Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I read this latest abomination of a list. The Ig player had a veteran squad with a plasma gun and a flamer, most of his infantry squads had heavy bolters and flamers

He was going up against necrons...

IG won an apocalypse game vs orks not that long ago, and a scenario game as well...

I actually remember the spearhead battle report in WD when the small expanision was released. The guard player made a strange armylist with a lot of overly expensive tanks and the newly released models failed terribly, like the deathstrike launching in turn two and ending up doing nothing. The only two units that did good were the Hellhound and the Eradicator, both ignoring cover and 4+ armour, murdering the elves.

SteamAlchemist wrote: Playing spess mahrines makes the flesh weak and soft.

Oh, yes. Definitely. Playing with mortal, T3 PBI;s helps keep the perspective.

You know, it occurs to me that all GW need to do to sort it out is to not rig the batreps and allow the staff who get picked to play to choose proper army lists. Ta-da, a fun and exciting (well, more so than currently) bunch of batreps. Of course, this will never happen, as that would involve not showing their latest army in a good light. Oh well, a man can dream.

EmilCrane wrote:I think GW just despises the Imperial Guard because they lose every single white dwarf battle report they're in. This time they lost to necrons... necrons! Are they even trying?


Anyway, is there a reason that the guard lose every single battle report they're involved in?

WD have basically admitted it themselves, battle reports are fixed, they replay or restart games to get the result they want.

apart from that massive flaw the main two are:
1.poorly written armylists designed to lose against the force being played
2.armys go against one of GW main play rules WYSIWYG, with models changing weapons midway through game

these will not change seeing as WD isn't a hobby magazine but a big product catalogue and advertisment scheme

Except that isnt true, they actually stated the complete opposite - that they DO play actual games.

However what everyone is missing is that these are not meant to be "tournament" level games, but a *battle*. The clue's in the name.

This means that *gasp* sub-optimal choices will be made! Also they were using Battle missions, which are NOT as internally balanced for all comers -theyre meant to be a challenge. IN this case the biggest advantage IG have (Range) was negated byt eh mission. Making it a lot tougher.

As for the b.s. that the newest army "always" wins - apart from IG and SW that is. Oh, and in this one where the oldest codex out there (from memory) NEcrons manages it.

Amusingly WD has gotten a lot better - including interesting articles, expansion rulesets, etc. Everything, in other words, that people have been crying out for the return of. Apparently it still isnt enough....

Ah well. GW Haters gonna hate.

Yes, god forbid people should have opinions, eh?

I would argue that even in the context of "battles, not tournaments," the lists chosen are not representative of the average, man-in-the-street lists. I'm an advocate of Noise Marines and even I get this feeling from GW. It seems to me that they tend to pick lists based on either what is being released soon (as with the IG second wave, though that's understandable) or on the idea that one list must trounce the other.

Also, if you look back a few posts, you'll notice that both IG and SW were brought up in the context you mentioned. Still, good point, I guess.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that isnt true, they actually stated the complete opposite - that they DO play actual games.

They do play actual games they just restart or redo turns so they get the outcome they want.

nosferatu1001 wrote:However what everyone is missing is that these are not meant to be "tournament" level games, but a *battle*. The clue's in the name.

and you missed the point, its ment to be interesting, anyone who has played even a bit of 40k can instanlt workout the outcome of WD battle reports, reading a WD battle report is like watching a M. Night Shyamalan when someone has told you the twist ending. you don't need tournament level army lists, you just need playable lists that any 40k player would use.

unfortunetly battle report doesn't actually mean a report on a 40k battle, it means look at the shiny new army isn't it great.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Amusingly WD has gotten a lot better - including interesting articles, expansion rulesets, etc. Everything, in other words, that people have been crying out for the return of. Apparently it still isnt enough.

Going from -10 to -7 is still

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah well. GW Haters gonna hate.

GW is an expensive hobby so why should people feel fine about WD, it is ment to be a hobby support magazine, instead people are buying what is for the most part advertising.

Gorskar - having an opinion is fine, but one fuelled by 'net hyperbole, that ignores contrary points deserve the title of "gw haters gotta hate" - as in, it is an irrational opinion.

Bluntman - except, yet again, IN PRINT they stated they do not do that -mainly for time reasons. Hence it IS a "game", as in a standard 40k (or 40k battle missions) game.

So you have your unsupported opinion versus printed statements.

On whether it is interesting: The Ork draw was certainly interesting. The Necron vs Guard one was certainly interesting - otherwise people wouldnt be saying how unrealistic it was.

It also ignores that they ARE providing hobby material (look at all the DE stuff....sigh) - it may not be 100% of the magazine, but that would be an unrealistic expectation.

Oh, wait. Internet hyperbole. I forget.

Edit: they also use Bat reps to, you know, promote the whole hobby. As in, all of it - so that would be modelling, painting AND playing the game. Sub optimal lists with interesting models is a higher priority to them than showcasing the same 4 units for SW, etc.

Best guard battle report is when the released the 4th edition IG codex and they had an all motar/Infantry base army spank orks lol That kind of thing never happens lol This may be random but does anyone remember the four army battle report between (CSM,Black Templars, Eldar, and White Scrars) they all to fight to the death while climbing a pyramid(3rd edition)? First and best! Yeah WD used to be great back in 3rd edition 40k days, use to be full of great fiction, cool rules and scenarios and great hobby articles. I definitely feel like the current WD is just a catalogue to look at. :( I blame 4th edition 40k, but definitely a good point about the battle reports, there not meant to be super tournament style competitive games, more for just showcasing models and weird scenarios. Playing a tournament list all the time make the game boring.

The biggest problem with WD battle reports is that they usually use the Studio armies. Those are built and painted by, well, painters, and intended to show off new models, be varied and interesting, and have a painted example of one or two of everything in the range. They're not really gaming armies in any sense of the word, but they're what WD's guys are forced to pick from for a battle report. It's no wonder that mixed-role squads and sub-optimal choices often show up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Gorskar - having an opinion is fine, but one fuelled by 'net hyperbole, that ignores contrary points deserve the title of "gw haters gotta hate" - as in, it is an irrational opinion.

Bluntman - except, yet again, IN PRINT they stated they do not do that -mainly for time reasons. Hence it IS a "game", as in a standard 40k (or 40k battle missions) game.

So you have your unsupported opinion versus printed statements.

On whether it is interesting: The Ork draw was certainly interesting. The Necron vs Guard one was certainly interesting - otherwise people wouldnt be saying how unrealistic it was.

It also ignores that they ARE providing hobby material (look at all the DE stuff....sigh) - it may not be 100% of the magazine, but that would be an unrealistic expectation.

Oh, wait. Internet hyperbole. I forget.

Edit: they also use Bat reps to, you know, promote the whole hobby. As in, all of it - so that would be modelling, painting AND playing the game. Sub optimal lists with interesting models is a higher priority to them than showcasing the same 4 units for SW, etc.

Despite your somewhat patronising attitude, you do make some good points, so I guess I'll do my best to ignore it. Yes, I suppose they do have to showcase the hobby, as that's how GW thrives - but if so, why not create a section dedicated to that, not unlike their painting guides but in a more general sense? One of the things I liked about the older batreps was that they showcased how the game aspect of the hobby worked, and to that effect created interesting scenarios and novel objectives with which to achieve said scenarios. Nowadays, you see less of that (though the occasional genius-level one still does crop up, so yes, perhaps using humorously intended hyperbole isn't the best solution to problems) in favour of the tendency Corrode rightly points out - the use of Studio armies as opposed to the staff's own armies. To be fair, they probably did the same thing back in the day, but I can recall at least four batreps which involved player's armies the staff themselves collect. You barely ever see this any more, and I actually liked the use of staff personal armies; it certainly inspired me far more than seeing the same re-used units. Variation is the spice of life and all that.
As an aside, I'd quite like to debate with you on this, but I wouldn't mind it if you were less, well, sneer-ish about it.

From reading the group of 3 reports, the armies used by the games designers were their own, whereas the studio picked theirs from the ones available.

Sorry for being sneerish, i just hate the seemingly constant mantra of "WD is just a marketing rag" - of course it is! It is ALSO a games hobby mage, covering building, painting and playing. They use the playing part to showcase all the codex choices. Again, this is a good thing - using the net lists would be dull. It also wouldnt be fun for the people playing, either, as it isnt their army theyre playing then.

They also recently did the tale of 4 (from memory) gamers, where they built and collected their own armies, painted and played them. That was maybe 1 - 2 years agol

The constant derision of WD is wearing. Yes, it is by no means perfect. Is it improving, and is a worthwhile HOBBY magazine? YES. Unfortunately too many people are set in their ways, and havent bothered to read it to find it has changed.

Hence "GW haterrs gotta hate"

Hmm, fair enough I suppose. I do recall the Tale of Four Gamers, and how cool it was, and it's nice to hear that they're using staff armies a bit more. I particularly remember Christian Byrne's Iron Warriors (at least, I think that's who they belonged to) and how much I liked them.

I tell you what. I will buy the next WD I see, and I'll see what it's like. By "buy," of course, I mean "borrow from my friend who is a subscriber."
I'll make further judgements based on that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Bluntman - except, yet again, IN PRINT they stated they do not do that -mainly for time reasons. Hence it IS a "game", as in a standard 40k (or 40k battle missions) game.

So you have your unsupported opinion versus printed statements.

Guy Haley (ex-editor of WD) wrote:We sometimes replayed them to get a better story. That story did not involve the new army crushing an old one, more for reasons of "Crumbs, the game finished on turn two and the super-nice Steam Tank blew up the first time it fired its gun"

from http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/297174.page#1623303

so my point still stands and i don't see you trying to poke holes in my point that the army selection is terrible, i and (from threads on this topic) main others, would rather have WD writers use their own armies (studio painted ones are good for pretty pics, but rubbish in battle reports).

Bluntman - Yet they stated, in the standard bearer article from the issue with the "tournament" bat rep (got two well known fantasy GT players in, from memory) that they DONT replay them. They dont have time.

Your "point" over army selection is irrelevant to what they are trying to show, as I have explained already at least twice. You have also missed that they do use their own armies, in the very batrep that this thread was started about in fact. Reading other posts would help, no?

Gorskar - Borrowing is good The main problem is they have to focus on one system per mag, to get some decent coverage in, which means every 3rd issue is normally LOTR, or, as its more commonly known "a waste of paper"

nosferatu1001 wrote: what they are trying to show

what they are trying to show is not what most people want

PLease show your proof of this.

Note that a forum poll does not constitute "proof".

IG seems to be an acronym for ass-whoopin in WD mags. I have never seen (other than in WD) the imperial guard in action before. I really think GW should stop choosing them to be fodder month after month because if my perception of them is becoming jaded by these battle reports, I can only imagine new players of the game are also getting discouraged to play IG. I was contemplating starting an IG army next, but im not really sure if I want to now --can they hold their own on the battlefield? Are they a good, formidable force?

Element206 wrote:IG seems to be an acronym for ass-whoopin in WD mags. I have never seen (other than in WD) the imperial guard in action before. I really think GW should stop choosing them to be fodder month after month because if my perception of them is becoming jaded by these battle reports, I can only imagine new players of the game are also getting discouraged to play IG. I was contemplating starting an IG army next, but im not really sure if I want to now --can they hold their own on the battlefield? Are they a good, formidable force?

They are one of the more competitive armies you can field. They have a high body count and lots of guns and tanks. Used right they can take all comers. The IG being the whipping boy of white dwarf has been like that since before I first played this game. Sometimes people are too blinkered by the whole power armour and s4's across the board to realise how effective massed infantry and artillery/tanks can be. This can be quite entertaining when people underestimate said guard armies and get beaten.

Um, YES is the short answer. HELL YES for the longer one.

IG have one of the most powerful first strikes out there, as they can putr out so much fire power and of varying specialities that they can do very well.

Hydra - squadron, lots of TL S7 AP4 shots that negate Flat Out! cover saves. CHEAP.
Vendetta - lascannons galore. Valkyrie - 2 large S4 blasts a turn, and some useful S6. Oh, and both are fast skimmer with Scout that can transport 3xmelta gun BS4 veterans
Veterans - see above. Can also take demo charge and meltabombs. Stupid cheap.
Platoons - can combine 10 men units of guard into bigger units, called "blob", and make them Ld9 stubborn. Can put out even more fire power with cheap autocannons, and get to TL them with the appropriate order from the 50 point unit at the back of the board.
Chimera - 55 points gets you 6 S5 and S6 shots a turn.

Stop whinging-I LOVE White Dwarf!

It would be good if they let the players bring their own armies in, instead of forcing them to use Eavy Metal minitures, but oh well.

It makes sense to me. It's obvious GW doesn't actually play their game, how else could the game have as many balance issues as it does?

I don't think you're being fair there, spireland. Sure they may restart or have a test-match if a new army is getting walloped. But that makes complete sense. They DO actually play their games, not just put the models on the board, take pictures and make stuff up.

I have also heard that GW playtests 40k at a 1,500 point level...I don't know about the rest of you, but my local group prefers 2,000. That might have a little to do with the disparity as well.

Ruckdog wrote:I have also heard that GW playtests 40k at a 1,500 point level...I don't know about the rest of you, but my local group prefers 2,000. That might have a little to do with the disparity as well.

Probably habit, that one. I always play at 1,500pts level, it's how I was taught. A lot of the blokes involved in the batreps have been doing them since before I was born, so perhaps it's just an ingrained habit.

That's not to say they don't play at 2,000. But I do think 1,500 is the norm. Like Gorskar wrote, it's probably habit.

GW do play the game, but perhaps not in the same way or for the same reasons.

1,500 used to be the "standard" game size in 4th, before 5th came in and most went up to 1750 to allow for extra troops while still having the "interesting" stuff.

The codexes all work very diferently at diferent point levels - guard get horrendous the higher you get in points, as they can get such cheap firepower simply by adding more platoons, whereas Chaos start to run out of steam after 1750 or so.

spireland wrote:It makes sense to me. It's obvious GW doesn't actually play their game, how else could the game have as many balance issues as it does?

They're pretty minor issues, really. There are very few major ones; there certainly aren't any issues that have made me stop or even pause a game.
Besides, I find it hard to believe that the staff have painted and converted full armies and never use them to play games, eh whot?