Do you find that the cumulative effects of #s 2 and 3 change the pacing and time requirements in scenarios? I have always felt that from a certain perspective ASL pins too infrequently, but I see from a design perspective why it is the way it is. I would think that these rules would tend to make defenses a bit more tough.
Would you play #s 5 and 6 in a CG? Totally get it in a scenario, where the loss of key weapons can make a scenario virtually unwinnable, but I don't think the same would apply in a CG.
Really like 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13.
I like the idea of 1, divorcing rof from how good a shot is, but I would need to see how it handles first.
Not too sure on 9, 10, and 14.
9 just seems to make special ammo more plentiful, and I am a bit hesitant to do that, as I'm not too sure of the benefit. I get the argument that one doesn't want to make a whole plan that counts on having APCR and then not get the DR, but it seems to me that a scenario that a side can only win if they make an APCR roll is lacking a key SSR somewhere.
I kinda like 14, introduces some randomness into the stun/uk process, but I wonder about the balance implications.
10 seems neat, but it seems really dependent on when it happens. An DEFENDER unit berserking in the RPh, no problem. A DEFENDER unit berserking at the end of the AFPh? Big issue for the ATTACKER, as almost all his units will be limited to PBF/TBPF/PFP. For ATTACKER berserks, I feel the inability of the player to prep his berserkers into the objective is a bit of a loss. What do you feel this rule adds to play?
Absolutely no criticism implied here, just wondering what led you to adopt some of these, and how you feel they change the game.