I used to love watching 40k battle reports online. Long ones. Short ones. Any of them, really. But these days, I'm finding it more difficult to pay attention to them. Maybe I've just had my fill? Maybe it's because so much of the game is tied up in stratagems that aren't visible on the table? Maybe it's just trying to follow along with the stack of rules interactions that I'm growing increasingly unfamiliar with? I'm not sure. But it's a shame, and I'm hoping my interest in that sort of thing is rekindled at some point.
Has anyone else found their interesting in video battle reports waning lately?
I feel like I might be able to sink my teeth into more of a narrative style game or one of the small-scale variant systems MWG sometimes does, but those seem to be a rarity.
But I agree. Between the rules always changing, everyone seeming slightly more meta focused, etc... I'm caring less. Even the people filming seem to care less. The enthusiasm with some of the bigger channels is... lessening I think.
I mean granted it was ALWAYS hard to tune in for like 2 hours to watch people play. But it seemed more fun when I first started seeing miniwarhammer playing narrative missions then now.
I say we have a Jersey Shore 40k BR style, where theres smack talking, betrayal, and the occasional overly emotional fight where 90% of it is people holding each other back and saying the same 2 words over and over.
40k specifically has always been a little rough. You see a 3 hour video and jump ahead to the 2 hour mark to find a title card for "Turn 2".
I do find myself less interested in video battle reports in general these days though. It might well be that the novelty has simply worn off. Might be any number of factors though. Quality is really hit or miss across the board and finding a well produced and edited report involving factions you're interested in watching with players with a similar competitive level as you can be pretty challenging.
Video battle reports have never been interesting and have been the doom of the Hobby.
They take hours, take ages to start, people act stupidly to try to get your attention and it's blatant irritating.
Written battle reports are clear, short, don't need your constant attention and are devoid of anyone people screaming in your ears and making private jokes.
Part of it might just be that we've come out of a period of high instability where gaming was shut down and where if you could game, unless it was in your own home with family, chances are it was a stressful interaction (facemasks, risks etc...)
And its not as if its all gone away, medical centres and such are still enforcing face mask wearing and running higher risk factors; its just not in the news as much right now.
So that might well have dulled some interest as the whole watching what you can't do loses its interest after a while.
It might also be that some of the quality channels aren't putting out as many or as a good a quality; there's skill and a considerable amount of time before and after in making a battle report not just a report but entertaining and its not just having a good camera angle. There's a lot of little bits in making it entertainment to watch and making it engaging.
You could also have just had your fill for a while- that's normal and natural and happens to most of us within hobbies and areas of interest.
godardc wrote: Video battle reports have never been interesting and have been the doom of the Hobby. They take hours, take ages to start, people act stupidly to try to get your attention and it's blatant irritating. Written battle reports are clear, short, don't need your constant attention and are devoid of anyone people screaming in your ears and making private jokes.
Agreed, somewhat anyway. I dont think they are the doom of the hobby though.
With that said, in my view the channel is about the creators. If you like them, that's great. But you may get bored of them if you watch them too much. There was a time when I watched just about everything MWG did. And then, several years ago, I just stopped liking them. Not even sure why.
I do think 9th's explicitly "gamey" objectives sort of compel a style of list building and play which is a bit samey and as a consequence not as fun to watch. So a channel will go "we are running X again" and I'm just left thinking "okay, I've seen this 5 times already, I know exactly how this is going to play out barring the dice, I don't need to see it again".
Which was presumably true in 8th and 7th, but... seemed less explicitly so.
Kya_Vess wrote:I mean, have you seen mine? I got cats!
I actually have one of your videos pulled up in another tab that I simply haven't gotten around to watching yet. (The cats are, in fact, quite the selling point.)
I say we have a Jersey Shore 40k BR style, where theres smack talking, betrayal, and the occasional overly emotional fight where 90% of it is people holding each other back and saying the same 2 words over and over.
I'm... weirdly down for that. Give each of the players an over-the-top character that somehow ties into their army. Arrogant aeldari. Crisp and proper smurfs. That sort of thing. Let the games be at least mostly authentic, but pause to come up with some amusing lines after something of note happens. Send out arbites to break up the fights.
godardc wrote:Video battle reports have never been interesting and have been the doom of the Hobby.
...
Written battle reports are clear, short, don't need your constant attention and are devoid of anyone people screaming in your ears and making private jokes.
I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly found them interesting for a while. I like seeing other peoples' minis in motion, listening to other people having fun while I half pay attention, etc. There is certainly a charm to written battle reports with simple MS Paint maps though.
Overread wrote:So that might well have dulled some interest as the whole watching what you can't do loses its interest after a while.
Weirdly, I started really getting into them during lockdown, so I've almost had the opposite experience.
It might also be that some of the quality channels aren't putting out as many or as a good a quality; there's skill and a considerable amount of time before and after in making a battle report not just a report but entertaining and its not just having a good camera angle. There's a lot of little bits in making it entertainment to watch and making it engaging.
You could also have just had your fill for a while- that's normal and natural and happens to most of us within hobbies and areas of interest.
It's probably a bit of both of these. You can only watch people resolve their attack rolls so many times before it all blurs together. I'm not sure I feel that the quality/polish of the channels I watch has gone down (MWG seems good as ever for instance), but it does kind of feel like the battle reports being put out these days just aren't all that interesting to me personally. I like seeing quirky armies and weird missions and ideally a narrative mission here and there. It feels like a lot of the videos I've watched lately are more conventional armies, often trying to get a handle on new army mechanics that bog down the flow of the video. Like, watching people agonize over their synapse bonuses and miracle dice just doesn't do it for me, and trying to track which buffs and stratagems are in play at all times is kind of exhausting.
Written battle reports are clear, short, don't need your constant attention and are devoid of anyone people screaming in your ears and making private jokes.
This.
Many, many years ago I loved reading battle reports by ColShaw, a chap on Warseer. He had several Imperial Guard armies and his battle reports were absolutely superb in terms of writing (as well as including several pictures to give you a better idea of the situation each turn). Sadly, I think he either quit around 6th edition or else stopped writing his reports if he didn't.
The only Battle Report videos I watch are the ones that fellow Dakkanaut Twilight Pathways posts on his YouTube channel. They're short, sharp, and fun. Just a series of photos taking throughout the game, a fun voice over, some good jokes, and it's over in 15m (often less).
I watch the table bits and army list bits of WinterSEO, but that's it, because his videos are 2+ hours sometimes.
I like the folks Tabletop Tactics, but again, their videos are so long (and they do an awful lot of symmetrical terrain setups, which drive me mental).
I just cannot watch 40k battle reports anymore myself.
But am still watching other games a fair bit.
And if I can I like finding good narrative game battle report.
Even the warhammer+ ones which I think should be a highlight I am done by turn 2 and that’s often about the half way point anyway.
Miniwargamings narrative missions are still fun to watch and the last two campaigns had rather short videos lasting about half an hour, which is a good length to get some paint on your models and not get bored.
I haven't been following their matched play Videos anymore, though. For that 9th mission Design is far too rigid, every game feels like it's the same.
Beside 8th and 9th being terrible for narrative wargaming, I think the bigger answer is that you and I have changed. The awe of learning something new and novel is past, 40k and wargaming as a whole may be more of a known entity, and we now see it with less impassioned eyes.
I used to like watching video battle reports from certain channels. Those channels are still around and haven't really changed much. If anything they've improved over the years. Yet I find myself agreeing with the OP.
Previously it was possible to have a batrep on in the background while I painted and stay just interested enough to follow what was happening. Now everything seems tied to special detachments, strats, special characters, auras etc to an extent that makes it so much harder to keep track of what's going on unless you really concentrate for the full duration. The problem with that is watching 40k like that, even an edited version, is really, really dull. Too much of the important decisions are taken off-table and only abstractly represented on the table, if at all. It also seems to me that the proliferation of auras and strats and so on produces many fewer statistical aberrations, which translates to much more predictable outcomes. Combined with an increase in lethality, you just end up with whole units removed in one go, which is usually the expected result. There's not much room for drama any more.
To be honest, the matches these days are never as good as the "professionally done" matches, with guys like TableTop Titans, or even the guys who do Vangaurd Tactics. They are focused on explaining their moves, their abilities, and presenting the ideal "perfect game between two mates". Now fast forward, and most youtube matches are two people who haven't showered in god knows how long, without good mic quality, just with a static camera pointed at the board, no score counter or after effects to speak of. Yeah, I'll take the charismatic guys who do hard work to make their reps look nice over the unwashed hooligans doing a monetized 4+ hour video about two broken factions.
By and large I’m still hung up on the “Golden Age” White Dwarf battle reports, which included tactical and narrative commentary. And on occasion became Canon (Tycho’s face melting was a result of a WD Battle Report. No, really!)
Warhammer+ BR vary for me, as it comes down to the presenters. Overall I like the format, but wish they’d slow down a bit here and there. That being said? It seems more likely I just need to find similar ones more in tune with my preference.
And I think that’s just The Thing. Everyone will have their own preference, and different shows will hold different appeals to different people.
For instance? I want to watch the battle report, not a comedy revue. Yes the hosts showing personality is good, but it can go too far, just as sometimes it doesn’t go far enough.
A given established community may love the heavy banter - and that’s fine. Just as one channel that does very dry, fact based stuff (think the Nerding immediately proper to Leeeeeeroy) will no doubt have its fans and adherents, because such presentation can help people wrap their head round the game and improve their overall understanding.
Some time ago I started watching 40K in 40Min battle reports. I was attempting to get myself excited about 9th. I did like the format for the most part but I prefer shorter battle reports in the past. I don't consume any 40K videos on line anymore. Not like I did before. I really used to enjoy videos by Templar crusade 01. I think that was the channel. His videos were brief and to the point. I tried to follow that model for my own battle reports trying to keep them under 20 minuets.
A huge turn off for 40K videos now is when there is a cast of hosts or players and they spend more time on their own in jokes as if everyone already knows them and what they're getting on about and not enough time right in the game and what's going on.
Long form battle reports do have their place but after taking in a few I know they're not for me. I tend to listen more than watch because I would be painting so I'd hardly get anything from those. I also don't enjoy tournament focused play so tend to skip those as well, historically.
godardc wrote: Video battle reports have never been interesting and have been the doom of the Hobby.
They take hours, take ages to start, people act stupidly to try to get your attention and it's blatant irritating.
Written battle reports are clear, short, don't need your constant attention and are devoid of anyone people screaming in your ears and making private jokes.
i mean, thats only because of which content creator you watch lol. Plenty of them don't do that.
As a tangent, Battlereports overall are okay, what I can't stand and seems to be a current trend is Videos with their clickbait-title in Capitals, a screaming guy in the thumbnail and content that is nothing more than a stupid dakka rant that can go on for 10-30 minutes. It really makes me question the credibility and quality of any other content people produce if they do Videos like that.
But maybe I'm just getting old.
I'v tried a number of groups producing video reports but found a lot to have issues:
- GMG: Only one who covered Titanicus which was good but he was mostly unintelligible at times due to crappy video editing.
- Tabletop Titans: Slow. So slow.
- Miniwargaming: Too "memey" for my tastes.
The only ones I do enjoy are Tabletop Tactics, although anything with Lawrence in it I ignore as I find him utterly insufferable. However as Cortez just said some of their recent videos are starting to have the "screaming thumbnail guy" look so I worry that they're going to go down the crapper in the long run.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: As a tangent, Battlereports overall are okay, what I can't stand and seems to be a current trend is Videos with their clickbait-title in Capitals, a screaming guy in the thumbnail and content that is nothing more than a stupid dakka rant that can go on for 10-30 minutes. It really makes me question the credibility and quality of any other content people produce if they do Videos like that.
But maybe I'm just getting old.
They do that face because the algorithm likes it. Blame children for clicking on stuff like that and I suppose Google for being a soulless coroporation. If you want to gain any traction on the YouTubes you have to chase the algo, that's just how it is, it's not the content creators fault.
I always thought Wargamer Girl's Warmachine battle reports were about some of the best I've seen over the years in terms of pacing, production, editing and all. But they are clearly time consuming to produce with a lot of editing after to get things all together.
Most BR tend to be wobbly camera holding and limited cutting so you get all the exciting parts and all the droll dull ones and the "we can just about ish maybe read the dice but not really unless you've got it on a wall TV at close range"
Valkyrie wrote: I'v tried a number of groups producing video reports but found a lot to have issues:
- GMG: Only one who covered Titanicus which was good but he was mostly unintelligible at times due to crappy video editing.
- Tabletop Titans: Slow. So slow.
- Miniwargaming: Too "memey" for my tastes.
The only ones I do enjoy are Tabletop Tactics, although anything with Lawrence in it I ignore as I find him utterly insufferable. However as Cortez just said some of their recent videos are starting to have the "screaming thumbnail guy" look so I worry that they're going to go down the crapper in the long run.
WintersSEO
StrikingScorpion82 (skip ahead of the 5 minute ad spam at the start tho)
those are my two go to, they have a much more relaxed approach to the game and its got just enough banter
Unfortunately SS82 is kind of a knobhead as back when the Brexit vote was going on he made a video on his channel about how everyone should "vote leave because all immigrants are snakes" and he's routinely featured a Guard army on his channel that is full of nazi imagery and colour schemes and whenever people have brought it up he deletes the comments.
Plus in general his channel has literally not seen any improvement in production quality ever since it first started. Still shaky cam, no overviews or UI elements to keep track of scoring or anything else. Going from even the days of 8th edition Tabletop Tactics to now you've seen a giant improvement in how they do things and it's in general a much slicker, smoother experience with a lot more things to help the viewing experience and to keep track of what's going on in a game, while still having room to let the presenters shine.
I think the aforementioned political leanings and complete lack of improvement really show why his channel hasn't really grown or indeed seems to have overall shrunk in terms of views. Also, everyone gets the rules wrong sometimes, it's natural, but I remember his lot getting stuff severely wrong and very consistently too. That kind of thing will add to reasons why people might start to drift away from watching certain channels; I've certainly known a lot of people who stopped watching MWG because of their sloppiness when it came to rules.
And while I think there's value in every kind of type of play when it comes to 40k and people not having to play hyper comp armies, some of his army lists written in the past were just absolutely bizarre. If you ever brought this up in comments you'd have his most ardent simps jumping on you trying to explain he was just playing a fluffy army or something, but when you're writing an 8th ed Eldar list that is 3 different detachments all with 3 different Craftworlds, with 3 different Autarchs and with 0 Farseers anywhere then uuhhhhhh that ain't "fluffy" that's just a gak list. And it becomes especially egregious when he thinks he can make tactica videos about how to play the army in question because at that point you're just misleading people.
I can "watch" longer batreps when I'm actively working on something else, but in my view the game has gotten less interesting. Strat-tactics etc are just kinda boring.
I'm more of a fan of lore videos but good-quality ones are hard to come by. Most people read from various Wikis, put their own opinions in (which then detracts from the experience), or just get it wrong. Occulus Imperia is my go-to currently but I also like ArbitorIan and the Templin Institute. Excluding certain incendiary people, the worst one I found was a series on Vraks where the creator kept interspersing the story with their own opinions on how everyone must have felt. Was very rubbish.
So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle? Granted, their are some independent hobby channels with "influencers" leaning towards the camera while painting their minis, but very rare. Seriously, why has no one tried to "americanize" this demo? Just make it boobs, beers, and battles!
Bosskelot wrote: Unfortunately SS82 is kind of a knobhead as back when the Brexit vote was going on he made a video on his channel about how everyone should "vote leave because all immigrants are snakes" and he's routinely featured a Guard army on his channel that is full of nazi imagery and colour schemes and whenever people have brought it up he deletes the comments.
Plus in general his channel has literally not seen any improvement in production quality ever since it first started. Still shaky cam, no overviews or UI elements to keep track of scoring or anything else. Going from even the days of 8th edition Tabletop Tactics to now you've seen a giant improvement in how they do things and it's in general a much slicker, smoother experience with a lot more things to help the viewing experience and to keep track of what's going on in a game, while still having room to let the presenters shine.
I think the aforementioned political leanings and complete lack of improvement really show why his channel hasn't really grown or indeed seems to have overall shrunk in terms of views. Also, everyone gets the rules wrong sometimes, it's natural, but I remember his lot getting stuff severely wrong and very consistently too. That kind of thing will add to reasons why people might start to drift away from watching certain channels; I've certainly known a lot of people who stopped watching MWG because of their sloppiness when it came to rules.
And while I think there's value in every kind of type of play when it comes to 40k and people not having to play hyper comp armies, some of his army lists written in the past were just absolutely bizarre. If you ever brought this up in comments you'd have his most ardent simps jumping on you trying to explain he was just playing a fluffy army or something, but when you're writing an 8th ed Eldar list that is 3 different detachments all with 3 different Craftworlds, with 3 different Autarchs and with 0 Farseers anywhere then uuhhhhhh that ain't "fluffy" that's just a gak list. And it becomes especially egregious when he thinks he can make tactica videos about how to play the army in question because at that point you're just misleading people.
Unless they're spouting extremist stuff I don't bother worrying about their politics. I did a quick browse of his stuff and I agree that his videos are pretty poor quality given the size of his following. Using a decent camera setup wouldn't kill him.
I also gave GMG another go and yeah his editing is god-awful. The shots cut out too quickly, video I watched sounded like ...two hits wounding on 4's...ounded, so one save of 5+...ne model killed...xt unit to sho...ven hits...etc"
Think I'll stick to Tabletoptactics for now, except when Lawrence is involved.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle? Granted, their are some independent hobby channels with "influencers" leaning towards the camera while painting their minis, but very rare. Seriously, why has no one tried to "americanize" this demo? Just make it boobs, beers, and battles!
I also gave GMG another go and yeah his editing is god-awful. The shots cut out too quickly, video I watched sounded like ...two hits wounding on 4's...ounded, so one save of 5+...ne model killed...xt unit to sho...ven hits...etc"
For me GMG's main problem is how his audio sounds muffled, i can't understand what he's saying even when its edited properly.
No one, to my knowledge, has successfully figured out a good way to "diagram" the battle on a turn-by-turn basis and in a way that actually makes the tactical conundrums and situations discernable to the audience and resolved in an interesting way.
The older WD bat reps used to provide simplified diagrams each turn showing general movements and attack orders, but newer videos spend more time zooming in on die rolls than trying to actually depict the battlefield situation.
I'm surprised no one is doing 10-minute videos that uses overhead still shots combined with animated diagramming to depict the flow the battle.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle? Granted, their are some independent hobby channels with "influencers" leaning towards the camera while painting their minis, but very rare. Seriously, why has no one tried to "americanize" this demo? Just make it boobs, beers, and battles!
Duff man approves!
Christ alive, yeah that'll work. And why is the race of the viewers relevant?
I hope you don't run your own business if you'd be willing to call your patrons "sweaty nerds".
Mezmorki wrote: No one, to my knowledge, has successfully figured out a good way to "diagram" the battle on a turn-by-turn basis and in a way that actually makes the tactical conundrums and situations discernable to the audience and resolved in an interesting way.
The older WD bat reps used to provide simplified diagrams each turn showing general movements and attack orders, but newer videos spend more time zooming in on die rolls than trying to actually depict the battlefield situation.
I'm surprised no one is doing 10-minute videos that uses overhead still shots combined with animated diagramming to depict the flow the battle.
I don't remember who did them, but I do remember battle reports made exactly like that.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle? Granted, their are some independent hobby channels with "influencers" leaning towards the camera while painting their minis, but very rare. Seriously, why has no one tried to "americanize" this demo? Just make it boobs, beers, and battles!
I also gave GMG another go and yeah his editing is god-awful. The shots cut out too quickly, video I watched sounded like ...two hits wounding on 4's...ounded, so one save of 5+...ne model killed...xt unit to sho...ven hits...etc"
For me GMG's main problem is how his audio sounds muffled, i can't understand what he's saying even when its edited properly.
Fezzik isn't wrong though and pointing that out is fine. One of the Game stores I've been going to recently does this with female employees, having the girls run all of the social media for the store in ways that are very much inspired by the way influencers and onlyfans girls operate their businesses. The store from what I heard from the owner has seen profits up nearly 200% since they started these social media campaigns.
godardc wrote: Video battle reports have never been interesting and have been the doom of the Hobby.
They take hours, take ages to start, people act stupidly to try to get your attention and it's blatant irritating.
Written battle reports are clear, short, don't need your constant attention and are devoid of anyone people screaming in your ears and making private jokes.
These are my thoughts almost exactly. It does seem to take a bit more effort to produce and I'm clearly not the target audience of a battle report, but while I will read (or skim depending on my needs) a written battle report, I will almost always skip a video report. I can get what I need out of a written report in 3-7 minutes.
The exception is a video tutorial. I will spend more time watching a well done game tutorial. In fact such tutorials have been essential to some of my boardgame experiences. However, even with wargames, I think there's no reason for a good tutorial to take much more than 30 minutes to cover the basics of gameplay.
I mean, lets all just PRETEND that any "cons" aren't blatantly selling products through attractive young female "Cosplay enthusiasts".
Let's also just pretend that the 40k fandom is by and large NOT made up of young cis gendered white males.
Pointing out that the almighty dollar drives all the worst decisions by companies EVER, asking why sexuality hasn't been used in marketing isn't wrong, or JAQing off, it's honestly wondering why one of the worst run companies in the world isn't putting more flesh in their marketing of their really already cringe "player facing" engagement.
It's part of a larger effort by Little Wars TV (a group of mostly historical gamers) to create short-form video battle reports under the "Quick Strike" title.
Their challenge had 3 rules:
(1) Your video must be under 10 minutes long
(2) Include some historical context & scenario summary
(3) Recap the entire game, start to finish
And usually with some graphics and music.
Maybe this is something more 40k video batreps should strive for?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle? Granted, their are some independent hobby channels with "influencers" leaning towards the camera while painting their minis, but very rare. Seriously, why has no one tried to "americanize" this demo? Just make it boobs, beers, and battles!
Duff man approves!
We have to be inclusive now. Such a channel would be torn apart by virtue signallers.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle? Granted, their are some independent hobby channels with "influencers" leaning towards the camera while painting their minis, but very rare. Seriously, why has no one tried to "americanize" this demo? Just make it boobs, beers, and battles!
Duff man approves!
Employees cost money and the vast majority of these things are one man crews that probably aren't making anywhere near enough to afford to pay someone to work for them.
On a side note, one of the things that I really struggle with is the move towards Twitch streaming. Taking something that's already kind of empty and filling it with live answers to a chat I'm not reading (and lets be clear, its worse if you follow the chat) does the production no favors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: I just cannot watch 40k battle reports anymore myself.
But am still watching other games a fair bit.
And if I can I like finding good narrative game battle report.
Even the warhammer+ ones which I think should be a highlight I am done by turn 2 and that’s often about the half way point anyway.
As much as GW likes to push its games as narrative in design, they really don't have much in the way of big moments in gameplay. There are very few actions in the game that do something other than trigger a series of die rolls that result in determining the wounds inflicted. It makes gameplay feel very mechanical and while a good host can hype up the drama of rolls, its hard to do that in a way that makes armies feel different enough to keep reports feeling fresh. Despite the deluge of rules they've added to make armies unique, its largely just dice modification and not something that makes armies feel truly distinct the way they do in games like Warmachine or Malifaux or MCP or something like that.
No buts. Just don’t. If you know it’s crass and immature don’t post the crass and immature thing. Do better.
Stop having fun!!!
calling all wargamers sweatlords and asking for more sexuality in batreps isnt really what i call "having fun"
If you can't laugh at some aspects of the hobby you're taking it too seriously. Pretending there's not a lot of wargamers that need to go to horny jail *bonk* is just denial in its purest form.
I still find them enjoyable. But they are never as "good" as when an edition is fresh or at least a new book or codex. The only ones that keep my attention late in an edition are ones linked to a narrative campaign. Watching army x vs army y for the for the eightieth time isnt fun
The only think that boggles my mind more than people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE playing video games instead of playing video games themselves is people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE rolling dice.
I am also a bit biased as my time for checking out BatReps is usually confined to cycle times at work. Can't watch videos at all there without subtitles, and even then, it's a turn on/turn off affair. I'd much rather read at my speed.
I find the biggest problem with most "bat reps" is the "This is how I interpret that rule" problem.
Tabletop titans videos are RIFE with misplayed rules, fudged things, and "I forgot this, can I have it two turns later?"
At the end of the day, there can never be a 100% perfect (rules wise) game of 40k streamed, because even the people who write the rules for a living obviously don't understand them, or likely even play the game. So unless you are somehow carrying a GW stamp on your videos that says, all rules in this video are exactly how GW expects them to function, the game is up to interpretation.
Why is this important? Because a large chunk of viewers of bat reps watch them to learn how someone they view as a professional gamer, uses them, or interprets them. Therefor they are educational to a large part. This is bad. Because it's completely subjective. If the YMDC sub forum is anything to go by, people seemingly have difficulty understanding when the "fight phase" is complete, or if a dead/destroyed model/unit gets to "fight again". Which means you can watch 1000 bat reps, and they might have a 1000 different ways to interpret a given rule. Hence, not educational.
So if the largest purpose of batreps is invalid, what remains? Baseball fans. People who watch incredibly slow and boring competitive events with hardly anything exciting ever happening. Or people who chose to express brand loyalty. I don't personally give a toss about 95% of her videos, but I will always leave discourse minis videos on in the background while I paint or clean, because it gives her add revenue, and I have to appreciate the hustle.
So TL;DR, Batreps are completely pointless in today's meta, unless you like boring competitive events, or know the person making them.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle?
Just Tony wrote: The only think that boggles my mind more than people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE playing video games instead of playing video games themselves is people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE rolling dice.
There are plenty of reasons.
I watch Top Gear/The Grand Tour. I don't have any real interest in cars. So why do I watch these shows? Because the presenters are entertaining, and they do stupid things that are funny.
I have zero interest in Halo, yet on Saturday I spent damn near 4 hours watching a video of four people trying to complete a single level in Halo 5 on the highest possible difficulty. Why? Because it was hilarious to watch them do it, and I'm watching for them not for the game.
I've watched Let's Plays of games on YouTube for games I don't own, on consoles I don't own, or because I can't run them on my current PC. I've watched more of LegendofTotalWar playing Total War Warhammer than I have played the game, despite owning the game, because I'm learning how to play the game from his videos. I imagine plenty of people watch these things because they lack access or perhaps even have things that prevent them from playing.
I watch Twilight's BatReps because they're funny, and I like seeing painted armies/tables.
I watch 40K batreps from several channels (Glacial Geek, Tabletop Titans, Tabletop Tactics, Hellstorm, MWG and Winters SEO) when I am painting, chilling on an early Saturday morning or hanging out in a hotel room on a work trip. I also enjoy some AOS batreps from other channels. I would rather play 40K than watch someone else, but I do enjoy an engaging batrep where at a minimum I can have some fun background noise and maybe, just maybe, I can learn something. I do not, though, enjoy tournament live streams. Weird eh?
I respect, though, that others may not enjoy watching batreps and can also understand that folks' enjoyment of 40K can wax and wane over time.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle? Granted, their are some independent hobby channels with "influencers" leaning towards the camera while painting their minis, but very rare. Seriously, why has no one tried to "americanize" this demo? Just make it boobs, beers, and battles!
Duff man approves!
Serious answer? It's a dumb way to make content. You'd work hard for little money. Every once in a while I see on social media someone trying to push her new social media or OF using WH, with fairly clear intentions of hoping its an easy market. They almost all give up immediately. Warhammer takes far, far, far too much investment to "fake". After 1-2 videos, they quit and switch to magic or Pokémon. It's a lot easier to just open packs with other hobbies then wargaming, and a bigger audience. Lets be honest. It takes a lot of money and time to build your army, paint it, and learn the INSANE amount of rules and interactions to actually play this game on camera. And you better believe you get it near perfect or else 90% of your comments will be hate. I mean you wonder why the hobby is full of "sweaty nerds". It's because you have to be one on some level to dive into this hobby enough to accurately play it.
So why would anyone do it? Even if it was easier, YT doesn't reward long format video anymore. Why would I, if actually trying to grow my channel, post an hour long video and the NIGHTMARE it takes to make that ... all for a few thousand views... when I can post a 15 second short about literally anything and get 10k views? YT wants you to push shorts to compete with tiktok, and as a creator you want to make your videos JUUUUST long enough for monetization and keep people engaged. People, unless flat out stupid, are only making BR because THEY find it fun and they enjoy doing it.
Just Tony wrote: The only think that boggles my mind more than people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE playing video games instead of playing video games themselves is people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE rolling dice.
Just wait till we get "Miniwargamer Dave REACTS on Tabletop Tactics playing Chaos" - so people can watch other people watching other people rolling dice .
Just Tony wrote: The only think that boggles my mind more than people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE playing video games instead of playing video games themselves is people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE rolling dice.
I am also a bit biased as my time for checking out BatReps is usually confined to cycle times at work. Can't watch videos at all there without subtitles, and even then, it's a turn on/turn off affair. I'd much rather read at my speed.
Thing is not everybody can play whenever they wish. No opponent to call 24/7, no place to play at will, need to paint models sometimes(playing and painting simultaneously is kind of hard).
The 2 aren't exactly competing with each other. Battle reports are more of competing with music than playing game.
Just Tony wrote: The only think that boggles my mind more than people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE playing video games instead of playing video games themselves is people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE rolling dice.
I am also a bit biased as my time for checking out BatReps is usually confined to cycle times at work. Can't watch videos at all there without subtitles, and even then, it's a turn on/turn off affair. I'd much rather read at my speed.
It is easy to explain, it is more interesting then watching news channels on the TV with parents. Some games are platform locked. Xbox doesnt work in my area, because of unstable internet, if I want to see how a game is only option is to watch others do it. There is also the personality factor, some people watch others play anything, because they find them entertaining.
And then there is the whole sports angle. People watch e-sports the same way some people watch sport.
Just Tony wrote: The only think that boggles my mind more than people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE playing video games instead of playing video games themselves is people watching videos of OTHER PEOPLE rolling dice.
Just wait till we get "Miniwargamer Dave REACTS on Tabletop Tactics playing Chaos" - so people can watch other people watching other people rolling dice .
I'm honestly shocked it hasn't gotten to that point already...
I like watching them mainly to see what kind of cool models people have, different terrain, different ideas for narrative games/missions, checking to see if I'm even playing the rules right. They definitely have their uses, though you are right, much rather play a game myself.
I try to support Dice and Brushes and Slider Games since they post to these forums so I consider them part of this community.
I don't watch a lot of batreps because I can't find a good Crusade series, which is what I want.
Scaredcast came closest- I think he's got 4 Crusade games with the same army posted. But he doesn't make as much out of the campaign elements as he should if he really wants to highlight Crusade content.
I still put them on while I'm painting. I prefer slide-show style reports where they summarize what is going on and their thoughts going into it rather than the overproduced ones with 3 different cameras, cringe banter, and the dice cam is the most prominent making it so that you can't really see the table all that well.
I don't watch any batreps that are on a digital/virtual tabletop.
I find the ones who cut a single camera over to the dice tray for every roll to be the most annoying...just delete those parts and show what happened in the game.
I cannot recall the name of the channel, but there was a youtube video series of a guy who made a bunch of "His dudes" and did a narrative story of his dudes facing off against other threats in small 500pt battles. After the battles he would do narrated reenactments of funerals, and full break downs of each of his dudes.
Come to think of it, it was a very similar style to a lot of the videos on youtube marketed towards kids and telling stories through playing with toys.
My ex's son used to watch videos of people playing with lego ninja toys, and it was like live action cartoons. Very odd that the kid was soooooo hyper into it. He didn't want the toy, he wanted to watch others play with it and take it on adventures. When he played with the same toy, he would just try to mimic what he'd just seen on that week's episode.
I think that's a small window into the adult(Liberal usage term here) reason for watching bat reps.
My viewership is pretty much all about background noise while I build, paint, etc. Yes, I’d much rather pLay than watch but that isn’t realistically feasible time wise.
Reading this thread so far just reinforces how we are all different and have varied tastes, there is no one answer to enjoying this hobby.
I’m a big fan of the Tabletop Tactics crew, but they have had ups and downs in my opinion. Unlike the other poster here, I find videos with Lawrence to actually be the better ones. I used to like Beard and Bone (sounds like a rock band) except when they played each other as the silliness would go off the charts. I’m getting the same vibe now with Beard and Bard. Separately, they are both entertaining, together? Can be a tough listen.
Katy was like nails on a chalkboard when she first started, it was really tough and had me stop watching the group for awhile, but I feel that she has found her comfort level within the group and fits in great now.
SS82 might not have improved film wise, but his effort on terrain is unmatched and so visually it makes the game appealing.
40K in 40mins often have interesting content too and I generally like the visuals and effort.
Cannot watch tabletop titans as it’s just too long and slow for my tastes.
Generally, I don’t have time to watch a lot of content, but it’s an easy way to pass the time while doing something else.
I personally find games like 40k incredibly boring to watch because there are very few decision points per unit of time. That probably also is why there is such a focus on trying to be funny and dice rolls because there isn't much happening most of the time. Or at least, nothing interesting.
Another aspect is that I feel a lot of players don't really understand tactics to communicate them to players.
You talk about building, painting, collecting, army list building and you can get mountains of theory, practical and a whole set of language terms and phrases and such. It's honestly areas that are really well developed
But as soon as you put models on the table the understanding, teaching, knowledge, experience and language dries up.
It's hard to engage people and talk tactics if you don't understand them yourself and if you can't outline your plan beyond "go for the objectives". It's also hard to then engage an audience when you don't have those fundamental building blocks established.
I'd liken it to chess. If you've very little to no interest in chess chances are watching it is dead boring; if you understand it and you understand the moves and tactics then suddenly it can become a whole lot more interesting to watch as now you can start to understand what the players are doing and aiming for; what potential moves they might make; what it looks like when they make a mistake but then it turns into a smart move etc...
Wargames - at least fantasy/sci fi - have a dramatic whole in the gameplay side of things at almost all levels from local gamer to GW at the top end.
Now this understanding is clearly out there, but its not being communicated, picked up on nor passed on well.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle? Granted, their are some independent hobby channels with "influencers" leaning towards the camera while painting their minis, but very rare. Seriously, why has no one tried to "americanize" this demo? Just make it boobs, beers, and battles!
Duff man approves!
We have to be inclusive now. Such a channel would be torn apart by virtue signallers.
You have it basically completely backwards. The channel would be attacked by paternalistic misogynists who can't abide women being in male-dominated spaces, and would accuse them of using their appearance to generate engagement instead of supposedly "valid" things like skill at games, rules expertise, hobby skill, etc. Look no further than the large subset of the gaming/streaming community that rages against hot tub streamers on Twitch.
Wyldhunt wrote: I used to love watching 40k battle reports online. Long ones. Short ones. Any of them, really. But these days, I'm finding it more difficult to pay attention to them. Maybe I've just had my fill? Maybe it's because so much of the game is tied up in stratagems that aren't visible on the table? Maybe it's just trying to follow along with the stack of rules interactions that I'm growing increasingly unfamiliar with? I'm not sure. But it's a shame, and I'm hoping my interest in that sort of thing is rekindled at some point.
Has anyone else found their interesting in video battle reports waning lately?
I feel like I might be able to sink my teeth into more of a narrative style game or one of the small-scale variant systems MWG sometimes does, but those seem to be a rarity.
I found them enjoyable during COVID lockdowns but personally I prefer to play or spectate a game at the FLGS. A narrative style battle report would be pretty fun though, especially if the player's are both very into describing the turns and rolls as if they're a scene in a novel. I personally haven't found any of those for 40k but have seen people do them for historicals.
I have to admit that until I read the rest of this thread, I had not considered that folks would enjoy watching BatReps in a similar manner as a sport or a chess match.
I still have zero interest in watching them and don't get the appeal but I maybe I understand those who do a bit better now.
JohnnyHell wrote: A lot of video batreps now sound like men reading spreadsheets out, instead of genuine friends genuinely having fun.
To me this is what playing40k has become, ditto for batreps.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eilif wrote: I have to admit that until I read the rest of this thread, I had not considered that folks would enjoy watching BatReps in a similar manner as a sport or a chess match.
I still have zero interest in watching them and don't get the appeal but I maybe I understand those who do a bit better now.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle? Granted, their are some independent hobby channels with "influencers" leaning towards the camera while painting their minis, but very rare. Seriously, why has no one tried to "americanize" this demo? Just make it boobs, beers, and battles!
Duff man approves!
We have to be inclusive now. Such a channel would be torn apart by virtue signallers.
You have it basically completely backwards. The channel would be attacked by paternalistic misogynists who can't abide women being in male-dominated spaces, and would accuse them of using their appearance to generate engagement instead of supposedly "valid" things like skill at games, rules expertise, hobby skill, etc. Look no further than the large subset of the gaming/streaming community that rages against hot tub streamers on Twitch.
Don't have to go that far. Just go back to the responses, right here on dakka, every. single. time. GW got Becca Scott to do a 'How to Play <game>' video. Despite the fact that she does game and nerd stuff professionally and has been up to her ears in nerd culture pretty much her entire working life (and as a kid).
I don't recall many complaints about her doing the videos. I know I recall that they'd do that odd camera thing where they zoom in and there's half a wall behind her head being shown and her face pushed up against the opposite side of the screen. But that wasn't a problem with her, just a problem with the choice of presentation.
If anything I figure more people would want more video since I recall her videos were only covering the very basics of getting started (which likely makes them less useful for many average dakka fans as we either already know or can work out the basics
Don't have to go that far. Just go back to the responses, right here on dakka, every. single. time. GW got Becca Scott to do a 'How to Play <game>' video. Despite the fact that she does game and nerd stuff professionally and has been up to her ears in nerd culture pretty much her entire working life (and as a kid).
I genuinely don't recall that being the case. A quick search of the site also doesn't seem to back this up. There were a few comments from people saying they weren't massive fans of hers but most of the comments I could find were actually generally positive.
On the general subject of video batreps, I happened to catch a small part of the Vanguard Tactics livestream last night, which was Tau vs Emperor's Children. They have a really professional set-up, with an announcer/chat moderator and two players, multiple cameras and a decent overlay. I couldn't watch more than about 5 minutes before becoming completely bored and lost. This isn't a criticism of the presenters or the channel. There are fundamental problems with streaming 40k, I think. The models are often too small and insignificant to get a good idea of what's going on. In this game, for example, you could make out the Tau battlesuits easily enough, and all the vehicles, but I had no idea where the EC or Tau infantry was. There are so many dice rolls that you quickly lose track of what's happening, and that's with the players explaining what's going on. Watching the same thing, but with a non-playing commentator trying to keep up makes the whole thing worse.
It gets a little better with professionally edited games with overlays, as we see from the likes of Tabletop Tactics. Even then, I'm finding the actual mechanics of playing the game just get in the way of making things entertaining. What happens on the table seems to matter less and less compared to triggering a dozen different buffs from strats, auras, psychic powers, etc. That leads to the problem Johnny Hell highlighted, where the game feels like people reading rules at each other rather than playing a wargame.
Then this only means you just don't like that way of playing of the game. When someone watches sports they don't get a close up of every move, especialy when you are at an event or at a stadium. But you have watched enough of the players plays, you know how he moves, what he can or can not do, what he likes to do durning the match and you have the list or line up of the team memorised. There are entire industries that exist where the actual player, durning the game is an blue or red X on someones tablet or phone.
You have it basically completely backwards. The channel would be attacked by paternalistic misogynists who can't abide women being in male-dominated spaces, and would accuse them of using their appearance to generate engagement instead of supposedly "valid" things like skill at games, rules expertise, hobby skill, etc. Look no further than the large subset of the gaming/streaming community that rages against hot tub streamers on Twitch.
Aren't hot tub streamers just giving people a sesion of "porn" light though. And of course questions about someones views are put in to question, when the statments they make are cathegorical. If I suddenly went to a female gymnastic forum and started giving advice people would be in full right to ask what the hell do I know about it and what my creditential are. That is how it works every where. Opinions are taken at face value from people who have been already proven to first know what they are talking about and second be right multiple times. And even then it is good to check what they are saying from time to time, as people with time tend to get lazy.
So, I'm honestly thinking more like "Top 3 with Lisa Foiles" That sort of crap. Here is a rather useless review of 3 new units GW is releasing this week, with a incredibly attractive redhead with a push up bustier, jumping up and down and making not so subtle jokes about sex. Tell me that gak wouldn't SELL out at 40kcon or whatever.
The "esports" style warmachine or 40k stream battle reports are mostly terrible. You need to be extremely familiar with the factions in 40k or Warmahordes to follow the paly by play
Aren't hot tub streamers just giving people a sesion of "porn" light though. And of course questions about someones views are put in to question, when the statments they make are cathegorical. If I suddenly went to a female gymnastic forum and started giving advice people would be in full right to ask what the hell do I know about it and what my creditential are. That is how it works every where. Opinions are taken at face value from people who have been already proven to first know what they are talking about and second be right multiple times. And even then it is good to check what they are saying from time to time, as people with time tend to get lazy.
There are several foolish ideas in your post, so I'll try to focus on one or two.
For your comparison you selected the concept of a "female gymnastic forum," a choice which bears little accuracy in relation to Twitch. Your analogy also proposes that you would be "giving advice". Twitch is neither a pure videogame forum (it started as a website with a guy livestreaming his life) nor is it centred around advice (it is centred around entertainment, which can often include things like playing a game incompetently or breaking a game for the purposes of speedrunning it, etc.)
However, the structure of your post makes it unclear whether the "people with views who are making categorical statements" are the hot tub streamers or the hypothetical sexy battle reporters. Fortunately, either way you're offering nonsense, so it's not necessary to parse your unclear formatting.
The disillusionment with video batreps is partly a challenge of the format (video alone is a difficult medium to convey the tactical board situation because it's very "messy" and hard to tell what's really going on) but I think it's also significantly a function of the kind of game 40K is or has become.
Older batreps during older editions of 40K had more (IMHO) spatially visible decision points because frankly things like position and maneuver, influence of terrain, and the unmitigated chaos of raw die rolls drove more narrative and unexpected outcomes. We can argue about whether it makes for a better tactical game or not, but older editions were more dramatic and varied in the situations that would unfold in unexpected ways, forcing players into conundrums they didn't anticipate. All of that creates drama and interesting storytelling. Hence more interesting battle reports.
Now, with bigger armies fighting over smaller boards, with everything getting 15 layers of die rolling, everything is more predictable. But even worse, less and less of the game is resolved visually based on what's on the board and relative position, and is instead resolved via layers of stratagems and special rules, and re-rolls, and other plays that aren't "seen" on the table. When you look at the game state today, only a portion of the game state is what you see on the table, the rest is hidden behind intangibles and command points, and secondary objectives, etc. All of this makes it really hard to get a sense of what's actually going on when you look at the game as an outsider trying to watch a battle report.
Aren't hot tub streamers just giving people a sesion of "porn" light though. And of course questions about someones views are put in to question, when the statments they make are cathegorical. If I suddenly went to a female gymnastic forum and started giving advice people would be in full right to ask what the hell do I know about it and what my creditential are. That is how it works every where. Opinions are taken at face value from people who have been already proven to first know what they are talking about and second be right multiple times. And even then it is good to check what they are saying from time to time, as people with time tend to get lazy.
There are several foolish ideas in your post, so I'll try to focus on one or two.
For your comparison you selected the concept of a "female gymnastic forum," a choice which bears little accuracy in relation to Twitch. Your analogy also proposes that you would be "giving advice". Twitch is neither a pure videogame forum (it started as a website with a guy livestreaming his life) nor is it centred around advice (it is centred around entertainment, which can often include things like playing a game incompetently or breaking a game for the purposes of speedrunning it, etc.)
However, the structure of your post makes it unclear whether the "people with views who are making categorical statements" are the hot tub streamers or the hypothetical sexy battle reporters. Fortunately, either way you're offering nonsense, so it's not necessary to parse your unclear formatting.
Did you watch Goodwill Hunting and make that your personality? haha
As for batreps, I find most of them can't clearly show the match very well. When I watch a game IRL I want to see the measuring and planning, stuff thats usually glossed over in batreps and replaced with weird filler which isnt always to my taste.
I do get a bit annoyed with MWG's tendency to use a number of prominent proxies in their armies. For example, I'm not a big fan of seeing the Ravaged Star minis playing such a prominent role in the CSM armies.
There are several foolish ideas in your post, so I'll try to focus on one or two.
For your comparison you selected the concept of a "female gymnastic forum," a choice which bears little accuracy in relation to Twitch. Your analogy also proposes that you would be "giving advice". Twitch is neither a pure videogame forum (it started as a website with a guy livestreaming his life) nor is it centred around advice (it is centred around entertainment, which can often include things like playing a game incompetently or breaking a game for the purposes of speedrunning it, etc.)
However, the structure of your post makes it unclear whether the "people with views who are making categorical statements" are the hot tub streamers or the hypothetical sexy battle reporters. Fortunately, either way you're offering nonsense, so it's not necessary to parse your unclear formatting.
I was talking about the one specific person mentioned by other people, whose quality of videos about game related subjectes was, according to other people as I do and did not know of that person, put in to question. That is a separate matter from hot tub streamers making money of stuff bordering on soft core. It doesn't what Twich was or what isn't. It ain't female specific either. In my line of studies for example there is a big difference between , and this is regardless of sex, a wrestler talking about wrestling and an "american" wrestler aka an entertainer, speaking about wrestling the olympic sport.
One opinion about the sport in question matters more, then the other persons. That is why I mentioned that there are very good top demon players in w40k and no one claims they have been that because of their looks or some other stupid thing, they are just very good demon players.
If someone could have problems with videos about w40k or how the game it should be played is GW itself funels it in to people no one knows from being good at w40k. But that is not really a problem of what ever someone is specific sex. I mean otherwise one could say that good looking players have it better, because humans litteraly think that good looking people are smart and right, so a good looking player could make others , given proper social skills and social status, get results "ugly" players would not get. I does happen in sports, and it would affect more people then just the few female players that exist within the w40k gaming community.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stevefamine wrote: The "esports" style warmachine or 40k stream battle reports are mostly terrible. You need to be extremely familiar with the factions in 40k or Warmahordes to follow the paly by play
Okey, but that is like saying sports X is crap, because without in depth knowladge what it is about, you don't know what is going on. Cricet for example makes no sense if you don't know the rules in depth, and some specific rival/grude match ups, yet milions people love it. What americans like to call football is a beloved sport, yet to a euro dude the idea of a 50 people team is crazy. I have heard the reverse about football coming from people in the US, that it is boring etc. Everything can be boring when your both not really interested in it and don't want to learn anything about it. Doesn't have to be competitions, biology, history, getting dropped in to seson 11 of your grandmas favourit telenovela.
Stevefamine wrote: The "esports" style warmachine or 40k stream battle reports are mostly terrible. You need to be extremely familiar with the factions in 40k or Warmahordes to follow the paly by play
Okey, but that is like saying sports X is crap, because without in depth knowladge what it is about, you don't know what is going on. Cricet for example makes no sense if you don't know the rules in depth, and some specific rival/grude match ups, yet milions people love it. What americans like to call football is a beloved sport, yet to a euro dude the idea of a 50 people team is crazy. I have heard the reverse about football coming from people in the US, that it is boring etc. Everything can be boring when your both not really interested in it and don't want to learn anything about it. Doesn't have to be competitions, biology, history, getting dropped in to seson 11 of your grandmas favourit telenovela.
What you're missing in this comparison is the people commenting here are, by definition, familiar with and involved in the game. This isn't a case of not being familiar with the game, it's just that the game itself doesn't translate well to the video medium. Even when it's 2 factions I know well, the way 40k video batreps are produced often makes them boring to watch. For many people, no amount of in-depth knowledge of the game or armies will change that - it's an inherent flaw of the game system itself.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I do get a bit annoyed with MWG's tendency to use a number of prominent proxies in their armies. For example, I'm not a big fan of seeing the Ravaged Star minis playing such a prominent role in the CSM armies.
That's not proxying, though. These are CSM used as CSM. If they were used as loyalist Marines or Squats it would be proxying. Or if you used Blood Angels Marines as Ultramarines.
Do you have any issues with women playing 40k and wanting to add to the discussion, make videos, etc, just like other players?
How in the blue feth did you make that connection?
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
ArcaneHorror wrote: I do get a bit annoyed with MWG's tendency to use a number of prominent proxies in their armies. For example, I'm not a big fan of seeing the Ravaged Star minis playing such a prominent role in the CSM armies.
That's not proxying, though. These are CSM used as CSM. If they were used as loyalist Marines or Squats it would be proxying. Or if you used Blood Angels Marines as Ultramarines.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I do get a bit annoyed with MWG's tendency to use a number of prominent proxies in their armies. For example, I'm not a big fan of seeing the Ravaged Star minis playing such a prominent role in the CSM armies.
That's not proxying, though. These are CSM used as CSM. If they were used as loyalist Marines or Squats it would be proxying. Or if you used Blood Angels Marines as Ultramarines.
Uhm pretty sure you can't find ravaged star miniatures on GW's store...
3p parties while can be good are by definition proxying. Can be better or worse than say using loyalist marines as CSM but still proxying.
I've watched a few for a few years. I'd always rather play than watch, certainly, but getting a game is hard with my current calendar/work commitments whilst having them on in the BG suits.
I do ebb and flow, like warp tides. I remember straight after Covid I really went off watching battle reports for about 6-9months because I was busy and just went off 40k for a bit whilst I tried new things. It's just personal. You'll come and go with life, you may go off it personally. I always find they're a good way to keep a somewhat reasonable touch on the pulse of the game's rules too.
WintersSEO is a nice, smooth ride but I didn't find him overly entertaining. I still catch his free games as I enjoy his narration but I never had any impetus to pay.
Tabletop Titans are very different, ironically, in the same way that Ramsay's kitchen nightmares were different between the UK and US. They focus more on the social aspect of the game, yes, the game isn't absent but it's far more about interacting with their audience and a Q&A whilst they play. I tend to find I like their personalities but I don't care much for how they present the games, the relatively one fixed camera horizontally looking at the board makes it difficult to follow. Brian's absence is notable as he did bring a more technical side to it which I think they currently miss even though Adrian, Bridger and John are clearly capable. Zach frustrates the hell out of me, he doesn't seem to know any of the rules and can really make watching TT games painful. Practice off camera, dude. I wouldn't pay though, i've got enough mates already to chat to lmao
I catch Liam Dempsey now and then, he's cool enough but is similar to Tabletop Titans in that it's mainly about the social side.
Tabletop tactics I generally enjoy all round and I am a paying member (don't get me wrong, Chef can drone sometimes, Stig is dryer than the sahara and Beard can rarely be frustrating to watch as a seasoned CSM player but they're all still people i'd happily have a drink with). I do miss Bone a little but I think the others have stepped up (especially James) a bit in terms of creativity and entertainment. Their production value is second to none and it really makes watching their games enjoyable as you can easily follow the battle whilst being entertained by the personalities. The League they're currently doing is good. My biggest complaint would just be that they're light on the Tactics opposed to something like Vanguard Gaming/Academy (who I just find bracing to watch as their production quality and stage charisma are far below all of the above even if they seem like good guys).
I really like Tabletop Sydney's Underworlds video Battle Reports, but they've not done one in a while.
I find video battle reports hit or miss. Tend to enjoy watching the streams from events more than from the production companies. The commentary makes it more enjoyable than just watching a couple of people play.
In short... no. I never liked watching other people play games, roll dice, etc. For me the high water mark for battle reports was WD 130-150 and it was downhill from there.
They managed to explain what was going on, the thinking behind it, the rules, and capture some of the vicarious fun.
The_Real_Chris wrote: In short... no. I never liked watching other people play games, roll dice, etc. For me the high water mark for battle reports was WD 130-150 and it was downhill from there.
They managed to explain what was going on, the thinking behind it, the rules, and capture some of the vicarious fun.
They did though take a lot of effort to make.
TBF, i did used to love a good battle report in WD. I was reading it back in the Paul 'fat bloke' Sawyer/Andy Chambers days but they had a great way of moulding the narrative, strategy and game mechanics and watching things that happened become canon.
Do you have any issues with women playing 40k and wanting to add to the discussion, make videos, etc, just like other players?
How in the blue feth did you make that connection?
His words?
First off, did you just assume Karol's gender?
Second, here is the post dealing with sex in any way/shape/or form:
I was talking about the one specific person mentioned by other people, whose quality of videos about game related subjectes was, according to other people as I do and did not know of that person, put in to question. That is a separate matter from hot tub streamers making money of stuff bordering on soft core. It doesn't what Twich was or what isn't. It ain't female specific either. In my line of studies for example there is a big difference between , and this is regardless of sex, a wrestler talking about wrestling and an "american" wrestler aka an entertainer, speaking about wrestling the olympic sport.
One opinion about the sport in question matters more, then the other persons. That is why I mentioned that there are very good top demon players in w40k and no one claims they have been that because of their looks or some other stupid thing, they are just very good demon players.
If someone could have problems with videos about w40k or how the game it should be played is GW itself funels it in to people no one knows from being good at w40k. But that is not really a problem of what ever someone is specific sex. I mean otherwise one could say that good looking players have it better, because humans litteraly think that good looking people are smart and right, so a good looking player could make others , given proper social skills and social status, get results "ugly" players would not get. I does happen in sports, and it would affect more people then just the few female players that exist within the w40k gaming community.
I challenge you to find anything in there remotely alluding to sexist gatekeeping or whatever the feth Blindmage's hot take was. Reading and rereading this post leads me to understand that Karol's first language is NOT English, and that there's several lines in there EXPRESSLY conveying the opposite of sexism.
But yeah, show me which part specifically showcases Karol's issue with female gamers existing.
Do you have any issues with women playing 40k and wanting to add to the discussion, make videos, etc, just like other players?
Well that depends. Anyone can have an opinion, and anyone can give their interpretations of facts. But if you are doing a "this is a way to do X and I am working under contract from company that makes X" , I would expect the person in case to know what they are talking about. And the more they know about the "it" the better, what ever they are besides the knowladge is irrelevant to me. That is why I said that I can imagine why some people could be suprised why someone not know in to world wide community is suddenly being focused as the person to bring in to the hobby. To me it is a wierd choice. And the X person also did similar things, to me is a weak argument. That is why I used myself in the women gymnastics example. I went to a sports school, for 6 years saw girls traint litteraly on the other side of us, I did competitions in sports etc But that hardly means I am qualified to give tips on how the sport works. By the way If I happened to be a female, I would not change a thing.
This isn't a case of not being familiar with the game, it's just that the game itself doesn't translate well to the video medium.
If someone make a video about this is a new game from GW (AoS) and then the tips given sound more like a GW advertisment, then the medium to me doesn't matter. Bell of Lost Souls gives army tips in form of , buy one or two patrol boxs, often telling new players to buy the worse possible units to start the faction. Now I have nothing against advertisment. I will not lie I have been part of school promotional materials, which lets just say not fully gave the view of what being at the school will be. What I can imagine some people may have problem with is people pretending to me impartial and to some degree an expert, why in actuality being on a contract from GW. Which kind of a changes the look of the videos a lot , especialy in the light of past GW NDA being leaked. That is all. In general I do not care much if someone is doing something bad or just not good, as long as it doesn't hurt new players. I would rather listen and learn from people who know what they are talking about, and what ever they are a men or a women I do not care.
I challenge you to find anything in there remotely alluding to sexist gatekeeping or whatever the feth Blindmage's hot take was. Reading and rereading this post leads me to understand that Karol's first language is NOT English, and that there's several lines in there EXPRESSLY conveying the opposite of sexism.
But yeah, show me which part specifically showcases Karol's issue with female gamers existing.
I find the talk about female and male competitors confusing and long time ago I have decided that I will not try to understand it and what makes one things a sexism and what doesn't. To me the rules make no sense at all. What I do care is the ideas being open to critique, even those of respected competitors. And what results people doing something achived. I will not argue with people about the level of enjoyment they get from painting or playing narrative or tournaments, because I do not do non of those things. At best I can speculate about them. Stuff outside of the game , including all the different -ism stuff are either confusing to me or just make no sense, like what to do if someone walks in with a full nazi or communist regalia on him, and what should, or even if, the orgenisers should do something about it. Or do you react to someone cheating? Here you are, as we say it, thrown out face first. In other places calling out someones cheating seems to make you the bad guy and break some fun guy playing fun games social contract thing.
Table Top Titans Custodes "How to play" was kinda trash, and it made me question a LOT of his advice.
For instance, Bolter Bikes were a better option for taking down Mortarian than almost anything else, because their HB's would pour a ton of shots into him, forcing him to roll wounds, and he ended up doing "gimmie" wounds. (In Golf a Gimmie is when a player is given the putt instead of attemping it, because it will save time.) His Bolter bikes ended up in shooting and melee taking him down to his third bracket, which was HIGHLY unlikely to ever actually happen.
ArcaneHorror wrote: I do get a bit annoyed with MWG's tendency to use a number of prominent proxies in their armies. For example, I'm not a big fan of seeing the Ravaged Star minis playing such a prominent role in the CSM armies.
That's not proxying, though. These are CSM used as CSM. If they were used as loyalist Marines or Squats it would be proxying. Or if you used Blood Angels Marines as Ultramarines.
Uhm pretty sure you can't find ravaged star miniatures on GW's store...
3p parties while can be good are by definition proxying. Can be better or worse than say using loyalist marines as CSM but still proxying.
I think we need some better terms than "Proxies" for non-GW minis. GW has lost enough lawsuits over design that there's no moral high-ground to stand on and non-GW takes on the source material are better than ever. In the past the term "Proxy" was a dirty word that generally implied off-brand clones of sub-par quality, or representations so different (this pop can is a drop pod) as to be unrecognizable as what they were played as.
Now htat you can legally buy figures for many units that are every bit as good as GW I save the term proxy for when you use a different model entirely. I would call "Ravaged Star" CSM "Alternative mniatures" and save the term "Proxy" for when I put a unit of large Centaurs in place of Frostfang Cavalry.
Regardless of what one calls it, alternative models are here to stay and hopefully folks will shift from looking at them sidways to finding some enjoyment in seeing something different than the same GW models on every table.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Table Top Titans Custodes "How to play" was kinda trash, and it made me question a LOT of his advice.
For instance, Bolter Bikes were a better option for taking down Mortarian than almost anything else, because their HB's would pour a ton of shots into him, forcing him to roll wounds, and he ended up doing "gimmie" wounds. (In Golf a Gimmie is when a player is given the putt instead of attemping it, because it will save time.) His Bolter bikes ended up in shooting and melee taking him down to his third bracket, which was HIGHLY unlikely to ever actually happen.
This is a silly example - but brings up a point.
Sometimes in battle reports I like to see weird swings of the dice. Because to a degree that does happen in real games - from time to time.
But equally - sometimes its nice to just see "average results", so what you'd see most of the time happens. And it stops "look, this unit isn't trash - if half your dices are 6s" or "this unit isn't overpowered, if half your dice are 1s."
Overread wrote: Proxies is only a dirty word if you're a GW employee at a GW store .
Yea. I'm more interested in quality of proxy rather than are you proxying or not. If it looks cool it's fine even if it's proxy. No reason to try to claim it's not proxying. Just enjoy the good model.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Table Top Titans Custodes "How to play" was kinda trash, and it made me question a LOT of his advice.
For instance, Bolter Bikes were a better option for taking down Mortarian than almost anything else, because their HB's would pour a ton of shots into him, forcing him to roll wounds, and he ended up doing "gimmie" wounds. (In Golf a Gimmie is when a player is given the putt instead of attemping it, because it will save time.) His Bolter bikes ended up in shooting and melee taking him down to his third bracket, which was HIGHLY unlikely to ever actually happen.
This is a silly example - but brings up a point.
Sometimes in battle reports I like to see weird swings of the dice. Because to a degree that does happen in real games - from time to time.
But equally - sometimes its nice to just see "average results", so what you'd see most of the time happens. And it stops "look, this unit isn't trash - if half your dices are 6s" or "this unit isn't overpowered, if half your dice are 1s."
Still though, no need to show a statistically unlikely scenario to prove an already known variable. Like, we knew that Bikes were far and away the best unit (plastic) in the Custodes Lineup, so why bother showing them as being able to "possibly" drop Morty to 3-5 wounds, which has stupidly low chance of happening?
So they should start faking their battle reports? They roll different to average reroll it? Don't release battle report that had rolls different to average?
(kinda hard on channels whose point is showing games live rather than edited but whateva)
NinthMusketeer wrote: In my flgs lingo "proxy" is using X as Y, whereas "counts-as" would be using x as X, if that makes sense. Dunno if it helps anyone but works for us.
My understanding was that "counts as" refers to using one set of (probably GW) models or kitbashed models to represent models normally associated with a different datasheet or weapon loadout. Ex: "These chainsword marines count as missile launcher devastators for this game. " Whereas "proxy" generally referred to using a third-party model or an affordable stand-in for a model to represent unit x. Ex: "This awesome third-party guy with the staff is my librarian, and this upside-down cup from McDonalds is my drop pod."
Although it probably varies from place to place, and I think most people use the terms kind of interchangeably.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In my flgs lingo "proxy" is using X as Y, whereas "counts-as" would be using x as X, if that makes sense. Dunno if it helps anyone but works for us.
My understanding was that "counts as" refers to using one set of (probably GW) models or kitbashed models to represent models normally associated with a different datasheet or weapon loadout. Ex: "These chainsword marines count as missile launcher devastators for this game. " Whereas "proxy" generally referred to using a third-party model or an affordable stand-in for a model to represent unit x. Ex: "This awesome third-party guy with the staff is my librarian, and this upside-down cup from McDonalds is my drop pod."
Although it probably varies from place to place, and I think most people use the terms kind of interchangeably.
I think you just illustrated the problem with the term Proxy. That is, it is used to refer to anything from a McDonald's cup Drop Pod all the way up to a Third Party model that looks as much like a Librarian as the official GW model
Thus I find, Proxy is a term so broad, as to be unhelpful. Hence my use of "Proxy" for the cup and "alternate model"(a term that I've never had misunderstood in conversation) for the non GW Librarian figure.
I can see why proxy could maybe be a bad term for the Ravaged Star models. It's just that when I watch a battle report, I like to see people's interpretations on GW models, not stuff from other companies that may or may not fit the 40k aesthetic in my eyes. I will say that on MWG, there was an awesome Thousand Sons army where all the models looked like zombie astronauts and the vortex beast was a mutated t-rex.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In my flgs lingo "proxy" is using X as Y, whereas "counts-as" would be using x as X, if that makes sense. Dunno if it helps anyone but works for us.
My understanding was that "counts as" refers to using one set of (probably GW) models or kitbashed models to represent models normally associated with a different datasheet or weapon loadout. Ex: "These chainsword marines count as missile launcher devastators for this game. " Whereas "proxy" generally referred to using a third-party model or an affordable stand-in for a model to represent unit x. Ex: "This awesome third-party guy with the staff is my librarian, and this upside-down cup from McDonalds is my drop pod."
Although it probably varies from place to place, and I think most people use the terms kind of interchangeably.
That is interesting to know, because here a proxy is a can, 10 boys used as 10 something else in a test game etc. No one would call a librarian or terminator model a proxy just because it is from a different company.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In my flgs lingo "proxy" is using X as Y, whereas "counts-as" would be using x as X, if that makes sense. Dunno if it helps anyone but works for us.
My understanding was that "counts as" refers to using one set of (probably GW) models or kitbashed models to represent models normally associated with a different datasheet or weapon loadout. Ex: "These chainsword marines count as missile launcher devastators for this game. " Whereas "proxy" generally referred to using a third-party model or an affordable stand-in for a model to represent unit x. Ex: "This awesome third-party guy with the staff is my librarian, and this upside-down cup from McDonalds is my drop pod."
Although it probably varies from place to place, and I think most people use the terms kind of interchangeably.
That is interesting to know, because here a proxy is a can, 10 boys used as 10 something else in a test game etc. No one would call a librarian or terminator model a proxy just because it is from a different company.
That's how I see it, too.
Alternative models aren't Proxys if they're recognizable as what they're supposed to be. But the Mangler Squigs in my Snakebites Army used as Deffdreads are Proxys. A proxy needs explanation, an alternative/3rd party model usually doesn't.
Edit: And coming back to the actual topic, I'd actually like to see more alternate models than just GW all the time. Up until 8th edition you couldn't have a proper DG army by using GW only. You either had to use loads of greenstuff, or go to Kromlech, Spellcrow, Hitech whatever and get your Nurgle Marines there. Or you proxied by using CSM painted green . Same with Orks, an army built solely from official 40K minis seems like a missed opportunity (I wonder how terrible Ork armies will look once GW phases out the proper boyz kit and only leaves us with the terrible clone warriors from 9th edition) and I'd expect more from a youtuber who more often than not wants to get payed for their videos.
Eilif wrote: I think we need some better terms than "Proxies" for non-GW minis.
"Third-party models" works fine. IMO:
Proxy = a completely different model or non-model object being used just to have something of the appropriate size on the table. Examples: using pieces of (literal) trash as drop pods, using a base with space marine legs as an ork, using a bolter marine as a lascannon devastator.
Counts-as = something that isn't quite right but could plausibly be interpreted as WYSIWYG, especially in a themed army. Example: using fantasy miniatures with black powder guns as feudal world guardsmen, where it's clearly not the standard representation of the unit but within the theme of the army it makes sense.
Third-party alternative = something that is clearly identifiable as WYSIWYG but not made by GW. Example: using third-party plasma guns which have the distinctive glowing coils as plasma guns instead of buying GW plasma guns.
The biggest difference between proxies and counts-as is that a counts-as model is done with the intent to do something cool with the same level of effort as the standard model even if it isn't quite WYSIWYG, while a proxy is used because you can't or won't put in the effort to get a real model. So IMO counts-as models are usually acceptable, proxy models rarely are, and the laziest proxies (trash drop pods, etc) are not allowed outside of tournament practice pseudo-games.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I know this is crass and immature, but from a marketing standpoint, if my key demo was sweaty nerds, I'd be hiring waaaay more hot busty redheads to run these Battle Reports, but instead it's all middle-aged white guys. How has no one marketed from this angle? Granted, their are some independent hobby channels with "influencers" leaning towards the camera while painting their minis, but very rare. Seriously, why has no one tried to "americanize" this demo? Just make it boobs, beers, and battles!
Duff man approves!
Best post I have read on dakka for while now. Not very PC hah hah. Boobs for the sweaty nerds are like skulls for the throne of skulls, a must have ! You can't get downvoted, this aint reddit
Eilif wrote: I think we need some better terms than "Proxies" for non-GW minis.
"Third-party models" works fine. IMO:
Proxy = a completely different model or non-model object being used just to have something of the appropriate size on the table. Examples: using pieces of (literal) trash as drop pods, using a base with space marine legs as an ork, using a bolter marine as a lascannon devastator.
Counts-as = something that isn't quite right but could plausibly be interpreted as WYSIWYG, especially in a themed army. Example: using fantasy miniatures with black powder guns as feudal world guardsmen, where it's clearly not the standard representation of the unit but within the theme of the army it makes sense.
Third-party alternative = something that is clearly identifiable as WYSIWYG but not made by GW. Example: using third-party plasma guns which have the distinctive glowing coils as plasma guns instead of buying GW plasma guns.
The biggest difference between proxies and counts-as is that a counts-as model is done with the intent to do something cool with the same level of effort as the standard model even if it isn't quite WYSIWYG, while a proxy is used because you can't or won't put in the effort to get a real model. So IMO counts-as models are usually acceptable, proxy models rarely are, and the laziest proxies (trash drop pods, etc) are not allowed outside of tournament practice pseudo-games.
I think all of these are useful terms that are more descriptive and accurate than grouping everything as "proxies".
As an example, my favorite Counts-As unit fits both the practical and "rule of cool" aspects that you list above. It is a unit of 6 Warjacks (all with CC weapons) in place of a unit of 6 snow trolls. They are both units that are big, tough, slow and CC heavy so it makes sense from a statline perspective. Thematically, they are painted to match the rest of my Chaos/Varangur army, fit on the same size tray as trolls, and I deliberately picked them because they look like big steam-powered versions of Chaos warriors.
(The cats are, in fact, quite the selling point.)
.
