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.

Hi all,

I'm thinking of getting into Warmachine, bought the WarRoom app, read through the "which army/intro" threads and will probably do a demo game in the next week or so. I've been perusing the rules a bit, but was wondering if anyone would be able to do a single turn breakdown of the actual game mechanics and dice rolling. I'm basically asking for an explanation like in 40k in your BS3, you shoot and hit someone on a 4+. If your gun is S3, and their toughness is 4, you hit on a 5+. Then they can take an armor save. Nothing too difficult, just the very basics.

Thank you all.

Ok, you have a Trencher Infantry model, the last member of his unit. On your opponents side of the table is one Winterguard Infantry model, also the last of his unit (for simplicity's sake). It is your turn. You activate the Trencher, and advance him his SPD of 6". He then takes his action and elects to fire his military rifle at the Winterguard Infantry model. You measure the range of the rifle, and the enemy is within it's 10" range. You now roll to hit. With the Trencher Infantry's RAT of 5, you need a 7 to hit the Winterguard Infantry's DEF of 12. You roll your 2D6, and get an 8, successfully hitting. Now you roll for damage. You roll 2D6 and get an 11. You add the POW of your weapon to this dice roll (the POW of a military rifle being 11) and get a 22. This exceeds the Winterguard Infantry's ARM of 13, and seeing as he doesn't have 10 health boxes, (he only has 1, like most other non-character infantry) the Winterguard Infantry model is killed, leaving your Trencher the victor.

Like that?

 motyak wrote:
Ok, you have a Trencher Infantry model, the last member of his unit. On your opponents side of the table is one Winterguard Infantry model, also the last of his unit (for simplicity's sake). It is your turn. You activate the Trencher, and advance him his SPD of 6". He then takes his action and elects to fire his military rifle at the Winterguard Infantry model. You measure the range of the rifle, and the enemy is within it's 10" range. You now roll to hit. With the Trencher Infantry's RAT of 5, you need a 7 to hit the Winterguard Infantry's DEF of 12. You roll your 2D6, and get an 8, successfully hitting. Now you roll for damage. You roll 2D6 and get an 11. You add the POW of your weapon to this dice roll (the POW of a military rifle being 11) and get a 22. This exceeds the Winterguard Infantry's ARM of 13, and seeing as he doesn't have 10 health boxes, (he only has 1, like most other non-character infantry) the Winterguard Infantry model is killed, leaving your Trencher the victor.

Like that?

AMAZING! Thank you.

Are all of those actions you listed above taken step by step in subphases similar to warhammer games? For example, you move all your units in the movement phase. Then you shoot all your units in the shooting phase and so on. Or do you go unit by unit and perform all of those actions listed above?

Say in your above example you roled snake eyes for damage and get 11+2, meaning 13 damage. What would 13 damage versus 13 armor mean?

riburn3 wrote:

Are all of those actions you listed above taken step by step in subphases similar to warhammer games? For example, you move all your units in the movement phase. Then you shoot all your units in the shooting phase and so on. Or do you go unit by unit and perform all of those actions listed above?

Sort of, in Warmachine you activate your army unit by unit and during that units activation you have the movement part of the activation and then the action part of the activation.

riburn3 wrote:

Say in your above example you roled snake eyes for damage and get 11+2, meaning 13 damage. What would 13 damage versus 13 armor mean?

The damage roll needs to surpass the model's armor for the model to sufer any damage. For each point that the armor roll surpasses the armor, the model takes 1 wound. In the example that you provided nothing would happened because the damage roll wouldn't haven beaten the armor.

And if the Trencher had rolled a 7 to hit, when it was added to his RAT of 5 it would equal 12, which is the DEF of the Winterguard Infantry. Equalling the DEF of an enemy model is a successful hit, so you only need equal or better, but for the damage roll (against ARM) you need to exceed the enemy's ARM stat.

Thank you, you've been so helpful. I can look at the unit cards with at least a little understanding and wont go in blind to my demo.

Good to hear, enjoy your demo and come back to the boards full of questions, we'll do our best to answer them.

Don't forget the control phase kind of important, that!

Others kind of went over the maths a bit. As a tip, the PP website does have a quick start here for Warmachine and here for Hordes. Hope that helps.

As a summary on turn order...

WM/H timing is built around turns and rounds. A turn is a single player's well, turn. A round is the time from the start of one player's turn to the beginning of his next turn. Players alternate turns until the game ends, and the first player is picked randomly.

A player's turn has three stages:
Maintenance, where you take care of effects that happen here automatically. Kind of like Upkeep in Magic or something.

Control, where you do some management things. This is where warcasters gain focus, warlocks leech fury, you maintain spells or handle effects that say they happen here basically.

Activation is when you activate things. This is where most of a turn happens. You activate each thing in the army in an order you choose. "Thing" in this case are individual warriors (solos, warcasters, warlocks), entire units, warjacks or warbeasts and battle engines.

When something activates, it has two parts: Movement and Action. It happens in that order: Move first, then Action. For independnet things that's easy. For units you move everyone in a unit, then everyone does their action, then the unit is done. When everything in your army has activated, your turn ends and your opponent starts their turn.

And stuff.

riburn3 wrote:


AMAZING! Thank you.

Are all of those actions you listed above taken step by step in subphases similar to warhammer games? For example, you move all your units in the movement phase. Then you shoot all your units in the shooting phase and so on. Or do you go unit by unit and perform all of those actions listed above?

Actually that's something that's pretty different in WM/H. During your turn, after your maintenance phase, you will activate each unit once. During that activation they will do all of their actions, then you move onto the next unit or model.

There are some very close similarities and some major differences.

One thing very important in WM/H is activation order. Even more so than 40K.

Also, if you like tight, rules oriented games without any grey area you will LOVE WM/H. The rules are the tightest tabletop rules I have ever used. Very very little grey area and most things do exactly what they say.

Mastering how those rules all work so you can win is a lot tougher, though. Expect to lose a lot to veterans as you start. ALOT. having to play 12-20+ games before you get it down enough to win is not unusual. Player skill is much more important than your list.

Thank you all! My demo game went great. We actually got in a couple of 25pt battles, one using warmachine and another using hordes. I was surprised by how clear everything is and how little rule book checking is required in comparison to 40k or Fantasy.

I guess now I'll just have to figure out what I want to play.

riburn3 wrote:
Thank you all! My demo game went great. We actually got in a couple of 25pt battles, one using warmachine and another using hordes. I was surprised by how clear everything is and how little rule book checking is required in comparison to 40k or Fantasy.

I guess now I'll just have to figure out what I want to play.

General information links for new players trying to figure out what to play:

Basic Wiki: Has a list of every model in the game with a general overview of what they do broken down by army
http://battlecollege.wikispaces.com/

General faction overview:

Warmachine and Hordes
http://vom-krieg.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/picking-faction-noobs-guide-to.html

Warmachine
http://museonminis.com/warmachine-faction-overview/

Hordes
http://museonminis.com/hordes-faction-overview/

Note: The faction overviews are at least a year out of date and don't include the newest faction Convergence of Cyriss which I wouldn't suggest for a new player. But they're still good for a basic overview.

riburn3 wrote:
I guess now I'll just have to figure out what I want to play.

The great thing is that coming from a 40K background an army will seem very cheap, especially if you start with battleboxes. So if you pick one to start and are 'Meh' on it then switch or get another!

I have 5 35 point armies. Though Cryx and Cygnar are my two biggest ones by far. And everyone I know who plays with any sort of regularity has at least two factions.

I play all of them now and then and I also use them to introduce new people to the game or let a newer person try out a different faction. Also, my brother and I sometimes "swap" armies. It helps you learn your opponent and also makes you realize the grass is not greener. Just different.

Thank for all the great info.

I also agree on the price to play the game being significantly cheaper than 40k, but I also enjoy the painting and hobby aspect of the wargaming universe. On a price per model basis, Warmachine in on par with or more expensive than 40k.

Either way it's nice know being able to play isn't such an expensive endeavor.

Per model they are more expensive than 40k.

A box of 10 infantry models can run you upwards of $85+. More if you get a UA for them.

And really the claim that its not as expensive as 40k isn't entirely true. Sure, a particular 50 point list may be cheaper than the equivalent competitive 40k list. But Warmachine events are almost always multi-list formats, so you'll likely end up spending almost as much on Warmachine as with 40k. The difference being you'll have way more list building variety than 40k will allow.

Part of what makes a big difference for me is that you only need one of most things. I'm a lot happier buying a unit of Wolves when I'm not going to have to buy another two boxes (plus upgrade sprues) to fill out my Wolves of Orboros FoC slot.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Per model they are more expensive than 40k.

A box of 10 infantry models can run you upwards of $85+. More if you get a UA for them.

And really the claim that its not as expensive as 40k isn't entirely true. Sure, a particular 50 point list may be cheaper than the equivalent competitive 40k list. But Warmachine events are almost always multi-list formats, so you'll likely end up spending almost as much on Warmachine as with 40k. The difference being you'll have way more list building variety than 40k will allow.

To be fair, in the multilist format you can use most of the models for each list. For example you can have 3 Cygnar lists all with a stormwall and gunmages. But at any rate, a serious tourney player in either system will be spending many more dollars than just the models in their list. They probably have huge libraries of models to choose from.

But if you want to go down to your local FLGS and play a 35 point game you can get a decent list going for $100-200. You would be hard pressed to get even a 1500 point 40K army for that cheap.

And yes, a 10 man unit sometimes costs more from PP but you only need one. In 40K you will probably need 2-3+. And the new PP plastic units are not too far off from 40K. The new Bane thralls are $50 and the space marines are $40.

Also the rulebooks and items needed to play are a bit cheaper than 40k as well. WM is about $40-50 and 40K is almost $80-90.

Shortly after I got started in Warmachine I ran the numbers for my two 35 point warmachine lists and for my 2 1750 40K lists (This was 5th edition and before GW's price increases) and my 2 warmachine armies were about $150 cheaper (MSRP) than either of my 40k lists. And the 40K lists was one mechanized list and one hordes list. And the WM lists was one somewhat jack heavy list and one horde list. You are not going to convince me that WM is not cheaper when I can get 2-3 warmachine armies for one 40K army.

Also worth noting is that it is very hard to find 40K stuff that is not listed at MSRP. At least that has been my experience with GW stuff and from what I have heard it has not changed in the last few years since I stopped playing. But it is pretty easy to find PP models 10-20% or more off MSRP. If I am wrong about the GW stuff let me know. It'd be nice to hear they have changed their policies regarding online and in store sales.

Of course. The startup cost is definitely lower.

Its just a lot of people claim its cheaper in all respects including tournament list preparation.

Looking at my nearly $2k Circle colleciton built up over the eyars, I would agree that it's start-up costs that are lower. If you start getting really in depth in trying to have lots of different angles of an army or go collectionist, it can get especially pricy.

And stuff.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course. The startup cost is definitely lower.

Its just a lot of people claim its cheaper in all respects including tournament list preparation.

And it is.

Compare the prices of most 2x 50 pts lists in WMH against a single 1850pts 40k list (I'm not even going into WHFB that is even more expensive). I did this a few months back and found out that the 2 lists where still cheaper than the single 40K army (though not by much). And this was before the advent of "monstrous" units in 40k which I reckon only made normal armies even pricier...

PhantomViper wrote:

And it is.
Compare the prices of most 2x 50 pts lists in WMH against a single 1850pts 40k list (I'm not even going into WHFB that is even more expensive). I did this a few months back and found out that the 2 lists where still cheaper than the single 40K army (though not by much). And this was before the advent of "monstrous" units in 40k which I reckon only made normal armies even pricier...

Hmm. I can, and can’t entirely agree with you Viper.
In my opinion, what you’re saying, whilst completely accurate, does not tell the full story. Those 50pt lists may indeed cost less than that 1850pt 40k list the costs of the game don’t really stop there.
A 50pt list is never the end of the road. I’m not trying to be cheeky here, or pernickety, or argumentative, but when you start to factor in expanding with other warcasters, other troops choices, other warbeasts/jacks to fill out your army and to swap out in “other” 50pt lists, you’ll find you end up spending quite a bit more. It’s why I don’t like the argument that warmachine is cheaper than 40k. I don’t see it as being an entirely accurate statement. One the one hand, in ways, it is cheaper. Especially to start up.(And for what its worth, only a fool will try to argue against this) But in other ways, saying its cheaper isn’t indicative of the bigger picture. I know I’ve spent a lot more on Warmachine/Hordes than I ever did on 40k. Whilst 50pt games are the ‘norm’, in my experience, people tend to have a 100+pt “pool” (typically of multiple factions too), from which that 50pt force is taken from. Its not my experience that people buy a 35pt, or 50pt army… and then stop.

Deadnight wrote:

Hmm. I can, and can’t entirely agree with you Viper.
In my opinion, what you’re saying, whilst completely accurate, does not tell the full story. Those 50pt lists may indeed cost less than that 1850pt 40k list the costs of the game don’t really stop there.
A 50pt list is never the end of the road. I’m not trying to be cheeky here, or pernickety, or argumentative, but when you start to factor in expanding with other warcasters, other troops choices, other warbeasts/jacks to fill out your army and to swap out in “other” 50pt lists, you’ll find you end up spending quite a bit more. It’s why I don’t like the argument that warmachine is cheaper than 40k. I don’t see it as being an entirely accurate statement. One the one hand, in ways, it is cheaper. Especially to start up.(And for what its worth, only a fool will try to argue against this) But in other ways, saying its cheaper isn’t indicative of the bigger picture. I know I’ve spent a lot more on Warmachine/Hordes than I ever did on 40k. Whilst 50pt games are the ‘norm’, in my experience, people tend to have a 100+pt “pool” (typically of multiple factions too), from which that 50pt force is taken from. Its not my experience that people buy a 35pt, or 50pt army… and then stop.

That's like saying 40k is less expensive because if you hit the 1850pt mark you just stop. Most people don't. A new unit will come out, or they want to try different playstyles such as the HQ or a different squad or different vehicles, etc. Just like my buddies are going to get tired of playing against the same pDenny list over and over, a 40k player's opponents will also get tired of seeing the same mech eldar list across the table. Saying WMH is possibly more expensive because you might buy more stuff is hardly a fair statement. You can buy more of anything and if you continue to do so of course the costs will rise.

 Kirbinator wrote:
That's like saying 40k is less expensive because if you hit the 1850pt mark you just stop. Most people don't. A new unit will come out, or they want to try different playstyles such as the HQ or a different squad or different vehicles, etc. Just like my buddies are going to get tired of playing against the same pDenny list over and over, a 40k player's opponents will also get tired of seeing the same mech eldar list across the table. Saying WMH is possibly more expensive because you might buy more stuff is hardly a fair statement. You can buy more of anything and if you continue to do so of course the costs will rise.

How is it “hardly a fair statement” Kirbinator? I simply disagree with the assertion that it is a cheaper game “because a 50pt army is cheaper”. There is a lot more to it than that. Warmachine doesn’t end with a 50pt list. And I’ve explained where my thoughts on this come from. I don’t see what’s so objectionable about that.
I simply think that broad sweeping statements that “it’s a cheaper game” are misleading when you look at the bigger picture, and especially when you invest yourself into the game/community more. I’d rather be entirely honest with folks. I’d rather sell the game on its merits (of which it has many) rather than what I see as an inaccurate semi-falsehood, especially when I’m being objective about it. I always say “It’s a lot cheaper to get into, but it can end up costing as much as 40k ever did”. I don’t see that as “hardly a fair statement”, do you?

 Blaque wrote:
Looking at my nearly $2k Circle colleciton built up over the eyars, I would agree that it's start-up costs that are lower. If you start getting really in depth in trying to have lots of different angles of an army or go collectionist, it can get especially pricy.

And stuff.

To be fair, that happens with any game. If you tried getting all the possible options for a 40k codex, you could run into the 10s of thousands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

 Kirbinator wrote:
That's like saying 40k is less expensive because if you hit the 1850pt mark you just stop. Most people don't. A new unit will come out, or they want to try different playstyles such as the HQ or a different squad or different vehicles, etc. Just like my buddies are going to get tired of playing against the same pDenny list over and over, a 40k player's opponents will also get tired of seeing the same mech eldar list across the table. Saying WMH is possibly more expensive because you might buy more stuff is hardly a fair statement. You can buy more of anything and if you continue to do so of course the costs will rise.

How is it “hardly a fair statement” Kirbinator? I simply disagree with the assertion that it is a cheaper game “because a 50pt army is cheaper”. There is a lot more to it than that. Warmachine doesn’t end with a 50pt list. And I’ve explained where my thoughts on this come from. I don’t see what’s so objectionable about that.
I simply think that broad sweeping statements that “it’s a cheaper game” are misleading when you look at the bigger picture, and especially when you invest yourself into the game/community more. I’d rather be entirely honest with folks. I’d rather sell the game on its merits (of which it has many) rather than what I see as an inaccurate semi-falsehood, especially when I’m being objective about it. I always say “It’s a lot cheaper to get into, but it can end up costing as much as 40k ever did”. I don’t see that as “hardly a fair statement”, do you?

It is cheaper against most comparisons though. If you compared warjacks to dreadnaughts warjacks are cheaper. Medium based infantry to termies, medium bases are cheaper. 10 bane knights to 10 sternguard, bane knights are cheaper. The only place WM/H loses is against the basic infantry GW sells like guardsmen, space marines and the like. Compare WM/H infantry to Grey Knights or anything semi elite and it swings back to WM/H.

That all said, I do agree that price is but one factor to consider.

 Kirbinator wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Hmm. I can, and can’t entirely agree with you Viper.
In my opinion, what you’re saying, whilst completely accurate, does not tell the full story. Those 50pt lists may indeed cost less than that 1850pt 40k list the costs of the game don’t really stop there.
A 50pt list is never the end of the road. I’m not trying to be cheeky here, or pernickety, or argumentative, but when you start to factor in expanding with other warcasters, other troops choices, other warbeasts/jacks to fill out your army and to swap out in “other” 50pt lists, you’ll find you end up spending quite a bit more. It’s why I don’t like the argument that warmachine is cheaper than 40k. I don’t see it as being an entirely accurate statement. One the one hand, in ways, it is cheaper. Especially to start up.(And for what its worth, only a fool will try to argue against this) But in other ways, saying its cheaper isn’t indicative of the bigger picture. I know I’ve spent a lot more on Warmachine/Hordes than I ever did on 40k. Whilst 50pt games are the ‘norm’, in my experience, people tend to have a 100+pt “pool” (typically of multiple factions too), from which that 50pt force is taken from. Its not my experience that people buy a 35pt, or 50pt army… and then stop.

That's like saying 40k is less expensive because if you hit the 1850pt mark you just stop. Most people don't. A new unit will come out, or they want to try different playstyles such as the HQ or a different squad or different vehicles, etc. Just like my buddies are going to get tired of playing against the same pDenny list over and over, a 40k player's opponents will also get tired of seeing the same mech eldar list across the table. Saying WMH is possibly more expensive because you might buy more stuff is hardly a fair statement. You can buy more of anything and if you continue to do so of course the costs will rise.

Exactly! It's not like 40K players stop when they get 1850 (or 1500 or 2k) points, either. They usually have quite a bit more in their collection. In 5th edition points I probably had 5-6+k in marines and 4-5k+ in eldar. Also, GW's habit of poor balance mean that each new edition (and sometimes each new codex!) changes the "power" units in each army so you have to buy more as well. I can't remember the number of times that a new edition or new codex would invalidate my army forcing me to remake it and add in all sorts of new models. And while the meta changes in WM/H I have not had to buy a ton of stuff each time a new book is released.

Mordekiem wrote:

Exactly! It's not like 40K players stop when they get 1850 (or 1500 or 2k) points, either. They usually have quite a bit more in their collection. In 5th edition points I probably had 5-6+k in marines and 4-5k+ in eldar.

Some do. But plenty more don’t. I think it’s a case of “my mileage varies”. I guess my experience comes from playing in a very competitive meta back in 4th ed, so it may not be indicative right across the board, for all “types” of players but I figure its broadly accurate for a fair number of players.
I didn’t see huge 40k collections. I think we’re all on the same page when we refer to 40k as an “unbalanced game”. Every codex has a certain number of A-tier units/builds, B-tier units/builds, chaff etc. In my experience, there was never much point in focusing on the chaff. You’d see plenty A-tier stuff, maybe some B-tier stuff, but it was fairly pointless taking anything else (I saw plenty tau armies with 3 hammerheads, I saw none with 30 vespids). My experience is that most folks I played with would have (per army, at least) a solid “core” force, which would rarely change, and a small sideboard of “other” stuff.
5,000points? Fair play to you though. That’s a pretty hefty army. Mine would probably max out at about 2,000pts of tau, with little point, in my midn, of going beyond that - i had everything i needed.

Mordekiem wrote:

Also, GW's habit of poor balance mean that each new edition (and sometimes each new codex!) changes the "power" units in each army so you have to buy more as well. I can't remember the number of times that a new edition or new codex would invalidate my army forcing me to remake it and add in all sorts of new models. And while the meta changes in WM/H I have not had to buy a ton of stuff each time a new book is released.

Agreed, to a very large extent. GW have a very cynical release policy to push sales of new stuff. It’s quite simple really. Find what’s broken for a current edition (and what sells extremely well).Nerf it to hell in the next one. Find something else to push. Repeat. Look at tau. I loved my boradsides and hammerheads. They’re no longer the powerhouses they used to be. Now its Triptides and Pathfinders. Look at nids – the Carnifex is an often cited example as well. It’s crude. It’s cynical. Its contemptible, and uncaring. As a player, you feel like you’ve been mugged, and taken for an idiot.
PP have a different policy though to push fresh sales. You don’t have to buy a ton of new stuff, but it’s my experience that folks want to by a ton of new stuff. PP actively design their game in a way that everything is, or can be made to be viable, within the right build. It’s not a case of “I have to buy X to stay up to date”, it’s a case of “damn, I want to buy X because of all the cool options it’ll give me”. THere is no point "only" buying "the best unit", because everything can be built into "the best", with the right support.At the end of the day though, it’s still a policy designed to elicit more sales. Just more player-friendly, in my experience.
And to be fair, while you didn’t buy a ton of new stuff with each new book, I went off and shelled out about £200 when colossals hit. I know plenty cygnar and ret players who shelled out for at least one colossal (I know a few that went for 2 colossals, for each of their factions!).
So yeah, I still maintain this game can be cheaper (especially for the buy-in), but for plenty folks, it’s not. (And before anyone says anything, I’m not moaning or whining about prices. I’m not complaining. Just stating my experiences, and observations. In my mind, warmachine/hordes is worth every damned penny i've ever spent on it.)

The biggest benefit to WM/H (as somebody who played 40k a decade ago and is considering WM/H as something to try) is the startup cost is a lot lower. Yes, the costs end up about the same over time, but it seems to me that you get a lot more diversity from WM/H than you do from 40K for the same price.

A 1,500 point 40k army might cost me let's say $450 to be generous, and that's likely going to be the only things I can field because the $450 got me just enough choices to make that 1,500 point army - I can't swap a unit out for another without spending more money.

Contrary, a WM/H force for that same amount might give me more variety so I can pick what units I want to field in a force depending on points value, and even in a typical game I can choose to pick Warjack A, or Warjack B, or Infantry C or Warcaster D and it changes my tactics versus having to play with the army I have, against all comers, without deviating anything beyond tactics because I spent $450 and got just enough to build a specific list.

I'll take WM/H any day over that, because I'd rather spend $450 and get enough units to change up my list than spend $450 and have to field the same thing without spending hundreds more.

The two big differences between 40K and WarmaHordes:

1) Model activation order is extremely important as models can combo with each other based on how they are activated. Keep this in mind when casting spells and moving models around.

2) Changing the Warcaster/Warlock can significantly change how the army handles. Buying multiple Warcasters/Warlocks can make one army play completely different and thus increase the value. Sometimes you'll want to change other models as well, but the armies in WarmaHordes tend to be able to have a larger operational styles than 40K armies.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The biggest benefit to WM/H (as somebody who played 40k a decade ago and is considering WM/H as something to try) is the startup cost is a lot lower. Yes, the costs end up about the same over time, but it seems to me that you get a lot more diversity from WM/H than you do from 40K for the same price.

A 1,500 point 40k army might cost me let's say $450 to be generous, and that's likely going to be the only things I can field because the $450 got me just enough choices to make that 1,500 point army - I can't swap a unit out for another without spending more money.

Contrary, a WM/H force for that same amount might give me more variety so I can pick what units I want to field in a force depending on points value, and even in a typical game I can choose to pick Warjack A, or Warjack B, or Infantry C or Warcaster D and it changes my tactics versus having to play with the army I have, against all comers, without deviating anything beyond tactics because I spent $450 and got just enough to build a specific list.

I'll take WM/H any day over that, because I'd rather spend $450 and get enough units to change up my list than spend $450 and have to field the same thing without spending hundreds more.

Yup. You've pretty much nailed it Wayne.

If i counted what i have, i've got about 250pts of circle, and something like 400pts of Khador, all told. Whereas with 40k, that all gets put on the board at one time. In Warmachine, I'm only ever putting 50pts of that on the board; the rest stays on the sideboard. As you point out though, swapping out even individual models can radically change how the whole army plays.

By the way, as a player of the game, i heartily recommend it. Warmachine, and Hordes is a fantastic game. Just dont forget to pick up the complimentary goggles and Sorscha plushie when you jump in!