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.

Ive tried warmachine and 40k Ive played 40k for 8-10 years and warmachine about 6 months or so. I recently dropped warmachine as its just not that enjoyable compared to 40k.

Now im into it for the fun factor. I love having huge armies on either side and tons of terrain, rolling tons of dice and such. It just makes it so much for fun. I know games are longer than WMH, but who cares.... If you enjoy it!!

Warmachine I find that its very slow passed and that everyone never looks like they are having fun compared to all the guys I see playing 40k.

40KNobz11 wrote:
Ive tried warmachine and 40k Ive played 40k for 8-10 years and warmachine about 6 months or so. I recently dropped warmachine as its just not that enjoyable compared to 40k.

Now im into it for the fun factor. I love having huge armies on either side and tons of terrain, rolling tons of dice and such. It just makes it so much for fun. I know games are longer than WMH, but who cares.... If you enjoy it!!

Warmachine I find that its very slow passed and that everyone never looks like they are having fun compared to all the guys I see playing 40k.

They wouldn't play it if it wasn't fun.

40KNobz11 wrote:
Ive tried warmachine and 40k Ive played 40k for 8-10 years and warmachine about 6 months or so. I recently dropped warmachine as its just not that enjoyable compared to 40k.

Now im into it for the fun factor. I love having huge armies on either side and tons of terrain, rolling tons of dice and such. It just makes it so much for fun. I know games are longer than WMH, but who cares.... If you enjoy it!!

Warmachine I find that its very slow passed and that everyone never looks like they are having fun compared to all the guys I see playing 40k.

I've seen the opposite, the 40k people looked tired and like they just wanted it to be over with, the Warmachine players look like they enjoy the tactical depth. I watched a few 6th edition games at a local store earlier this year when I was looking at playing 40k again and nobody seemed to be having any fun at all or joking around.

WayneTheGame wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
Ive tried warmachine and 40k Ive played 40k for 8-10 years and warmachine about 6 months or so. I recently dropped warmachine as its just not that enjoyable compared to 40k.

Now im into it for the fun factor. I love having huge armies on either side and tons of terrain, rolling tons of dice and such. It just makes it so much for fun. I know games are longer than WMH, but who cares.... If you enjoy it!!

Warmachine I find that its very slow passed and that everyone never looks like they are having fun compared to all the guys I see playing 40k.

I've seen the opposite, the 40k people looked tired and like they just wanted it to be over with, the Warmachine players look like they enjoy the tactical depth. I watched a few 6th edition games at a local store earlier this year when I was looking at playing 40k again and nobody seemed to be having any fun at all or joking around.

This is why the existence of both games is a good thing.

By the way, would anyone be happy if GW wrote good rules for a 15 model game, but charged $10-$30 per model for that game? This sounds very unappealing to me.

I've noticed the 40k crowd tends to be louder either way. Either they're laughing and joking or sulking and raging

Having the right player base makes any game enjoyable. There is more room to have fun in a 40k game than there is in a Warmachine game, simply due to the flexibility of your army contents. There is a much smaller percentage of stuff in 40k that would be un-fun to play against than in Warmachine.

40k has some big problems right now that could easily be fixed by a decent FAQ and some streamlining for tournament usage. However, Warmachine has bigger problems, most stemming from the fact that Warmachine players believe their game is the best thing since sliced bread. Regardless, I don't like warmachine because it's all combos. The tactics come from combos. If I want combos, I'll play another game that doesn't cost GW level prices for less models.

Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
Ive tried warmachine and 40k Ive played 40k for 8-10 years and warmachine about 6 months or so. I recently dropped warmachine as its just not that enjoyable compared to 40k.

Now im into it for the fun factor. I love having huge armies on either side and tons of terrain, rolling tons of dice and such. It just makes it so much for fun. I know games are longer than WMH, but who cares.... If you enjoy it!!

Warmachine I find that its very slow passed and that everyone never looks like they are having fun compared to all the guys I see playing 40k.

I've seen the opposite, the 40k people looked tired and like they just wanted it to be over with, the Warmachine players look like they enjoy the tactical depth. I watched a few 6th edition games at a local store earlier this year when I was looking at playing 40k again and nobody seemed to be having any fun at all or joking around.

This is why the existence of both games is a good thing.

By the way, would anyone be happy if GW wrote good rules for a 15 model game, but charged $10-$30 per model for that game? This sounds very unappealing to me.

They're not far off with 18 quid SM characters.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Las wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

Yeah, you're right it was a dumb thing for me to pick on.

On the topic of cost, can you really say X wmh is comparable to Y 40k list when the former has far less models in it (for the most part, let's ignore GK and other low model armies for a second) and would inherently be cheaper?

Yes? Because that's how the game is designed and how many decisions you have to make on a turn. A squad of heavy infantry in WMH is usually 5 models, a squad of heavy infantry in 40k is usually 5-15. A squad of lights in WMH is 10 models usually while a light squad in 40 k can be up to 30. They're different scale games to be sure, but it comes down to gaming vs modeling. A full sized 40k game generally has the same number of units as a full sized WMH game, but the 40k game has more, and bigger, models. So as I said in the OP, from a modeling side 40k is a clear winner but from a gaming side WMH is cheaper and more finely balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth noting that the upfront cost of the rulebooks and starter box for WMH is 1 starter box at 50 bucks, 2 optional 30 dollar rulebooks, or a 90 dollar 2 player starter box with the rulebook and 1 optional 30 dollar book. The starter cost for 40k is a 100 dollar starter box w/rules plus a 50 dollar codex, or a 100 dollar battle force, 70 dollar rulebook and 50 dollar codex, all mandatory.

How many models in a 50pt game?

I hope you are talking about a small local group of people that you´ve seen, because saying "40K players are usually like this and WM/H players that" is over the top gross generalization and doesn´t hold any bearing to anything really, seeing how many wargamers there are around the globe.

 Las wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Las wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

Yeah, you're right it was a dumb thing for me to pick on.

On the topic of cost, can you really say X wmh is comparable to Y 40k list when the former has far less models in it (for the most part, let's ignore GK and other low model armies for a second) and would inherently be cheaper?

Yes? Because that's how the game is designed and how many decisions you have to make on a turn. A squad of heavy infantry in WMH is usually 5 models, a squad of heavy infantry in 40k is usually 5-15. A squad of lights in WMH is 10 models usually while a light squad in 40 k can be up to 30. They're different scale games to be sure, but it comes down to gaming vs modeling. A full sized 40k game generally has the same number of units as a full sized WMH game, but the 40k game has more, and bigger, models. So as I said in the OP, from a modeling side 40k is a clear winner but from a gaming side WMH is cheaper and more finely balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth noting that the upfront cost of the rulebooks and starter box for WMH is 1 starter box at 50 bucks, 2 optional 30 dollar rulebooks, or a 90 dollar 2 player starter box with the rulebook and 1 optional 30 dollar book. The starter cost for 40k is a 100 dollar starter box w/rules plus a 50 dollar codex, or a 100 dollar battle force, 70 dollar rulebook and 50 dollar codex, all mandatory.

How many models in a 50pt game?

Depends 100% on what you're playing. A Legion army might be less than 10, but most on 50mm bases. An infantry heavy army could have 30 or more, but also remember that WMH has a lot of solos that are "units" of a single character which 40k really doesn't have an equivalent to anymore other than HQ units. 40k also has vehicles for most squads which up the model count and the visual "largeness" of the game.

 Las wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Las wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

Yeah, you're right it was a dumb thing for me to pick on.

On the topic of cost, can you really say X wmh is comparable to Y 40k list when the former has far less models in it (for the most part, let's ignore GK and other low model armies for a second) and would inherently be cheaper?

Yes? Because that's how the game is designed and how many decisions you have to make on a turn. A squad of heavy infantry in WMH is usually 5 models, a squad of heavy infantry in 40k is usually 5-15. A squad of lights in WMH is 10 models usually while a light squad in 40 k can be up to 30. They're different scale games to be sure, but it comes down to gaming vs modeling. A full sized 40k game generally has the same number of units as a full sized WMH game, but the 40k game has more, and bigger, models. So as I said in the OP, from a modeling side 40k is a clear winner but from a gaming side WMH is cheaper and more finely balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth noting that the upfront cost of the rulebooks and starter box for WMH is 1 starter box at 50 bucks, 2 optional 30 dollar rulebooks, or a 90 dollar 2 player starter box with the rulebook and 1 optional 30 dollar book. The starter cost for 40k is a 100 dollar starter box w/rules plus a 50 dollar codex, or a 100 dollar battle force, 70 dollar rulebook and 50 dollar codex, all mandatory.

How many models in a 50pt game?

From what I've seen, the norm is usually 2 big heavy dreadnought sized models, maybe 3 lighter terminator sized (all moving individually), 20 infantry models (maybe 3 units) and 3-4 solo supports and a commander. 30 models average, with infantry heavy lists being 50-60 and jack heavy lists being around 20.

My last 40k game was 1500 points, roughly 45 model SM army vs my 40 model Necron force.

So WMH runs about half the model count, but has the same number of units that act individually.

Also yes, I am comparing the two groups that play at my flgs.

 RunicFIN wrote:
I hope you are talking about a small local group of people that you´ve seen, because saying "40K players are usually like this and WM/H players that" is over the top gross generalization and doesn´t hold any bearing to anything really, seeing how many wargamers there are around the globe.

Exactly there are dicks and great people who play one or the other or shock horror both. Its possibly correct to say the style of the game may appeal to a particular mind-set / way of playing but that's a bit of a generalisation as well..........

tbh is there much point in comparing a skirmish game with a battle game - be better to compare and contrast Warmachine with Infinity, Necromunda, Malifaux, Dredd etc? Not sure what to compare 40k with - the Old Starship Troopers game maybe - is there any other large scale sci-fi 28mm games?

 ImAGeek wrote:

Talys wrote:

By the way, would anyone be happy if GW wrote good rules for a 15 model game, but charged $10-$30 per model for that game? This sounds very unappealing to me.

They're not far off with 18 quid SM characters.

Sure, but nobody plays with just 15 independent characters. What I mean is, if the price of GW models were about the same as the price of PP models for a separate, 40k-themed skirmish game, would that be appealing -- if they wrote a great skirmish game.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I hope you are talking about a small local group of people that you´ve seen, because saying "40K players are usually like this and WM/H players that" is over the top gross generalization and doesn´t hold any bearing to anything really, seeing how many wargamers there are around the globe.

Exactly there are dicks and great people who play one or the other or shock horror both. Its possibly correct to say the style of the game may appeal to a particular mind-set / way of playing but that's a bit of a generalisation as well..........

tbh is there much point in comparing a skirmish game with a battle game - be better to compare and contrast Warmachine with Infinity, Necromunda, Malifaux, Dredd etc? Not sure what to compare 40k with - the Old Starship Troopers game maybe - is there any other large scale sci-fi 28mm games?

Warmachine isn't quite a skirmish like Inifnity, it has more (and larger) figures than that. It's closer in size to 2nd edition 40k, where like 2-3 squads and a couple extras was the norm in a 1,500 or 2,000 point game. That's a little larger than skirmish, just about (or a bit lower than) company level.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its possibly correct to say the style of the game may appeal to a particular mind-set / way of playing but that's a bit of a generalisation as well....

Yeah. It´s actually a huge generalisation asfar as my personal experiences go. Knowing the mindset/playing habits of even 100 wargamers accounts to pretty much nothing in the end. Just a drop in the ocean.

 Mr Morden wrote:

tbh is there much point in comparing a skirmish game with a battle game - be better to compare and contrast Warmachine with Infinity, Necromunda, Malifaux, Dredd etc? Not sure what to compare 40k with - the Old Starship Troopers game maybe - is there any other large scale sci-fi 28mm games?

Thank you-- this is what I keep saying. There are no other large scale sci-fi games that I am aware of, and nothing of any scale with infantry, medium (tank) sized units and giant sized units.

I don't know why people keep comparing WMH to 40k, as it's as useful as comparing tennis to ice hockey. You take some models and put them on a table to play, but the similarity ends there.

If the market demands skirmish games, then it's reasonable to say, skirmish games sell better and more people like them. It's not reasonable to say, skirmish games are better than large scale wargames. I'm not making this assertion (either way); I'm just stating what would be a reasonable position. It's also absurd to say that a game that is meant to have more models on the table should cost the same to participate in as a game that is meant to lave less models on the table. Although, the comparison of codex and book prices is not unreasonable.

Talys wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

tbh is there much point in comparing a skirmish game with a battle game - be better to compare and contrast Warmachine with Infinity, Necromunda, Malifaux, Dredd etc? Not sure what to compare 40k with - the Old Starship Troopers game maybe - is there any other large scale sci-fi 28mm games?

Thank you-- this is what I keep saying. There are no other large scale sci-fi games that I am aware of, and nothing of any scale with infantry, medium (tank) sized units and giant sized units.

I don't know why people keep comparing WMH to 40k, as it's as useful as comparing tennis to ice hockey. You take some models and put them on a table to play, but the similarity ends there.

If the market demands skirmish games, then it's reasonable to say, skirmish games sell better and more people like them. It's not reasonable to say, skirmish games are better than large scale wargames. I'm not making this assertion (either way); I'm just stating what would be a reasonable position. It's also absurd to say that a game that is meant to have more models on the table should cost the same to participate in as a game that is meant to lave less models on the table. Although, the comparison of codex and book prices is not unreasonable.

Well, the cost based complaints seem to be to do with the buy in cost. You can start WMH for £30. In 40k, £30 buys you a codex. Model per model count the costs are basically the same and WMH is still an expensive game, it's just a lot cheaper to start, which makes it much more attractive. The buy in cost for 40k should be a lot lower.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Warmachine isn't quite a skirmish like Inifnity, it has more (and larger) figures than that. It's closer in size to 2nd edition 40k, where like 2-3 squads and a couple extras was the norm in a 1,500 or 2,000 point game. That's a little larger than skirmish, just about (or a bit lower than) company level.

Even in Rogue Trader, there were many people who liked to play 40k with 50+ models on the table, and back then, it was mostly all infantry. I still have my first Imperial Guard army (and SM and Ork...), that I faithfully played every week, and was something like 50-60 models.

Talys wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

tbh is there much point in comparing a skirmish game with a battle game - be better to compare and contrast Warmachine with Infinity, Necromunda, Malifaux, Dredd etc? Not sure what to compare 40k with - the Old Starship Troopers game maybe - is there any other large scale sci-fi 28mm games?

Thank you-- this is what I keep saying. There are no other large scale sci-fi games that I am aware of, and nothing of any scale with infantry, medium (tank) sized units and giant sized units.

I don't know why people keep comparing WMH to 40k, as it's as useful as comparing tennis to ice hockey. You take some models and put them on a table to play, but the similarity ends there.

If the market demands skirmish games, then it's reasonable to say, skirmish games sell better and more people like them. It's not reasonable to say, skirmish games are better than large scale wargames. I'm not making this assertion (either way); I'm just stating what would be a reasonable position. It's also absurd to say that a game that is meant to have more models on the table should cost the same to participate in as a game that is meant to lave less models on the table. Although, the comparison of codex and book prices is not unreasonable.

Honestly it's been the book prices that got me the most into it. I was expecting a 40k-esque rules buy in but for the price of the inconvenience of looking up a few rules online that aren't included in the QuickStart book and using the included unit cards, I got all the rules for WMH free. I assembled the vast majority of my army for the price I would've paid for the books to get into 40k.

 ImAGeek wrote:


Well, the cost based complaints seem to be to do with the buy in cost. You can start WMH for £30. In 40k, £30 buys you a codex. Model per model count the costs are basically the same and WMH is still an expensive game, it's just a lot cheaper to start, which makes it much more attractive. The buy in cost for 40k should be a lot lower.

Yeah, no argument in the assessment, but I think the solution is for GW to create a set of official rules for a smaller model count game (like Kill Team, which is a cheap buy on black library), since significantly lowering the cost of models is just not going to happen, from either GW or its competitors.

I think the price of $50 / book and the sheer number you need to be "competitive" is unjustified. Or, there should be a cheap softcover version.

And/But: this hobby sucks to try to do on the cheap. :( I wish it were more accessible.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:


Well, the cost based complaints seem to be to do with the buy in cost. You can start WMH for £30. In 40k, £30 buys you a codex. Model per model count the costs are basically the same and WMH is still an expensive game, it's just a lot cheaper to start, which makes it much more attractive. The buy in cost for 40k should be a lot lower.

Yeah, no argument in the assessment, but I think the solution is for GW to create a set of official rules for a smaller model count game (like Kill Team, which is a cheap buy on black library), since significantly lowering the cost of models is just not going to happen, from either GW or its competitors.

And/But: this hobby sucks to try to do on the cheap. :( I wish it were more accessible.

IMHO the solution is to give better value for what you buy. I don't have a problem buying a $60 unit for Warmachine, but I balk as the idea of buying two identical squads (or a squad + vehicle) for 40k because I know I need to buy so much more. Their starter sets are good but not for what you get in them, as you barely get a playable army. Look at Deathstorm for example. The amount of figures you get for $125 is good, but it plummets down to poor value when you look at what that gives you comparable to what you actually need to buy to play real games and not just demo type games. That's where the cost rises exponentially and you start to say "WTF" when you start to price it out.

Of course, if they had balanced rules they could easily have a Kill Team like version of the game that was balanced and allowed for smaller games, and scaled up to large Apocalypse style games without impacting the balance.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Talys wrote:

By the way, would anyone be happy if GW wrote good rules for a 15 model game, but charged $10-$30 per model for that game? This sounds very unappealing to me.

They're not far off with 18 quid SM characters.

Sure, but nobody plays with just 15 independent characters. What I mean is, if the price of GW models were about the same as the price of PP models for a separate, 40k-themed skirmish game, would that be appealing -- if they wrote a great skirmish game.

It was appealing and I played both of them for years. Then GW drop them becouse they didn't make enough money. Thank to having to look at of company trying to find models I like to play them, I found better systems. Now I have a great skrimish game (good for me) and GW gets no money (bad for them).

WayneTheGame wrote:

IMHO the solution is to give better value for what you buy. I don't have a problem buying a $60 unit for Warmachine, but I balk as the idea of buying two identical squads (or a squad + vehicle) for 40k because I know I need to buy so much more. Their starter sets are good but not for what you get in them, as you barely get a playable army. Look at Deathstorm for example. The amount of figures you get for $125 is good, but it plummets down to poor value when you look at what that gives you comparable to what you actually need to buy to play real games and not just demo type games. That's where the cost rises exponentially and you start to say "WTF" when you start to price it out.

Of course, if they had balanced rules they could easily have a Kill Team like version of the game that was balanced and allowed for smaller games, and scaled up to large Apocalypse style games without impacting the balance.

Since I like to model, the price of the actual models makes a big difference to me. Each year, I probably add a thousand models to my collection, and paint about 250 -300 (I output about 20-30 models that a month that are 5-15 hour hobbies... With the occasional display quality model). So, to me, the cost per model is pretty important. If they doubled the price of models, I would buy half as many models, or fewer. My total spend would actually go down if the price went up, as I buy a lot of stuff when there are either great deals, or exceptional models.

Deathstorm is a modellers dream, a boon for a campaign player, and just a good deal for straight gamers (since the dc dread, carnifex, and rulebook exceed the price of the box).

I'm pretty sure that there were costing threads, where people established that a competitive force for 40k, not including books was $600-$1000 -- that's if you know exactly what you're buying, and have no variability. Add in some options (assuming you either don't want to play the same stuff every single game, and new releases, plus a small number of books, and you're at at least $1,500 per army, not including forgeworld. Plus, you have a mountain of stuff to paint.

Does this make it better or worse? Neither, in my opinion. It is what it is, and will appeal to some people and not others. I do think a skirmish rule set would be nice to get people into 40k with fewer barriers, plus have a lower total spend, and to appeal to people who simply prefer skirmish games.

I play both. Wmh was the game that once again got me hooked on wargaming after 4 years.

The first thing I liked was that except for a basic rulebook every new model came with their rules,no need to buy codexes etc, and that even say a caster and 3-4 jacks a side can provide a quite challenging game with lot of tactical decisions and you have to try to think a turn ahead.

40k on the other hand feels like its a lot about the list you are bringing, is not near as challenging to play, but models and the extensive story and background cannot be matched!

As the time I can spend on the hobby is limited, most of my time goes into painting, converting and modelling. I enjoy the game as well of course, with the eight opponents/friends. Thats why 40k now occupies all that time, bit if I had to choose just one game to play in the future it would Wmh.

tompaj wrote:
I play both. Wmh was the game that once again got me hooked on wargaming after 4 years.

The first thing I liked was that except for a basic rulebook every new model came with their rules,no need to buy codexes etc, and that even say a caster and 3-4 jacks a side can provide a quite challenging game with lot of tactical decisions and you have to try to think a turn ahead.

40k on the other hand feels like its a lot about the list you are bringing, is not near as challenging to play, but models and the extensive story and background cannot be matched!

As the time I can spend on the hobby is limited, most of my time goes into painting, converting and modelling. I enjoy the game as well of course, with the eight opponents/friends. Thats why 40k now occupies all that time, bit if I had to choose just one game to play in the future it would Wmh.

I really like the cards with each unit too. However, I don't know anyone who plays the game regularly that doesn't own the book for their faction. This is less an issue in WMH, as the rulebooks are half the price as 40k.

Also, there is a lot of stuff in codices that wouldn't fit in a card format, like formations, special abilities, and faction specific wargear. In 40k, some units have many options, too, which requires at least some sort of summary sheet.

As a player of both, I am starting to enjoy the faster game time of Warmahordes, both in the pre game conversation and the length of time for the game (and that is strictly my personal situation, quick game means I can get in a couple of games on limited play time.)

WarmaHordes pre game conversation: "Care for a game?" "How many points?" "Steamroller missions or book?"

40K pre game conversation: "Care for a game?" "How many points?" "Lords of war Y/N?" "Forge World?"
What suppliment is that from?" "Did that get errataed?" "You said yes to LoW, but not my (X)?" "Friendly game or competitive?" "Well what did you think I ment by competitive?" "Unbound or regular?" "Is that the latest version of the the rules on X?" and so forth." Now that we have that done, lets roll for missions, objectives, psychic powers, deamonic gifts, warlord traits....

Now granted it is a bit of an exageration, but I found that starting a game of Warmahordes to be much easier and fluid. I also realize that some of the aboves are positives for people, and the sign of a huge amount of variety, just increacingly a headache.

I think 40k is for people who want to sit back, have a good time and not really focus so heavily on what's going on. It's relaxing and light hearted.
WMH is far more tactical and requires a lot more focus as every little move is important.

It's two different games with two different mindsets.
I still think 40k has a lot of problems an I don't find it enjoyable. But for some it's that sweet spot of fun.
I play video games to relax. Instead of difficult stress inducing games that are very popular, I prefer the more free games where I don't care if I die over and over again. (Skyrim, Saints Row) For some, that's 40k. On the table though, I'm the opposite. I play wargames for rich tactical and strategic gameplay that I can't get anywhere else. That's why I play WMH.

 Psienesis wrote:

A 10 man unit pack in 40k is generally 35-45 bucks. In Warmachine, it's 50. No extra bits, no options, lower quality models, 40k definitely takes the cake there. Blisters and the Dread-sized models are pretty comparable. If you're interested in the game over just the models though, WMH has two OPTIONAL books for you to buy-rules and all the "codexes" combined, for 30 bucks each. AND the game scales down to skirmish level much better than 40k, the game is very playable at any points value ranging from battle box to full 50 points.

.. unless you play Sisters, in which case your Troops box is 10 20 year old sculpts that runs $80.

In which case you already plays Warmachine or some other alternative game rather than 40k, at least until some new models are released. Or, if not, you should .

Uncle Fester wrote:
WarmaHordes pre game conversation: "Care for a game?" "How many points?" "Steamroller missions or book?"

People play book missions? Really? The most exotic we did was missions from those League that Privateer sometime puts out.

I started WMH first (I had been playing a 3.5 ed d&d Iron Kingdoms campaign, so running across another game in the same world caught my interest). No other wargames experience (although I had played the Dawn of War RTS).

At least in my meta, WMH was more like a fun intramural league, where everyone was trying to win matches and perfect their game. 40k was more like a bunch of people kicking a ball around a field. There may be rules, but they (and winning) was clearly secondary.

My first kit (SM Commander) was amazing. In WMH, you could do some minor conversions, but each kit came with pieces that fit together exactly as needed. No alternate bits or warhead choices.

Opening the SM Captain kit was an amazing feeling. I wasn't assembling PP's Stryker or Caine (both great characters). I was assembling Captain Andicar, of Wings of Dawn 7th company! A character of my own, in GW's setting. With so many options for wargear and other bits, he was truly my Andicar, as opposed to my copy of PP's Nemo. Very different feeling.

After I got a small force, I found that I rarely chose to play WMH. 40k was simply a better fit for me. More abstract rules, less careful movements, more random let's-see-what-happens. Less about beating your opponent with skill, and more about having fun with the other player. Less like a league, more like kicking the ball around a field.

WMH does have a much cleaner rule system. And better balance. Another player had a long history of 40k, but picked up WMH to try it, and it just fit what he wants so much better.

Different strokes for different folks.

Uncle Fester wrote:
As a player of both, I am starting to enjoy the faster game time of Warmahordes, both in the pre game conversation and the length of time for the game (and that is strictly my personal situation, quick game means I can get in a couple of games on limited play time.)

WarmaHordes pre game conversation: "Care for a game?" "How many points?" "Steamroller missions or book?"

40K pre game conversation: "Care for a game?" "How many points?" "Lords of war Y/N?" "Forge World?"
What suppliment is that from?" "Did that get errataed?" "You said yes to LoW, but not my (X)?" "Friendly game or competitive?" "Well what did you think I ment by competitive?" "Unbound or regular?" "Is that the latest version of the the rules on X?" and so forth." Now that we have that done, lets roll for missions, objectives, psychic powers, deamonic gifts, warlord traits....

Now granted it is a bit of an exageration, but I found that starting a game of Warmahordes to be much easier and fluid. I also realize that some of the aboves are positives for people, and the sign of a huge amount of variety, just increacingly a headache.

Hahaha.

Most WMH games are just "How many points" for me.

For the vast majority of 40k games, I can answer most of those questions just by looking at the other person's models. If you see $900 FW titans, and don't want to play them, the guy is probably not your ideal opponent

My situation is the opposite -- I only set aside a day or two a month to play, but I set aside the entire afternoon/evening, and I'd like about 2 games in a 7-10 hour session, so 40k works well for me. If I were doing quick pickup games at a FLGS, for sure, a skirmish game is a way friendlier format.

You also missed the part where taking 100 models out of cases and setting them up takes a while. But watching those is part of the 40k experience