Quote:
But why not just broaden the basic framework and include defensive options from the start? If they are optional it wouldn't force players to use them. But it could attract thoose who wanted them, i.e more players would play the list and it could lead to more battle reports being done.
First off, so we are clear, I'm not arguing against adding defense at all. This is a discussion about list structure. The end result either way is that players will have optional rules to add defenses to AdMech lists.
A couple of reasons actually. First is fluff. Every army fights defensive operations at some point, but are walls, bunkers, or emplacements really the defining characteristic of all skitarii forces like you could argue they are for DKOK? Fluff wise, I think you would have to say that the emphasis is on exotic or arcane technologies and biological augmentations not common in other Imperial forces rather than defensive structures. Shouldn't we focus on what defines skitarii and the admech first?
The second is that rules for defenses would be optional, as you say. A framework should consist of items that define an Amy as uniquely adMech regardless of how the army is played; it should not include optional rules. The goal of development is to create the framework first and then extend that framework with optional modules. Adding defenses fits very well with the definition of optional module or addon.
Does this mean you might not see something you want for a bit longer? Yes, it does, but the end result will make future development much more efficient.