Reminder - new rules, changes, etc. belong in the Rules Team Forum

[Kevin]

A reminder to folks that posts by veteran players about proposed rules, alternations, and unit changes belong in the Rules Team Forum.

Including the words "Home Rule" in the title does not get you a pass to put these elsewhere.

If you as an individual player want to discuss this stuff in a serious way but are not part of the Rules Team Forum, post here and we'll see about getting you on there.

[Hannibal]

So I can't post up stuff of how we play differently?  What about Gull's Blogs wherein he proposes different campaign rules and unit mods?

The Big Guys thread did not start as a rules proposal thread but an analysis thread.  It almost certainly should have stayed that way and not included suggestions on how to fix, but that's a pruning of individual posts at best.

I don't want to be on the rules team, and I'm not going to push these rules on folks.  If I think they're a good idea, I'll suggest the rules team take a look at it and leave it at that.  But I also think there's things that could be improved about BGFW, and I thought I'd share those ideas to the community.

This smacks of one person wanting to take control and keep a lid on any other discussion. 

[Chad_YMG]

Hi Kevin,

I'm a bit confused about this.  While having an official rules team is fairly new we've had a long tradition of people putting up various house rules according to their own personal preferences.  My initial instinct would be to have that continue and to have members of the Rules team be able to "poach" those ideas if one or more of them think that a house rule is a significant improvement (rather than just an alternative).

The rules team forum should really only be for people on the rules team itself, so only letting house rules exist there keeps them away from people who might like to give them a try.  Can you explain your reasoning for this policy?

Thanks,
Chad

[Kevin]

Chad, the Rules Team Forum was initially created because a couple of the new players complained about the Forum getting cluttered with (sometimes heated) debates about units and rules.  So it was a way to isolate those discussions from the more casual users. [1]

(The complaint thread may have been deleted shortly after the Rules Team Forum section was created, as the complaints were moot, but they were most certainly there.)

Certainly there are shades of grey.  IMHO a new player saying "When we play we like to play on a narrower map." seems like a fine topic to keep in General Discussion.  

On the other hand a veteran player saying, for example, "Spears suck.  Here's what I like to do to balance them..." followed by a long discussion of the merits of Spearmen and rule proposals strikes me as exactly the reason the Rules Team Forum was created in the first place.  And IMHO belongs there...particularly when said player has been posting threads like this more-or-less weekly, and the only people participating in the discussion are RTF folks..

But hey, it's not my sandbox.  Say the word and I'll move the threads back (or someone else can do so).  I personally don't care where the discussions reside; it was all about the experience of casual forum users.

---------

[1] Another little bit of history about the creation of Rules Team Forum is that there was no requirement of Official Playtesting, Tournament Victories, Nominations, etc.  Every person who had participated in the Rules discussions of May-June 2011 was given playtester status so that they could participate in the RTF (people who already had playtester status were also automatically able to participate).

[gncamama]

(coming from a person who thinks himself as a casual user...)

I don't frequently post (this is probably my third or so post ever) but there are probably many like me who just love reading this stuff just to see how the veteran posters think.  I don't always agree with the opinions posted but that's ok...I don't always agree with my wife's either.  I still respect the thoughts people have written and love reading how a discussion evolves as people attempt to mentally counter each other.

Even better than moving these threads back, I would much rather have the rules team forum be made read-only (rather than being inaccessible) so that casual users who are so inclined can still see it.  This way, users can choose to not enter that section if they don't want to while keeping it still open for others.  Setting it to read-only keeps it focused to Rules Team only posts.

Otherwise, moving those threads to a restricted area:
1) prevents us not-so-experts from gaining the insight the experts already have.
2) though infrequent as it may be, it prevents us not-so-experts from contributing as much to the game. For instance, my one small contribution to BGFW rules (http://yourmovegames.com/forum/index.php/topic,1192.0.html) would never have happened if I hadn't read a thread (http://yourmovegames.com/forum/index.php/topic,789.0.html) which, under the guidelines stated at the beginning of this thread, would normally have been a rules team forum post since it was made by a veteran player seeking a fix to a unit.

Mind you, the "Are big units a bad buy" thread had become more heated than I would like and perhaps it should be looked into but I don't recall it being so filled with unnecessary posts/being spammed/etc that it needed to be moved to an area most forums readers don't have access to.

Respectfully,
Gilbert

[GoIndy]

The problem I have is we took a thread in which I was actively posting in, and it was moved to somewhere else where I can't read it.   Now, I'm more than willing to defer to Kevin and Zelc and Niko and whomever else on what changes should be made, but I can't see why in the world everyone shouldn't be allowed to read/participate if they want.

If people think the thread is too long, full of bickering, whatever......don't read it.  What am I missing?

[BubblePig]

IIRC the reason for starting the rules team forum was twofold.
1) Discussions getting overly heated.
2) Players getting confused and frustrated about what rules, errata, clarifications were "official" and what was simply being discussed.

Simply putting "house rule" or some such in the title does not necessarily address #2 to the extent that I would like to see. On the other hand, I have felt for some time that hiding all the rules discussions in the RTF was a short term solution, not a real fix.

Is there anyone who feels that a public area titled "UNOFFICIAL VARIANTS" or some such would be a bad idea? That would go a lot father addressing #2, but Admins would have somewhere to move stuff that everyone could still see and participate. Or preferably this sort of stuff will get posted there to begin with.

Say the word and I'll move the threads back (or someone else can do so).

I am implementing it now as a TEMPORARY measure: House Rules, Unofficial Variants and Proposals
If no one objects to this and/or Chad gives a thumbs up maybe this could be permanent. I sorta rushed naming the board, though, so at the very least that should be fixed.

[Kevin]

Nicely done, BubblePig!  That's an ideal solution IMHO.

[Chad_YMG]

I really like the unofficial variants idea.  I can see how some house-rules threads could get heated but I also think that discussing alternate rules is a pretty big part of general game discussion so I absolutely wouldn't like to see it limited to a forum that not everyone could participate in.

[elgin_j]

Why is it necessary to specify variants as unofficial?  I'm not aware of any official variants to the game currently in existence (but will happily take a look if someone directs me to something I've been missing).

[Kevin]

Here's an example of each:

The official map is 36" wide, but the Jersey guys typically play their huge games on a 46" wide map = unofficial variant.


Perhaps what may be considered an official variant is that Jaime and I don't use mercenaries in our armies even though they're officially allowed.  I'd say that our variant is still official however, since we aren't violating any rules.

---------

But the bigger point is that some rules are introduced for the purpose of playtesting and changing the official rules, while others don't have that as an explicit goal.

[Hannibal]

But the bigger point is that some rules are introduced for the purpose of playtesting and changing the official rules, while others don't have that as an explicit goal.

Since this one seems to apply to me, I'll respond. 

My house rules are mine.  They are not drafted up as some form of guerrilla rules change campaign.  They were something that we have crafted for our own games.  Which is why I chose to label them "House Rules" and not "Corey's Rules Request" or some such.  My point was that these were our rules that we were playing/trying out/etc.  I believe on the Disrupted, I made a comment that the Rules Team should 'check them out' or something to that effect.  To me that wasn't any type of request to change the rules or vote on them, just that I felt I'd caught lightning in a bottle and was really pleased with myself.  Perhaps I should have made it more clear, but I sincerely didn't think it'd be an issue.

The reason I posted up the house rules in the first place was because when I left the Rules Design team, I realized just how quiet this forum is.  I mean, I seriously think half of the people who come to this page in a day are admins or playtesters, and so they don't see how still this place can be without the chatter of the Rules Team forum.  So I thought I'd do something about it.  And I like fiddling with rules the way some people fiddle with cars in their garage.  That and designing factions.  I love telling the stories.

So that's what I did.  I legitimately didn't think it was any different than Gull's "Ballista on an Elephant" (which, btw, is still the frakking coolest idea ever!).  I drafted up some factions, posted up some that had been sitting on my flash drive, and starting posting up some house rules.  I sincerely never thought they'd amount to much.  I figured I'd post up the house rules in dribs and drabs because 1) most of them were just shorthand notes at the time and 2) it seemed more enjoyable to have a constant conversation on different topics than one big glut of threads.

As for the playtesting, well, I playtest everything I suggest.  I just happened to have a little more free time on my hands, so I could post up pictures (plus I have now "appropriated" the wife's camera) and write battle reports.  I felt it was worth taking the time to do it because my Disrupted House Rules were so radical, and ironically, I was taking the extra time to post pictures to prevent angry arguments, so that people could see it for themselves.

What has me smiling over here in finally-about-to-start-raining California, is that 1) I was going out of my way not to be subversive or pick a fight.  I was just trying to chat.  And 2) I am chuckling that the guy who gave me grief for not posting batreps with pictures is now giving me grief for posting batreps with pictures. 

[GoIndy]

First off, if you dont allow healer mages.....you suxx0rz!!

(which is somewhat funny, cause Brook busts my chops every time I place them)

We dont really have a fixed width...it kind of comes of comes out to wherever our beer cans are, or where the kids toy is, or where the backpack sits comfortably.  We're pretty relaxed.   

[Hannibal]

I've been banned from using Healer Mages at Kublacon, just because this one time I took them to go with my 2 Celestial Guard vs. An Orc stand and shoot.  And against Hawkshold.  And Dwarves...