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'm confused. The vast majority either don't have pics or use boring overhead visual maps. Why such a difference when compared to 40k reports?

WHFB is less popular and requires a lot more minautes than 40k, thus people might simply be afraid of posting pictures of unpainted armies.

Not everyone got a cam either. I'd love to make a report even with unpainted... it's just getting the time for it.. wich is very limmited and makes the game go about 20-30% slower for me.

 Las wrote:
... or use boring overhead visual maps.

Pro Tip: some people prefer Battle Chronicler images to in game photos when it comes to actually understanding what went down in a match And stopping to take comprehensive photos takes time and is easy to forget.

Also, I find game photos without both sides fully painted on decent terrain pretty uninspiring. Getting all three of those factors to line up can be a challenge for some gamers, as noted.

- Salvage

All of these also apply to 40k, though. Many use battle chronicler only or BC + pics. You do have to admit that the ratio is out of whack when compared to the 40k BR section.

Because most of WHFB is played with squares, and squares always look sexy in blue and red.

And 40K miniatures can be painted with a spray can.

This is not a 40k vs fantasy thread, I play both games. I'm just genuinely curious.

And please, get off the high horse. You wanna talk blocks? Almost every historicals report out there has photos. Where the minis at, folks?

Maybe its just the influence of White Dwarf battle reports, which always used to show those same maps with the coloured blocks.

 Micky wrote:
Maybe its just the influence of White Dwarf battle reports, which always used to show those same maps with the coloured blocks.

This, likely because compared to 40k anyway fantasy players tend towards the older age bracketes who would have grown up with this influence in White Dwarf.

All of my reports have pictures and diagrams. I'm starting to get more into video reports now.

I think popularity is an aspect of it. But also I think because some times regarding the units of Fantasy, many think it is rather straight forward. Just the blocks moving and such, (and I dont mean the colored blocks I mean the actual in game blocks of units), as opposed to the more free looking units of 40k, so there is no need for pictures. Personally, I like to take pictures in Fantasy. Seeing the two armies clash, looking from a Cannon perched on a hill, or from an assassin in the woods, I think it adds additional ambiance. And sometimes, much needed flavor to games.

To be serious, I almost always skip reports that are video or non-block. I don't look at them. I'm interested in the strategic aspect of what people did and it's easier to see with a lot of Xs and Os (or their equivalent). I really hate videos because they are too long and subjective. If you show each turn a top-down strategic view, that is objective. Just the facts, maam.

Yeah, I tend to skip Video reports myself. Lots of shaky cam and people telling what happened while looking at a few models. I get the same effect from reading what happened and looking at a photo, but the photo might also show me what moved where or casualties.

The Stop Motion video report I saw was cool. And I've seen one or two that remembered to video important rolls so I actually saw the game unfolding, that was good.

I think it just comes down to numbers. There are only a few people putting up regular fantasy reports where as there are new 40k reports going up all the time. The fantasy part of Dakka has a much smaller following then 40k, which is a shame.

It is also a lot of work to type the report, take all the pics, up load them, and then put them in the report. A good report with about a hundred pics can take about 2 days to write up. It is tedious work and I bet a lot of people just don't have the time.

Most of it comes down to time. With 40k you could get away with 2 pictures a phase (after moving/shooting, then one after the assault phase) even then your looking at around 24 pics for a full 6 turn game.

But with warhammer,due to the much more important movement phase you need one then, same for magic, shooting and combat phase. Because important things will happen in each of them. In one turn a unit may move, shoot, have a wizard explode and then get into combat. There is a lot more than needs to be covered and taking a photo every time means you probably not focusing entirely on the game in question.

It's all part of a conspiracy:

Frustrated Fantasy players group together and post fictional reports to make it seem like there is a larger amount of players, giving new players a bigger incentive to start gaming.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
I think it just comes down to numbers. There are only a few people putting up regular fantasy reports where as there are new 40k reports going up all the time. The fantasy part of Dakka has a much smaller following then 40k, which is a shame.

It is also a lot of work to type the report, take all the pics, up load them, and then put them in the report. A good report with about a hundred pics can take about 2 days to write up. It is tedious work and I bet a lot of people just don't have the time.

this.

my hat is off to all that take the time to do this.

I have intended to write a few batreps on fantasy but, tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime. Remembering to take pictures is another big one.

Well, that's one thing. I wonder if the avg age of 40K is younger than Fantasy.

When the jokes come up that young kids are better at technology, it's because they have TIME. Back in my day the running joke was programming the VCR. I knew how to do it, because I could sit there for three hours figuring out every permutation of the VCR. When you don't have a job, you can do a whole universe of things. Like make interactive battle reports.

Okay, so the consensus is that the vast majority of 40k battle reporters are young kids with no jobs, who understand this new fangled intranetz and paint their models with spray paint? Thus are overwhelmingly more capable of taking quick snap of the battle every turn more so than your average fantasy general?

Me thinks thou art ashamed of thine gray minis.

 Las wrote:
Okay, so the consensus is that the vast majority of 40k battle reporters are young kids with no jobs, who understand this new fangled intranetz and paint their models with spray paint? Thus are overwhelmingly more capable of taking quick snap of the battle every turn more so than your average fantasy general?

Me thinks thou art ashamed of thine gray minis.

Hi Las,
I actually put up quite a few battle reports on this site through my blog (2-3 a month usually but slow at the moment due to work and study). I only ever use Battle Chronicler for several reasons:

1. It's quicker to compile. Even with Battle Chronicler it takes me a couple of hours to write a battle report.
2. It gives a far clearer and more concise picture of what was actually occurring on the battlefield. In my personal opinion, no one quick snap of the battle every turn can possibly capture graphically what was occurring on the table. I'd have to take 5-6 pictures a player turn to capture what Battle Chronicler does in one diagram.
3. Taking that many photos would slow my play to a crawl, where a few quick snaps and some shorthand notes (all on an A4) is enough for me to write up a full battle report.

So yeah, as someone suggested before it's nearly entirely due to feeling that battle chronicler gives a better explanation of the subtleties of the movement during the game and to save time. I for one won't read a battle report that has pictures as (no offense intended to anyone) I find it usually very difficult to appreciate what is actually going on. As for unpainted models, my army's are generally 95% painted (only on tournament day do I truly have everything ready) and I love seeing other people's painted models, but that's what the painting display forums are for in my opinion.

Cheers. Jeff

 Las wrote:
This is not a 40k vs fantasy thread, I play both games. I'm just genuinely curious.

And please, get off the high horse. You wanna talk blocks? Almost every historicals report out there has photos. Where the minis at, folks?

I'm with you. I hate when I'm told a battle report has pics and it looks like a game of Tetris.

Sneaky_Gobbo wrote:

 Las wrote:
Okay, so the consensus is that the vast majority of 40k battle reporters are young kids with no jobs, who understand this new fangled intranetz and paint their models with spray paint? Thus are overwhelmingly more capable of taking quick snap of the battle every turn more so than your average fantasy general?

Me thinks thou art ashamed of thine gray minis.

Hi Las,
I actually put up quite a few battle reports on this site through my blog (2-3 a month usually but slow at the moment due to work and study). I only ever use Battle Chronicler for several reasons:

1. It's quicker to compile. Even with Battle Chronicler it takes me a couple of hours to write a battle report.
2. It gives a far clearer and more concise picture of what was actually occurring on the battlefield. In my personal opinion, no one quick snap of the battle every turn can possibly capture graphically what was occurring on the table. I'd have to take 5-6 pictures a player turn to capture what Battle Chronicler does in one diagram.
3. Taking that many photos would slow my play to a crawl, where a few quick snaps and some shorthand notes (all on an A4) is enough for me to write up a full battle report.

So yeah, as someone suggested before it's nearly entirely due to feeling that battle chronicler gives a better explanation of the subtleties of the movement during the game and to save time. I for one won't read a battle report that has pictures as (no offense intended to anyone) I find it usually very difficult to appreciate what is actually going on. As for unpainted models, my army's are generally 95% painted (only on tournament day do I truly have everything ready) and I love seeing other people's painted models, but that's what the painting display forums are for in my opinion.

Cheers. Jeff

I totally understand the use of battle chronicler, it's great for tactical analysis. However there's still no reason why a snap of the battle can't be taken for flavour. This is the way it's done in many 40k BRs, I just don't understand why the disparity is so huge when you look at fantasy, it's weird.

And to those of you lamenting the lack of traffic on the WHFB dakka section, don't you think some nice battle pics in addition to you battle chronicler ones might serve to draw a few more war gamers to fantasy? Tbh the reports in fantasy just have no character
IMO.

There are painting and modelling subforums. Like 4. I think glamour shots of armies and stuff are better placed there. A battle report is a battle report. It literally is Xs and Os on a blackboard. It's like watching sports replays where they draw the lines over top the action. They don't zoom in and comment on the jerseys everyone is wearing.

My question is then, I suppose, why that viewpoint is shared seemingly exclusively by the warhammerfantasy community and not sci fi, historical and other wargamers.

 Las wrote:
I'm confused. The vast majority either don't have pics or use boring overhead visual maps. Why such a difference when compared to 40k reports?

Usually when people write a battle report, its because a game was particularly awesome, and they want to share it. Lacking this knowledge a-forehand, they usually don't snap pics until the point that they realize "Hey, that was a pretty cool game" - which is usually when it's over, or 3/4 of the way done.

At least, that's my experience.



-- Haight

 Las wrote:
My question is then, I suppose, why that viewpoint is shared seemingly exclusively by the warhammerfantasy community and not sci fi, historical and other wargamers.

This is just one forum in the world. Please don't speak for every gamer that ever existed based on what you may see going on here. THIS forum has separate subforums dedicated to "hi, these are my models" Other forums might not. Other forums might require battle reports to be written in roleplaying format. Maybe the question is equally valid that why are 40K gamers, on this forum, posting mega detailed battle reports. I personally think the best answer is: because they choose to. But feel free to knock the philosophical snot out of it some more and find whatever conspiracy is afoot.

I strongly encourage people to check out oncebitten360 utube channel. Excellent video reports BUT, the pictures are stills and he really is good at making reports.

I think the numbers of 40k vs whfb players has a lot to do with why you can find so many more reports that are decent with pictures. You can also find more poor reports as well.

There are more 40k tournaments, blogs, etc than whfb thats just a fact. I think there are also way more people totally committed to 40k as well from a hobby perspective. All this adds up to more content on the web.

Here's one I did over the weekend. Has both video and diagrams:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMyGLH7oydk