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 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.

They did though take a lot of effort to make.

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.

 Just Tony wrote:

Blndmage wrote:Karol,

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?

Dai wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Blndmage wrote:Karol,

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.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Maybe I've just had my fill?

Yes.

Your values have changed over the years, which translates into not being interested in something you once were.

Good introspection on trying to figure out WHY you changed your values concerning the enjoyment of battle reports. Many people don't do that.

 Blndmage wrote:
Karol,

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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:


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.

tneva82 wrote:

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.

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.

Proxies is only a dirty word if you're a GW employee at a GW store .

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.

Tyel wrote:

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)

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.

 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.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 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 do think your use of Counts-As is apt.

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.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 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.

Karol wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 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.

There is so many good ork models from so many places it’s a shame not to see them.

I don’t even play orks and I have sat debating a big purchase for just how cool some where on a shop I find lol

They also fun to paint, so I really enjoy seeing them in the little prebattles most battlereports do.

 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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
A lot of video batreps now sound like men reading spreadsheets out, instead of genuine friends genuinely having fun.

Drive to create “content” has diluted authenticity.

You should watch Tabletop Titans then.

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

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 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.

Sorry about the extended thread derail...