Athmospheric wrote:
I am only suggesting that we change a few stuff and see how it plays with current list. It is quite possible that the same army will be competitive with both the stable "tournament" rule set and the experimental one, but that you could design competitive and balanced army for both rule set with the same list.
Than again, since I think Simulated Knave (it was you, wasn't it ?) got me thinking about the way the marine lists is priced, indeed pricing the infantry with the assumption that it will get air delivered rather than charging that on the TH, I have come to the opinion that the design stance on lists in E:A is flawed. It is not the subject here however (but I can explain why I think so in another thread if you'd like to hear about that).
The point is, so much revolve around army lists as a focus (as THE focus one might say), and there are so many lists around in half finished state -quite often competing against each others- that the argument going "but if we do that the community will never be able to finish what it started" is moot. Lists published at game release time 6 years (or is it 7 years ?) ago are still evolving - and I think it's a good thing- we really shouldn't let that detract us from doing other thing for the game.
Now, if you had arguments going "Activations are really fine, and here's why this or that change would actually not make better rules or add anything significant", THAT would relevant to the discussion.
But as it is, many people have made points about some flaws the system has in its current state* and some possible ways to fix it or make it better, and I think what this thread needs now is to settle on an experimental rules that volunteer may decide to playtest or not, or discussion about the pertinence of a limited rule overhaul, but please not based on the status of army lists. Army lists development is the quagmire that is making the game less and less accessible, and the community so split. Most of the rules committees work and what split them is really mostly which lists are official or not anyway, and not about the rules. The rules are not what split the Epic community, online or not, English-speaking, or not.
A quick survey of the stuff most often house-ruled by people and for what reason might be nice, on the other hand. As I already said, I think the air-rules are a likely candidate.
* which, again, is not a harsh critic. It is on the contrary remarkable that we found so few problems in the rule set in 8 years that couldn't be solved by a FAQ entry.
edited for spelling
Your not suggesting a small change though, chnaging the activation system changes the vlaues of every unit in every list. Even small rules changes such as -1 to CAP attacks, aircraft not holding objectives have large effects so messing with the srtucture of the game will have a huge effect on the game and how it plays.
For the record I think the activation system is fine. The problem is more th ability of the points-sink unit and its synergy with the rest of the list.
