For fantasy army-level game I very much prefer KoW (2nd ed). If I would continue playing WHFB, I'd prefer a 7.68 system with simplified magic & characters.
For skirmish in the Old World, it has to be Mordheim. Mostly because it's already connected to the setting and has a funny experience system. Although if Mantic puts its brains into fantasy skirmish, we might see something even better. It seems they have the brains to write working rules with the right attitude.
In general, I'm not a gamer, but do understand games well. Thus, it's very much about what my friends want to play. I can go with the flow pretty easily.
If you look at what I actually play, its role-playing without miniatures.
If you are only playing a straight "kill stuff" game then it can be a little simple compared to wfb but the scenarios add a lot.
Can you elaborate on that last line? Are you saying a non-scenario KoW game is simple? And a scenario game adds a lot? Why is a non-standard game so simple?
I think I understand what Sceleris means.
Basic "bash that army" KoW is
simpler than WHFB, because the options and mechanics of moving and bashing are more streamlined and similar across the board (like magic is essentially missile weapon, no generation of dice pools & no counterspells). And there are no special character rules, no counting of ranks, nothing of the who hits which model. Thus if you just concentrate on moving troops and hitting your enemy, the game plays simpler - and a lot faster! - than WHFB. It's not simple as in boring or bad, though. The tactical build-up based on movement is similar to 6th ed WHFB or any other classical/historical armies wargame. What you do matters, no nukes destroy your build-up.
But I don't understand what you mean by non-standard being simple. I'd say the standard is simple, and any non-standard additions (like scenarios) of course add complexity. But they don't add complexity in rules. Mainly trying to achieve an objective narrows some tactical choices and opens others, like in any game.
Just my take.
-Z