I am open to change, but I would've liked to have seen some reason why we should change to the proposed ones beyond "because I say so", which was utterly lacking in this thread up until, well, the post just above this one. This is extra important when we're not just talking about building upon the rules we have, but replacing them completely.Originally Posted by Vartan
Anyway, because my question for reason and clarification was apparently deemed as "not serious", here are some general critiques of the proposed rules:
What do you mean, "same units (...) available in x different forms"? Obviously, when you refuse to answer the question I made, and just repeat what I wanted you to explain in the first place, it leaves me no wiser than I was before. However, assuming I was correct, then this rule is as arbitrary as it's dumb. Yay for forcing even more clone-like armies than ever! Diversity in armies is our biggest obstacle to enlarging the community!Originally Posted by Lazy0
Nah, lets just allow elephants as normal. It's not like people ever bring them anyway.No Elephants (sohuld be changed or else Saba would die)
With this said, I seriously doubt that the rules are to blame for the fact that the community isn't bigger than it is. Changing them is not likely to bring in more players (nor would I really see that as a sufficient reason for this kind of change anyway).
Bookmarks