gets close to 40k real quick. That and I see a lot of WM players (usually bitter ex 40k players) in stores saying to new people "it'll cost you almost $2000 to get a 40k tournament army" and stuff like that.

I'll agree again about Canadian prices being whack. when the WarStore sells a Hellhound for $40 shipped and it costs $65 CDN for one, It's not hard to see where this gap would explode quickly.

Discussions on the price difference is a little tricky, given the sheer smaller scale of warmachine. Sure, you can build one decent 1500 40k army for $200, I think the PP fans would point out that nearly any tournament force can be built for ~$250. I think that 40k hits diminishing returns later in the spending curve, however. I've spent thousands of dollars on 40k, and I still feel like I'm expanding my options and having fun when I buy a new army (I'm building eldar, and It's a ton of fun). Warmachine, I assume, has the same thing, just on a smaller scale. I know the arguemtn "But I can spend more on 40k" sounds a little silly, but this board is full of people that will spend more on a single 40k model then a giant WM army.

Additionally, there's been a lot of casual comments dismissing 40k's in game tactics. Nobody is going to confuse 40k with Go or Panzer General, but with good terrrain and objective based missions 40k has some rich tactical depth. It's easy to dismiss critiques of 40k's depth by citing missions and terrain, but it's shocking how often it comes up. with a mix of terrain and the GT missions, every game becomes a challenge.

Finally, I'd challenge the notion that 40k is unplayable at low points totals. $200 can buy some really interest 1000pt armies, and 1000pt games really aren't that uncommon. The reason very few people stay at that point level is that they want to bump up their points, not that 1k is unplayable.

With regards to PP itself, I wish them all the best. The better PP is at what they do, the more likely GW will get better at it does. If I were PP, however, I'd be terrified by the history of competing against the giant of the gaming world. I don't just mean in miniatures, but in any arena of gaming: ccgs, tabletop roleplaying, miniatures: all have one giant, periennial player and constant pretenders to the throne. There are minis games that emerge, flower for a bit, and then for one reason or another collapse. No ccg has lasted anywhere near as long as magic, even the big hitters like Star Wars and Legend of the five rings faded. WotC itself can't keep a second banana on the shelf.

I think Yak raised a valid point in that the business cycle for games involves gaining new players to the point of saturation, then add new players while old ones leave while veterans keep buying new stuff. PP has done better then most in adding a second edition and a new product line, but gamers want more stuff, but they want good stuff.