Hey guys!

We've been talking some in our players group about the state of our game. Modelwise it seems like even if GW stopped supporting Epic, theres more models then ever being produced. So theres no problem for new guys getting the "hardware" to play the game.

What seems to be the problem is testing and fixing of lists and rules. And after reading several posts it seems like this something that has become worse with time. So the problems with this game seems to lie in the "software".

I'm not interested in starting yet another disscusion about whos fault this is or why the process is flawed etc. I don't think thats constructive at all.

I do want to suggest that maybe the AC:s can take a more active role and actually "command" the community to help them playtest the lists!

In our playgroup we're ready to help out since we play lots of lists that are not aporoved (AMTL, Skitarii, Catapratchii, Iyanden, Iron Hands).

What we need is an actual sticky thread where the AC:s post what they need to be tested and how many more playtests are needed. I think this will push more players to help out ("oh, only 6 more playtests needed to get the XXX list approved!) and also will improve communication between players and AC:s.

This thread should be put in the E:A general forum so it doesn't go missing in one of the sub-forums.

So what do you say about this? Can we muster the energy to do this and put our "software" on par with our "hardware"? I think we can do a really goid job if we cooperate and work together on this.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

This sort of thing needs direction from the centre (ERC) that has been lacking for half a decade.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

My suggestion would be to play a lot of games and to post the battle reports in the appropriate board. You won't get anything changed without substantial and substantive evidence to back up what you're saying about issues to do with the rules, especially if it's changes to the army lists.

_________________

It would be good to encourage more playtesting.

I have previously suggested we try to focus playtesting efforts on one or a few lists, that are closest to being done. The guidelines for getting a list approved to be in the next tournament pack is to have a minimum of 6 playtest battle reports against already approved opponents posted up each by 3 groups across the world and that could be achievable. Getting more lists approved could encourage more people to test then.

Blood Angels and Space Wolves are close for marines. The other 3 main craftworlds probably too. Onachus is getting tested but do with help.

Excellent suggestion, Mordoten.
We have a decent playgroup here (Western Australia) that has proven more than willing to test new lists at all stages of development, so I've no doubt we'd be happy to pitch in.
I've noticed that some of our battlereports have been one experimental list against another, which is not a problem at all other than it disqualifies them from counting towards a list's mandatory test games against an already approved list.

This indicates a little direction from AC's on which lists actually need test games could be helpful to ensure they get valid tests.

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'.

@mordoten

Looking at the stickied threads at the top of each forum would be a good place to start for what needs playtesting. I'll create another here if you think it will help but honesty "more tests" has been a a standing order forever. I don't think one more thread will cause everyone to realize it and hop to.

@Glynn

"Playtest months" (Jan-Mar we're playing Marines) have been tried before and nothing really came of it. At the end of the day it's going to come down to people actually posting games.

Off the top of my head (and listed in order of decreasing importance for me only ):

Onachus has seen enough battle reports between my group and StM, it needs one more group to run it through some play tests (the Aussie West group has been begged on at least 5 occasions now, Matt).

The Squat list has seen games but needs more of them posted.

The AMTL/AM lists are in the same boat.

Iron Warriors has enough support in Aussie West and in my group, it just needs reports and another group to post tests.

Ulthwe/Saim Hann have been unchanged for years but only have a smattering of reports.

@Matt - see the last page of the CRaP download/file.php?id=4981

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

While it would be nice to be able to post a thread that says go forth and test list X, it's not something we can enforce since people will play what they like playing or what what know isn't going to change up on them if they try to collect models.

The AM lists are at a point where some serious testing is needed but it's very hard to get battle reports or even get folks to report on general balance in the lists. There just seems to be an overall downturn in interest even from a year ago and I can't force people to play.

_________________
-Vaaish

it's a nice idea in theory and I wholeheartedly support it, however from my PoV, I only have one game per week, and normally only around 2 hours to play it in, it's very hard to document and photograph a game in that time (although I will do my best!) plus as there are tournaments every other month, I tend to spend a fair amount of time practicing for those (testing lists out etc)

obviously that's just my situation, but there are many others with similar I would assume

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Well, I'll make sure to play AM or AMTL everytime i play an approved list then! And I will make sure to do a battlereport every time!

Theres an ungealthy (for the game) level of pessimism in the answers here and i guess the best way to counter that is to lead by good example.

Hopefully others will follow and we can get things going in the right direction.

Even more constructive: i will play AMTL another 5 Reports against approved lists in theese 3 following months. Maybe SpeakertoMachines can do the same and then we have 6 playtests from 2/3 groups.
After that we'll test another list in the same manner (probably Iyanden).

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

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

You raise a good point though; most of us have limited time (some more limited than Kyuss ) and naturally have a preference for playing our own armies with models we have made and love.

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.

It's a way of incentivising poeple to play and report on armies they might not otherwise use, so it does have an element of capitalism in it, but the goal is the common good and an improved game for everyone. With an approach like this I bet we could get a few armies finalised and signed off in a matter of months, AND that since the players would be those most interested in the army build and points-balance process the feedback would be of above average quality.

I've been working on the new Vior'la list, which has had a lot of work go in to it and I'd like to see it go from the developmental stage it recently reached to approved without faltering at this stage. I'd be happy to playtest and do photo reports on someone else's list (even one I detest like Space Wolves) in a trade.

If one other person in an area other than Western Australia is interested, we could make this happen. What do you think?

Speaking for my playgroup only, we find it difficult to support the approvement of lists that are, in whole or in part, unsatisfactory.

Considering how hard it is to propose any change to an Approved list, we find counterproductive to support the approbation of a list before it is fully developed.

We have 2-3 game nights a week, 1 of them at least is solely devoted to EA. We would gladly work towards list approvement if at least the known (by a vast majority of forum members) issues in the developmental lists were adressed.

Non-controversial examples are Elysians and Deathguard.

As it is, the non-approvement of lists is the only system of checks and balances to AC supremacy that the NetEA process gives to the community, given that the ERC has as standing Policy not to intervene in the development process.

Therefore, I would advise any playgroup that does provide the considerable effort to playtest developmental lists to approvement to insure they really like the list and do not want any amendment brought to it.

Please correct me if am wrong.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

To be fair though LotM you and your group need, at some point, to accept that your view isn't the only view and simply go with the flow. There are elements of the rules I really hate but I know it's not going to change - but I abide by them because I know other players prefer the RAW and a common ground is needed.

If someone doesn't like certain aspects there are always house rules - which I'm sure you've used. I know it's not 100% NetEA rules but what does it matter if you play in your own group...? It really truly only matters when you play against another group. Constantly moaning about not being heard based on your group's view isn't necessarily how it's occurring. Also, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Put your views out there and move on if it doesn't get accepted. It really shouldn't be a pissing contest. We're all just here to play a game of toy soldiers not arm wrestle for sheep stations - I know from my own recent experience(guilty as charged).

OK thread derailment aborted. Sorry for the slight tangent and back to the subject at hand.


You do have a very valid point. I think it's something we shouldn't stress too much about though and go with the ebbs and flows. People who want to play a certain list will do so. We can't stop it. We just need to make them and their friends interested in helping gain approval for their list. Personally I gain more from people's feedback than I do batreps so people who can explain their views is worth 100 batreps to me as an AC

Conversely there actually seems to be an upturn in interest here in Australia as more people get sick of the 40K apocalypse (not the rule set, more the actual state of the game! LOL). A lot of folks like Ortron and CAL go out of their way to play different lists. So let's not all be down in the dumps.

I apologize if my words were misconstrued. I really did not mean any criticism of the way things are.

If people like the lists, I can only encourage them to playtest them to approval.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell

"Less talk, more rock" is a expression that kinda sums up my thoughts on the various debates going on here. "Put your money where your mouth is" works pretty well too!

I'm doing 2 battlereports this week! Anyone else doing any!?

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

Cancon will have around 14 players in January. It might be a good idea to get some folks to batrep the hell out of it if we can. Hard in a tourney, I know but who knows..?