New rule suggestion

I think you need to look at my tone across my posts here and rethink if I am trying to "gotcha" anybody. You said "Well, I dont think anyone suggested it for ARO, I know I certainly didnt" and I said that the only mention of ARO in this context was the example you gave. I am agreeing with you - not every post in this thread is an attack!

That said, my response that example still hasn't been addressed effectively IMO. It's two different models with two different skills instead of one model with two different skills, not to mention that both skills are effectively "dodge"

I think people are talking past each other here. Complexity = amount of rules and particularly rule exceptions that need to be internalized to play a game. Depth = how players can interact with each other in meaningful ways in the game. You want the maximum depth possible from the minimum complexity possible. Creating a one off, "F2F rules are broken here and work differently just for this one rule" is comparatively a lot of complexity for adding comparatively little depth.

 

You haven't explained anything though.

 

Now you know why I responded the way I did.

 

No, they aren’t. Is English a second language for you?
Game situation = state of the game and the rolls affected by your proposed rule change.
Niche = what profiles would have the rule and the role that they would fill during play, along with the playstyle and factional identity that they would support.

I don’t think I am mistaken, after reading your posts.

No, I’m saying that you haven’t even made a minimal effort to understand how your proposal would work.

“These people” have seen your posts before.

I know what a troll is. You’re not a troll though, you’re not smart enough.

 

Thats a good point, I'd only considered it in light of dodging attacks. But I think that bell curve is less important in a pass/fail system that it is in a degrees of success system.

Would love to see bonus dodge on some Samurai units and on Haqq supersoldiers

 

Right.
WE’RE the problem, not your consistently inadequate explanation of your ideas for rule changes.
You know, not once have I seen you state WHY you’re proposing a change. Zero times. I guess I was too busy gatekeeping to notice all the times you did, but that’s okay, you can link them, right?
Right?
…
…
…
@wuji, you can link to where you stated the reason for your proposed changes, can’t you?

 

@wuji you've spent three pages not giving anything to back up your arguments or ideas and then talking shit when that doesn't magically convince people to agree with you.

This is the reason this forum is so fucking dead and toxic, this bullshit right here.

Those 'gatekeepers' have it right - shutting you down hard and fast is an infinitely better idea than trying to engage the argument in good faith.

 

I think this tread needs a bit of a pause at this point.

Calm down a bit and resume discussion later.