On 1), having a minimum and maximum requirement would put me a little more at ease. Say "at least 4, but no more than 6" battle reports per group. Personally, I'm interested in: how you used the list, why you chose what you chose and how those changed from game to game. You couldn't get all three of those from 18 games across 18 groups.
On 2), it's been tried and it hasn't worked. Mainly for the reasons others have listed.
----
If you need battle reports for your list, lead by example and do six in your group. Need more? Barter with people: exchange battle reports, bribe them with miniatures or less savory acts, etc. Reach out to people who have an interest in the list, get opinions before you put something out.
Doing battle reports isn't that difficult. It takes less than 5 seconds to snap a pic after each activation or round of assault. The most time intensive thing is writing the captions, once you find a rhythm that's about 30 minutes. After that, link to the pic-site, post the the lists and give a few thoughts.
All that has never been required though, "should be documented" was the exact language we used. If someone wants to lawyer that, to me it means: the lists used, at least 200 words describing the turn with at least a couple of pics, and thoughts on the list, strategy and other factors.
And yes, we have bent the approval rules in the past. AMTL needed three more reports and the Knight list had reports from across four groups. For AMTL, going back to the community with "nope, you need more reports" wouldn't have helped anyone at that point. It was a "spirit of" versus "letter of the rule" decision.
mordoten wrote:
Good or anus as we say in Sweden?
captPiett just says "Anus or anus" here.