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.

Tabletop Tactics is about the right length usually. I think the banter can sometimes be too much - i.e. when its taking say 30 minutes to introduce the game and run through two lists that have been on the channel several times before - but arguably that's the main draw.

Really though I tend to have battle reports on when painting/playing another game, so the length isn't really an issue. Its background noise unless it gets good/interesting.

I used to like short form Warmahordes battle reports that could be done in 20-40 minutes, but that was mainly because you could follow what was happening without being shown the result of every dice roll. (Yes, I guess this means they could rig the results, but why bother?). I find in 40k though this just loses too much the game. (Its why I find the "we have to roll too many dice" complaints a bit weird, but there we go.)

"He moved there, shot those guys, they died, then another unit moved there and shot back, they died, and he claimed the objective and won the game gg move on" is a bit pointless.

It definitely depends on the target audience.
Table top tactics are great entertainment and pad out the actual report with their shenanigans. Striking scorpion 82, hellstorm and winters SEO are similar, comprehensive but edited batreps with chat and banter. Anything from 90-150 minutes seems a good balance.
Then you have the art of war streams which are live so obviously a lot longer but also more informative due to the thinking/playing process taking place in real time. I suspect these have a smaller but more dedicated audience due to the competitive/longer format.
Personally I enjoy both types, not such a big fan of highly edited batreps, I need to see more of how the sausage is made rather than just the end product.

20-30 minute edited ones are my favourite, the rest are way too long for active watching, I'll put them on in the background occationally.

Show me before the move, and after the move. I don’t need to watch you measure 6” 60 times per turn.

Put a marker for each unit say they started here, move here... so me dice results not dice rolling, etc. how long it should be depends on how long it’s interesting.

I prefer play on tabletop, 40k in 30 min. I can't watch anything longer than an hour.

Breton wrote:
Show me before the move, and after the move. I don’t need to watch you measure 6” 60 times per turn.

Put a marker for each unit say they started here, move here... so me dice results not dice rolling, etc. how long it should be depends on how long it’s interesting.

This. I want to see a summary of each turn - not the entire turn.

I don't need to see every model move - I just need to get an idea of where they all ended up.

Likewise, I don't need to see every single dice roll (especially in an edition bloated to the 9 hells with pointless dice rolls). Just tell me what got buffed in the psychic phase, and what killed what in the shooting and assault phases.

Now, I don't mind seeing a few key dice rolls. Like if you're rolling to see whether an important character passes their last save, or even the combat between two warlords. That sort of thing is fine. I just have no interest in seeing every bolter shot resolve in real-time.

With that in mind, I would say that a battle report should be 30 minutes at most - probably closer to the 15-20 mark.

I dont have the patience for a video format battle report. Like seriously, 90% of the video doesn't matter and it just takes needless time to slog through and get to what happens.

I'd rather see write up, turn by turn and play by play with marked up images and diagrams.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I dont have the patience for a video format battle report. Like seriously, 90% of the video doesn't matter and it just takes needless time to slog through and get to what happens.

I'd rather see write up, turn by turn and play by play with marked up images and diagrams.

Video batreps can work. But not as a video of the battle. Treat that part like time lapse photography. Use the video part to give us time to absorb the changes in the time lapse photographs as you talk to us.

I tend to have them running in the background but about hour and a half to two hours is about right. Any more than that and I get fed up.

One thing that bugs me though is when they send twenty minutes explaining their armies. Just get on with the battle please.

Tabletop Tactics are the only ones I watch really. They can range anywhere from 1:30 to 2:30, but I'd say around 1:45 is a good average. Their Tactica videos are often around 20mins longer due to rather indepth discussions between each round.

Tried GMG in the past but I find his editing to be rather sub-par. Titanicus were the only reports of his I watched but I found it a bit underwhelming.

Tabletop Titans I briefly watched once, but as others have said in the past, as the videos are originally broadcast live they can be a good few hours long, which is too much IMO.

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
If I wanted to watch people throw dice at each other for 2+hrs, I'd play the game myself.
For me, even an hour is too long. I had all but stopped bothering with watching battle reports until GameOn Tabletop came out with their 40k in 40mins series. For me, this hits the spot fine.

I second this sentiment.