I'm fairly sure it's a fancy way of saying 'countries'

for example, I could play six games against Steve,Dave and Mike, then Tim, Ben and Tom do six, then Darren, Horatio and Jon do six, 3 playgroups, no crossover between them, all based in the UK, I'm fairly sure that wouldn't be accepted by the ERC, even though it adheres to the wording of the document

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I think of it in terms of "3 different meta games". If you regularly play the same players and use the same conventions in your games (like terrain height, line of sight, disembark within/completely within) then you can say that's a play group for he purposes of testing, no?

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

I take it as different "playing environments" or countries. If we rewrite the rules it would be wise to be a little more detailed but not to specific. A small gray area is good I think.

Also is vassel ok but not EpicUK lists?

It is interesting this topic has come up. I think the biggest stress test for a list is tournament play. I am not a natural tournament gamer (yet to play in any Epic tournament) and I enjoy casual games. But certainly events and tournaments gather liked minded players together so a good opportunity to test a list.

I agree that it should be easier to get the list approved based on a number of games. Then the list can be seen on the tournament circuit and more feed back provided.

One thing that I have noticed is that you have to make sure you are using the most recent list for points combined with the reference sheet. This came up in a game with my Ulthwe where I had to have two set of reference sheets (the Biel Tan and Ulthwe ones) as the new stats were on one and the unique units on the other.

Submitting reports can be a little difficult sometimes when the flow of the game over takes the ability to take notes. As someone else suggested being able to write up thoughts after the game from both players might help the play test process a little.

_________________
My gaming Blog

The ERC voted and amended the playtest requirement:
viewtopic.php?p=570871#p570871

In terms of playgroups, it effectively means no overlap in the player base. If a group has six players, A-F you could submit reports from A-C as one group and D-F as another.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Thanks, although it feels a little bit strange that no one from the ERC comments on the issue until now and that is after you already have voted on a (different) change. That is usually not how you run things in a community...

So this basically gives us two choices. Three groups submitting 6 reports each or four groups submitting 6, 4, 4, 4 reports?
So still no one is allowed to submit less then 4 reports or am I reading it wrong?

Isn't that bad? My playgroup has more than 6 players, so if we just keep playing the same opponent we could submit all 18 reports by our selves? I always thought that groups meant different playstyles and environments.

Sorry for being so negative, I just want to know why and how and all that.

Yes, although i'm glad you guys decided to update the process a bit it leaves a sout taste in tve mouth due to the same 2 reasons UvenLord stated.

Why not engage in the discussion with is here first and also present your ideas for us to comment on? Your nit setting a goid example for the community to work together.

But hopefulky this helps lists development some more.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

I commented on the first page of the thread and everyone in the ERC has read it. I get that you take exception that it's not everything you wanted but a compromise never is.



No less than 4, as it says. So 6-6-6, 6-6-5-4, 6-5-4-4, 6-4-4-4 all work.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Ok, I wasn't totally fair
Just want to elaborate a little what I meant. (I do not have an big issue with the new ruling, I rarely get exactly what I want anyway)
What would have been nice was if you or someone else sad "this is the new proposed ruling (or whatever) that we will vote on in the ERC, what do you think?" Right now you made a post like everybody else and the discussion continued. Didn't think you were making an "official" explanation.

On a side note is your views on what needs to be included in a battlereport also official? Can I finaly skip the activation by activation stuff?

Functionally I see little difference between:

"this is the new proposed ruling (or whatever) that we will vote on in the ERC, what do you think?"
versus:
"this is the new ruling (or whatever) that we voted on in the ERC, what do you think?"

I'd rather let a discussion run it's course then put forward a solution than say "we're going to put forward a solution". TacComm's has a innate ability to foster long winded discussions that go no where except to back to where they began.



Official? No. They're just my views, I don't speak for the other guys.

Like CaptPiett said, I'm not looking at these games statistically, but rather qualitatively (and to make sure you're actually playing the list and not just blowing smoke). I'm interested in the how and the why. Activation-by-activation reports paint a pretty clear picture, but a paragraph or two can accomplish the same thing with a few pictures. I choose to do full reports because I enjoy it when other people post lots of pics of their minis, so I like to add to that pool of thread..

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Well, I do not want to argue to much but why do we need playtests at all in that case. Why not just approve an army and then see what everyone thinks afterwards?
Anyway I agree with you that most of the threads and discussions here leads to very little so sometimes it is good to act instead of just hearing the same arguments all over again.

So I rest my case and is quite pleased that you/ERC/we have made a change for the better and that you seems to have a good approach to battlereports.
But next time perhaps the ERC can be a little more open and at least say that they are looking at a solution or similar?

Thanks for the changes.

_________________
My gaming Blog