Effect is still present (in a minor way) in combat, Timing isn't. Timing _can_ be applied to skill checks, but it is not mandatory (depends on the situation).
Has there been any attempt to address the fact that effect will tend to skew high? Or has that perhaps been taken into account by new Effect rules?
As an illustration, consider the rocket scatter rule on p.5 of the 2nd preview. In some cases, a rocket will scatter (6-Effect) meters. If Effect is determined pretty much the same as it did in the playtest, this means that most rockets will scatter only 0-1 meters. Is that really a rule worth having? Or is Effect determined differently from the playtest rules?
EDIT--After re-reading the example, my original statement is wrong, at least as applied to that example. Since the rocket must first miss, the Effect will tend to skew low, which means the rocket will tend to scatter more. And that's a desirable outcome.
So...I hope everyone is sitting down...
it appears that I actually like an application of the Effect rule. Well,
like is a bit strong, but I don't see a problem with it. Strange days indeed...
I also note that if timing has been effectively eliminated,
how the Effect die is determined seriously impacts the probability spread. If the player has his choice, then the Effect should skew towards the player's benefit (in part because he has no reason not to choose the best die). It's fiddly, but one possible accomodation would be to state that the high die is the Effect if the task fails and the low die is the Effect if the task succeeds. Successes will still tend to a high Effect (and failures would tend to create a low Effect) but not as starkly as would be the case if the player has his choice.
Nothing is optional per se, as we rarely put optional rules in a main rulebook, except in a toolkit sense - always thought it a bit wishy-washy.
Regarding optional rules, I think that they are a valid design strategy where there is a genuine disagreement about how acceptable/useful a certain rule is. Sometimes, a significant minority of players might really like a rule, but a majority don't. Or, a rule takes more time or models something in more detail than the designer feels is appropriate, yet some folks like it.
I see nothing wrong with including such a rule as an optional rule, although I think that the designer has an obligation to warn players of any downsides to using the rule. For instance, in my own modern miniature wargame rules, here are some (characteristically) blunt warnings -- "The Carl Rule is realistic, but painfully non-intuitive." "The swamp rules are a lot of trouble. If you want, you can simply make swamp impassable to vehicles."
I think that the designer should also give players some guidance on why optional rules are included. Again, from my rules:
Optional rules are additional rules that players (by mutual agreement before the scenario begins) can add. They typically appear at the end of each section and are marked as such. Optional rules usually provide a greater level of detail and different flavor to the game, at a higher cost in playing time. Since the primary design goal of FFT2 was to create a fast-playing set of rules, a number of rules were rejected merely because they slowed the game down “too much” — in the designer’s opinion. Nonetheless, some rules were just too good to leave out entirely. Plus, many were suggested by very thoughtful players who really liked them. So the solution was to implement them as optional rules. But please bear in mind that using optional rules will tend to slow the game down somewhat. It’s your decision as to whether the tradeoff is worth it.
But I do think that way too many game designers have used so-called "optional" and "advanced" rules to foist ill-considered mechanics on unsuspecting players. Or, as you imply, to avoid making hard decisions. So perhaps it's just as well to generally eschew them.
