PDA

View Full Version : US White Dwarf 324 Battle Report w/Empire



yankeeboy
21-12-2006, 14:07
Can we talk about this battle report? Come on, how staged and ridiculous was this one? First os all, White Dwarf maintained their tradition of ensuring that the new army book won the battle report. In order to do that, they really made sure that the 3000 pt vampire counts army sucked.

Look at how many units the Empire army fields, then compare it to the number the Vampire Counts guys fielded. Every NORMAL Vampire Counts army I have ever seen fields far more troops than this army did. At 3000pts, where are the 5-6 units of skeletons and zombies you would normally expect in a rational list? Nowhere to be found. Instead he fields a 387 pt unit of Grave Guard and 690pt Mannfred Von Carstein, over 1000pts that could be used on decent stuff.

Next, they rigged the battle report by having one of the necromancers lose Invocation Of Nehek from miscast; in the first turn! Not to mention the small amount of undead that were raised thoughout the game.

Just once, it would be a pleasure to read a battle report that featured two hard-as-nails lists, much like we find at GT's, that really duke it out, without the need to fix the result.

On a positive side, the buildings used as terrain were quite pretty, particularly the ship-building. ON a negative side, they make us wait another month to see more info on them. It would be nice to group similar material in the same issue.

Ok, rant over.

therisnosaurus
21-12-2006, 14:16
wrong forum, this should be in fantasy discussion I believe. that and not many people HAVE the WD yet, so it's kinda silly to start a grouch thread this early...

Grunge
21-12-2006, 14:17
Its White Dwarf nowadays. I canceled my subscription 2 months ago.

yankeeboy
21-12-2006, 14:43
Sorry about the forum, mods feel free to move it over. As for grouching early, since when is there a prescribed time table on discussing an issue of the magazine? Subscription readers should already have their copy sent to them and the general sale copies are on the stands now. Since when does Warseer "wait" to discuss something that's commercially available?

Do you have something to say that's actually relevant to the topic?

pookie
21-12-2006, 15:00
you need to put Spoiler in your title mate, just becuase you have read it doesnt mean the rest of us on here have. ( oh and by the way in im the Uk so it dont bother me what is or isnt in the US mag this month ).

oh and WD here or over the pond is well known to have the 'new shiney' army win the 1st battle report! just how it works im afraid.

Arhalien
21-12-2006, 15:02
I would really like them to have batreps played by people using their own armies (so i can see some different takes on a particualr force's colour scheme) and havingthe players writing the batreps themselves, with good maps.

Castigator
21-12-2006, 15:08
Can we talk about this battle report? Come on, how staged and ridiculous was this one? First os all, White Dwarf maintained their tradition of ensuring that the new army book won the battle report.

Seems like a rather reasonable marketing strategy to me...

yankeeboy
21-12-2006, 15:16
Then, in the spirit of honesty, they should put a disclaimer. Maybe, "Simulated Game", as opposed to a report, ie; a documentation of a real game.

It would be nice to see real lists that real people play. This one is so blatantly faked; either that or the player was a total ***** at army selection and use (which I sincerely doubt is the case).

Again, Pookie, I don't need to put "Spoiler", because the issue has been commercially released already. If readers haven't bought their copy yet and/or don't want the rigged outcome to be "spoiled" for them, they can easily choose to not read this thread, which has the content clearly labeled for them. I'll pose the question again: Why wouldn't we discuss a product that's been commercially released? That makes no sense.

Again, anyone want to talk about the actual content of the rigged battle report?

SkaGoblin
21-12-2006, 15:20
I haven't read the battle report as of yet, but this post seems to have a few arrogant assumptions.

You don't know that the battle report was staged, or that the results were fixed. "Oh, the necromancer lost Invocation right away!" Because there is no possible way that could have happened on it's own, it had to be staged, right?

The army list is fairly similar to the list my good friend runs, minus the special character. Special characters seem in vogue right now (when was the last time you saw a Night Goblin list without Skarsnik?) and GW staffers are just as susceptible to trends and fads in army list design as anyone else.

"The new army list always wins!" Not true, although they do win the majority of the time. This could also be a corrollary to the "New army list is unbalanced/cheesy/broken" phenomenon every time a new book comes out. Everyone swears up and down that the new list is overpowered because no one knows exactly how to play it yet. Not saying this is the case, but it's possible.

White Dwarf staffers are gamers too, for the most part. If you had to write up a battle report and get paid for it, would you honestly just fake it, or would you use the chance and play 2-3 full games (including practice games) on the company dime?

I will never understand the need to concoct conspiracies around GW business and writing practices. GW and White Dwarf have enough things to legitimately complain about (less local club coverage, less experimental rules, shortened battle report format, the continued coverage of LOTR (although this may be a contractual thing, who knows), and no coverage of Specialist games) without having construct foul machinations being plotted by dark-robed GW cultists.

Arhalien
21-12-2006, 15:23
foul machinations being plotted by dark-robed GW cultists.

I can just imagine Gav, Allessio and Jervis sneaking around in full-length blakc robes, plotting to overthrow the evil warseer and it's veteran games who are in the way of their relentless plot to make as much money as possible.


__________________________________________________ _______________________________________
Something has gone seriously wrgon with my brain :). I keep posting random stuff!!

lack0fbettername
21-12-2006, 15:29
About staging battle reports

Somewhere on my home computer i have a spread sheet going back to WD 200 or some about W/L/D in battle reports of 40K (not fantasy i know) and the army that is introducing something new or getting a new unit or book wins 98% of the time (if i remember) ill have to look for the spreadsheet when i get back, its pretty substancial numbers to argue with.

Now if they are staged, or simply stack the armies in one favor, or simply just play 4 or 5 games and take the one that makes the new list look best i dont know. But it is an obvious trend, new stuff wins in WD.

WokeUpDead
21-12-2006, 15:33
no offense, but what's the thread to do with rumours? ;)

Arhalien
21-12-2006, 15:34
Because no-one else has seen White Dwarf yet, so this could be considered a rumour :)

SkaGoblin
21-12-2006, 15:40
I'm not saying it's not possible to nudge or even fix the results in favor of the latest and the greatest. As Castigator stated, this is good marketing, and White Dwarf, for better or worse, is primarily a marketing tool. That said, there is so many variables (the previously mentioned New Army Syndrome, poor army planning, dumb luck, bad playing, the ******* phase of the moon) that you shouldn't immediately leap to "Fixed! FIXED!"

The difference between stupid and evil is planning. It takes work to be evil, stupid comes natural. Hence it is more likely someone being stupid (or unlucky, or something else) than someone planning to be evil.

For the record, I am not calling anyone on this thread stupid. Merely stating it's easier to play badly than plan to lose.

Rikkjourd
21-12-2006, 15:54
How many people seriously do this:
some guy: "I want to win... I wonder if WD has some clue as to what army/units to chose"
*buys a WD*
some guy: "Oh man, these new guys totally rock! They pwned in the bat rep!"
*Buys a whole army*
some guy: "I can't believe that WD tricked me into buying this army! FOUL!!!!111 I want my money back! The bat rep was staged 'cause my army X didn't win against army Y as in the bat rep!!!"

EDIT: To make things clear, how much does it matter to a gamer if the bat rep is fixed or not?

Carot
21-12-2006, 16:10
My only issue with the new army winning, is the've been getting sloppy about it lately.

That last one with Eldar v. B.Templar was done before they deployed.

I don't mind the new kids on the block winning 98% of the time. I'd just like to see a believable game. I haven't seen the new issue yet (mail's held up in the mountains due to weather). But I think I see where he's coming from.

It's getting like they don't do as much practice before they really run the report battle as they used to. I remember they used to mentioned doing 2-3 game tests before they'd do the official one. That way, there was some good thought and actual tactics put into the game, while they still achieved the results they wanted.

Really, grouching about doesn't do any good though. What do you want us all to do? We can all go : "Yes, yes. We know. They're bad men. We all sympathize with you."

It's been done. We all complained about one part or another at one point.

It's the way the mag is. Nothing to do about it. Except the obvious.

:chrome:

Bun Bun
21-12-2006, 18:04
Thanks you just runined the suprise for me. Although I realise it is very rare for the featured army to loose I don't want to know the knitty gritty of the report. :mad:

baphomael
21-12-2006, 20:44
Look at how many units the Empire army fields, then compare it to the number the Vampire Counts guys fielded. Every NORMAL Vampire Counts army I have ever seen fields far more troops than this army did. At 3000pts, where are the 5-6 units of skeletons and zombies you would normally expect in a rational list? Nowhere to be found. Instead he fields a 387 pt unit of Grave Guard and 690pt Mannfred Von Carstein, over 1000pts that could be used on decent stuff.

One think you've got to take into account is what units and miniatures are available from the 'eavy metal studio. The Studio only has so many painted units of a particular army - purely so that they can put pretty pictures in the army books and such.
Likewise, models may be unavailable for whatever reason, eg being away for photography or displays.

As such, the army lists used in battle reports will often be what was available at the time...unless we get into staff members personal armies.

popisdead
21-12-2006, 21:28
First os all, White Dwarf maintained their tradition of ensuring that the new army book won the battle report.

I suggest you look at the Beasts of Chaos battle report against Martin Bunting and his Wood Elves.

As well the Battle Report Adi Wood did for the Orks when they first came out.

veneto
21-12-2006, 21:33
Thanks you just runined the suprise for me. Although I realise it is very rare for the featured army to loose I don't want to know the knitty gritty of the report. :mad:

Perhaps if you don't want details about an article you have not read yet, you should consider that when the title is clearly labeled. By the way, there is no Santa either.

Damien 1427
21-12-2006, 21:36
They play several games of every battle report, and pick the most "cinematic".

darren redstar
21-12-2006, 22:11
far be for me to ever side with the white dwarf writers but honestly sometime s an army does self destruct- take my skaven...please;)
last week took my 2000pt (a good army list that I am determined not to alter till I've actually played enough games to make them work) against a friends extreemely good khorne daemon army- I know that I am going to lose but in losing I will learn.... Well that the plan.
Turn one- warpfire cannon fails to wounddaemons but cuts down 5 clanrats
screaming bell (((DONGGG!!)) triple 1!!! arggh screaming bell destroyed grey seer dead and 6 clanrats vapourised.
by the end of turn 2 have 10 night runners left on the board OUT OF 120 rats at the start of the game!
turn 3 they are wiped out but survive long enough for my tunnellers to turn up and be crushed.

eldrak
22-12-2006, 00:36
darren, I had to read that post three times to get what you were saying and it didn't make much sense even then.

@Damien 1427, yep that's the way they do it. It's not really "staged". If you read WD 200 for example they comment on what happened in the other games and why they couldn't use them as batreps in WD (they were boring).

cerealkiller195
22-12-2006, 01:27
come on people, when in the history of white dwarf have teh results been spoiled when a new army comes out? You want to see the winner look at which army they introduce first... no really look at every white dwarf you own look at the army that is introduced first 99% chance winner. The only time it isn't (dark eldar and i think guard?) is when its a fair fight that is between two converted armies that players send in.

Hrogoff the Destructor
22-12-2006, 04:27
The orks didn't win their battle report. Lost to the Black Templar I believe.

Einholt
22-12-2006, 04:28
Why tha hell are so many ppl short sighted. Clearly WD is a marketing magazine for GW and clearly they are going to make thier new army the one they want to see sell Win. Now staged??? I dont think so why do you find it so hard to beleive the army won in the first place but secondly why do you find it hard to beleive that several games were played and the commercially favored and by their feeling interesting one is published. Are you saying that Empire SHOULD NOT WIN??? Like ca mon obviously they are gonna make em seem cool and give them the win but to assume they just staged the battle means you assume that for every BT report published as a sales pitch they play 1 game and fix it.

plasticfrog
22-12-2006, 07:31
WD should never be used as a barometer of Army selection and 'hardness'.

If they published GT battles then that'd be fantastic- but WD is (as it has been stated a number of times already) a marketing tool to show case the latest product.

I believe only Dwarves and Dark Elves have lost their inaugral battle reports on their launch in WHFB 6th ed.

The Judge
22-12-2006, 11:44
Orcs and Empire were released at the same time in 6th Edition, so I suppose that doesn't count...

sherman0815
22-12-2006, 11:56
no offense, but what's the thread to do with rumours? ;)

this is the NEWS & rumour section btw...

EvC
22-12-2006, 12:04
To actually talk about the battle report itself, which is also in UK WD325 I believe, I disagree that it was staged. There are several reasons why I don't believe this one was (Although there may have been several played and they chose the "best"):

1) Setting the scene: I think the two players thought, "let's have two major special characters going at it, it'd make for a great battle report", hence Mannfred's inclusion. Same with several Empire choices, they were there because they're new and therefore cool rather than as gameplay choices. However, both players did make an effort to justify everything tactically.

2) Army selection. You may think Vampire Counts = Horde army, but you'd be wrong. True you win and benefit the most from individual combats by outnumbering your opponents, but you have to remember that Skeletons and Zombies are overpriced- the smart player does indeed take as many of the underpriced Wight units as are available. When I heard that VC's were fighting Empire, at 3000 points, I was sure that the VC player would have decided to take 5 Bat Swarms, i.e. 300 free victory points for his opponent. However, he did not- and that kind of awful choice is what we've seen in several recent clearly staged reports. My own VC list rarely outnumbers its opponent, but the best choices do not come cheap, while are still worth it.

3) The Luck Factor: Empire player wins table edge, first turn and then gets Four Incredible Force casts in the first two turns for Empire, whilst the VC player gets a Miscast and loses IoN? Well, if it was staged then they'd have given a much more believable lie, such as, "He just got the spell off". It's very clear from reading the battle report that the Empire did not win through being powerful or having better circumstances, but because of luck. And, that's what VC players should come to expect; our main way of winning does not involve dice rolls, and with Mannfred he can cast powerful spells for free meaning no risk of miscast- but in the end, the dice always come back and screw us over anyway. It happens!

4) If it had been staged, then the end would have been Kurt valiantly taking on Mannfred's challenge, not taking a wound and then dealing Mannfred two in return, taking another 345 victory points. I was very surprised to read that he challenged Kurt in the first place, even with Mannfred's Ward Save it's not a sensible challenge!

All in all it was an excellent battle report, and about as good as we could have hoped for.

yankeeboy
22-12-2006, 13:53
I'm the one who started the thread, so a couple of points:

1. I know this is in the wrong forum area. We already acknowledged that. I even asked for it to get moved to the appropriate area. So, please, we don't need any more inane comments on forum area. It's been addressed already.

2. My point wasn't meant to start a discussion of whether or not the battle report was rigged. They clearly are. My point was to discuss the battle report itself and how ridiculous/cool/interesting/lame this particular report is.

3. A side point of my initial post was to mention/discuss how poor the army selection is in these battle reports (which can contribute to the outcome, as well, of course). I understand that thety are limited by what's painted, but seriously, GW Headquarters has unlimited access to minis, a talented Eavy Metal team that can crank stuff out quickly, as well as a ton of other capable painters on their staff. They can paint up units or provide "real" army lists that players actually play (or would like to see played) quite easily. In the case of a White Dwarf Battle Report, it's not like they have to limit themselves.

PS... Plastic Frog: Dwarves won their first 6th edition battle report against Ogres, however they acknowledged in the report that they had played several games and the Dwarves had been beaten quite bad in the previous, undocumented attempts. Clearly they wanted to show them winning, so they only published the game in which they finally did.

It's really better when they take two great players with nicely painted armies and let them play the report. It works better (the battle report with the Drop Troops IG army vs. Orks comes to mind: the one with the Tonka style huge Ork vehicles!).

Let's see a real game with challenging lists that isn't designed to sell something. After all, the f-ing magazine is filled with ads and acts as an ad itself. Just once, it would be a pleasure to read a real battle report, which documents a great game in detail. In this report, for example, GW only provided overhead maps for every other turn, so it was difficult to tell where events were happening from the descriptions. I remember older battle reports when they provided a map for every turn, with arrows outlining movements and other actions for clear reading.

cerealkiller195
22-12-2006, 14:42
oh wow a whole ONE other bat rep that was not riggged (orks), of course the empire had some silly choices.. because they are NEW models/rules and im pretty sure that they went up in price to highlight how awesome and necessary they are in an army.

also you forget this targets the younger audience not grizzled vets when it comes to a new army. if a young kid walks in buys a wd and says WOW this army must be so good it beat the crap out of the other army OMFG etc and so on. WD completes its mission and johnny nobody picks up a shiny new army.

Revlid
22-12-2006, 15:28
Actually, I felt that this was one of the better White Dwarfs of late. Decent tactica article, a good battle report, a good GD report, a good doubles report with some nicely painted (and converted) Dwarfs, info on a new campaign, a rather tasty Empire State Troops offer, and a good painting guide. And then some LotR stuff I couldn't really care less about.

Tate
22-12-2006, 18:36
I dont get WD, but now I am curious. . . can anyone post up the lists they used just so I can see how bad they were?

Gabacho Mk.II
22-12-2006, 21:07
Look, in my opinion, if the VC player ran a true list (one that wasnt edited by GW in order to showcase the opposing army and downplay the oft-overboard abilities of the Undead),then the Empire player would have had a real fight on his hands.... and would have eventually lost the game totally.

However, the VC are 'dressed down' for the battle in order give the Empire a better chance to win. Period.



The VC army sill is too powerful, especially when combined with their super-duper magic lore. This is somethign that GW will not ever admit to... at least not until the next VC redo.

Einholt
23-12-2006, 01:03
So basicly you are saying if the vampire list was built to win an empire army built to win cannot beat it. Ca mon honestly what does that say about the product as a whole then the issue wouldnnt even be a stagged battle it owuld be game balance. Whether you like it or not the Empire can win and they showcased an example of it doing so, if you dont like it LOL too bad its gonna happen. As far as the WD, Ive looked through the rest of it and I duno it just seems to magazine lacks substance and the battle report/tacitca sections are the only non blatant Commercials sections of it.

intellectawe
23-12-2006, 03:55
People are STILL shocked at how bad WD is? I thought you guys would have figured that out back in 2001.

Studio players don't actually use THEIR armies. Many times, I have seen it in WD many times, the players use what is available, and this is usually what the Eavy Metal team paints in time for the battle reports.

Why doesn't a miniature company already have EVERY model they ever made painted somewhere in a closet is beyond me, but sometimes, the lists they use are whats available to them at the time.

Emmo-X
23-12-2006, 04:59
jeese guys, your acting like this is the first time GW has ever rigged the new army to win.
Remember that time empire versed VC's in a 3000pt battle in White Dwarf 324.

Gabacho Mk.II
23-12-2006, 09:23
So basicly you are saying if the vampire list was built to win an empire army built to win cannot beat it.




In all honesty, yes.



If any sensible VC player took around 15 minutes to design a solid army, that army would have a severe advantage versus most armies and a definitive advantage against an Empire army. [assuming that both the VC player and the Empire player are at equal skill levels]



Come on guys, can you look at me straight in the face and declare the VC army not to be overly powerful???

The ability to raise units, heal wounds and move models/units around the table is quite an advantage, which any undead player quickly learns to master, even if they are coming from a 40K background. (am not tryin to put down 40K players, honest]


In my gaming experience, Undead players (and I will lump Tomb Kings in here of course) have a severe advantage when facing other players in every game. While a player who goes up against an Undead force has to tailor his army and make sure that he has the tools to beat Undead, I cant say the same for Undead players who only have to draw up a single list and be quite effective against all other races.

Am I wrong here?

EvC
23-12-2006, 11:09
No, because that is an opinion, and opinions are not wrong. However, I disagree with you very much. The VC list is inordinantly effective against certain lists (Such as Empire), but not good against many other lists (90% of the armies I fight in tournaments, grrr!).

However, as I've stated in this thread, I think it was luck that did the VC player in, not staging.

Akhenaton
23-12-2006, 18:39
The orks didn't win their battle report. Lost to the Black Templar I believe.

So we only have to go back 6 years to find the exception. (I know there are others I'm only teasing.)

Seriously though I have to smile at all the hard core cynics declaring that they fully understand that a WD report is "manipulated", then tell people not to ruin it for them.

If we are referring to the incredible detail that the current reports contain can anybody tell me what happened to those Dark Eldar Mandrakes in the Tau vs DE one. I believe that was the one that convinced me that if GW cannot bother neither should I.

I also am tired of the Eavy metal = poor army comp excuse. They have a team of full time painters, shouldn't GW possess the biggest and best versions of every army, with multiple units of each type. You could have the showcase + reserves whose quality might be slightly less but would allow flexibility in marketing.

Judging by the comments on the Empire players luck and the VC players lack there of, I would imagine the bat rep went something like this.

The Empires glorious victory over the evil Vampire Counts take 112.
Empire player "I did it, I did it I can't believe it.....erm, I mean, I am the champion!! The Empire are hard core buy some , I mean a lot now."

vorac
23-12-2006, 21:08
this isn't the first time the VC lose a battle report due to a really stupid list, i can't remember the WD but it involved A vampire list led my a Lahmian lord and this list stank bad.And yes as an avid BT player the battle report with the eldar was decided before deployment because the list chosen was ridiculous.

Thurizdan
24-12-2006, 02:09
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but when Brettonians came out, they had a Battle Report vs Orcs where they lost and another vs orcs which they won. Both of them were in the WD so they could compare and contrast. Now we need more of THAT sort of thing.

naloth
24-12-2006, 05:54
I recall reading in one battle report that they staged the battle multiple times until they got a good one to write up.

Anyway, I find it more likely that they play multiple games than they actually stage one.

As for the army lists, I've long been disappointed that GW is more inclined to take "this is cool / this is painted / this will look good" armies instead of competitive armies. It shows in their game design that they don't play to the same competitive (read cheesy/beardy/power-builder) that some players do.

EvC
24-12-2006, 12:08
So would you have more appreciated a gunline Empire army with 14 power dice and two steam tanks that decimated the Vampire Counts by turn three? ;)

Brandir
24-12-2006, 12:35
I found the Battle Report quite enjoyable reading for a change. It was good to see someone as unlucky as me - in my last game of Warhammer my opponent seemed to cast all his spells with irresistable force whilst my poxy wizards seemed to miscast each and every turn!

I am under the impression that the aim of BatReps in WD these days is to showcase the new armies, both the minis and rules. Which is what this BatRep did very well.

Perhaps GW should consider putting in 'real' Battle Reports from tournaments into WD.

By the way, very impressed with the LOTR coverage in this issue. Superb. Hope that the LOTR section continues to have such great content and that WD/GW continue to ignore the LOTR bashers.

evisor
24-12-2006, 13:32
Bring back the golden days!

David vs.Gordon.

Grand tournament winners battling it out

Leave the game designers and white dwarf staff at the desk

Atleast the pictures are pretty =)

odmiller
24-12-2006, 23:49
Bring back the golden days!

David vs.Gordon.

Grand tournament winners battling it out

Leave the game designers and white dwarf staff at the desk

Atleast the pictures are pretty =)

I have a slightly different perspective. I'm a new Fantasy player, but a relatively experienced 40k one. I enjoyed the battle report, because it gave me a pretty good feel for the different armies and units and the way they play. They might not have been the best lists, but they packed in lots of different units and were pretty characterful armies.

As we've all seen in our own games, there were big dice swings, with some units not living up to their potential (Empire artilery) and others exceeding theirs. There were some cinematic moments like Manfred's last charge and some sound tactical decisions, like the Empire General letting his unit's Champion accept the challenge instead.

All in all, it was the way I would like all my games to be. Nicely painted armies, on a beautiful board, units chosen and played for both effect on the table and adherance to the fluff. There were big swings both ways and the end result could have swung wildly on the last turn. One of the new units they were showcasing, the rocket launcher was a spectacular failure, doing absolutely nothing at all, and this certainly hit home with me!

I would suggest that the tactica sections of the magazine would be better suited for those looking towards tournament play. White Dwarf has, for better or for worse, decided their Battle Reports will showcase the new army played in a non-competitive setting. I enjoy that, just as I enjoy the tactica section too when I am looking for new ways to kill my opponents.

sheck2
25-12-2006, 02:29
The battle reports are for WD are selected not staged.

I remember reading one when the 3rd ed. 'new' dwarfs came out.

It was a battle report with a dwarf army versus orge kingdoms. The article showed how the dwarfs 'won' the battle...however the author mentioned it is typical for Staff to play three to five games to create a battle report for WD publication.

In this case, they published the dwarfs winning but of the three matches played - the dwarfs only won one of three (the one they published).

He did not provide a rational as to why that particular match was 'selected' for publication, but it is not a stretch of imagination to believe it 'feels' better to publish a winning match for the article which is focusing on dwarfs. It would look stupid to publish a loss for teh focus army.

galrion
25-12-2006, 21:35
I didn't see anything wrong with the Undead army list in this game. I've played quite a few undead players, casual and tournament, and aside from Manfred (who is banned as a special character) the list looked pretty much like any other undead army I've seen fielded.

intellectawe
25-12-2006, 23:47
As for the army lists, I've long been disappointed that GW is more inclined to take "this is cool / this is painted / this will look good" armies instead of competitive armies. It shows in their game design that they don't play to the same competitive (read cheesy/beardy/power-builder) that some players do.

As for the army lists, I've long been ecstatic that GW is more inclined to take "this is cool / this is painted / this will look good" armies instead of competitive armies. It shows in their game design that they don't play to the same competitive (read cheesy/beardy/power-builder) that some players do.

SkaGoblin
26-12-2006, 14:56
And for once, I agree with intellectawe (I am typing this after I picked myself off the floor). The argument about not using rock-hard lists is the the same argument as "Why does this band play ska, when pop-punk and country clearly sells better?" (Sorry I am bit biased) The reason is army selection is as much based on personal taste as music is, some people go for the tournament-ready, destroy all comers kind of army. Myself, being only able to play maybe a handful of games a year, take a different approach to it.

I would love if they did more player armies in battle reports, if only because non-Eavy metal paint jobs make me feel better about my own forces :D

As to Ankhenaton's statement about the Eavy metal team not having vast archives of painted minatures: For reasons I no longer remember, I bought the Painting Citadel Miniatures book a while ago. In the back of the book they about a dozen or so step-by-step painting guides (including the obligatory "And then the miracle happens" step) showing different styles. One of them was a Eldar Dire Avenger done by one of hte Eavy Metal members. In the small intro to the guide, she mentioned that the model took her 100 work hours to do, and that this was fairly standard for the Eavy Metal style. 100 hours for one figure! Even if that is inflated for the guide, that still means a lot of work goes into the models. Remember the Eavy Metal team is not a sweatshop employing hundreds of children, it's a handful of talented artists.

Ozymandiass
29-12-2006, 00:01
The report wasn't staged, though they did self-impose restrictions (Mannfred and Helborg). I quite enjoyed the report and like seeing some of the tactics used (like raising zombies to deflect a charge).

Plus, if it were staged the rocket launcher wouldn't have done as poorly as it did...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Unclejo
30-12-2006, 17:20
100 hours for one figure!

No wonder GW prices are so high, theyre paying an entire weeks wages just to get one model painted!

Dargon
01-01-2007, 01:03
Bring back the golden days!

David vs.Gordon.

Grand tournament winners battling it outFull agreement! 11 years on, and that Battle Report between David's tournament winning Wood Elves & Gordon's tournament winning Orcs & Goblins still remains my favorite after all that time.:D
That report was filled with smart tactical insights from start to finish.

Just a thought...

Terminatorphoenix
01-01-2007, 01:21
Me and myfriends discovered this trend a year ago. We stopped getting white dwarf 11 months ago

Master Jeridian
01-01-2007, 03:55
I haven't read this batrep- but I doubt it can compare to my favourite.

Tau versus DE when the new Tau Codex came out.

So your pitting long range mobile firepower of Strength 5+ against weedy 'Guardsmen' in paper thin open-topped AV 10 skimmers that need to get you into combat....

..how can we stack this any further in the Tau's favour...
...okay we'll play it in a desert with just 1-2 piles of rocks- sorted!

My second favourite is the Marneus versus Necrons when the new Marneus model came out.

So the one thing that a Necron army can't deal effectively with is Terminators due to having almost no AP 2 and no WBB against power fists.
So we'll take UM Terminators with Marneus...

...how can we stack this any further in Marneus favour...
...okay we'll ignore standard Force Charts for the UM and just take Terminators- sorted!


As these examples show- it is not so much rigged, as so heavily stacked in the new army/models favour that it almost can't lose, and if it does- you play again. It's like a boxing match where you blind one of the fighters- and if he somehow takes down his opponent, you restart the round.

As long as you know that WD batrep's are stacked- you can either buy it and laugh cynically at the absurdity, or save your money. I just pity the noobs that don't know any better and buy the latest 'uber l33t' stuff because it wins so easily.

Bugstomper
01-01-2007, 17:49
personally i like the fact they don't pick tournament armies, they tend to pick 'fluffy' armies or unusual units/characters/machines that people don't normally pick so the reports are more interesting to me as i get to see what various units can and can't do rather than the generic optimised tournament list that you see in your gaming club or private website battle reports week in week out.

The 'new' army is bound to have all the new kit in it as that's half the point of the report, so it would be unfair for one side to have a tournament army and the other a showcase army, it would be a slaughter for the new army and boring to read.

I do agree that it would be nice to see a few more 'real' battle reports, i'd be happy to pay another couple of quid for some non-article stuff, like peoples own armies and private battle reports between non'army of the month' armies etc.., considering we have to put up with that lord of the rings ***** in the magazine these days though they'll never have enough room to do anything on WH and 40k other than the stock articles so to get the more interesting stuff they'd need to make it bigger.

EvC
02-01-2007, 13:24
My second favourite is the Marneus versus Necrons when the new Marneus model came out.

So the one thing that a Necron army can't deal effectively with is Terminators due to having almost no AP 2 and no WBB against power fists.
So we'll take UM Terminators with Marneus...

...how can we stack this any further in Marneus favour...
...okay we'll ignore standard Force Charts for the UM and just take Terminators- sorted!

Didn't they also have the Necron player decide against taking a Resurrection Orb (Or whatever it's called- I'm not too familiar with it), which is a standard tactic but he didn't want to take any easy routes? Priceless :D


As these examples show- it is not so much rigged, as so heavily stacked in the new army/models favour that it almost can't lose, and if it does- you play again. It's like a boxing match where you blind one of the fighters- and if he somehow takes down his opponent, you restart the round.

Reminds me of the awful film director Uwe Boll, who challenged his critics to a boxing match, with restrictions like they have to be at least 30 pounds lighter than him and have no fighting experience...

cailus
03-01-2007, 04:52
As for the army lists, I've long been ecstatic that GW is more inclined to take "this is cool / this is painted / this will look good" armies instead of competitive armies. It shows in their game design that they don't play to the same competitive (read cheesy/beardy/power-builder) that some players do.

I beg to differ.

For their battle reports GW generally uses the "this-is-on-the-shelf" rule for army composition. How often do you read in bigger battle reports: "I grabbed every model on the shelf"?

And given that even they don't have an infinite source of models and funds means that often they will have two to three units for core troops and only 1 unit per each each mroe elite/rare choice.

For example it would appear that the entire GW studio has access to only 9 painted Ork Stormboyz - 8 from the box and 1 Nob as I have never seen anymore than this. So if you wanted to use them in a battlereport the most you could have are these 9.

In the past this wasn't a problem as they allowed other people's armies to be used for bat reps. But nowadays the battle reports almost always use studio armies, hence the more limited selection.

much2much
03-01-2007, 12:36
As to Ankhenaton's statement about the Eavy metal team not having vast archives of painted minatures: For reasons I no longer remember, I bought the Painting Citadel Miniatures book a while ago. In the back of the book they about a dozen or so step-by-step painting guides (including the obligatory "And then the miracle happens" step) showing different styles. One of them was a Eldar Dire Avenger done by one of hte Eavy Metal members. In the small intro to the guide, she mentioned that the model took her 100 work hours to do, and that this was fairly standard for the Eavy Metal style. 100 hours for one figure! Even if that is inflated for the guide, that still means a lot of work goes into the models. Remember the Eavy Metal team is not a sweatshop employing hundreds of children, it's a handful of talented artists.

I have loaned the book to a mate but I believe they say that the 100 hours is to prepare all the stages. The text is ambiguous but I took worst case to suggest that each of the shots is actually of a separate duplicate model (ie. assembled and painted the same). If the writers or editors had known factually otherwise it would have been changed to "this miniature" or "this paintjob". Subtle indiscrepancies in some of the step by steps suggest that they are separate models.

I hate to be cynical but the thought is in my head so here goes. I guess with full time staffers it is far better to waste their already paid for time in preparation of duplicate miniatures so as to cut down the costs of the far more expensive photographers. The photographers arrive: take photos of ten separate miniatures as opposed to coming back as each stage is completed.

And back to standard 'Eavy Metal practice these are interesting threads:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16437
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53402

And on another note Australia Golden Demon Slayer Sword winner stated he spent around 110 hours on his winning entry, 35 hours of which was assembly and sculpting work.

Now for my two cents. If the Dire Avenger in the painting guide took 100 hours to paint I would seriously contemplate changing my painting methods. Maybe even consider dipping.

miciobello
25-10-2012, 22:56
[QUOTE=Arhalien;1163294]I can just imagine Gav, Allessio and Jervis sneaking around in full-length blakc robes, plotting to overthrow the evil warseer and it's veteran games who are in the way of their relentless plot to make as much money as possible.


__________________________________________________ _______________________________________
I don't know about the others but not Alessio for sure , now is more than a year that GW fired him along with Rick. . .

Crube
26-10-2012, 05:51
This thread is over 5 years old.

Please check the date before adding to a discussion.


Thread closed

Crube
The WarSeer Inquisition