I actually spent some time goofing around a couple of years back to make a battle results tracker:
http://taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/view ... =4&t=21695

It's a bit ugly, but I believe it works reasonably. I did some more work on it to resolve some bugs and do as good a job as possible of normalising list names. It will of course have some limitations which I could work on if anyone really does want to use it. For example it only tracks win/loss/draw, not goals.

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

Nice!

Is anyone on the ERC willing to talk about the idea of an adjustment to the process?

What feedback do you want? Regarding the Epic UK process a lot of the variables - local meta game, terrain density, terrain interpretation, rules interpretations etc are removed. That's what makes the breadth and variety of testing for NetEA lists necessary

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Can we adjust what's required etc?


Ah OK so playing NetEa vs EUK lists would have some variables in the balancing process - unless you're playing in the UK.

So then does NetEA need a more focussed set of variables to make the process more focussed and the same across all play groups? Personally I'd like to see that tightened up if it would provide a quicker/easier process of approval.

Don't have a good answer, but i do know that it doesn't help that the ERC or whoever came up with it doesn't allow EpicUK lists as opponent lists for playtesting. Thats just silly. 18 batreps are hard enough to get a hold of (unless you have me and PFE100 interested in the list), not allowing the UK players to use their lists (and theres alot of them in the UK compared to the rest of the world) just makes it harder...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

Yep, almost impossible to ask your opponent to bring an approved NetEA all-comers list to a play test. I can see why an extra 10 minutes of combined extra work and discussion stifles development.

Jeez, get over it. If you're putting together a batrep it's going to mean a lot of time and effort taking pictures and writing it up. Coordinating a little with your opponent so he brings an appropriate list does not add an appreciable burden to that at all . "Not feeling like" taking a NetEA list just isn't a good excuse. Our group has managed dozens of play tests with Tyranids and knights (and emperors children), all using NetEA, when we all have non-approved lists that we might rather play with.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

Indeed. Epic-UK lists aren't just used in the UK either - we use some of their lists here in New Zealand and if I go to the Cancon tournament in Oz next year I'll be using an Epic-UK list.

A poll I ran months ago showed 75% support for allowing Epic-Uk lists as valid opponents for playtesting Net-EA lists and hopefully the ERC will make the sensible call and allow that, but they seem to be taking a very long time to talk about it and decide anything.

So would NetEA players be more open to using a set standard for terrain, LOS etc so the process is more even around the world? i.e. Things like true line of sight do have an impact on games especially where forumware and FW gear come into the picture (being often larger than their SG cousins). If some groups play true and others not, the spread of results would essentially be different. e.g. two titans of differing scale would have different LOS - one might be able to see over a set of true-LOS woods but the other might not even though they are the same titan. The reverse is true too where one could be seen and have nowhere to hide when the other would etc.

The terrain itself would also be different as a hill would essentially be open sights and there would be no real point in putting most hills on the table other than for beauty as they would be unlikely to be high enough to block LOS at all.

GlynG - would EUK be open to allowing NetEA list in their tournaments?

The simplest way is to include a couple of photos with any report to show the table and any issues that arose.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Some UK tournaments do allow NetEA lists, but they tend to be the ones that do not form part of the championship.

I would not want to speak for EpicUK itself, but it would seem to me that allowing netea lists would be somewhat illogical. The whole reason EpicUK lists exist is in order to be more confident that they are balanced and well suited for tournament play (eg quicker to play). It's not to create a different flavour, or due to some ideological opposition to NetEA (indeed there is a crossover between committees).

This means that there is no real motivation to include NetEA lists in the most competitive tournaments (ie the championship). If a NetEA version was deemed suitable it would be included anyway (eg Tau). Otherwise, including the NetEA version would require testing and streamlining it, which is what leads to the EpicUK list in the first place. Including them as-is would simply bypass the EpicUK process, which clearly they believe is necessary otherwise they wouldn't have it.

Possibly if more approved NetEA lists had existed some years ago a different process would have arisen, but we are where we are.

On the terrain question, forgive me but I have a vague recollection that it was an Oz group that rejected the suggestion of normalising terrain conventions when it was last raised (last year maybe?), but I'm not sure which area and anyway I'm not 100% sure. Maybe dig up that old thread and see what various people said about it at the time?

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

I know it is a point of contention but you do give the impression that you are in some way "against" EpicUK. Note I'm not talking about the people or the organisation but merely the fragmenting effect it has on the community. It is a shame if people misunderstand that frustration as a "conspiracy theory". However given that your play group seems to be driven by achieving good balance in competitive play, have you considered adopting the EpicUK lists instead? Or simply tweaking lists between yourselves?

In my view, the reason the EpicUK process works and produces very balanced lists is primarily because the people who produce them play a lot of Epic and are very good at it. It helps also that they have a clear goal in mind. What I'm saying is, it works because people like me don't have as much say as them. That's not to say my feedback counts for nothing, just that it is very different to the NetEA philosophy of "do what the community wants". If I post a comment that I think a unit is broken, it's hard for a NetEA AC to know how representative it is - it could be because I'm a crap player, or have only played it a couple of times, or because of our terrain conventions etc etc. Instead, in EpicUK a group of people who know each other well and play a lot of games can debate the list very efficiently. They also make their own job easier by limiting the scope of what is in the list.

The constrained meta is also helpful but IMO is secondary. What's interesting about it is that the UK meta is so unified and I think this is actually a direct result of having all those tournaments. I know that some things I used to play differently we now do the way most people in tournaments do it, which means it's not so much that EpicUK only had to consider one meta, but that the EpicUK meta for terrain etc has become the meta for everyone That meta seems very unlikely to change in the UK simply due to the scale, so imposing a standard form across NetEA is unlikely to work IMO but I've no doubt it would be possible to adopt the UK conventions elsewhere if smaller groups would like to try.

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

I'd be interested in having these conventions laid out in one place if possible. Maybe another thread or is it in a tournament pack somewhere? I don't really play enough to have come across all the situations where certain rulings become necessary so it would be good to see the results of regular players agreed house rules as it were.

Kyrt, in the past I used to have an issue but I've come to see that EUK has an important part in Epic and have since changed my views, unfortunately nowadays, some people think I'm out to disparage EUK every time I use the term in a post, when I'm actually just asking questions to try and see if NetEA could be done better and I shouldn't have people insulting me because I ask questions about EUK processes etc. Particularly by people in positions of power and who should know better. Constantly having my head bitten off for asking these questions because someone has a dislike of me or is reading into my posts in the wrong way is pretty shitty. I mean why should people bother to give any feedback if this keeps happening?


Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.


Yes, and I would hope NetEA could move in a similar direction, especially with groups like Cal001's and PFE100 around. I even wonder if NetEA could have specific tester groups to make the process more streamlined because of this.


Exactly why I think it would help NetEA and would like to see it attempted. There's been so much negativity around how long it takes to get a NetEA list approved I thought perhaps asking what could be done might be of benefit to the process.

Well the internet is not exactly a format conducive to supporting nuanced conversation. Add in the somewhat anonymous nature of the medium and whatnot, it's pretty easy to get things escalating beyond what would happen in real life. I know I've had my fair share of kerfuffles over time with a few members. It's a simple fact of life I supose. I would expect that anyone put face to face would have no issue having a polite conversation with each other despite differing viewpoints. The medium simply lacks any ability to for the expression of what's know as "emotional intelligence". Point being that we all can move forward.


I still don't understand why simply noting important local meta conventions in the play test report can't help us keep track of those for evaluation. "Hey I just noticed that 16 of the 18 reports were all from groups that do true LOS. Perhaps we should get a few more doing area terrain convention to be sure" seems to be something easily accomplished if we all included those.

I'm trying to remember but do we even have a thread outlining and giving recommendations about how to write up an effective BatRep? Something like that, recommending people note that might be handy. (not to kvetch about the process but I'm also finding a lot of "formation A did that to formation X" and little discussion about why they took the army they did the and the intended army tactics for the game)

I don't know... perhaps I'm full of crap and over thinking it.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!