It's really interesting that to the mind of most of the posters in this thread "optional rule" seems to be almost a synonym for "game engine improvement". It has become so common, almost automatic, to introduce new features as optional rules that most people apparently no longer separate the two concepts. I say I think we have too many optional rules and most people read I am against improving the game. Needless to say, of course I am not.
If, as several posters after me said, new concepts really have "corrected many flaws within the game system", then I think there was very little reason to make them optional. A flaw is a flaw. I agree, of course, that choice is a good thing. But there can be an overabundance of choices. Easily. We have now 25 optional rules. Another couple of years, we'll have 40. That's a library of choices most players will have trouble to keep track of and decide what they really want. Negotiating PBEM games will become more difficult than bringing peace to Palestine.
To my mind, optional rules should be limited to those concepts whose merits are generally contentious (rout limiting; gun capture). There are things that simply quite obviously improve the game without any remarkable negative effects, and there is very little reason for making them optional rather than just a part of the game.
Speaking of choice, a choice that I'd see much rather than another dozen optional rules is to be able to modify the games with own maps and OOB's, as we had up to Corinth 1.01. Now THAT would really make sure the series remains alive--a lot more so than the shallow freedom of choice of a few optional rules.
But I suppose that's just me.
Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS
West Point Class of '01