The 2013 Tournament Pack has come out, but no new lists have been approved since last year which is disappointing. In the Tournament Pack thread Dave mentions the criteria to be considered for approval is that 3 different groups across the world playtesting the list at least 6 times against existing approved lists.

Do you keep a tally of how many playtests vs approved there have been for the sub-lists Dobbsy? If you don't might it be worth doing so? - could a stickied thread with numbers for each in the SM section help focus efforts?

I have SM with me that I'll proxy as variant SMs to try to get some of the existing sub-lists to be approved if some are already close. Black Templars are one I'd like to try.

I watch the Adeptus Astartes forum to see what's getting chatter and play time. The Iron Hands and possibly the Raptors were the only "standard chapter" list types to see any play across groups/different players from what I recall. The two Horus Heresy lists are also around but am yet to see much play-feedback about them.

I've been surprised by the release of the tourney pack as there seems to have been absolutely no warning about it and I don't remember anyone asking for new list submissions.

The AoS was apparently very popular in Australia a while ago. Never saw a batrep on it.

My Horus Heresy list has a couple of hundred downloads between its various versions. Can barely even get feedback on it.

I'm gonna try and get some playtesting in over Tabletop this year. Just need to get the Fists working.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Not ideal with the lack of communication but I'd rather focus on trying to get playtesting going and concentrate on getting a few lists approved for next time.

Iron Hands and Raptors have seen testing recently, but there's a lot of the older variants that have had a lot more testing in the past. Playtest reports from years ago against approved lists should count, so long as the list is still pretty much the same. According to the Compendium there are 4 SM lists that are considered 'Developmental' and so already pretty well tested, these lists being Black Templars, Blood Angels, Raven Guard and Space Wolves. I'd suggest concentrating on getting these lists approved would be the best and most likely.

How close are the Space Wolves to being ready do you think? They've got some battle reports up against approved lists e.g. viewtopic.php?f=84&t=23401&hilit=wolves viewtopic.php?f=84&t=17090

Cal/Aaron has a large nicely painted Space Wolf army and Ortron in his play group posts up reports sometimes (he did one recently vs Thousand Sons). If you contact Aaron and/or Ortron and ask them nicely if they could help get 6 playtest reports against approved lists up (perhaps by the end of the year if possible) they might help?

If you commit to getting at least 6 playtest reports up of your own games then Dobbsy you just need one other group to do so and you could qualify, I'll proxy my marines as SWs and get 6 up by the end of the year if I know that there are a couple of other groups doing so.

Perhaps we can get some play testing and approving going if we post the different status on the mainpage here? Like using this very good summary thread tread viewtopic.php?f=73&t=23690 and adding: Space Wolfs "17 Battle reports needed" or something like that?
That way people can help and have a clearer goal. Right now I (who only lived in these forums for some months) have no idea on what needs help and what is dead. A lot of threads seems to be from several years ago and most other race sub forums don't have a summary like the SM so you don't really know what armies that exists without searching.

Anyway to me the whole battle report thing is a little sketchy, what do "you" need from a report?
(Last time we played I didn't bother writing a report as I didn't feel like taking notes all the time... )
1. Army lists from both?
2. Every activation or just a summary turn by turn?
3. Pictures? (the whole table and/or just close ups)
4. Strategy before/after?
...
I did an activation by activation report last week or so after reading some advise on what to do but I really don't see what use they are to others. A summary and some aerial photos would be better in my mind...

Our playgroup has agreed to try and make every other battle to be a battlereport if needed. Right now we play mostly dev/exp lists so we need one of us to play approved list to have them counted and if we do that it would be nice to have a goal

If some lists are closer to getting a move up the ladder I would be happy to proxy that army and do at least a couple reports around that list.

Also a deadline would be nice but if no one tells you when it is this will be really hard...

Have a look at some of the reports in the Battle Report section of the forum for inspiration?

I have a camera with me and try to take a photo each activation (sometimes twice one before and once after with the damage and blast markers visible). The two army lists are a must and I then write up a battle report using most of the pictures with a mention of what is happening. I mention my strategy and thoughts and conclusions at the end.

The Blood angels have seen testing through a number of players and they seem to work fine. they were even used in Heavy Bolter and finished somewhere around the middle so I can't see them being OTT. Best to chat to E&C on his opinion of them.

The Space Wolves are pretty much done but people like yourself often ask for minor changes so they could go either way. TBH in the games I've seen and played they have seemed fairly balanced as while they are aggressive in assault they do actually lack in the heavy firepower stakes to some degree.

The Raven Guard have also seen play through several players but I think they could use a little more from a couple more to get a better sample.

IIRC the Black Templars were close but have since not seen anyone playing them so I'm hesitant to push them forward as I haven't seen anyone playing them since I inherited the SM AC and I'm not sure where they were sitting in the schedule.

To really gauge how lists are travelling I like to see bat reps and decent levels of constructive discussion from both the player and his opponents. Photos are nice but they don't really show a heck of a lot except to show specific points of play etc.

Your thoughts on the various lists are pretty similar to my own.

E&C isn't developing anymore but we could still test the list and get it approved.

If you were to pick one variant to focus playtesting and trying to get approved first which would it be? (it would be good to do them all in time but best to tackle the easiest first)

Hmm, my thoughts seems to be spelled badly
I do not need inspiration, I was wondering what needed to be in a report for it to "count" against approval...
The reports you write about is fun to read and I don't want to change that but since we got almost no battlereports I was wondering what the minimum amount of info would be. (Also to me it is sometimes hard to see if the army is balanced with the more fun and storytelling battlereport.)
It might do with armylists and some strategic photographs of the whole table plus a summary? That way we could have some more reports to lean against...


A suggestion would be to put forward the Blood Angel with the motivation by Dobdsy and see if it can sneak by the "18 games" rule.
I agree with GlynG, focus on the easiest one first, and/or the one with most active supporters, perhaps by taking a short poll?

I'd recommend:

A paragraph for each army list
A paragraph for deployment
A bullet point for strategy rolls
A paragraph for "start of turn" events (teleports etc)
A bullet point per activation, describing which formation does what
A bullet point per rally attempt.

I have a preprinted form where I fill out activations during the game, so the gameplay doesn't bog down in recordkeeping.

Add pictures to taste.

Here's an example.

Post a copy of the form, Speaker?

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Sure; Here you go:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/115 ... %20Log.doc

Still do we (or "they") need all that?
To me the armylists and the summary in the end says a whole lot more than the activation by activation bullets...still if I was looking at a specific unit the bullets would be nice
I will try and mimic Speakers report for now, at least they are very good if not so many

Can we post this the EA Bat Rep subforum and sticky 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!

So what now?
We focus on the list we like individually and none will be approved next year also...

I tend to play a lot against non-approved lists so then I don't bother with a report but sometimes I play against Steel Legion or Tau and if I knew it would help I would gladly play a game or two with a list that is close to being approved...
Right now I'm just waiting for the Iron Hands to seattle down and becom Developed so I can get some reports up for them but intil then?

To me pointer by the champ or some numbers next to the armylist would help and it might trigger some competition if we managed to get this to work. There are some really strange lists in the approved status that is alot more unbalanced/weak/pointless then some of the developed ones so I guess its just the number of reports that is the issue, no the lists.