What do you look for in a battle report?

[Brother Chaplain Tyranus]

Hey there guys. As I have been going further into this hobby, I have been learning and seeing a lot. I live watching batrep and I couldn't help but wonder what do people actually like about some of these?

 

Now I do watch different batreps for different reasons. Some are more entertaining, while others are more informative.

 

What do you guys look for in a batrep? Does a flawless story of how the armies showed up at the same place at the same time matter? Does having units that aren't often played draw you to it? Or is it simply the guys are funny? Do you like army lists posted with the videos? Like watching dice rolling? So on.

 

What do you like? What don't you like?

[Canadian_F_H]

I have watched bits and pieces of a few. I pretty much would only spare what little time I have for a video on a really high quality table with high quality painted armies.

 

I personally have zero interest in WAAC or tournament stuff.

 

Also, the few thi ng s I've watched I couldn't finish because literally how could I have time to sit down and watch a 2 hour bat rep. So condensing would be key imo.

[Dracos]

I watch batreps while working on models. I try to focus on battles that use Primaris mostly because I want to get a feel how they do in different metas against different armies. It’s been years since I played and certain units (Knights and Primarchs) didn’t exist then.

 

I like to see how the players deploy on certain tables and hear why when it’s explained. Dice gods aside most games are fairly predictable after the first turn. Proper army list for the game and opponent are important but deployment is where a game is usually won and lose in my opinion.

 

I’ve also learned a lot about this Open War thing from batreps. Pushing what I said above aside it creates a dynamic game mechanic that takes much of the predictability out and makes for more interesting outcomes.

 

Army list

Deployment

First turn action/reaction

[N1SB]

Thanks for asking our opinions.  I "watch" battle reports on the YouTubes while painting.  Which means I let it run on the background and look up once in a while.

 

I am actually interested in mainly the information aspect in battle reports.  I love Inquisitor Dracos's breakdown above.  When someone plays an army a lot, assuming that person is always learning and trying to improve his game, they start finding strategies that become a 2nd instinct, like how they deploy and their 1st actions.  Those are very telling.  With 8th still being relatively new, there's much to get a feel for IMHO.

 

With that in mind, I do look for tournament-level or WAAC armies, even though I don't go out of my way to play them.  It's just the ultimate stress test.  It's like how I want my car's manufacturer to have done crash tests with my car model, even though I never plan on crashing my car, to be ready if it happens.  I mean, it happens, you go to your local store for a casual game, your opponent insists it's a fluffy list, but it turns out to be a WAAC list with a story loosely tacked on so he could insist that it's fluffy.

[The Nephilim]

A few things of note that I look for when reading g or watching a batrep:

*Painted armies. If I wanted to see grey plastic, I'll go to my FLGS. Give me a showcase of each army. I wanna oggle some plastic crack.

*Nice and detailed terrain. I don't wanna see beer or soda cans as terrain. I can get that in my garage.

*When reading, I like reading the fluff pieces people write, PROVIDED they are well written.

*When watching, know your rules. I hate watching rules debates and arguments. Work that stuff out before hand or at least edit the freakin' video.

[Panzer]

There are tons of different opinions and preferences for battle reports in the community.

 

For me, I like to watch full or semi-full length batrep videos where you can see the movement and dice rolling. Others prefer turn recap batrep videos (which I find awefully boring).

Also armies painted to a decent level with proper terrain.

Also also knowing the rules. Nothing is more annoying then spotting rules mistakes that could change the outcome of the whole game.

Ultimatively tho I have to like the people playing. If I don't like them personally then I won't enjoy the batrep video no matter the quality. That includes people having fun but without making annoying/silly sounds all the time (Glacial Geek is fun but his batreps can become very annoying sometimes for example).

 

Written batreps should definitely include pictures in good quality that let you see what is happening (and a few scenic shots as well) and should be written in a non-confusing way but without going into each and every detail imo.

[MARK0SIAN]

I like a lot of different things in a batrep but the most important for me is that it’s a fair match up. I’ve seen (and almost immediately switched off) several battle reports where the armies weren’t anywhere close to a fair match up, things like a WAAC player versus someone who has put together a thematic and interesting list that is less optimal on the table.

 

Now I’m not saying I wouldn’t watch a waac match, so long as that’s what both players are going for. However, seeing things like Magnus, Mortarion and a some daemon princes in the same list with loads of chaff units versus pretty much anything that has been put together for fun is not interesting at all.

[Aramis K]

Different people like different things, but here's me:

 

I like seeing stories emerge.

 

A good telling of what happened, rather than a full breakdown of a list and game.

 

Well painted armies and good terrain, lots of closeups.

 

I prefer to get an outline of events rather than full footage of every dice roll - just the rolls for key moments. And casual forgiving players not WAAC attitudes.

 

Doesnt have to be a fair fight for me either, just a cool scenario.

 

And I like them to be shorter videos, 45mins tops.

 

Quite like the SN Battle reports, or some of the WW40k stuff.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

One of the things that I don't like in video batreps is tactical stupidity for the sake of rule of cool. Far too often, players - not a dig at Brits in particular, here, just an observation - and especially British players in batreps tend to make moves and attacks because they want to showcase a particular model or unit's awesomeness on the tabletop at the expense of actually trying to win the battle. Yes, watching two HQs duel is nice, but slaughtering four mooks instead would have cleared an objective and scored some points.

[Aramis K]

One of the things that I don't like in video batreps is tactical stupidity for the sake of rule of cool.

See that's exactly what I like, rule of cool. If someone dodges the duel I'd like it rationalised beyond VPs.

I am a Brit.

 

Need consistent safety labelling for different (and all equally valid!) styles of batrep.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

And that leads me into something I was hesitant to bring up in my previous post. This is also an observation and I'm not trying to pigeonhole anyone, but it appears that there is a divide between Americans and Brits in how we, as general groups, tend to play wargames. You guys seem to favor fluff and rule of cool in your games, whereas Americans are more ruthless and competitive. For example, in the infamous 4th Edition Chaos codex, the prior 0-1 restriction from 3.5 on Daemon Princes was lifted. When players remarked on how double-Lash Prince dominated Chaos HQ slots because of their sheer power and lethality, the Codex authors (British, just to state the obvious for effect) shrugged and responded something to the effect that "We didn't think anyone would actually take two Princes!"

 

So that divide certainly could be the core of my concern.

[Montford]

I like to see what forces they chose, but more importantly why they chose them, and then see how well they executed their intended purpose.

[Arkaniss]

One of the things that I don't like in video batreps is tactical stupidity for the sake of rule of cool. Far too often, players - not a dig at Brits in particular, here, just an observation - and especially British players in batreps tend to make moves and attacks because they want to showcase a particular model or unit's awesomeness on the tabletop at the expense of actually trying to win the battle. Yes, watching two HQs duel is nice, but slaughtering four mooks instead would have cleared an objective and scored some points.

 

Come on dude, how about some things you like rather than anecdotal experiences of a portion of the player base who do 'casual' batreps? You don't want to dig at Brits but then dedicate two posts to nothing but doing so

 

Like many people I listen/watch batreps while painting. It's good to have 40K hubbub in the background so I like ones that have a narrator of sorts I guess. An overview of what's happening and why as the game is shown. I don't need to see the whole of the game so an overly detailed and lengthy video is not for me. If rules mistakes happen (everyone is only human) then I appreciate a segment tacked onto the end saying so and explaining the correct way to do it. Stops people getting the wrong idea after watching :tu:

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Uhhh...the OP asked specifically what people like and don't like about batreps. I answered the question that was asked.

[WarriorFish]

That's not the point that was made; you applied generalisations to nationalities that are neither correct nor appropriate. Please consider this the last comment on it so the topic may continue as intended. Thanks.

[Corswain]

I like to see variety in the armies being used. I know that, for obvious and perfectly understandable reasons, that’s not always possible, but it makes things a lot more interesting.

“Slow grow” campaigns, for example, with a new model or unit every now and then make for much more exciting viewing. Sometimes I’ll tune in just to see what’s been added to the army.

[jeffersonian000]

When it comes to battle reports, I just read the army lists and skip to the conclusion. The actual turn by turn breakdowns are tedious. A good report to me tells me everything I need without the blow by blow recount.

 

SJ

[Race Bannon]

I'd rather read why this or that unit was chosen and how that decision is part pf the overall plan.

 

Then, it's about the tactical choices made during game play.

 

Final thoughts about those decisions: what worked and didn't and what will be done differently.

[Atrus]

I like to see a written batrep. The video ones get a little slow and boring, not to mention use up my limited downloads.

 

A turn by turn breakdown is alright. But what i really like is when batreps get creative and write the report as a story- not just a fluffy foreward and aftermatj, but a written out story/battle. I dont come across it much, but when you come across a good one, its golden. A nice combination of bat rep and creative writing. Informative and entertaining.

[Dracos]

Specifically OP: One of my favorites series recently has been Warzone: Morloc. They use all kinds of models I would never had gone for years ago. Apocolypse/ Lords of War really turned me off in 4th / 5th (?) edition, but I’m actually thinking of getting a Knight at some point just to mess with. (They seem to die pretty easy if you’re prepared for one).

[NiceGuyAdi]

Real life means I have very limited time for hobbying, and building/painting comes before gaming, because it’s easier to fit in around my life, and I actually have to have a painted army to play with.

 

So batreps for me are vicariously scratching the wargaming itch through other people. First importance is having a sense I’d enjoy throwing dice with whoever is playing, and believing they’re enjoying the game themselves.

 

And since I work in video production, poorly shot material with bad sound with make me rage quit very quickly.

[Brother Chaplain Tyranus]

Hey guys thanks for the feedback. For me it comes down to entertainment value. I love watching friends having fun together but sometimes it seems that it is just that. They focus less on putting out a good product and more on having fun with their friends. I get that's the point but as a viewer, I want to feel apart of it as well.

 

What are your guys thoughts on intro videos (specifically for video batreps)? Do we care about the supposed story that people come up with? For me, if it is a full campaign then I'd want to hear the story but if Larry from Idaho is here to play today, I don't really care what the story is. They don't really deviate too far from the norm anyway. The dark angels think there is a fallen here so there's our scenario. The tyranids want to eat the world so on and so forth. Thoughts?

[Mileposter]

I don't watch batreps. Why? Because none of them so far have what I feel a batrep should have. (Caveat: those I have tried. Still on the lookout!)

 

There's a sliding scale of batrep, a spectrum if you will, of what it's for and why people are watching it. BatRep, short for Battle Report, actually sums it up: There are those there for the Battle(fun), and those there for the Report(info).

 

The Battle(fun) side of the scale are those in it for rule of cool. They want to watch the dice rolling. They want to see the models.

The Report(info) is side of the scale is the details. Why this unit, why that tactic, how efficient was this maneuver.

 

Each, and their mixes, are totally valid. But above all, those making the BatReps? Should know their audience. THey should be aware of which side of the spectrum they're catering to. Many don't.

 

For myself, I'm more on the 'Report' side. I want all the info. The details. I don't really watch BatReps because the one thing I really want to see in a BatRep isn't done: "We rolled for XYZ unit's shots, and should have seen about 50% hit, with X number of wounds... We got Y. 123% below average."

I want to see this because it would go a LONG way to helping peole see the inherent flaws and differences between Mathhammer and Experience right there side by side. It would help people learn to see that tabletop tactics has a tangible and very real effect on Mathhammer.

 

... I babbled opinion on the internet. >.>;

[d36williams]

I like batreps that also explain things I don't usually see, or introduce me to tactics. Need the beautiful armies, enough narration to keep me informed of game states, and not too many rule mistakes. Terrain + models need to be very good. I like all levels of batreps, narrative to WAAC, but like it when they tell me in advance which style of batrep it is

[Rogue]

I’ve always liked reports that tell me why people are doing things. Go far enough back in White Dwarf, and that was how they did things there - ‘I moved this unit here to counter his unit there; I considered this option but rejected it because...’

 

Just watching two friends play a game isn’t that interesting. Learning some new tactics, or seeing something I hadn’t thought of before - that’s what I’m watching for.

 

Pleasant people and good looking armies help too. I wouldn’t want to watch an hour of grey men versus grey men on a chipboard battlefield. But then, I don’t usually watch intently, as i usually have them on while I’m painting (which I why I appreciate the tactical chatter more).