You get a game per week!!??? I am suddenly envious

I have another suggestion though - I propose a Battle Report Exchange. A Battle Report Exchange would basically be a place to post that a player has a list that needs testing in another geographic playgroup area, and in return they will do X playtests and battreps of another player's lists.

I have another suggestion, which is that we actually formalise this process. Irisado mentions playing lots of games and having reports on them to back up changes and suggestions, but if you view the majority of battreps they are simply a record of what happened and who won (90% by the victor, since there seems less incentive to write reports of losses ).

What might make this even more useful would be if we had a simple, set questionnaire for the players to fill in after the game. I'll write a few questions of the top of my head to give an idea what I mean:

[] Did any of the test-list's units appear overpowered?
[] Did any of the test-list's units appear under powered?
[] Would you change the costs of any units?
[] Did this list appear substantially better than the primary army of its 40K race, or simply a different spin on the army?
[] Was it clear that the test list had weaknesses to offset strengths, and vice versa?
[] Did this list play like a one-trick-pony (all air assault, all amour, all CC etc)
[] If yes, was that thematically accurate to the army's background?
[] On a scale of 1 to 10, how happy would you be to see this become and official army list?

Those are just the first questions that occured to me, but something like that could be a lot more useful than 'New Nids played Eldar. We ate them all, 3-0'.

NetEA Army List Approval Process
An army list can be submitted to the NetERC for approval by its Army Champion when at least three independent gaming groups have playtested a minimum of six games each with the same version of the army list (for a total of 18 games). These games must be completed using the Epic Tournament Game Rules (EA 6.1) and be against opponents using NetEA Approved army lists in order to be considered. The games should be documented and submitted to the NetERC along with the list for approval.

I've done 3 battlereports for the AM Skitari list but got told by the AM AC that they won't count towards the 6 needed for approved status from i playgroup... Got bummed out by that?

playing against other development list my group could submit a lot more reports

Can I understand why they were not acceptable (or point me to the thread that explains). I don't want to submit crap so would love to be edified as to what is no no

Sorry. I don't think there is a thread, but the short explanation is that the Skitarii list is still in development and it's not ready to be considered for Approved status yet. There could still be some major changes to it though it's unlikely. For instance, Mordoten has been using the Avenger fighters in his Skitarii games. These are still just part of the playtest changes. It's 99.9% likely they will be part of the list, but they aren't currently. Once we finished the primary testing (all units and formations are used in at least two games, then we can consider if the list is ready to go for approved and start tracking battle reports for it.)

Trying to balance a list against a list that might not be balanced itself isn't a good way to go about things though, that's why we need them against approved lists.

Just a curious question, anyone who knows how many lists that have been approved with the current "18 battlereports" rules the last couple of years?

Also where can I find what version of the list that appears in the Tournament pack? (Some of us use the pack and some use the compendium...)

None.