I used to follow it, although pretty casually when I did. I guess I'm not disagreeing with you completely, just in my definition of iteration and what I would consider iterative.Regarding your last point here, yeah, I don't see that happening either. After the core books have all been published, I don't see this happening. It's about as likely as somebody picking up the wrong game system.
I don't know how much you follow the Starcraft professional gaming community, but I do, and you are basically completely wrong. Beyond the absolutely simpleste strategies (build a spawning pool, build zerglings, attack), there isn't a single strategy that's the same in SC:BW and SC2. They kept a three-four units from each race*, and changed the 7-8 other. They completely changed the mechanics for what does more/less damage to other units. They completely changed the pathfinding algoritm which really changes how the game is played and they changed how high-ground works. There are so many weird micro things you can/have to do in SC:BW to make units work. For instance Muta micro in SC:BW is a small science in itself that made a player with the nick Jaedong famous (and really successful). You basically can't do the same micro in SC2.
*but they changed quite a lot of aspects with these units, especially the upgrades. Overlords in SC2 can't see invisible creatures as in SC:BW for instance.
I don't think there was an equivalent of advantage/disadvantage that was built into the foundation of SC2, or removing scaling ACs and difficulty checks or bringing back/removing monster stat blocks. I'm sure you might even agree with parts of what I'm saying but just have a different conclusion than me.
Sometimes I like to argue over silly distinctions and this is most likely one of those times. There are major differences between tabletop and video games and nothing will be clearly analogous from one person to another. We can probably chalk this one up to differing perspectives on iteration
