Agreeing with Vaaish and the others.
I think that the playtests as they are today contribute too little to the development. Right now most of the process is already finished and then it is just a struggle to get the reports in. Very little change during this time as the AC already feel the army is finished.

I have some suggestions.

Why not have a time limit instead?

I still think that some playtest are in order before the list is finished and I think that different groups is essential so why not lower the number to 9 reports from at least three different groups. And as I have said before make the reports simpler, no need to do a turn by turn report. Just include both lists, some photos and a quick story about what happened and some conclusions. Right now a report is quite hard to do, for me it distracts me from playing and it takes an hour afterward to write up...

Then when the AC feels the list is finished he put the list in a "special forum place" and announces that it is ready and everybody can read it and come with suggestions for a month or two before the list is handed over to ERC for approvement or rejection.

Moving from experimental to developmental is currently at the discretion of the faction AC, I think I'd prefer to see something similar for approval, AC decides its ready and submits with some amount of batreps, ERC either agree or kick it back with suggestions for tests or tweaks... rinse, repeat.... right now I think the IF list is ready, as do many others including the AC and Steve54, but we're stalled at ~14 batreps with me unable to do any more.... the swolf list is stuck at 17 reports!! Having some kind of flexibility in the system would benefit the approvals process greatly

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Well, the idea of letting the ERC decide everything about a lists status is a bad one for two reasons:

1. It puts huge power in very few (is it 3 or 4 people?) peoples hands to decide how a game thats is played worldwide. I don't see how that is good, especially since the community doesn't nominate who sits on the ERC on a yearly basis. I think this for sure will kill progress.

2. It puts a huge amount of expectations on the ERC to know the rules, lists and stats perfectly. If they are gonna be calling the shots of what lists gets approved or not then they have to be very active on the tournament scene so they csan get good feedback from good players in a competetive enviroment. I'm not comfortable with letting my list that I'm developing be judged by someone who doesn't frequent tournaments or who doesn't have a good knowledge of thew rules and how certain lists are palyed (what synergies exists within the lists, how you best play them etc).

So I think this route is even worse. Yes, the 18 batreps might not be great (hence my suggestion to change it with the ideas in the OP) but it lets the community have their say (by producing evidence from actual matches of problems) in the development.

I don't know exactly how EpicUK do their development. But even if it's run by a few it has 10-12 tournaments per year and very experienced players helping out in that process). NetEA is a loose affiliation located all over the globe so the development process need to be more open.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Yes, and with my suggestion number one 2 more groups could do 2 batreps each and help you out getting it done!

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

I hadn't realised that to be eligible you need to provide 6 minimum from each group. I had hoped to put in 2 or 3 and help towards a combined effort towards the 18 on the IF. I've managed a couple of trial goes to make sure I have a decent understanding of how to play them, but 6 full bat reps is just unrealistic from me.

As Context : Im lucky to get time for 2 games a month, maybe one a week before tournies (which of course isn't suitable for play testing) so max say 18 "friendly" games in a year. I can probably convince someone to give a unapproved list a go 1/2 of these times, though we would then both need the extra 1 or 2 hours time to recording it during play and my time to write it up. So let's say 6 games max in a year. I'm sure I'm unusual in this respect.

And to be honest I'm not really sure how helpful a full activation by activation report is. Obviously some lists are more "divergent" than others, but where I list is derived from something established it seems daft to continually read through what we'll known formations are doing turn to turn. Taking into account the vagaries (not least luck and dice) that effect the result of a game my personal feeling is that a solid paragraph of feed back (from both parties ideally) about the contentious items is more valuable than the full report.

I think the suggestion of a central list of "next to be approved by this date" would encourage more plays - at least that way people would be building towards a time frame knowing that it's not an open ended process and they may actually be able to take the list out to a tournament some time soon. If the time frame runs out the panel should approve it anyway but with suitable cost nerfs where necessary.

Often these extra lists are practically personal projects for people, which is great but it can mean arguments become very protracted over tiny issues for months on end - very discouraging for an outsider to get involved. A strong but transparent review process by a panel would seem to make sense when a list is looking pretty solid with a kind of "conditional approval status" with a covering statement saying something like : "we think this list is good to go but we are keeping an eye on a, b and c for potential nerfing." If this status lasted for a year or so would meant the list would see action in proper tournaments (and many more warm up games) and then if a list looks like it's got problems it could be adjusted with some proper playtesting after a year.

Well the ERC is another "issue". Right now they have ultimate power anyway so the 18 battlereports is not the same as approval it is only something you have to do before you get a chance to submit the list... (Just look at the recent Eldar changes, the AC and (almost?) everyone battle reporting thought it was ok to change the cost of fireprism but the ERC didn't so there was no change. Not saying it was a bad call but just shows their power to override the AC and the community)
A small group that can choose their successor and can hold his/her post for eternity is not that democratic to me. I totally agree about the ERC needing to be a part of the tournament scene, that's why we want balanced lists etc. In casual games I can play "Epic of Sigmar" without points and rules
I'm not saying that everyone in the ERC should leave their post or that they are doing a bad job but to say that this is a more open forum than EpicUK sounds hollow when 4 of the people sitting in the ERC also holds a post as some of the most important AC:s.
So don't get me wrong, I think that an election of some sort would probably elect a very similar ERC but it would still feel better if they were appointed by the community in some way...
It is also strange to hear that even the ERC think the "rules" is so strict that they do not always follow them...why not change them instead?

I would also recommend a more active "herding". Right now everyone looks after his/her own back, but for the community as a whole Epic would have been more fun with a more diverged "approved catalog". We have Scions but no Squats...

on the multiple groups thing, I'm fairly sure it was never intended that you couldn't submit 1-2 batreps from another group as part of approval, I always read it as mordoten posted it earlier, that there needs to be a total of 18 batreps, by a minimum of 3 different playgroups, with each playgroup only permitted to submit a maximum of 6..... I thought it was always the case that if you wanted, you could submit a single rep from 18 different groups to support your case for approval....

AFAIK the current ERC is
Dave (regular player, tournament organiser and participant, solid player by all accounts)
Steve54 (regular player, tournament organiser and participant, regularly wins events, former UK champion)
Tiny-Tim (regular player, tournament organiser and participant, regularly wins events, multiple-time former UK champion)
Onyx (regular player, tournament organiser and participant, solid player by all accounts)
PFE100 (prolific player and playtester, unknown whether he's a tournament player)

so I think they've pretty much all got the credentials and I have no problem with any of them being in post

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

well this isn't about the people. It is about the structure. Like I tried to explain before I think most of the ERC would be chosen anyway but if someone would think otherwise it would be nearly impossible to change anything.

Sorry if this thread deranged with me bringing in the ERC. Let's go back to how we approve stuff and if the rules is against the intent let's just change them, right?

Just re-red the NetEA CraP. There it says that atleast 3 groups have to play a minimum of six games each (and do reports of course). So if I'm not understanding it wrong it's not okay to do it like you wrote.

Maybe someone from the ERC could comment on how it should be done?

I would also like to hear ideas on why my suggestion #1 would be a worse way of doing the approve process. And what cons people (and the ERC foremost) find with that idea.

On the question of the ERC thats a) another discussion and b) i agree with everythin UvenLord wrote.

I only brought the ERC up because some people started to suggest that it might be a good idea to just let the ERC decide without any player participation essentially. That is a really, really bad idea IMO and goes against the idea of having a community based list development.

On another note. Where can I find the history of the ERC and how people get nominated?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the ERC would decide solely, with no input from players. The ERC would only make a call after the process has been concluded - most of which is carried out by the AC and the players. The ERC's job isn't really to judge the list, but to judge if the list has been sufficiently tested. It's precisely because the NetEA community is global and diverse that somebody needs to have the power make a final decision.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Lets get the discussion back on track then:

Should we change the way the approval process works from:

1. Atleast three groups have to play a MINIMUM og 6 games and do reports.

to

2. There should be 18 submitted battlereports for approval. One group may only do a MAXIMUM of 6 reports.

Maybe not so well phrased but you get the idea right? This would allow groups to contribute with 1 or 2 reports for a list thus making it less of a commitment to be involved in the apporval process (and make it easier for players who don't play every week to contribute).

Anything bad about this idea? What does the ERC members say about it?

Please stay on topic. Thanks.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

I think option 2 worded slightly differently

"a minimum of 18 batreps must be submitted from at least 3 playgroups, no group may submit more than 6 batreps"

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Meant to say : if this is valid, I hope to get a couple of IF bat reports done over the next month/6 weeks.

please do I'm grateful for any and all reports!

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

has 'playgroups' been defined?

Say I vassal test IF with JimmyZ and then vassal test IF with MikeT, is that two play groups?
Assume JimmyZ and MikeT never play each other, or any of the other people in their respective groups, just me.
MikeT will have playtested IFs elsewhere with his local gaming regulars, a group I don't attend.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs