My thoughts on BFGR

[Vaaish]

Having been away for a bit after the 2010 FAQ and not being part of some of the discussions on BFGR until lately, I've been trying to get up to speed on whats changed and where things are going. I understand the desire to simplify and fix some of the lingering issues with BFG and that's an awesome thing to attempt not to mention a pretty daunting task. Kudos to you for trying to do this. Truthfully, though, I'm more than a little disappointed in some of the changes. It feels very much that the desire to simplify has caused a loss of flavor and fixing things goes beyond things that actually need fixed. It feels very much like change for the sake of change.

I'm not posting this to bash on anyone, but I do strongly feel that BFGR is moving past fixing and into tinkering. And I believe that tinkering is something that should be approached with an entirely different mind set than what I see in the discussions at the moment and even then tinkering shouldn't be a focus of the project.

1. "Fan made" Ships.
I like fan ships just as much as everyone else because of what they bring to the table. They help spice things up a bit and that's a good thing. However, these really shouldn't be scattered in with the official ships. They need a section of their own to help new players understand what's what. I'm also disappointed at seeing ships added to races that the creators of BFG left out ON PURPOSE (Chaos light cruisers, I'm looking at you). We should respect the creator's wishes when it's clear that a decision was intentional especially when that is a core tennent of a fleet. This is especially true if BFGR is to be seen as an enhancement to the core BFG+FAQ2010 rules.

My suggestion: Put all fan made ships in a separate section at the end of the document.

2. Upgrades.
Why are these showing up? For instance, why did the Vengeance class get access to upgrades? The vengeance isn't an unbalanced ship to start out with although some of her sisters have some issues. The place for upgrades, if any,  would be a case like the Exorcist. Leave it alone and allow it to upgrade to 6LB, although it's a fine ship at 4lb and I don't see why it required change to begin with especially since it boosted the cost with the change. Upgrades shouldn't be used as a compromise solution especially in the case of rewriting a ships stats. Use upgrades only sparingly and have a good reason for adding them.

3. Lack of Focus
This is a big one. Right now it seems things pop up and as soon as they get put on the table there is no going back. This is bad because it assumes that everything that gets mentioned needs to change and it creates a mind set of "what do I change this to" rather than "should we even change this." The Bakka discussions are a good example of this.

We should be looking at this instead as what the fewest number changes that are needed to balance aspects of the game that aren't working. BFG has been played for years and there is consensus about things that DO need to change, but the reasoning for changing one ship or list should NEVER be that the same change was made to a different ship or list. The burden should fall on the person wanting a change to support and prove why a change needs to happen before even thinking about what to change about a ship or list. The burden of proof shouldn't be to prove that a change isn't needed.

My suggestion: Agree on how a list should play and then analyze the list through that. Prove a change is needed before you do anything else. If you can't make a clear reasoned position for why something needs to change, don't discuss changing it and certainly don't change it. When you DO vote always leave the option for no change at all. If you only present options for change you force people to pick one or abstain entirely. Neither gives an accurate result.

I started to make a list of things I thought were good changes made by BFGR... unfortunately, I only got as far as the NC changes, Admiral costs (this is marginal at best not broken but the new system doesn't make it worse), Retribution, Oberon, Dictator, and Firestorm changes before I ran out of things I can completely agree with in IN. The Apoc turned into a hot mess from the simple fix to change the rule for firing over 30cm to add a BM instead of a crit. The Vengeance class has added and unneeded upgrades. The Exorcist has a boost in LB with added cost that isn't optional. The Tyrant is now effectively a Dominator or the Dominator is a Tyrant that gets a 10 point discount on a NC. The Endeavor series gets a better prow but that alone isn't enough for 15 points more than a dauntless.

[afterimagedan]

Having been away for a bit after the 2010 FAQ and not being part of some of the discussions on BFGR until lately, I've been trying to get up to speed on whats changed and where things are going. I understand the desire to simplify and fix some of the lingering issues with BFG and that's an awesome thing to attempt not to mention a pretty daunting task. Kudos to you for trying to do this. Truthfully, though, I'm more than a little disappointed in some of the changes. It feels very much that the desire to simplify has caused a loss of flavor and fixing things goes beyond things that actually need fixed. It feels very much like change for the sake of change.

I suppose you haven;t seen Plaxor's documents then. They had so many changes, most of which were not voted on. Since Plaxor dropped out, I am trying to bring it back to the original votes and go with a voting system of all those who care to take part. I am starting to think there are some that think that BFG:R needs to stick to the original focus of BFG:R and maybe that is not what we are doing. Personally, I would like to see the name of the project renamed so that people don't lump us in with the original BFG:R. What I am hoping to do is finish and tone back what Plaxor was doing. A lot of it was awesome, but he wasn't taking votes on a lot of stuff, and I think that was the wrong way to approach it. Plus, it overloaded him.

I'm not posting this to bash on anyone, but I do strongly feel that BFGR is moving past fixing and into tinkering. And I believe that tinkering is something that should be approached with an entirely different mind set than what I see in the discussions at the moment and even then tinkering shouldn't be a focus of the project.

Fixing and tinkering are pretty subjective. Anyways, yes, there are a decent amount of changes happening. If you would be comfortable with us changing the name of the project to something else so it can be altogether separate from BFG:R or whatever the original intention was, we can do that. People who want to change the lists are here to vote, and we go with the vote and make the change. We don't have to be bound by any "original purpose" if those who actually want to take part want something else.

1. "Fan made" Ships.
I like fan ships just as much as everyone else because of what they bring to the table. They help spice things up a bit and that's a good thing. However, these really shouldn't be scattered in with the official ships. They need a section of their own to help new players understand what's what. I'm also disappointed at seeing ships added to races that the creators of BFG left out ON PURPOSE (Chaos light cruisers, I'm looking at you). We should respect the creator's wishes when it's clear that a decision was intentional especially when that is a core tennent of a fleet. This is especially true if BFGR is to be seen as an enhancement to the core BFG+FAQ2010 rules.

My suggestion: Put all fan made ships in a separate section at the end of the document.

That would be a good idea if we were trying to make something official, but I don't care about official, and I don't know if that is what people are going for. New players should be told that this is a community made project and not official in any way. So what of it? Look, when it's all said and done, I am probably going to put a big ass post on the front page of the document saying "FAN MADE AND UNOFFICIAL" and a nice explanation inside of what this project is.

2. Upgrades.
Why are these showing up? For instance, why did the Vengeance class get access to upgrades? The vengeance isn't an unbalanced ship to start out with although some of her sisters have some issues. The place for upgrades, if any,  would be a case like the Exorcist. Leave it alone and allow it to upgrade to 6LB, although it's a fine ship at 4lb and I don't see why it required change to begin with especially since it boosted the cost with the change. Upgrades shouldn't be used as a compromise solution especially in the case of rewriting a ships stats. Use upgrades only sparingly and have a good reason for adding them.

Ok.

3. Lack of Focus
This is a big one. Right now it seems things pop up and as soon as they get put on the table there is no going back. This is bad because it assumes that everything that gets mentioned needs to change and it creates a mind set of "what do I change this to" rather than "should we even change this." The Bakka discussions are a good example of this.

We can go back and change anything. Who says we can't?  If people think there should be a change, they bring it up and if there is some consensus on it, we vote.

We should be looking at this instead as what the fewest number changes that are needed to balance aspects of the game that aren't working. BFG has been played for years and there is consensus about things that DO need to change, but the reasoning for changing one ship or list should NEVER be that the same change was made to a different ship or list. The burden should fall on the person wanting a change to support and prove why a change needs to happen before even thinking about what to change about a ship or list. The burden of proof shouldn't be to prove that a change isn't needed.

My suggestion: Agree on how a list should play and then analyze the list through that. Prove a change is needed before you do anything else. If you can't make a clear reasoned position for why something needs to change, don't discuss changing it and certainly don't change it. When you DO vote always leave the option for no change at all. If you only present options for change you force people to pick one or abstain entirely. Neither gives an accurate result.

People do provide reasons, except some don't except them as reasons. That's why there is voting. If people don't buy the reasons, they won't be persuaded.  You may not like the reasons I put for changing the Victory, and that's ok, you don't have to vote for my side.  But I don't think most people post changes for no reason.

I started to make a list of things I thought were good changes made by BFGR... unfortunately, I only got as far as the NC changes, Admiral costs (this is marginal at best not broken but the new system doesn't make it worse), Retribution, Oberon, Dictator, and Firestorm changes before I ran out of things I can completely agree with in IN. The Apoc turned into a hot mess from the simple fix to change the rule for firing over 30cm to add a BM instead of a crit. The Vengeance class has added and unneeded upgrades. The Exorcist has a boost in LB with added cost that isn't optional. The Tyrant is now effectively a Dominator or the Dominator is a Tyrant that gets a 10 point discount on a NC. The Endeavor series gets a better prow but that alone isn't enough for 15 points more than a dauntless.

A decent amount of those were right out of the original BFG:R voting, so they were just integrated by me when I started making the documents up.

I just think there is a different approach to things going on here, and that's ok.  Vaaish, if you would like me to put together new PDFs with just the original BFG:R votes and call that BFG:R, that would be fine by me. We can call the BFG:R that we are doing here something else. Plus, did any of these complaints come up when Plaxor and the original BFG:R people were coming up with the changes?

Here is the original list of BFG:R changes

[Duke]

I've been seeing these Plaxor documents referenced enough here to wonder in some confusion: what are the base ship profiles you are working off? Faq2010 or Plaxor?

Are Plaxor's changes being taken as guidelines? In other words are his choices being modified, or are his former choices guiding the modifications to FAQ2010?

Why is Plaxor referenced anyways? Respect to the man, to be sure, but it seems not many agree with these hinted extreme changes.  Is this what Afterimagedan means by: "Personally, I would like to see the name of the project renamed so that people don't lump us in with the original BFG:R,"?


Cheers all,
Duke

[afterimagedan]

First BFG:R (during FAQ 2010 days)
Second BFG:R (plaxor days)
Third BFG:R (now)

Too many of them. Basically, I went back to the original rules that Plaxor and the community started with in the link above this post. There are some things from later on that have been voted on and implemented from Plaxor's stuff. One of the big problems in my mind is that the original BFG:R and the Plaxor BFG:R has their good stuff in them. Plaxor actually dared to touch the Tyranid document which no one seems to give a crap about. The original BFG:R just seeming omitted the Tyranids. Yet, Plaxor's BFG:R made massive and unvoted changes. So, when I started this BFG:R up again (not trying to take credit here), we started with the original voted on BFG:R stuff and sought to finish the documents entirely, Tyranids and all. If people want to start the game with the official stuff, use the stuff from the GW website. If they want the near-official stuff, use 2010. If they want to use entirely unofficial but some would say more fun overall, they can use BFG:R if they want to or just pieces of it.

If people want me to put text boxes on each ship's page saying what changes we made to it, I would be happy to do so. That might actually be a good idea.

[Duke]

Credit is given then:  . Really, thanks for bringing these back and back again.

So... you're bringing up some of Plaxor's personal changes up for a vote? Are you considering his changes as... reliable indicators of needed adjustment?

We might want to ask a mod: if we do a search and make a list of all the voting threads & all the discussion threads (only BFG:R 1.3, aka current), would they make a sticky of the list? Your blog notes 39 votes and their details in 2012, but it would be nice to see the thread for each change.

-Duke

[afterimagedan]

It's all right HERE

The blogs that are not listed are ones that were undone and now irrelevant.

[Duke]

Yes I know. You kindly keep it linked in your sig. 
My questions weren't answered, unless what you mean by "The blogs that are not listed are ones that were undone and now irrelevant," is that nothing by Plaxor is considered anymore.

But as if to make my point, the ADmech pdf you keep isn't coherent internally, and is incomprehensibly priced, making me wonder whether there were multiple writers of that revision (Plaxor et al). To contribute to the revision process, one must read up on threads detailing those price changes hence my inquiry: is there a demand for a sticky of all BFG:R 1.3 vote and discussion threads?

I might as well and go ahead gathering them. Will see.

Cheers! 
Duke

[Vaaish]

That would be a good idea if we were trying to make something official, but I don't care about official, and I don't know if that is what people are going for. New players should be told that this is a community made project and not official in any way. So what of it? Look, when it's all said and done, I am probably going to put a big ass post on the front page of the document saying "FAN MADE AND UNOFFICIAL" and a nice explanation inside of what this project is.

My point with this is you would probably like the end result accessible to newer players. Throwing everything into a big pot makes it difficult for new players who might not be as familiar with BFG to pick out what's fan made and what's not without putting some effort into it. This is especially true when you have ships that look very similar to their official versions.

Fixing and tinkering are pretty subjective. Anyways, yes, there are a decent amount of changes happening. If you would be comfortable with us changing the name of the project to something else so it can be altogether separate from BFG:R or whatever the original intention was, we can do that. People who want to change the lists are here to vote, and we go with the vote and make the change. We don't have to be bound by any "original purpose" if those who actually want to take part want something else.

No, not subjective at all. Fixing is indicative of addressing a problem and providing a solution. Tinkering is indicative of messing with something for no better reason than curiosity.

We can go back and change anything. Who says we can't?  If people think there should be a change, they bring it up and if there is some consensus on it, we vote.

Just because people think there should be a change doesn't make it so. All that is is a good way to make sure BFGR sways wherever the wind blows, and not necessarily in any reliable or balanced fashion.

People do provide reasons, except some don't except them as reasons. That's why there is voting. If people don't buy the reasons, they won't be persuaded.

This is just the issue. People aren't providing reasons why they are changing things, they are posting changes and the coming up with reasons why their changes are better than someone else's. There is no litmus tests that says, look this isn't broken to begin with, lets talk about something that actually needs fixing.

A decent amount of those were right out of the original BFG:R voting, so they were just integrated by me when I started making the documents up.

I really don't care whose is at fault for some of those changes. It's still changes like that that are creating some of the problems right now.

Vaaish, if you would like me to put together new PDFs with just the original BFG:R votes and call that BFG:R, that would be fine by me. We can call the BFG:R that we are doing here something else. Plus, did any of these complaints come up when Plaxor and the original BFG:R people were coming up with the changes?

Actually I would prefer that we have a straight up BFGR that fixes the lingering issues that the HA were unable to fix with FAQ2010 and nothing else. By that I mean ships that have long had consensus as needing a fix. For instance, the Apoc crit rule or the Oberon. I honestly don't know if any complaints came up. I dropped off the forums a couple of months after the FAQ's were finished and lost track of the threads. All I know is that right now there are a lot of changes happening and very little proof that they need to happen which are made worse by everything being in flux at the same time leaving no baseline to balance to. 

[afterimagedan]

Some of plaxors persona changes that then community wanted have been voted in. I honestly don't other know if plaxor made there adjustments at first or now. My response to your statement that says "Your blog notes 39 votes and their details in 2012, but it would be nice to see the thread for each change" was the reason for my response.

[afterimagedan]

That would be a good idea if we were trying to make something official, but I don't care about official, and I don't know if that is what people are going for. New players should be told that this is a community made project and not official in any way. So what of it? Look, when it's all said and done, I am probably going to put a big ass post on the front page of the document saying "FAN MADE AND UNOFFICIAL" and a nice explanation inside of what this project is.

My point with this is you would probably like the end result accessible to newer players. Throwing everything into a big pot makes it difficult for new players who might not be as familiar with BFG to pick out what's fan made and what's not without putting some effort into it. This is especially true when you have ships that look very similar to their official versions.

I'm sorry, it's not that hard, Vaaish. You get the documents from GW if you want official. If not and you want something more, get 2010 or BFG:R.

Fixing and tinkering are pretty subjective. Anyways, yes, there are a decent amount of changes happening. If you would be comfortable with us changing the name of the project to something else so it can be altogether separate from BFG:R or whatever the original intention was, we can do that. People who want to change the lists are here to vote, and we go with the vote and make the change. We don't have to be bound by any "original purpose" if those who actually want to take part want something else.

No, not subjective at all. Fixing is indicative of addressing a problem and providing a solution. Tinkering is indicative of messing with something for no better reason than curiosity.

And I suppose you get the magic want of knowing objectively which changes are needed and which are not? You say objective like there are total right and wrong changes that need to be made and you somehow know what they are. It's entirely subjective because what you think it tinkering, someone else may thing is fixing. When you look at the list of the original BFG:R changes, did you think those were objectively right? Objectively "fixes?"

We can go back and change anything. Who says we can't?  If people think there should be a change, they bring it up and if there is some consensus on it, we vote.

Just because people think there should be a change doesn't make it so. All that is is a good way to make sure BFGR sways wherever the wind blows, and not necessarily in any reliable or balanced fashion.

How else would you like to determine which changes should and shouldn't be made? Again, do you have that magic wand? I completely disagree with what you just said. When you say that just because the people want a change doesn't make it so implies that some who are the "best fit" should determine the changes. Everyone else can go to hell. No, the people who are still dedicated to this small dying game of toy space ships get to make the changes they want. You are saying the collective voice of the fans of this game, determined through voting, is just "a good way to make sure BFGR sways wherever the wind blows" as if there is some objective way to keep it "stable" by everyone's standards in a community voted change. Vaaish, your contribution to the BFG community has been near unrivaled, but your opinion as to what changes are "fixes" and what are "tinkering" are not going to stop people from voting on what they think needs to be changed. If you have a better way, I suggest you mention it.

People do provide reasons, except some don't except them as reasons. That's why there is voting. If people don't buy the reasons, they won't be persuaded.

This is just the issue. People aren't providing reasons why they are changing things, they are posting changes and the coming up with reasons why their changes are better than someone else's. There is no litmus tests that says, look this isn't broken to begin with, lets talk about something that actually needs fixing.

And who gets to determine the results of the litmus test? You? Me? Plaxor? Sig? Voting does.

A decent amount of those were right out of the original BFG:R voting, so they were just integrated by me when I started making the documents up.

I really don't care whose is at fault for some of those changes. It's still changes like that that are creating some of the problems right now.

Many would disagree. You are the best determiner of that?

Vaaish, if you would like me to put together new PDFs with just the original BFG:R votes and call that BFG:R, that would be fine by me. We can call the BFG:R that we are doing here something else. Plus, did any of these complaints come up when Plaxor and the original BFG:R people were coming up with the changes?

Actually I would prefer that we have a straight up BFGR that fixes the lingering issues that the HA were unable to fix with FAQ2010 and nothing else. By that I mean ships that have long had consensus as needing a fix. For instance, the Apoc crit rule or the Oberon. I honestly don't know if any complaints came up. I dropped off the forums a couple of months after the FAQ's were finished and lost track of the threads. All I know is that right now there are a lot of changes happening and very little proof that they need to happen which are made worse by everything being in flux at the same time leaving no baseline to balance to.

Again, this current attempt at BFG:R is the community trying to figure out what those lingering issues are and making the changes. You don't like the Apoc new rules? Many before you did. They saw it as a "fixing" issue and you see it as a "tinkering" issue. That's why we should keep the process to voting.

[BaronIveagh]

Let's not put on airs here.  When you say 'the community' is doing this, in reality it's the handfull of people voting.  A gradually shrinking handful at that.

I'll be the first to admit, I have an agenda with my voting.  And bluntly, if any one else here claims they do not, they're liars or hopelessly naive.  If you get enough people with the same agenda, they tip the balance of the vote, particularly with so few participants.  This can be good, this can be bad, but this *is* the truth of any vote (bfg or otherwise).

Everyone has their own idea about how to make the game 'better' but what they really mean is 'better for them' if they're honest with themselves.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I want this to be better for me.
Ok I had to squeeze that in there  

I dont see anything wrong with what your saying Vaaish. I agree that people should explain why they want to see a change and I think everyone has so far. Now if someone gives you a reason why something should be changed doesnt that put the ball in your court to explain why you think it shouldnt?

I am already comming across some things that have been voted on that really need to be addressed and they will Im sure but thats why you change stuff. If its not working you try something different to see if that fixes it you dont just ignore it!

Im not really a fan of where the Tyrant went for example, it should have maintained the 6/4 30cm/45cm layout in my opinion and been dropped to 180 but it was voted to go to 12@30 instead. This is a good profile but it does take away from the flavor of the ship. There are many other things Im not to hot about (Retribution and Voss CL's pop to mind) but like I said these are issues we need to go over in testing.

[Casus belli]

And who gets to determine the results of the litmus test? You? Me? Plaxor? Sig? Voting does.

Even if you refrain from voting yourself, setting up the votes, deciding on the particular questions that get asked (or which don't), the options, and the way the questions are phrased, is an enormous power in itself. More influence than any single vote, certainly. Vaaish already wrote well about the trouble with this.

One example I can think of is a recent vote on the Jovian (to flog a dead horse), where the options were basically 'Include the Jovian as a reserve everywhere' or 'No, it needs more work'. But in this case 'No' could be (and obviously was) interpreted to mean 'It needs more work before it can be included'. There was no conservative choice which clearly said: 'No. Just don't touch anything. Leave it the way it has always been!'

Basically you can see the worry some have: There is an inherent bias towards change, if any ship or list can fall prey to a vote in which there is no clear choice not to make any change, pages and pages of discussion about which change is the best gets people in the mindset that they must choose one change or another. And every little change beyond what's obviously necessary alienates some player somewhere a bit more.
(I understand your objection above: How can we decide what is obviously necessary? Of course we need to find a balance between the will of the voters and the faithfulness to the original. A great facilitator of the voting itself is important there.)

Sorry to sound so critical. I'm saying this stuff because I want the process to work, and BFG:R to succeed. I just don't yet know what success is supposed to look like: Is the purpose of BFG:R to appeal to as many players as possible, or is it something else?

Everyone has their own idea about how to make the game 'better' but what they really mean is 'better for them' if they're honest with themselves.

I think some people take a longer view of what's 'better for them' than others do.

In my own view, BGF:R being 'better for me' means that with the end result, I can find the maximum number of players who can still get on board with the superior BFG:R ruleset, even if I can't field exactly the list that I want. It's a compromise.

What's your idea of 'better for BaronIveagh', if it isn't the same as my view of 'better for Casus belli'?

[Vaaish]

I'm sorry, it's not that hard, Vaaish. You get the documents from GW if you want official. If not and you want something more, get 2010 or BFG:R.

It's harder than you think. We know we can get the docs of GW, but a lot of people still ask where to find the rules. This get compounded when there is also the HA's "official" FAQ and now BFGR. What's what and why do all three list different costs and stats for some the same ships? That kind of thing causes confusion which is off putting to new players. It's naive to assume that it's not that hard and people will just "know" what to use.

And I suppose you get the magic want of knowing objectively which changes are needed and which are not? You say objective like there are total right and wrong changes that need to be made and you somehow know what they are. It's entirely subjective because what you think it tinkering, someone else may thing is fixing. When you look at the list of the original BFG:R changes, did you think those were objectively right? Objectively "fixes?"

I'm glad we are jumping to conclusions... You are correct though, there are totally right and totally wrong changes. Totally wrong changes contribute to power and feature creep which are bad for balance. Totally right changes fix quantifiable issues with ships or lists. These are things that solid reasons for why a change is needed can be given. For instance, Bakka is supposed to be a low AC fleet yet the 2010FAQ version still has reliable access to carriers. You can prove that is the case by posting lists showing it to be so. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I sure as heck want to have a solid reason for making a change to a ruleset that has had over 10 years for players to pick it apart.

How else would you like to determine which changes should and shouldn't be made? Again, do you have that magic wand? I completely disagree with what you just said. When you say that just because the people want a change doesn't make it so implies that some who are the "best fit" should determine the changes. Everyone else can go to hell. No, the people who are still dedicated to this small dying game of toy space ships get to make the changes they want. You are saying the collective voice of the fans of this game, determined through voting, is just "a good way to make sure BFGR sways wherever the wind blows" as if there is some objective way to keep it "stable" by everyone's standards in a community voted change. Vaaish, your contribution to the BFG community has been near unrivaled, but your opinion as to what changes are "fixes" and what are "tinkering" are not going to stop people from voting on what they think needs to be changed. If you have a better way, I suggest you mention it.

Usually you would have a rules committee made up of seasoned players that reviews proposed changes. Even then their task is to guide the development not mandate it. They do have the power to shut down ideas that fall outside the scope of the project. Once a list or change has been determined with internal playtesting (done by the list custodian on the epic side), it needs to be vetted in at least 6 games against other approved lists by multiple game groups before it gets consideration for "official." This is how Epic works and I believe how Blood Bowl runs.

I am absolutely saying that there needs to some leadership here. Just because your dedicated doesn't mean you have the experience or knowledge to make a good call and being dedicated doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. That's going to breed anarchy. If this game is dying then we need to preserve and safeguard the rules. That means careful, well thought out, incremental changes targeted to specific problems we are trying to solve. Just throwing everything up in the air because someone mentions it does the hard work Andy, Jervis and, more recently, the members of the HA a disservice.

Many would disagree. You are the best determiner of that?

I don't claim to be the best, but the discussions on the victory certainly point to the changes done to the Apoc as a large contributor to the perception that the victory needs changes. I'm sure that's not the only example either.

Again, this current attempt at BFG:R is the community trying to figure out what those lingering issues are and making the changes. You don't like the Apoc new rules? Many before you did. They saw it as a "fixing" issue and you see it as a "tinkering" issue. That's why we should keep the process to voting.

I would prefer you stop setting up my answers for me so you can shoot at them. You've done this with nearly every response in your last post.

The change to the BM on the Apoc was an issue that needed to be fixed (it was quantifiable that the rule was bad) I don't agree with the fix because it practically nullifies the entire downside to shooting at long range with the Apoc. The change to the Dorsal battery could be either but no one seems to have any solid reasons why the dorsal batteries are getting upgraded. Adding options to the CG's is pure tinkering; no one thought that the CG's were too slow or that they needed +1 LD it doesn't fix any flaw.

[Vaaish]

I dont see anything wrong with what your saying Vaaish. I agree that people should explain why they want to see a change and I think everyone has so far. Now if someone gives you a reason why something should be changed doesnt that put the ball in your court to explain why you think it shouldnt?

Unfortunately I haven't seen this myself. There's a lot of explanation as to why people think their change is the best option but very little that I've seen dedicated to saying why the change needs to happen at all. The mindset seems to be that broaching the subject is tantamount to proof that some change needs to happen. There is a very strong bias towards always making SOME change.