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.

Ok, This is something i keep seeing at my FLGS and sometimes here on the site.
Privateer Press vs. Games Workshop.
And this is something I quite frankly don't understand. I see people argue quite a bit that Privateer Press is less expensive. When it is not. Sure books are not, and you don't need their army books. But a Battle Engine will cost you 84$ not including tax, In the same ball park as a Land Raider. While a Gargantuan/ Colossal is 100$ or more.
Now i'm not saying GW is perfect, far from it, They have expensive models as well and cruddy business practices. I have Seen some GW snobs. But i have also seen WM/H Snobs as well, sometimes passive aggressively insulting me for liking 40k.
I am not trying to say one system or company is better then the other, I'm just trying to figure out the rivalry we have here.

On average, PP is Cheaper than GW.. as you don't need to get a Battle Engine or Colossal, and when you do its half your army.

Where as for some armies Land Raiders are auto include, and take up a much smaller percentage of what you need to play.

I dont see many armies that auto include a land raider down here.

The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures.

They instantly discount a model per model cost analysis, or the value for people who collect models and not even play the games because it helps them promote their narrative that GW is evil and overpriced where every alternative out there is super cheap and shows GW is unreasonable.

Personally, I find GW and PP almost the exact same price and while they are slightly more expensive than everything else, they are not drastically so. The comparable quality models out there are either close to the same price, or extremely cheaper and poor quality sculpts or models.

There are also models out there way more expensive than both PP and GW but they get a pass being smaller runs, 3rd parties or specialty figures.

PP has a good thing going with thier system, but is hardly the savior from GW prices for many players... And price is not even a factor for many of us as a lot of people buy what looks good and play what is fun to play regardless of the system.

You also have to remember, a lot of gaming circles are a Zero sum system, so when someone chooses not to play *your* system, some people take that personally because that means less people playing and promoting the game they want to succeed.

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

Average games when i played 40k is 1850
ill put that to the same as a 50pt Warmachine game

I can buy a Collosal that is 18 of my 50pts 35% ish ? of the pts of your army.

I can buy a Vendetta that is 120pts of my 1850pts. 6% of the pts of your army.

Warmachine takes less models, and every army can be used in a competetive area rather then the new FOTM armies.


Now, Cry foul about the people who buy for collections ? yea its near the same price, but somone collecting Warmachine isnt going to buy 50-100 Of the same model, its more like 10-20.


I have a 9 month Old baby, house, car etc.

I can spend $300 and have 2x 50pt Warmachine armies that i can go to a tourney and have a chance.
Last time i priced a 40k army, it was $700 + for 1 List. at 1850.

For me, Warmachine is cheaper, and more variety of units i can use without painting Space Marine #35.

not to Mention tighter rules and balance of i can choose w/e army i like.

Thats my side of it.

I dont hate GW, i dont hate 40k, i can't afford 40k.

If im playing Blood Angels i can't really go, hey! Necrons look cool, ill go buy some and play against people at the same point cost they are playing.. as i would need alot of money.

I Play menoth and Mercs, i can say hey.. Cygnar look cool, ill go buy 1x 50pt army for $150 and play with friends and their current collections at the current meta of 50pts.


Thats the difference tbh, its not a Model vs Model price difference its a Game vs Game Price difference.

Now! not to mention, PP puts out 2 Expansion books a year.. in which EVERY army gets a new warcaster, jacks, Units, Solos.. its not wait 7-8 Years for your next book to have different units.. My army feels refreshed when i have a new Warcaster to use, or a new unit once a year.

Note: Most games here are 35pts and 50pts, i didnt feel it fair to even tosss 35 pts vs the cost of 40k.

In the end, we are all playing with Toy models.
You respect my game, and i will respect your game.

Also to add, if money wasnt an object, i would still play Warmachine over 40k due to the variety and balanced armies/rules.

Two points...

First, everything is local. Unless you travel a lot of move around a good amount for work, you are just seeing small fragments of the bigger picture. While you might not see too many armies that automatically use Land Raiders in competitive lists...they are there. In spades.

Second is more to the point - when you compare two different game systems you need to compare things which are comparable. For example, how much would it cost to get an OK army up and ready?

On the Warmachine side of things - lets say we go with a 35 point Khador army:

The Butcher of Khardov - $16.99
+ Kodiak - $29.99
+ Behemoth - $59.99
+ War Dog - $9.99
Doom Reavers - $32.99
Doom Reavers - $32.99
Widomakers - $19.99
Yuri the Axe - $14.99

Toss in a hardcover book for Khador at $44.99 and the Warmachine rulebook (also hardcover) for another $44.99. All prices are at MSRP with no discount. The total for that army ends up being $307.90.

By contrast, consider a 1500 point Spaz Marine Army:

Termie Librarian - $22.50

Tactical Squad - $37.50
Tactical Squad - $37.50
Rhino - $37.25
Rhino - $37.25
Scouts - $25
Sternguard $45x2
Drop Pod $37.25

Landspeeder - $30
Stormtalon - $45.50
Assault Squad - $33.00

Vindicator - $57.75

Plus the Codex and Rulebook at $41.25 and $74.25 respectively. Again, all at MSRP. The total for the SM army ends up being $606.

Both armies are not extraordinary, but should be competitive and allow for pickup games and all the rest. The Space Marine army though costs twice what the PP army does.

I tried to get into warmachine not that long ago, I picked up a starter box, built 1 jack, looked at it for a while and failed to come up with a proper paint scheme then never bothered with the other or the character.
I'm right behind you on the whole 'GW charges way too much' thing but I was really disappointed in the quality and material used by PP.

Apples and oranges. There's really not much that's particularly clever or useful about saying "these fifteen models cost me less than those fifty models!" Wow!

Warmachine may be cheaper to get a "competitive" force going, but the models are really no cheaper.

You may as well compare Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Mordheim, et al as well.

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game. If you want to play a game in the 40k universe using the normal 40k models you have to invest a lot more more money up front. And it gets even worse because it's hard to find games below 1000-1500 points even if the rules allow you to play it at a smaller scale. As a new player trying to get started the PP games are significantly cheaper than starting 40k/fantasy, especially since PP starter sets are (apparently) useful, while GW starter sets are garbage.

It's not pointless to state that it's cheaper to buy an army playable at standard game size. If you want to play the game everyone else is playing then it's a simple statement of fact that PP games are cheaper except for outliers.

You can state that collectors don't care, and that may be true, but that does not make the above statement invalid either.

And yes you could compare another even smaller/cheaper game, but that doesn't stop the comparison between Warhammer and WM/H from being true.

From what I've seen, a Privateer Press tournament level army is cheaper to purchase than a GW tournament level. The point systems are different, but the PP ones are still cheaper on a tournament level comparison. Individual model wise, Privateer (and a few other companies) are more expensive than GW. However GW keeps raising army sizes while lowering unit costs, so players have to buy more to maintain. So it depends on what level you're comparing. Individual or tournament army? Individual, GW is cheaper (scary to believe). Army-wise, PP wins.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game. If you want to play a game in the 40k universe using the normal 40k models you have to invest a lot more more money up front. And it gets even worse because it's hard to find games below 1000-1500 points even if the rules allow you to play it at a smaller scale. As a new player trying to get started the PP games are significantly cheaper than starting 40k/fantasy, especially since PP starter sets are (apparently) useful, while GW starter sets are garbage.

Kill team tourneys, 40k in 40 minute tourneys, escalation leagues with 500 pt games, playing on 4x4 boards... there are tons of way people have been and do play 40k with smaller numbers and it is a Skirmish game.

Actually the local GW near me explicitly promotes smaller games as it helps new players play earlier.

This narrative that PP is cheaper simply isn't true simply because some internet people claim you can't play a 40k game less than 2000 points.

PP is not at all cheaper both to get into for starting players nor on a per model basis. GW may have a higher ceiling, but PP is actively promoting the concept of 'armageddon' style games and are susceptible to groups of collectors wanting to increase the game size so they can play with all their toys.

Don't discount that GW games can and are played in smaller point values and are perfectly acceptable when played as such or somehow that makes a 10$ cheaper than another 10$ model.

Of course Warmahordes can be played in smaller sizes as well.. like Battlebox games, which can be done for $50.

We have one GW in Northern Ireland, and a number of LGSs, which tend to have a pretty even mix of GW/PP/FoW/MtG (some more than others, depending, on obvs. not the GW. Go figure...)
I think its partly due to the sizes of the local clubs that not only is the mix relatively even, there is very little conflict/snobbery between the sides. (that being said, Mantic is gathering a new high-horse brigade round here, and it scares me).

Personally, the monetary cost is a non issue. Sure, for starting fresh, PP is cheaper to get into. But by now, for me, I have three/four armies I can use in WFB/40k, so starting a new army isnt a "buy in one go" job, its more of a "unit at a time" deal. So whether its PP or GW Id still only be spending £30-60 per month. (and army costs/points values aside, there is something to be said, quantity - wise, about getting ten models in a box).

Iv tried PP games, whilst it took a few games, yeah I can see the inherant balance in a system where most everything is developed at once, yeah it was fun, but its not for me.
Part of it is I like pushing around a hundred-odd ranked up men in pijamas, with ridiculous feathers and moustaches. The imagary appeals to me, the fluff and the background, to my mind, is just that bit deeper/better. I dont play competetive, hell, as I said above, my main army marches to war in jammies! But I do play for the evocative nature of a 3-4k (fantasy) game, which is why GW edges ahead for me.

But hey, at least I can say Iv tried both!

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game. If you want to play a game in the 40k universe using the normal 40k models you have to invest a lot more more money up front. And it gets even worse because it's hard to find games below 1000-1500 points even if the rules allow you to play it at a smaller scale. As a new player trying to get started the PP games are significantly cheaper than starting 40k/fantasy, especially since PP starter sets are (apparently) useful, while GW starter sets are garbage.

Definitely agree with this.

I've never understood the whole 'either/or' mindset when it comes to gaming systems, and it always reminds me of when I was a kid and having arguments in the playground about the NES/Master System or later the SNES/Megadrive (Genesis).

Although perhaps in part it is due to the costs involved. I've found GW players to be a lot more myopic when it comes to trying other games, or not wanting to consider other systems. Part of this may be because they have come in to wargaming through the 'GW system', of intro games and sunday gaming at the club, then go to a FLGS and are simply not aware of those other systems (and therefore view them as something outside the all-encompassing GW hobby). But I think it's also because after the not-inconsiderable expenditure of playing GW games, a lot of people (especially kids) don't have the money to try anything else! A 15-16 year old could probably have forces for Infinity/Malifaux, Dystopian Wars and any other number of smaller games, but just one force for either 40k or WFB would require pretty much all of their time/money. In that sense, the GW games are like having a girlfriend who is a high-maintenance bimbo; looks great on the outside, but constantly requires expenditure and is actually pretty shallow when it comes down to it. And when her new latest thing comes along (a new rulebook/codex, that prompts further expenditure) she'll drop you in a heartbeat for one of your friends who has splashed out the cash.

The flip-side of the coin is the 'newly enlightened' - people who have switched to another gaming system (I guess PP being the most common) but then end up being massively sanctimonious and derogatory to people who still play 40k/WFB. I think that's a pretty nasty thing to see, and I don't understand why it's necessary to be completely polarised in one's opinion about any gaming system.

Ultimately, I'm all for a greater variety of gaming systems and experiences, and completely against people treating them like they are a football team that needs to be supported at all costs, even if the star striker turns out to be a jerk and does DUI or rapes someone. Although I realise the reasons for this and why it is sometimes the case.

 japehlio wrote:

I think its partly due to the sizes of the local clubs that not only is the mix relatively even, there is very little conflict/snobbery between the sides. (that being said, Mantic is gathering a new high-horse brigade round here, and it scares me).

Personally, the monetary cost is a non issue.

I agree cost is not at all the issue. People want more people to play with, and when you have a set number of people in your area, people get highly territorial on wanting people to play their system and will usually use digs and snide propaganda to put down other systems which leaves people who play multiple systems stuck in a custody war.

Many people when you say "I play game X" and they play game Y, you are nothing more than an invader taking up table space ruining their agenda.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game.

Er... that's exactly what makes it a bad comparison.

If someone says 'I want to buy a truck, but don't want to pay for a Mack, what's a good alternative?' is offering a Mini as an alternative in any way relevant?

A skirmish game is not an alternative to 40K. It's a completely different style of game. Yes, you can say that a skirmish game is cheaper to buy into... but that's really a bit of a 'Derr, really?' observation. Buying a single text book is also generally cheaper than buying an entire set of Encyclopedias.

 scipio.au wrote:
Apples and oranges. There's really not much that's particularly clever or useful about saying "these fifteen models cost me less than those fifty models!" Wow!

Warmachine may be cheaper to get a "competitive" force going, but the models are really no cheaper.

You may as well compare Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Mordheim, et al as well.

I agree with that sentiment as well. However, when comparing systems - you do need to compare systems as opposed to the price of figures.

Generally, I play with other rules - so for me, the cost of figures is what matters. Per figure, they are not too far apart (when comparing things like metal troops to metal/finecast troops and solos to solos). GW plastics do provide cost savings in some cases, though not often a significant one. Both companies IMO are overpriced in that regard, however you can not argue that Warmachine is not a cheaper game to play than 40K. It just is based on the way the rules were written to be played and the manner in which most games are played with the rules.

In the breakdown I have listed above, you end up with 21 models and two hard cover books on the PP side of things and 51 models, a hardcover and a softcover book on the GW side. Remove the books quick from the prices and you end up with $10 per model for PP and $9.60 for GW. Considering that most the GW stuff is plastic, which should cost much less...I would still call PP the winner on a per figure basis (as if you were to compare an all metal/finecast army like SoB or one of the alternate IG armies it would run much higher than the Space Marines (which IIRC are one of the cheapest armies for the points).
__________________

Did a quick costing for a 1500 point SoB army and came up with 54 models (vehicles and figures) for $659.35 - $12 per model average. $2 more than you would pay out on a PP army per model.

Initial Cost is the key to the success to what PP is producing.

All I know that it only cost me $51 to get feel on how to play with a 15 point PP army (models only). Already posted on anoter topic that I did pick up a starter box set and again most satisfied with it.

If for some reason I did not like to play this game (WM), I did not waste that much money getting into it. Bty I do like the game and am slowly transitioning from 40K.

For whatever the reason, there are more and more people, such as myself are doing the same thing. Moving over (I believe) because of their dissatisfaction with Games Workshop.

Perhaps Games Workshop should have listened more to their customer base, but we all know that ain't going to happen anytime soon.

If they would have listen a little, just a little, we would not be having this kind of discussion as PP (or any other miniature game company) would have not gotten the serious traction on people wishing to play an alternative miniatures game.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I tried to get into warmachine not that long ago, I picked up a starter box, built 1 jack, looked at it for a while and failed to come up with a proper paint scheme then never bothered with the other or the character.
I'm right behind you on the whole 'GW charges way too much' thing but I was really disappointed in the quality and material used by PP.

I bought a Finecast Model, Looked at it and wondered why half the model was deformed.. i was disappointed with the Quality of the material.

I bought a Thunderfire cannon that was metal and it didnt fit together.... i was disappointed with the quality.

I bought Steelhead halbadeirs and i have to replace their poles... i was disappointed (i expected this as its an old kit)

I bought a Collosal and it came with 2 left legs.. i was Disappointed....


Both companies have issues

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
. When it is not. Sure books are not, and you don't need their army books.

Pattenly untrue. Rule book is over $70 for the basic rule book, PP rule book is half that cost. Army book is cheaper then the older GW ones that YOU NEED, and current hardcovers of GW is now $50, even more expensive then PP.

But a Battle Engine will cost you 84$ not including tax, In the same ball park as a Land Raider. While a Gargantuan/ Colossal is 100$ or more.

And Forgeworld titans are even more expensive then colossals. Your point?

Now i'm not saying GW is perfect, far from it, They have expensive models as well and cruddy business practices. I have Seen some GW snobs. But i have also seen WM/H Snobs as well, sometimes passive aggressively insulting me for liking 40k.
I am not trying to say one system or company is better then the other, I'm just trying to figure out the rivalry we have here.

And how are you better then them coming onto a forum to complain about them all the while getting some facts wrong?

I love me a good pp vs gw thread.


The discussion boils down to the two following things:

Privateer Press has a low cost of entry, you and a buddy can get 200 dollars worth of models for 100 bucks, that's 50 dollars per person and that's 2/3rds of an average sized tournament army.

Dark Vengeance is the same price, but contains almost nowhere near the same percentage of models. I'm not saying that DV is not a bad way to start playing 40k, I'm saying that your 50 bucks is going to be stretched a little bit farther with the 2 player boxes from PP.

The other thing is that PP's rules are 100 times clearer than GWs, which is another major selling point. There is almost 0 ambiguity in the way PP's rules are written.

You can clamor on for days about GW trying to out price their veteran players, and can yell and scream about PP making larger games to sell bigger models, thus making them the worst buy in comparison to GW, but when you look at it, you have to see cost of entry. If the cost of entry is too high, fewer people will want to join in.

carmachu wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
. When it is not. Sure books are not, and you don't need their army books.

Pattenly untrue. Rule book is over $70 for the basic rule book, PP rule book is half that cost. Army book is cheaper then the older GW ones that YOU NEED, and current hardcovers of GW is now $50, even more expensive then PP.

Sir, That is what i said. that the rule books are not the expensive.
And my point is i always hear that PP is cheaper. But when I see a 5 model unit for 90$ and see that quite a bit of units are like that, it kinda rings Halllow.
And maybe i did get facts wrong, and maybe i am here complaining.
Or maybe im generally curious as to why people say its cheaper.
I get the fact that you dont need a whole lot of models, but models tend to cost more.

I am one of the people that started young with GW. Thankfully at the same time, being exposed to PP through the LGS in town. It took a bit of time, but eventually I've found GW no longer appeal to me. I'd pay the price if the game was good, but I'm having lots of fun with the PP system they have. After playing enough games I got converted from a large army to a skirmish level fan. Not saying I don't enjoy a large game once in a while if its a new system to try.

nkelsch wrote:
Kill team tourneys, 40k in 40 minute tourneys, escalation leagues with 500 pt games, playing on 4x4 boards... there are tons of way people have been and do play 40k with smaller numbers and it is a Skirmish game.

Except there's two little problems with that:

1) It's not how people, in my experience, actually play the game. If you show up to 40k night at a FLGS you either have the ability to play a 1000-2000 point game of normal 40k or you don't have an opponent. The most I've seen done with any consistency is escalation leagues, but that tends to be one game at 500 and then +250 points per week, so almost immediately out of reach of new players. It's fun if you're a veteran and want to play a variety of game sizes, but you pretty much have to start the league with a complete army to have any chance of keeping up.

2) It's not 40k. Kill team isn't 40k, it's an infantry skirmish game (and an incredibly poorly balanced one). Combat patrol isn't 40k, it's pseudo-40k with a lot of units banned. They might be fun once in a while if you have an army, but being able to play them doesn't mean you're able to play 40k. In fact, in some ways they make the problem worse since the units you'd want in a "skirmish 40k" variant are not necessarily ones you want in real 40k, so the new player can either buy stuff for the once-every-few-months kill team night, or buy stuff for real 40k.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game.

Er... that's exactly what makes it a bad comparison.

If someone says 'I want to buy a truck, but don't want to pay for a Mack, what's a good alternative?' is offering a Mini as an alternative in any way relevant?

A skirmish game is not an alternative to 40K. It's a completely different style of game. Yes, you can say that a skirmish game is cheaper to buy into... but that's really a bit of a 'Derr, really?' observation. Buying a single text book is also generally cheaper than buying an entire set of Encyclopedias.

Except for many people who are just getting into tabletop wargaming it IS a comparison. They don't come in with strong feelings about skirmish vs. army scale, they come in to the FLGS and see that the most popular games are 40k and Warmachine/Hordes. And for them it IS relevant that starting a PP game is "spend $50 on a starter set and come in for WM/H night", while for a GW game it's "spend $200+ and come in for newbie-only night once a month" or "spend $500-1000+ and you can play real 40k on 40k night". The barrier to entry for real 40k is MUCH higher thanks to the larger game sizes.


(Now, that doesn't mean that GW's prices per model are unfair or that the PP games are better, but GW does a horrible job of making their games accessible to new players.)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

And my point is i always hear that PP is cheaper. But when I see a 5 model unit for 90$ and see that quite a bit of units are like that, it kinda rings Halllow.
And maybe i did get facts wrong, and maybe i am here complaining.
Or maybe im generally curious as to why people say its cheaper.
I get the fact that you dont need a whole lot of models, but models tend to cost more.

Doesnt ring hollow. Point is that $90 unit can be used multiple casters. Its not always the case with a GW army.

FURTHER, lower army count/point games- 35/50 is standard. GW ones run much higher. 1500-2000pts, you need alot more models to play the type of game.

Redundancy, plus point games make it a cheaper game.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But a Battle Engine will cost you 84$ not including tax, In the same ball park as a Land Raider.

Although interestingly enough, here in Oz that Battle Engine is also $84 (which for us does include tax) whereas the Land Raider has GW's trademarked You Live In Australia Tax applied, and so retails at $110.,

I will fully admit Gw are idiots when it comes to aussie prices.

 Peregrine wrote:
Except for many people who are just getting into tabletop wargaming it IS a comparison. They don't come in with strong feelings about skirmish vs. army scale, they come in to the FLGS and see that the most popular games are 40k and Warmachine/Hordes. And for them it IS relevant that starting a PP game is "spend $50 on a starter set and come in for WM/H night", while for a GW game it's "spend $200+ and come in for newbie-only night once a month" or "spend $500-1000+ and you can play real 40k on 40k night". The barrier to entry for real 40k is MUCH higher thanks to the larger game sizes.

Sure, if your sole criteria for choosing a game are entry price and the number of other people who play it, that would be valid. But that seems like an odd reason to buy into a game, to me. It goes into the same sort of category as people suggesting Flames of War as an alternative to 40K... sure, it's a wargame. But it's not a wargame that I have any interest in actually playing, regardless of how much or little it costs to buy into it, or how many other people are playing, because I'm not hugely interested in Historical settings.

Interest in a game, for me, comes from liking the setting, the miniatures and the scale, as well as having a rules system that is fun to play. And while Warmachine certainly (IMO) has those all going for it, that puts it in the 'another game that I would like to play' basket rather than the 'alternatives to 40K' basket.