captPiett wrote:
Dobbsy wrote:
What better way to test something? Oh, and here's a tissue...
This seems a little backwards to me... shouldn't list changes be tested thoroughly, then get stamped with "approval"? By doing it this way (including them in the compendium, the supposed be-all/end-all for rules and stats, until the next version) the changes are
de facto approved. There has been scant evidence of testing so far.
CAL001 wrote:
Hey CP,
Plenty of testing has occurred mate, I for one have had more than fifteen games with the new changes and have forwarded results to Dobbsy, here and in person. When posting responses and results on Taccoms, I have seen minimal feedback or further discussion on findings.
I would encourage others to make a reply here with your findings based on your games with the new list. What it feels like at the moment is that people readily accept the changes and that is why there has been minial chatter about them.
Looking forward to the discussion.
Cheers
Aaron
Thats fine and all if they were tested and approved for the Armybook2012 I just didn't see that they were. A thread saying these look fine and I'm approving them would have nice is all.
