PDA

View Full Version : Are the battle reports in White Dwarf any good these days?



The Emperor
18-04-2006, 22:51
I ask because the battle reports used to be my favorite feature of White Dwarf. They pretty much made the magazine for me. Soon as they started going downhill, I stopped buying White Dwarf. So I was wondering, are the battle reports these days worthwhile? 40k, Fantasy, etc, I don't really care. Even when I don't play a system I still get a kick out of some of the battle reports from time to time. So are they entertaining these days? Thanks.

Chuffy
18-04-2006, 22:53
No.

And because of the 10 characters requirement: no they are terrible.

Pikachu
18-04-2006, 22:59
the batreps in white dwarf have been crap for about 4 years now, as they are merely used as a sales vehicle for whatever is being pushed that month.

warning:- never believe the description of "new" unit performances as described in a batrep, as its all made up.

EvC
19-04-2006, 00:46
They've been especially bad of late. They brought in a new way of doing the 40K battle reports when the Terminators were released, which I thought was quite good and dropped it after one battle. Plus LotR Battle Reports also count as the main report in an issue now, so if you aren't into that system, then as much as 1/3 of the issues won't have a report that you might even enjoy reading.

Pravus
19-04-2006, 09:59
The "new guys" always win ... imagine that. Its almost as if they're trying to tell us something ...

purplehoob
19-04-2006, 10:52
I think it is a personal matter of taste weather you like the new battle reports format. I personally think they are crap, a slought o meter at the top of the page, what an insult.


I find them shallow with no real tactical insight like you said above, buy the new army this week because it rocks.

ark eldar got shafted in the battle against the new shiny Tau for the greater good of the profit margin, with a half decent general even this poorly chosen army could have given them a run for their money.

Gorbad Ironclaw
19-04-2006, 11:06
Haven't read dwarf in a long time really, but looked though the latest one. If you like big glossy pictures of the table and units it was good. If you actually wanted to read it, well, there were several lines of text for each turn. Was most disappointing I thought.

In general, I think you can find just as good, or better battle reports online. All you will be missing out on is the photes.

snurl
19-04-2006, 11:15
I hate to say it but the new condensed reports just don't cut it.

salamandercaptain
19-04-2006, 11:40
Bring back Jervis vs Andy, entertaining reports, loads of different games systems. Ok the result was always predictable but that would work fine these days just give jervis the army that isn't new.

s

Mr Tiddles
19-04-2006, 13:03
warning:- never believe the description of "new" unit performances as described in a batrep, as its all made up.

Can you provide any evidence of this?
Claiming that something is "made up" is easy, proving it another matter entirely.
If you have some proof. let's hear it.
If not then clearly your assertion is "all made up".

The Ape
19-04-2006, 13:41
What Pik means is that new units are presented in a very favourable light, so as to appear desirable to the average reader of White Dwarf. Pik would then go on to say that in reality, the new units rarely perform as described...

EvC
19-04-2006, 14:34
Well new stuff doesn't ALWAYS get portrayed in a good light. In the Tau battle report (Even the mags writers describe the battle reports in terms of who they're bigging-up that month), the Vespids got wiped out having barely done anything. Although you can bet that if the battle had been against Space Marines (You know, some loser chapter that they can have lose without making them look like crap, I dunno, maybe the Relictors or someone) then every page it'd be, "AND THUS THE VESPIDS DID SMUSH THE SPACEMARINES TO DUST WITH THEIR SPECIAL GUNZ! THEY'RE AWESOMESS! PLUS 10 SLAUGHTOMETER POINTS!!!"


The "new guys" always win ... imagine that. Its almost as if they're trying to tell us something ...

You mean "sell", not "tell", surely ;)

Grimshawl
19-04-2006, 15:42
Several times in the past multible opponets and GW reps have confirmed that at the very least the batreps are fought multible times untill the desired result occurs for them to present in the mag, if you see this as cheating, which in the strictist sense it is, and I do see it that way myself, then there is ample evidence that the battle reports are fixed. They are not totally fixed so the new/ Uber flavor of the month always wins, past digging has confirmed that they dont always win but the batreps are normally rigged in that they do parts of them over untill what they want to see happens during the battle, rereading some of the older fantasy and 40k batreps from years past you will even see them mention this occasionally, of course that was back in the days when they actually wrote entire paragraphs and even sometimes pages of words describing the battles, not like today when their batreps are a scanty sham detailing nothing in as few words as possible.

The Emperor
19-04-2006, 16:23
Yeah. I've still got my copy of Warhammer 40,000: Battles, and the battle reports in there are a case study of how to do a battle report. Clear graphics for every player turn telling you where their units moved to, and who got killed. Pictures of the tabletop action. Long and detailed descriptions of the action, with a running victory point total per turn. And last but not least, they played the game for fun, not for the purpose of demonstrating the latest rule or whatever, and picked their armies accordingly. There's a vast difference between the inaugural battle report of 40k 2nd edition and 40k 4th edition. The 2nd edition one had a battle report that was so interesting that it became the background for Brother-Captain Erasmus Tycho, future Blood Angels special character. The 4th edition one, on the other hand, had units picked not according to a battle plan but according to what rules they could demonstrate ingame. I want to see a BATTLE REPORT, not a *******' TUTORIAL!

I also used to have a copy of Warhammer Fantasy Battles (Which, sadly, got soaked one day. I still regret having lost it), and that also had a slew of fantastic battle reports. Wood Elves versus Chaos Dwarves, a massive battle involving Empire and Wood Elf allies versus Orcs, Goblins, and Chaos Dwarves, and several further battles involving the Empire troops chasing down the Orc/Goblin/Chaos Dwarf forces as they split up and retreated back to their respective lands. Now THOSE were fun battle reports.

And the best thing about them was that they were often times used to bolster the background. Sad to see that the same shoddy battle reports that made me quit collecting White Dwarf are still the order of the day. Shame. Even greater shame since my old White Dwarf collection was stolen from me in its entirety. I'd kill to be able to reread those old battle reports, again. :(

Taliesynkp
19-04-2006, 16:24
Can you provide any evidence of this?
Claiming that something is "made up" is easy, proving it another matter entirely.
If you have some proof. let's hear it.
If not then clearly your assertion is "all made up".

Shame on you. You need to recieve a counseling statement. Respond in a more timely manner and with better agitprop than that. GW won't pay for shoddy work forever.

Pravus
19-04-2006, 16:45
Of course another slant to this is that the batreps AREN'T fixed. In reality, each new codex released trumps the previous release with souped up "leet roolz" to ensure victory (and thus sales) for the newest army on the block.

So which is it GW - fixed results or codex creep? ;)

The Emperor
19-04-2006, 17:47
Several times in the past multible opponets and GW reps have confirmed that at the very least the batreps are fought multible times untill the desired result occurs for them to present in the mag

Yeah, this used to do this way back when, too. But at the time, they explained it as making the battle report more entertaining, rather than trying to get a specific result. For instance, there was one battle report where they said they started over because of something really stupid that happened on the first turn the first time they played that made the battle a foregone conclusion. Which is alright, in my view. At the end of the day, the most important goal they should be achieving with those battle reports is entertaining the reader. The fluff story in the beginning and end, the detailed maps, the battle pictures, the blow-by-blow description of the battle, the whole point should be to entertain. What it shouldn't be is an attempt to edumacate us poor ignerrant dullards as to how the rules work, to make the latest flavor of the month seem like the best thing ever, or to fill up three or four pages of left-over space. I want to see how fun the game is with a battle report, not read a protracted advertisement for the latest Uber Squad and/or a Tutorial on how the rules work.

god octo
19-04-2006, 19:08
i like it when the actual players themselves write (or are at least interviewed) the batRep. In the older ones, they told you their plans, fears and hopes (sounds like a soap!), whereas now its x moved unit y and fired, some people died. now player p goes.

The diagrams and new graphics are also boring, and now, why dont they ever tell us why they chose that army, not i picked this and this. go and buy it.

Exterminatus
19-04-2006, 19:49
TO put it bluntly - NO

Back in the old days, you got a 2 page spread and interview with the players. They told you why and how they choose the armies, including unit types.
The actual battle report also showed why they made ( or did not make ) certain moves and tactics.
Afterwards, there was a post battle review: Players looked back upon the battle and analyzed what went good and what went bad.
This all came with a lot of text, nice maps and pictures.

Nowadays its pictures, no motivation behind the army and a step by step report on what happens ( dice rolls that is, not unit movement ).

Please bring me back the old days... anyone remember Necromunda battle reports? Those were fantastic!

Helicon_One
19-04-2006, 19:50
The best thing WD could do with their batreps is to take them out of the hands of the studio members entirely. Get veteran players in who actually know how to use the armies in real life (like they did way back in WD196 with the two Eldar tourney winners going head-to-head with their winning lists) and have them fight it out, studio involvement during the game should be limited to taking notes and pictures.

And Grimshawl, I've not seen any quotes from GW saying they re-fight until they get the result they want. Until they get a good battle worthy of a write up, yes. Of course that's not to say the WD team doesn't go looking for a particular result, but they've not openly stated as much, as far as I know.

Tim

ghost hunter
19-04-2006, 19:51
or another way they stage battle reports is to put the new armt against one that hasnt seen an update in years like tau v dark eldar

Mr Tiddles
20-04-2006, 09:18
Shame on you. You need to recieve a counseling statement. Respond in a more timely manner and with better agitprop than that. GW won't pay for shoddy work forever.

Aha, it's the old "he defended GW, let's try to discredit him personally" gambit.
Nice to see that one trotted out again. :rolleyes:

Now you've got that out of your system would you care to actually provide some proof to back up the original post?

EvC
20-04-2006, 10:58
Yeah, this used to do this way back when, too. But at the time, they explained it as making the battle report more entertaining, rather than trying to get a specific result. For instance, there was one battle report where they said they started over because of something really stupid that happened on the first turn the first time they played that made the battle a foregone conclusion. Which is alright, in my view.

Course, if something happens to make it a foregone conclusion the way they want it, then they don't replay the game. I think I recall in the Wood Elves' battle report the Orc Great Shaman's head exploded first time he tried to cast a spell, giving the Wood Elves complete magic domination too.

It also amuses me to remember the BoC's battle report, where apparently the BoC player was so unlucky (or maybe just rubbish? I don't want to judge) that even when they replayed the game, changing the poor BoC army list, they still couldn't get the desired result. Oh well!

There is definitely a middle ground, however. In the recent High/ Dark Elf battle report Jervis, in his first game in years, so we're told, deployed his Harpies in a wood, meaning they couldn't fly in turn one. Wouldn't it have been nice, and "in the spirit of the hobby", if his opponent had reminded him of this little fact when they were deploying and let him have the harpies start in a normal position? Would've made for a better read to have a match that was both competitive and fun to read.

boogle
20-04-2006, 11:43
One of the better ones recently was the Salamander vs Iron Warriors as it was the cumulation of Christian Byrne's Iron Warriors Articles, and there were some tactics and interesting parts to it, but recently, they have been poor to say the least

Eduard
20-04-2006, 12:07
On a side note, what is the best battle report you guys have ever seen?
For me it was the massive tank battle featured in WD187. That one was fun to read and was full of funny comments and happenings of all the players.

Wonderdog
20-04-2006, 12:49
Best BR? Defo the MASSIVE fantasy gamepreviously mentioned, circa issue 185? Empire + Wood elves VS Orcs & Goblins + Chaos Dwarves.

As I recall, they didnt points value it, they just pulled out all the eavy metal models for those armies and had a massive scrap :D

Empire got owned... Bull Centaurs wasting the entire Reiksguard on the charge etc.

Only guy who did well was the "new lad" on the right flank, who slapped the advancing gobbos around, whilst the "seasoned veterens" in the middle got a kicking :D

Awesome BR.

#Wonderdog

The Emperor
20-04-2006, 14:29
On a side note, what is the best battle report you guys have ever seen?
For me it was the massive tank battle featured in WD187. That one was fun to read and was full of funny comments and happenings of all the players.

Yeah, I remember that. Fantastic report, and hilarious. Space Marines Vs. Imperial Guard under the command of the Evil Overlord Varlak, if I remember the name right. It was shortly after the Gathering of Might battle report, and they thought they'd do a tank battle. It was something like 3 players on each side, and the players weren't allowed to confer with each other. Rather, if they wanted to give a message to the others, they had to go into another room and tape-record it, then come back and play it back in front of everyone to give the impression of intercepted radio signals and such. So both sides adopted code to keep the other side from figuring out what they were saying, or made up bogus code to distract the other guy. :D In the end the Evil Overlord Varlak got vaped by a Land Speeder's multi-melta.

And while I can't think of a favorite at the moment, I'm pretty fond of a Necromunda battle report between a House Escher gang called The Black Orchid and a House Delaque gang called The Burger Boys who were being helped by the Arbitrators. Some of my favorite quotes from that report.


Yseult-Khan: The Guilders were out to finish us this time, no mercy and no mistake. It was an ambush, which meant somebody had ratted us out. And I know just who: "Papa" Steve, the no good, lyin', cheatin' son of a sump rat. He'd led the law right to us, and the sisters were in big trouble. Arbitrators had cut off our escape, and before we knew it those Delaque's were pourin' fire down us like acid rain. If I could get my hands on that fink I'd show him just what we did to his buddy Socrates, and then some...

-------

Papa Steve: Everythin' started just fine. Sure, a couple of the boys had taken hits, but the Black Orchid were sufferin' bad. That's when I started to get suspicious 'bout the 'Trators. I mean those guys are trained to hit a moving sewer rat at fifty yards. So when their shots started goin' wide... and then 'Trator Earp's scare grenade sure wasn't aimed at any Escher...

-------

Papa Steve: So there we was, Xerxes and "Shake" both taken out by Yseult-Khan, Pythagoras down, and the rest of the boys ready to bottle at any moment. Yeah, sure we'd given the Eschers somethin' to remember us by, but they'd given as good as they got. And all the time the Arbitrators just stood and watched. Watched as Xerxes and "Shake" and Pythagoras all went down. Ya think they cared? Not one bit.


The best thing WD could do with their batreps is to take them out of the hands of the studio members entirely. Get veteran players in who actually know how to use the armies in real life (like they did way back in WD196 with the two Eldar tourney winners going head-to-head with their winning lists) and have them fight it out, studio involvement during the game should be limited to taking notes and pictures.

I remember that battle report. REALLY good. Good idea, too. It'd be great if they did that more often, so long as they made the battle reports longer and more detailed. That battle report was done well, but a similar one with Fantasy champions wasn't handled so well, as it was pretty short. Although the commentary by the two players in that one was still interesting, and it was entertaining despite how short it was.

Other favorites of mine include:

- Wood Elves Vs. Chaos Dwarfs: The first WFB battle report I ever read, and what made me want to play Warhammer Fantasy. What can I say? I loved the sight of the Chaos Lord and Chaos Sorcerer on the Great Taurus and Lammasu. To this day I still love the site of a WFB Hero mounted on a flying monster. But anyway, it had a great battle between Chaos Dwarves and Wood Elves, with the Wood Elves eventually getting crushed. Loved reading that battle report over and over. And this was before I'd bought the WFB boxed set. But despite knowledge of the rules, I was still able to follow the game. A far cry from later battle reports, where they took time out of the fun part to explain the rules to you.

- Blood Angels Vs. Orks: The first 2nd edition battle report between Jervis and Andy. Jervis had that game in the bag pretty much from Turn One, but somehow Andy managed to claw his way up until he won by a single Victory Point in the very last turn of the game. A hell of a nail-biter.

- Space Wolves Vs. Eldar: This one's especially notable because of the crazy psychic powers being wielded by Njal Stormcaller and Eldrad Ulthran. The Space Wolves had to get into some bunkers occupied by the Eldar, so when they got close enough Njal opened a Gate into one of them and Ragnar, Njal, and a couple other guys ran right in. Then Eldrad cast an Eldritch Storm inside the bunker which flung those Space Wolves all over the place. Njal then reciprocated by casting another Gate, with the other doorway inside a second bunker. Unfortunately, the dice weren't with the Space Wolves and none of them were flung through the gate and into the other bunker which had the Dark Reapers. Crazy battle all around.

boogle
20-04-2006, 14:43
Gathering of Might was 181 i believe, Re the SW/Eldar Bat Rep, that was cool, i loved the way the Assassin went bukner hunting, and i also remember the fact that the Adeptus Atstra Telepathica Psykers never used to live past turn 2.

i also remember the Bat Rep UM/Cadians vs Orks when some Snotlings killed the UM dread

EvC
20-04-2006, 17:00
Was that actual Snotlings on bases, or the Shock Attack Gun..?

The Emperor
20-04-2006, 17:18
Had to be the Shokk Attack Gun. No way Snotlings by themselves could do it. The same thing's happened to me, too. Couldn't believe it the first time I lost a dreadnought to the Shokk Attack Gun. :wtf: :mad:

Zzarchov
20-04-2006, 19:59
I can't seem to remember the WD no's (I used to know them)

But 1.) Was 1,500 IG and 1,500 Eldar defending a refinery for 6 turns VS an unending tide of Tyranids (3,000 with everything having "Without number")

2.) Praetorians in 4 consecutive battles defending a fort against hordes of Orks with +1 WS and -1 BS , Zulu Style.

Grimshawl
20-04-2006, 21:34
both those were great batreps sure enough, I liked the ork/Zulu style a little better of the two but both good stuff, makes me wonder why we get the drek batreps we have in todays WD when so many of the old ones were so good?

Chuffy
20-04-2006, 21:50
Last stand at Glazers Creek is truely the greatest Batrep evar.

However the 48,000 point Orc vs Empire rumble was pretty awesome.

And the Macragge scenario, with PDF forces and 1st comp ultramarines defending a bunker against a massive horde or nids was nifty.

Now you just have "generic 1500-2000 army in cleanse/pitched battle durrrr".

Pikachu
20-04-2006, 22:37
Can you provide any evidence of this?
Claiming that something is "made up" is easy, proving it another matter entirely.
If you have some proof. let's hear it.
If not then clearly your assertion is "all made up".


simple....


cant remember the WD number (uk edition), the game was empire V the newly released night goblins (means we are going back aout 4+ years.
the battle report went on for two pages and basically the night goblins slaughtered everyone. at the "final report" section, they admitted that the batrep featured was actually the third or fourth time the battle had been played, because they kept replaying until the gobbos won, iirc, the first 2 games the steam tank managed to blast apart the large blocks of gobbo infantry with its cannon before running the gobbos over, then in other games the empire foot infantry and greatswords managed to rampage through the gobbos lines reaping many green heads.
the final battle (ie the only one the gobbos won) was fought allowing the gobbos to have advantages (iirc, extra points worth of troops and dice rerolls) so they could present a report that painted the night goblins in a good light.

give me a couple of days and ill find it for you and try to get a scan of the page where they openly admit the match was fixed, then ill give you a spoon so you can eat my ass.

Chuffy
20-04-2006, 22:46
simple....


cant remember the WD number (uk edition), the game was empire V the newly released night goblins (means we are going back aout 4+ years.
the battle report went on for two pages and basically the night goblins slaughtered everyone. at the "final report" section, they admitted that the batrep featured was actually the third or fourth time the battle had been played, because they kept replaying until the gobbos won, iirc, the first 2 games the steam tank managed to blast apart the large blocks of gobbo infantry with its cannon before running the gobbos over, then in other games the empire foot infantry and greatswords managed to rampage through the gobbos lines reaping many green heads.
the final battle (ie the only one the gobbos won) was fought allowing the gobbos to have advantages (iirc, extra points worth of troops and dice rerolls) so they could present a report that painted the night goblins in a good light.

give me a couple of days and ill find it for you and try to get a scan of the page where they openly admit the match was fixed, then ill give you a spoon so you can eat my ass.

Wow...this is completely and utterly wrong.

Neither side had more points, the goblins did actually have a bit more, but 1.5 points is hardly a crippling advantage.

They fought the battle two times, the first time was a complete and utter victory for the Empire so they refought, the second time (the batrep that features in WD) the empire still won with 715 points to the goblins 556.

:eyebrows:

That is if we are talking about the same battle...but WD 229...new night gobbos...empire vs gobbo batrep.

boogle
20-04-2006, 23:05
I can't seem to remember the WD no's (I used to know them)

But 1.) Was 1,500 IG and 1,500 Eldar defending a refinery for 6 turns VS an unending tide of Tyranids (3,000 with everything having "Without number")

2.) Praetorians in 4 consecutive battles defending a fort against hordes of Orks with +1 WS and -1 BS , Zulu Style.
188 and 222 i think

Pikachu
20-04-2006, 23:06
hey, forgive me if my memory is a bit out, we are talking about an old edition of a magazine i havent read for 3 years.
ill dig it out tomorrow, but i know its nowhere near as rosy a picture as you are painting.

*gets 2 spoons out of the drawer*

Chuffy
20-04-2006, 23:15
hey, forgive me if my memory is a bit out, we are talking about an old edition of a magazine i havent read for 3 years.
ill dig it out tomorrow, but i know its nowhere near as rosy a picture as you are painting.

*gets 2 spoons out of the drawer*

Dude...I was looking at that WD when I was writing my post.

The goblins did not win, they did not refight the battle 4 times and the goblins did not have an overwhelming advantage. The Stank crushed pretty much everything and the chariots were wiped out early on, however the fanatics did wipe out the birdmen in one turn. The goblins did win the first/test battle, but by such a large margin they didn't decide to include it as I get the impression it was over very, very quickly.

This was before GW started fixing BP's to make the new army/models win. They just used to refight because one player may win within 2 turns.

EvC
20-04-2006, 23:40
Heh, looking forward to seeing who's right here (Someone actually looking at the mag against someone remembering and posting what sounds like a lot of hyperbole)...

Brimstone
21-04-2006, 06:14
then ill give you a spoon so you can eat my ass.

You obviously didn't take my advice :rolleyes:

Pikachu this is your one and only warning the next time you break forum rules you will receive a strike and ban from Warseer.

As it is I'm suspending your account for 24hours.

Insane Psychopath
21-04-2006, 19:05
Best battle report I seen where:

UK WD 289:

It was two Grand Tournament Veterans, Space Wolves vs Iron Warriors. It was a great fight with everthing from Lds left right & center. In round 5-6 both HQs (Lt & SW Lord) where in bitter Close combat. It had ended in a draw with 7ish IWs + a tank & SW: Venrable Dreadnought & a Pred.

UK WD 298:

Owen (wd ed) vs George Dellapina, Guards Droop Troop vs Ork Speed Freak. That was a good read & both armies will brillant in painting & conversion... but of course as both player have been up for best painted armies in the UK Grand Tournaments.

Other once, be the 4 way 40k battle, not sure the No thought???

Armies where for No1 4-way battle report: White Scar (Paul S), Eldar, Black Legion & Black Templars. Black Templars & Eldar won it, a lot of back stabbing & agrements from the players & of course Paul S with some great remarks to his oppnets.

No2: Wrod Bearer Chaos Space Marines, Nids, Orks & Owen Dark Angles... can't rememember who won, but it was great.

The Eye of terror battles where alright as well from the BIG one in the UK HQ & the other one in the USA where it was Death Guards/L&tD vs Guards.

These are what I thought been the best & these battle report have been around... from recent to about when ever "Storm of Chaos" was release.

IP

The boyz
21-04-2006, 21:27
Apart from a the odd couple off battle reports the majority have been utter rubbish for the past year or so. I feel it has got worse and worse quite recently, with battle reports containing nothing more then pictures and a very small amount of writing to read. Which contains nothing but highlights of what is happening.
Battle reports used to be one of my favourite articles to read in White Dwarf. I used to look forward to reading them and seeing which armies where involved in them each month. But recently, I couldnt really care about them, they have been that bad. Nothing but five minutes of casual reading now.