HT optional rule

[Otto von Blotto]

Yes I can see what you mean, and optional rules on it would make ROE for an individual easier to enforce, but I do also see the advantage of fewer written in stone rules, and there are enough players that if you feel really strongly about a rule you can still find enough quality games and use the rules you want.

You I know (as I have played you a few times) are like me and will go with the flow so would normally be defaulting to as few restricting rules as possible. :smoke:

If we are going to add more general rules and I would say I would hate to see CS to descend into the amount of optional rules as say HPS, we must first discuss what has gone before to see if it is still suitable before we add to it.

Indirect fire, command control and Fog of war are fine broad reaching and in my opinion should always be on by default anyway.

VV is an IMHO a mess as it stands and isn't a suitable rule until the same visibility is the same for both sides of a turn.

Half-track rules would make the balance of all the scenarios that have gone before dubious maybe they were made with that use of half-tracks in a offensive or diversionary role in mind.?

Armour facing and EA are debatable and can be added if the scenario designer set the game up for it which brings me onto another point.

Scenarios that were made for a particular rule set should say so, so many games are now played with EA or Armour facing on by default that should never have been, as they were made and balanced before the EA rule was envisioned (less so with AF as it came in long, long ago but I'm sure there are some stock ones that it effects) the emphasis should be on the designer saying what rules are on rather than off that way all that have gone before, that a particular rule was never meant for be easily identifiable. (sorry I broke the not diverting the thread rule and maybe the mods can split it) but it does effect a lot of games and this discussion. :soap: