Quote from: AntiokosIII on October 11, 2025, 07:02:50 PM

Quote from: badhabum on October 11, 2025, 04:15:38 PMTo me it is ALL about game balance and historical accuracy . Sorry to disagree . IMO it is cheesy but if we may use it, we use it . Donwgrading why not, they have a bad day but no downgrading 2 characteristics

I do not understand this post. Would you consider explaining the connection between limiting downgrades and historicity ? I am sure I am unusually dense.

No you are not dense . ALL is about most of the posts . Siome time people tell us it is about game balance and about other posts suddenly it is historicity . I was expressing frustration on that cheesy way to discuss things .

Now about downgrading it should be for a specific scenario or using the table that's included in the rules. Army lists should be FIXED and it will make armies much more interesting as downgrading some units , even once, is a gamy way of pushing some of the elite units "forward". It would be interesting to have a tournament without any downgrading and see with what players come . If the list is historical, then it's historicity . If you may downgrade for the fun then it's game fun .

Downgrading was introduced as a mechanism to make writing the lists easier and avoid the need for too many options.
The idea that the lists would be fixed is nonsense.  A lot of lists would need options if no downgrades were permitted.

Downgrading both quality and shooting skill to create cheap UGs was an unintended consequence.

Richard

That was what I thought. REG lists chose not to use that mechanism and are consequently much longer with many lines that differ by only a morale or shooting grade. Imagine that over the 600+ MEG lists!

The same people are just repeating the same argument.  This topic is being locked.