NoisyAssassin wrote:
I think you probably are, actually. Taking good notes and/or remembering enough to write a useful report based on just pics is definitely a skill that takes practice. I've written one report so far, and the note-taking probably added almost 45 min onto the game. That was an activation-by-activation, detailed type report though,
At the risk of being flip, then practice. To be more useful though, here some thoughts on what helps me:
If you're not going to write notes during the game, take a picture of every activation from the PoV of the activating unit with anything it affected in the distance. It'll jog your memory to see the formation and what was around it and help you caption the pic. Also, for assaults, strive for shots of after charge/counter-charge, after casualties, and after resolution.
If you are going to take notes, I suggest you split it with your opponent. They jot down what your formations do, and you do the same for theirs. There's less downtime that way, they write as you move stuff and roll dice, and they should be done before they have to roll saves.
Quote:
so maybe we can make it clearer as to what counts as a bat rep? Do we need ALL the details? Only key activations that swung the tide of battle? Turn-by-turn general overviews? Just a quick paragraph with each player's impressions of how the game went?
I usually strive for what activations did what, but that can sometimes be overboard. If you spent all of turn 1 doubling up, just say that and say which formations failed to do so. Key activations like you say are particularly important, especially if you're trying to illustrate a point to the AC. If you're only going to record one thing that would be it, I guess. Just be aware that people are going to want to know what else was going on around it if you're using them to make a point.
Players impressions can happen later. I think you get better feed back after the fact anyway, people may need time to think a bit more and blow off steam if they were frustrated/pissed. Have your opponent post them for themselves, or e-mail them to you if they don't post it here. No sense if you taking dictation for them.
Quote:
I think it would also be very helpful to make it clearer what would be required to change a list. For a recent example, there are a couple of changes for Orks that are being discussed, namely reducing the saves on skorchas and allowing the EpicUK powerfields upgrade for battlefortresses. All we've gotten as players is that we "need reports." Several have come in, and since the list is so similar to the UK one already (seriously, they're almost completely identical) most UK games also qualify for testing the powerfields. But as players posting in that forum we have no idea how close those changes are to approval/real consideration., which keeps motivation to test low. And no one is inclined to play games using 'uge warbands to prove that they're not worth taking as is, because it's so glaringly obvious that this is the case.
This is going to come down to the AC. If it's not clear, ask them. How it works now is: AC has playtest changes, they test them until they're happy, they bring them to the ERC, we vote on them individually. You only need 18 battle reports if you're approving a list. To get a change put up for a vote it's AC discretion. I haven't kept track of the changes, but if I had to guess 75% or more of them pass. The only ones that I can think of off the top of my head that we kept back were some Eldar and Tyranid buffs.
Quote:
It'd also really help if more tournaments allowed developmental/experimental lists or as-yet-unapproved changes to lists. If they did, we'd have more chances to playtest changes. Can-Con for example seems to do this and from reading the reports it doesn't seem to cause too many problems down there.
Bring it up with the TO, I guess. Dev/Exp stuff is allowed by request at NEAT and Adepticon. I believe Kal runs the HGMS tourneys the same.