Comments on proposed list changes

[ShrubMiK]

...should be in a separate topic to the proposed list changes themselves. Amongst other reasons, most of us cannot comment in a pinned thread!

So here I go...

Whilst I can see the point of view that list changes are a disturbance,  my personal preference  is to change lists periodically. Maybe not as frequently as every year, but we should be able to address what come to be seen as mistakes in lists. Who makes that decision? Well I would rather place it in the hands of the official rules authors and list researchers than invoke some sort of democratic vote!

I don't agree that all changes should be optional, or that maximum and minimum quantities should not be adjusted. Options should be for where it is considered that different interpretations are equally valid, not simply to allow players to avoid changing existing armies.

Most troop reclassifications do not require figures to be changed IMO.

Changing maximum and minimum quantities is more impactful, but if I need to paint a few more figures as I reconfigure my army so be it. It's happened before and it will happen again.

I will also point out that there is nothing stopping players from agreeing not to stick to the latest list version in friendly games; the same goes for tournament organisers. I personally  wouldn't have a problem with an opponent using an older "version" of an army against me.

One suggestion - perhaps the older (deprrecated) versions of lists should remain available for download, to make it easier for players to reference and use them if desired. This seems like a better approach than cluttering all lists with enough options to allow players to build old or new interpretaions from one list (or even a mixutre of old and new interpretations for different troop types.

All my opinion of course, I realise there are people that disagree. But  we should all be heard

[SteveO]

Well said ShrubMik - I wholeheartedly agree with you on all but one point. I am not in favour of allowing old lists to be used, although what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business.😉

We are playing historical wargames and so if the latest academic research/interpretation of the evidence suggests there should be a change - so be it. That said, as a pragmatic compromise I think changes could be limited to every second year.

BTW, I think it is a shame that not everyone could contribute as usefully as Onurbm. Even though I seem to place greater priority on plausible historical representation than Onurbm, I recognise his preference for game stability is equally valid. (I hope I have not misrepresented you Onurbm.)

[nikgaukroger]

I will also point out that there is nothing stopping players from agreeing not to stick to the latest list version in friendly games; the same goes for tournament organisers.

Indeed. The lists are a tool and not a straightjacket.

[ShrubMiK]

It even more-or-less says so in the lists themselves!

(If you are being picky, it says "Feel free to vary troop classifications...", but not that quantities may be changed or that new troop types added. Perhaps the wording here could be made more explicitly permissive?)