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.

OK, just read the White Dwarf battle report and am astonished at how appalling it was. Completely ignoring the FOC and points system in favour of just using 'whatever models we have painted' made a mockery of the whole rule-set. It's creaking and unwieldy and open to huge criticism but we go with it because, well, it's the rules. But then the authors of the rule-set ignore two of the most important rules? That takes the piss. I think I'm gonna try walking into a GW store and saying "Hey, let's just forget about the FOC and the points values and just play with what we've got painted" and see the response I get. Even my mates would tell me to piss off.

The army lists were, even for White Dwarf trying to showcase models, laughable. Chaos take one Heldrake against a power armour army and then equip it with autocannons despite the flamer killing marines on a 2+? Chaos equip themselves to take on a large terminator contingent by... taking plasma pistols? To keep the fallen marine alive and win 3 victory points you charge it towards a powerful enemy unit? For every time you see 'cinematic' just insert 'fething stupid'.

I read battle reports to try and improve my game, list building, and to see two well matched players try to out-think one another. What did I gain from this battle report? I'd rather read about two chimps throwing gak at each other [and I'd probably learn more].

How good White Dwarf used to be under fat bloke and even before is for another discussion but it's become a joke and I'm a mug for buying it

Hmmm, I might have to pick this one up. I enjoy collecting GW's failtasticular Batreps and this sounds like a real Gem

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
OK, just read the White Dwarf battle report and am astonished at how appalling it was. Completely ignoring the FOC and points system in favour of just using 'whatever models we have painted' made a mockery of the whole rule-set. It's creaking and unwieldy and open to huge criticism but we go with it because, well, it's the rules. But then the authors of the rule-set ignore two of the most important rules? That takes the piss. I think I'm gonna try walking into a GW store and saying "Hey, let's just forget about the FOC and the points values and just play with what we've got painted" and see the response I get. Even my mates would tell me to piss off.

The army lists were, even for White Dwarf trying to showcase models, laughable. Chaos take one Heldrake against a power armour army and then equip it with autocannons despite the flamer killing marines on a 2+? Chaos equip themselves to take on a large terminator contingent by... taking plasma pistols? To keep the fallen marine alive and win 3 victory points you charge it towards a powerful enemy unit? For every time you see 'cinematic' just insert 'fething stupid'.

I read battle reports to try and improve my game, list building, and to see two well matched players try to out-think one another. What did I gain from this battle report? I'd rather read about two chimps throwing gak at each other [and I'd probably learn more].

How good White Dwarf used to be under fat bloke and even before is for another discussion but it's become a joke and I'm a mug for buying it

You're expecting to read a WD batrep and improve your game; there's your first problem.

Yeah, if you seek to improve your game with Batreps, watch Youtube Batreps.

The Battle Reports in the WD are usually "rigged."

They have said that they usually play out the battle several times until they get the result that they are looking for (I.E. the result where the new models they just released do something super cool and make the readers want to go buy them).

That said, I still enjoy reading them. They are wonderfully entertaining even if the players do things that you or I would call "silly."

Cheesedoodler wrote:
The Battle Reports in the WD are usually "rigged."

They have said that they usually play out the battle several times until they get the result that they are looking for (I.E. the result where the new models they just released do something super cool and make the readers want to go buy them).

That said, I still enjoy reading them. They are wonderfully entertaining even if the players do things that you or I would call "silly."

They said that indirectly. The actual thing they do is refer to the other games as, "practice games," in passing. Like with the Island of Blood game where they talked about how their practice game went completely differently to the one in the report.

Unless they've been bold enough to actually state such.

I suppose it's better than rigging the actual dice rolls, or making things up.

 TheCaptain wrote:
You're expecting to read a WD batrep and improve your game; there's your first problem.

True, wasn't always the case though. Batreps in WD used to be competitive if not min/maxed. They might as well not bother playing a game, just pose the models in 'cinematic' or 'narrative' pictures and make it up. Wait a minute...

Personally, I think most players could learn a lot from reading WD battle reports. They could learn how to lighten the feth up about their game of toy soldiers, they could learn how to consider the enjoyment of their opponent when building a list, and they could learn not to rigidly adhere to a single TAC list all the time.

 Kaldor wrote:
Personally, I think most players could learn a lot from reading WD battle reports. They could learn how to lighten the feth up about their game of toy soldiers, they could learn how to consider the enjoyment of their opponent when building a list, and they could learn not to rigidly adhere to a single TAC list all the time.

So we should all 'lighten up' by not following the FOC and using as many points as we want? Fun times. I don't take this game seriously, but for it to be a game it does have to follow some rules. Whether one model has LoS or has moved a half inch too far doesn't bother me, ignoring fundamental rules of list building does. I don't stick to one list [or army - got 4 and I mix and match them with whoever I'm playing with/against]] all the time, but I do stick to the rules so that my opponent enjoys the game too.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Personally, I think most players could learn a lot from reading WD battle reports. They could learn how to lighten the feth up about their game of toy soldiers, they could learn how to consider the enjoyment of their opponent when building a list, and they could learn not to rigidly adhere to a single TAC list all the time.

So we should all 'lighten up' by not following the FOC and using as many points as we want? Fun times. I don't take this game seriously, but for it to be a game it does have to follow some rules. Whether one model has LoS or has moved a half inch too far doesn't bother me, ignoring fundamental rules of list building does. I don't stick to one list [or army - got 4 and I mix and match them with whoever I'm playing with/against]] all the time, but I do stick to the rules so that my opponent enjoys the game too.

Though to be fair, they could've been playing a low-points Apocalypse game and ignoring tons of Apocalypse-specific rules and units. ^^

I've considered doing that in order to take Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, and Space Marine units back in 5th, but when I put my list together and looked at it, I was like, "Yeah, this is basically just all the killiest stuff from each Codex," so I scrapped that idea.

Costed it up and I make the Chaos army 2,426 points [think the predator had 3 lascannons from the report]. Obviously no idea on the costings for the Dark Angels, will work it out once someone makes up a template for Quartermaster, will be interesting to see if they're roughly similar.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
So we should all 'lighten up'

Generally speaking, yes. People tend to take their wardollies too seriously.

I think the DA had over 3000 points.

Reminded me of a Rogue Trader style scenario game. You'd think people had never played scenario-based games before (i.e. sans point system, possibly even unbalanced in the favour of one side). Point costs and army comp rules aren't the only way to play games. Some times you can use a GM or even just plain old agreement and set up something fun without having to muck about with gaming constructs like point systems. Hell, doing an off balance battle report sounds like a fun (one of my old favourites from an old WD was an entire article on unbalanced scenarios where you threw out the point system; things like R'Orc's Drift).

The point system is useful for quick pick up games with strangers. But among friends why limit yourself to them if you feel like playing a more free-form scenario? My buddies did this a year or two back. We had a GM who determined relative force sizes and basically haggled what units we would take so we would be roughly equal. It was loads of fun.

White Dwarf should be a platform for showing people there is more than one way to play. In that light, the batrep did just that. So yeah, I concur, people take this way too serious some days.

And if stupid arse unit selection makes a battle report bad then I have plenty of "golden age" examples of batreps where the guys playing could have used a tune up in their list. Still had fun reading the report though.

Nice idea, but points systems are meant so that people who don't know every codex by heart can expect a fair game. Same really goes for the GM.

I still remember the sister vs. nid batrep. Free bastion and extra special weapons and still barely pulled a victory in that fixed game. Really put a sour note on the WD update.

Not to mention that they got several rules wrong in said sisters vs. nid batrep...

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Not to mention that they got several rules wrong in said sisters vs. nid batrep...

Really? That isn't normal is it?

Were they big mistakes, or minor ones though.

They got a fortress before fortifications were allowed. So several emplaced weapons and defenses. Nids came up short for charges multiple times in obvious set ups. And squads violated several min/max limits. It was embarrassing what they did.

Any game is an agreement between tow players to play the way they prefer. Allowing no FOC or rough points totals is perfectly acceptable if both players agree. Which it looks like they did.

in short:



Oh, and the worst batrep ever was when the Harlequin models were released and it was Eldar vs. Chaos.

I barely read the Battle Reports these days. The amount of tactical information imparted is practically zero and they try too hard to make it 'cinematic' rather than just letting the game flow create narrative.

My favourites were the old Fat Bloke WD battle reports with drawn maps showing exactly what unit was doing when and where. Alas the like will never be seen again....

Yeah, it's bad to take our hobby of pretendy fun-time plastic dudes. But it's not really that much to expect some competence from official mags and sources.

To steal a quote from Stan Lee, every gaming magazine is someone's first. It would suck for a new person to the hobby to grab an official magazine, see something used in an illegal manner, think it's cool, buy the model/army and then find out in their first game it doesn't work that way. Same goes for thinking that a plasma-pistol heavy build or Possessed spam are viable builds.

 Sephyr wrote:
Same goes for thinking that a plasma-pistol heavy build or Possessed spam are viable builds.

They are viable if you play with tailored lists like they do in GW battle reports. The whole idea of having a single TAC list is a really boring way to play the game, IMO, and results in thoughts like this that only certain types of builds are 'viable'. If I know I'm going to be facing Space Marines I think plasma pistols are a great idea. Not as good as plasma guns but still pretty damn good.

I've always heard that the GW and more generally UK players prefer cinematics and narrative to actual gameplay and fairness.

I've always just imagined the gameshops to consist of a single table. The rest of the room is filled with chairs as the other patrons take their seats the two players come in, dressed in their finest garb. They both start reciting Shakespearean dialog as they forge the story, occasionally shaking a model and going "pew pew" for added effect. The dice have no numbers and are just thrown for effect.

These battle reports make me think these things.

That or one comes in dressed as a Space Marine and places down his SM Army, and his oponent has painted their skin green w/ their ork army already deployed

Cinematic +10!


I used to read the battle reports... now I just read the pictures and captions rather than read through all the gak.

EDIT: or to take an overly used joke from a certain game...
"I used to read the battle reports like you, then I realised GW can't play"

Ok, that sucked... sue me. On second thought, don't. Sue GW.

They have said that they usually play out the battle several times until they get the result that they are looking for (I.E. the result where the new models they just released do something super cool and make the readers want to go buy them).

RANT INCOMING:
No. They've never said this. Not one time and not even "indirectly" as Pouncey put it. Were that actually true, the 6th ed Chaos Marine debut would not have have sucked nearly so hard. You don't "make readers buy the shiny new miniatures" by having them do feth all nothing for an entire game and then lose. Which is exactly how that bat rep went. They DO play practice games, but I don't see an issue with that.. Playing the game through once probably DOES help them make a more interesting game the second time through. Seriously people, think about it - it's not like the miniatures are running around their own completely out of our control. Think about how silly that statement is. Honestly, if they wanted certain specific results, they wouldn't play a game at all. lol Like someone above me said, they would just set the miniatures up for different photos and fill in the blanks with, you know, writing. Do some of you actually envision the GW staff standing around a game table saying things like "MAN! I REALLY hope my bikers go right up the middle this game. I was hoping they would do it the last two games, but they just keep running up that far table edge. Well fingers crossed they cooperate this time!" lol Ugh. END RANT


My main concern with these lately is that the two "debut" reports they've done (first CSM and now DA) have been set up so that we get a look at the new units but in a way that doesn't really help us see how the armies will really work on the battle field. In the debut of the CSM, the army list was basically "I'll take one of every single new thing". Which obviously created a sub par list with no syngergy or purpose. This new DA rep was a little better in that the army at least had some cohesion, but really, when are you ever going to play it like that? It didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know. Ravenwing bikes are fast and DW termies are tough. KTHXBAI. lol

Those criticisms aside, I actually like the report over all. It looked like a really fun game to play and it really took me back to the days of 2nd edition where the WD 40k battle reports regularly had one and only one way to win the game. Kill this character, escape from this board edge with this unit, etc, etc. It was fun and I wouldn't mind seeing more like it. I just wish they would do a better job of giving us slightly more realistic views of the new armies whenever they do a "debut" type battle report.

Tycho wrote:

They have said that they usually play out the battle several times until they get the result that they are looking for (I.E. the result where the new models they just released do something super cool and make the readers want to go buy them).

RANT INCOMING:
No. They've never said this. Not one time and not even "indirectly" as Pouncey put it. Were that actually true, the 6th ed Chaos Marine debut would not have have sucked nearly so hard. You don't "make readers buy the shiny new miniatures" by having them do feth all nothing for an entire game and then lose. Which is exactly how that bat rep went. They DO play practice games, but I don't see an issue with that.. Playing the game through once probably DOES help them make a more interesting game the second time through. Seriously people, think about it - it's not like the miniatures are running around their own completely out of our control. Think about how silly that statement is. Honestly, if they wanted certain specific results, they wouldn't play a game at all. lol Like someone above me said, they would just set the miniatures up for different photos and fill in the blanks with, you know, writing. Do some of you actually envision the GW staff standing around a game table saying things like "MAN! I REALLY hope my bikers go right up the middle this game. I was hoping they would do it the last two games, but they just keep running up that far table edge. Well fingers crossed they cooperate this time!" lol Ugh. END RANT

Fair point.

And I suppose another thing to consider is that they probably wouldn't mention the practice games if there was an ulterior motive to it.

What they probably do is play a couple of games and then pick the one that will result in the best article.

The fallacy that the army of the month always wins has been around for a while and might sometimes be right but as Tycho says the dire CSM performance disabuses that notion.

Still doesnt stop the Batreps being boring and wholly uninformative though.

Thankfully i still have old WDs to remind me what great battle reports used to be like.... I even go back and read them from time to time. Like the one where the Vyper Jetbike and Firebase got released. Sam Hain Eldar Vs Ultramarines....

So what the OP is saying is that he's never, ever just gotten a bunch of toys out with a friend, rolled some dice and had some fun for the sake of it? It's not a tournament dude, and it's only a game. Lighten up.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Nice idea, but points systems are meant so that people who don't know every codex by heart can expect a fair game.

The points system is designed to make games fair 'within reason'. However people treating it like gospel, probably results in making games less fair in the end, because it is not a perfect system. The first problem is that relative points values are never as well balanced as they could be, codex creep, weak play testing, design bias etc. Some armies just end up being better. That's why we have tier lists. But even if we ignore that problem, we still face the issue of having a static price for things that have a dynamic value.

There are lots of external factors that can affect fairness. Two armies might be perfectly balanced in open terrain, but then one might hopelessly outclass the other on a more crowded battlefield. Same armies, same points, but the balance shifts. The designers of the 40k 1st edition understood this, which is why points were more like guidelines, and other systems such as bidding were common. That game was all about scenarios and setups... "You have a bigger army, but you get ambushed in the open". Those games could often be more fair than games today because the players and he GM knew how good things were and could adjust. Having a rigid points system allows players to match armies that they know aren't fair (tailored lists for example). My point being: don't be too quick to knock cinematics

I actually quite enjoyed it, and after have a sensory overload of Tourney min/max, cheese, spamming lists, it was a refreshing change. And sad to say, I have found myself being dragged into this style of list build, more as a defensive method, but this Bat Rep helped remind me of why I got into this hobby. FUN. I got into because me and a mate wanted something that was fun to do on cold, wet and miserable UK evenings, and we decided to play with Toy soldiers.