I think that the issue here is that the general opinion that 'no battle reports is a bad thing' has been taken to the other extreme opinion that 'battle reports are the only thing' is therefore true. Not so. Just because there is a view that it is very useful to have battle reports, this does not mean that a single battle report will automatically (should auotmatically) over-rule any opinion not displayed in a battle report.

Essentially, if someone has an opinion that a unit a 'not right', why not play a single battle report to illustrate that point and show everyone?

OK, so dont write up every game that is played, but if someone has a point to make, make it in plain sight.

We have had years on the Tau list, going through a couple of generations of contributors who seem to turn up and then leave. Discussion goes round and round and I got disillusioned with it a long time ago. Various groups, making points that half the playtesters dont agree with, and all I get are a load of opinions without any background about where they come from, what context they are generated in and whether any biases exist - acknowledged or unknown.

The end result is two or more camps of people all arguing that their opinion is correct without any actual basis for me to make a decision. How should I make any forward progress based on two sets of voices saying different things without anything more concrete to illustrate the opinions? Without battle reports, it becomes a decision based solely on my own experiences, or - worse - an arbitrary change which will alienate the other half of the developing community. Its no-win.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Fine, concensus is against me. I can live with that.

Can we at least agree that opinions presented without battle reports are not worthless, and that accusing someone of lying for not posting one is unacceptable?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

No doubt they are useful and enjoyable.  If for nothing else, as Chroma mentioned, to see how & what other Boyz are playing the game.  But I always look at what rule system they are using to temper my "evaluation". Some units(dare I say most) operate/react/play  differently in SM2 vs. E40K vs. E:A, etc., etc. So I take that into consideration when surfing thru the report.  But all in all I think we must remember DWWFY ... For example, if my crew & I were to play a game in the near future, we'd use the AT1/SM1 Random Scenario system with SoW or FWC rules ...  If I did a BatRep/AAR of that game, the SM2/NetEpic, E40K, E:A crews would all have to look at the report, keeping in mind that SoW or FWC, does things and rates units a little differently then their preferred rules ...  Just for the exercise one of you smart guyz may want to take the time to post the stats for a say Predator in SM2, NetEpic, E40K, E:A and FWC ...  I think that would demonstrate a pretty clear paradigm of the different rules ... with would clearly show how you'd have to look at a BatRep/AAR ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Absolutely. I dont think that I even said that, but if the impression went that way, I apologise. It isnt even a case of opinion necessarily being against you - at least, not with all cases.  

But, I am very hesitant to make changes based on hearsay.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

CS: I wasn't referring to you as having said that. I don't want to quote or name names as there's little point kicking off another argument.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

" I'll fight any man in this Bar for a $1.00 !" - G. Marx    ... never mind ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

1st comes pure theoretical analysis. Powergamers input is very important in this phase as they can see the exploits, strengths and weaknesses very early on.

2nd playtesting, not 1, not 10 but 100 games would give a good indication.

Battle reports are nice eyecatchers but in my opinion they 'only' add to those 100 games.

Dice are fickle.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

Hey anyone else sick and tired of this blah, blah, blah and constant back and forth round and round argument? Forgive me if I have missed the point... oh, there isn't one anymore but this is Dull! Dull! DULL! and also a bit pointless... did I mention Dull!

All views are valid and should be treated with respect. Not this constant arguing though. This... debate is making you all look a little silly to me. So what must others think.

No! It is never acceptable to call or infer someone is a liar just because it does not suit your views. Apologise to the man for stepping out of line.

Battle Reports are great and I learn what works and what does not from them in our group. We however have the benefit of shared experience and earned respect and so we can talk over stuff afterwards which helps to develop our games.

This is not the same environment so hearsay does not work, unfortunate but true. However that does not mean that hearsay is worthless. If it sounds right it should be tested, in Playtest. Sorry, Zombo but I beleive you know that too and it's not an unresonable request.

Individual experience (Hearsay) evokes discussion. Discussion evolves playtest, Playtest evokes further discussion. This ALL develops the game.

If I had the option I'd club you all together and smack some heads for disturbing my piece! Smart people give me the ick! sometimes.  

_________________
My head is full of War...

[img]http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk120/Warhead40k/Tyranid%20Swarm/DSC02262.jpg[/img]

Warhead : I agree that playtesting is essential, I just think battle reports are given too much attention compared to the opinions drawn from the more numerous unreported battles.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I do agree that battle reports can be useful, but i've also see people use them as if they could absolutely prove a point, which unless you have 100+ plus of them it couldn't possibly do.

but i'd love to be able to post afew reports but unfortunately for me the main place i play epic is in a downstairs room of a pub, due to the popularity of the club we only get two hours to setup and play a game (we arange the game on the interweb first), i've tried to do a report at the same time and i find that because i'm thinking of how the report is going i tend make alot of mistakes in the game, hence making the report not worth posting!!!

i'm not trying to make any kind of point, i just thought i'd give the rest of the forum a chance to point and laugh at me!!  

but on a serious point the next time i update the black templars would anyone think to them self's, this list isn't worth looking at because he/noone posts battle reports with them?

i wonder what i'll do if the answer is yes?    

_________________
"Dyslexia is a Privilege, not a right"

Just snap some photos as the enemy is doing their activations in the game  You should be able to construct a reasonable sort of report from that. Even a report without every specific 'then this unit activated and did this' data is still useful. Pictures supply a tonne of information.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Agreed - I couldn't remember for nothin' what the Orks had in my last batrep but as I went through the pictures I snapped it all fell back into place.  The parts where I couldn't remember I just wrote vaguely.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Warhead : I agree that playtesting is essential, I just think battle reports are given too much attention compared to the opinions drawn from the more numerous unreported battles.

_________________
My head is full of War...

[img]http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk120/Warhead40k/Tyranid%20Swarm/DSC02262.jpg[/img]

So where to go from here? Could I suggest that this thread is actually highlighting a number of issues at the heart of list development and ask how we can address them? For example

• Entrenched views on a given subject and conversely, uninformed opinions.
• How to develop lists in the absence of reliable data and the apparent lack of process or guidelines
• Conduct on the forum in its broadest sense

IMHO it may be worth revisiting some of these kind of core principles periodically to encourage people to work together towards the various goals of the forum and the developers.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I think I'm going to put my money where my mouth is on this one. I mentioned earlier in the thread that I thought the win/loss ratios from the UK tournaments was one of the most useful tools I've seen so far, much more useful than hearsay or battle reports.

I'm going to create a thread for people to record the results of their games, and if the response is high enough I'll do the number crunching to calculate the win/loss ratio of each army posted. If a vast number of responses are recieved I'll even be able to get win/loss ratios against each other army..

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread