HT optional rule

[PawelM]

You are making a good point about number of optional rules already in the game. I also agree with your analysis of optional rules. Especially I like the idea of fog of war (and extreme fow), indirect fire and CC being made default rules. I do not recall to have ever played a game with those OFF (and I did not encounter a player who requested the disable either). This would reduce number of optional rules to 3 :).

AF and EA again agreed depends on scenario, but at least I use the options as on or off so are usefull to keep them as some scenarios are balnced for their specific settings.

VV seems unneccessary there, I do not use it nearly at all and do no think any of the people I played neither.

so just 2 optional rules would be enough....

Maybe 3 when you add the HTs

my opinion is to use any units to whatever extent the game allows. So if the unithas an assault factor it can assault. If it can movve it can do reckon, etc. But I do not feel strongly about it and if there is a player asking to restrict HT usage prior the game I accept it - but not always remember :)

I agree HT rule could affect some scenarios and hence preference to make it optional.

My main logic is if there is a rule of engagement -like informal one with HT'- used by many players, then it should be made into the gaem option. This way one will achieve what I think should be an ultimate goal being whatever game engine ( with optional rules elected within it ) allows is LEGAL.