HT optional rule

[PawelM]

I am not the greatest fan of personal rules of engagement. Having said that, I often do agree to them if someone mentions them clearly to me before a game starting.

These I could live with, I guess, although with no1 and no2 I do not have strong feelings for or against. If you live a unit at a risk for being assaulted by HTs, well you shouldn't.

However with no3 I could see this even as a potential 1.05 change request. Either class HTs as soft vehicles, leaving only tanks TDs SPAs as hard targets? Or create a class of their own for that?

I do agree a use of HTs to continuosly trigger op fire feels a bit 'gamey'. Anyway, one of those things I guess where I would simply request in an email that I would appreciate if my opponent would not do it anymore.

As I said I do not appreciate extra ROEs but would prefer to stick to my own interpretation of 'realistic' (now there's a touchy word as well) use of given unit in given situation.

In general my attitude towards peronal rules of engagement are that i do not bring it up and assume the units can bes used as the player sees fit. There are pplayers who request it and usually I agree as I do not mind and enjoy playing them.somet

I have a habit to use all the units as I see fit. Sometimes out of habbit one can break the agreed rule. I thought there was enough gamers here restricting HT use that it might be sensible making it an optional rule as say extreme assault.

from my personal perspective there is only one advantage: I would not have to curb my habbits when using HT and would not need to remember which game I agreed for that :)
One might say I should stick to playing one way or another. But I think I would loose out on not playing some good and fun to play gamers.