Were you at any of the interplanetaries? Do you know who played top tables? Because I've been to two and had reports from the rest, and it's not the most competitive event out there, FYI. Due to major issues such as too few rounds for such a big number of participants, I'd even say its nit competitive at all.
An FAQ that says line of fire from a model/marker to any point of the table is open information takes the whole argument and kicks it to the curb in less than 20 words. Ruling the other way around, that line of fire only exists once a target is declared takes a little more page space, and has the potential to open the door for a couple of other questions like the targetless weapon question, but they're still answerable without causing other problems. Until the FAQ happens, your damn right, make the call with your opponent and have at it. If they rule one way and you and your opponent agree to play the other? Play the other way.
no it doesnt, because then people will still argue determining by laser line is measuring. That argument has already been made. LOF is open information You must disclose LOF that would disrupt and order They already tell you that LOF is open and anything that would disrupt the order must be disclosed(the move is part of the order), but people are arguing with it
That's funny, because I thought he was saying the exact opposite, and that it all depends on how you interpret the ramifications of the blurb.
It's almost like two interpretations of something that is supposed to be cut and dried can cause a lot of confusion...
Are you saying that an event where some tables apply an across the board -3 BS Mod, and others don't, isn't the epitome of competitive Infinity? Gasp. :neutral: @psychoticstorm , you keep mentioning everyone playing Booty wrong at Interplanetario. I'm curious, was an announcement of some sort made when it became apparent, or was everyone just allowed to go on playing it wrong?
Oh yeah, I thought I'd just leave this irrelevant link here, in case anyone wants to add to the apparently meaningless data. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/poll-what-does-lof-being-open-information-mean-to-you.1181/
Id disagree with this, the same players consistently come in the top of tournaments time and time again, and those same players do tend to have the same opinion of the rules. the game is predominantly skill based with some luck (more how you capitalise on it)
I do not think the pool illustrates anything to be entirely honest, too few people participating and the Intent side of the debate was always loud and the pool is written to favour the intent side of the debate. At best from what I see it illustrates that 70? people from those that cared to vote or noticed it are pro intent and 9 against? if one even can say that taking maximum numbers. The only thing we did at Interplanetario as a small experiment was after games we asked players who we noticed played the rules wrong why they played it that way, unsurprisingly they thought it was played that way, kinda shocked to find out it was not. Again small sample, anecdotal, it does not matter other than illustrating, anecdotally, a majority can be wrong even in rules that can be black and white in interpretation. Again as I said the debate is already more than two years long, I thought it was settled a year ago, apparently it is not and it will not settle down until a FAQ is issued about it.
I don't actually think this statement disproves Andre's point. The best players are likely to know the rules better than other players at the tournament, combined with being more skilled will give them 90% of the wins, putting them consistently top table. Nevertheless, I think Andre is more referring to the unwashed masses. In which I can agree, based on my own experience, knowing the rules better will often net you victories until your opponents learn up. And its been said before that infinity is quite a huge cognitive tax to maintain the working knowledge not to be caught out on some of the more obscure rules.
This is pretty much off base in almost all regards from what I can see. The poll is easily statistically significant by any stretch of the imagination and as I have stated numerous times, if you ask this question of the major infinity communities on facebook you will get the same answer. As to which side is "loudest", now that is most certainly far more subjective than an actual poll with hard numbers ever will be.
Don't get me wrong that fact 79 people voted, or that I think it is it does not show who voted what to people who did not vote, is impressive, given how few people talk in these debates, I am surprised it is over 30 let alone more than double that, but that is a minority of the forum. Do we need to get everybody involved? not really. most do not care, or even know, about the dispute and if it is resolved many will ask if there was a need for it.
As I recall, polls posted on the old forum typically maxed out at a little over a hundred, so I think the turnout has been okay (especially when you consider that the relevant discussion was going on in a different thread). That's the thing with polls though, you can only collect a sample, not the entire population. That doesn't mean they're not indicative of trends (that's the entire point of taking a poll). Aside from the cultural bias (the LoF poll is obviously more accessible to English speaking players), I don't see any correlations that would skew it that far in the allegedly wrong direction. Why would people who vote in polls be more inclined to vote for less restrictive LoF rules? Why would people who frequent a specific forum be more inclined to vote for less restrictive LoF rules? There doesn't seem to be any causation to support your claims. Also, how are the questions written to favor the intent side of the debate? I am bothered that a few vocal non-intent players apparently just don't want to vote. However, the open results makes it easy to factor them in (for instance, I automatically add Wolf, Mac, and FKB to the stricter option counts). As for what people who don't know about the debate might conclude, it's just as likely that they actually play LoF as being 100% open info all the time (per the intent players), and would wonder why the opposite needs to be clarified (as you and a small handful of other people have argued :tongueout:). In the end, I'm not sure any of this matters, because a poll showing a 50/50 split would still justify a FAQ in my mind.
I think FAQ is needed. Because rules are not clear. At one side we have a precise definition of LOF ( The Line of Fire (LoF) is an imaginary straight line that joins any point of the volume of a model or Marker to any point of the volume of another. ) - please notice, LOF exist ONLY between models and\or markers. But at the same page we have "Line of Fire (LoF) is the criterion by which players determine whether a troop can see its target (another model, a Marker, etc.)." - with suspicious "etc.". What can be inside that "etc."? Elements of scenery? In http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Open_and_Private_Information inside "Gaming Etiquette" paragraph I found that I can ask only about "EXISTING" lines of fire. So, no asking until I placed model in a suspicious on enemy ARO place. It is very confusing. I can understand that there can be two designer ideas: 1) we tactically observe battlefield from a satellite height, combining all the physical, geological data into a powerful prediction mechanism, which would allow us to predict the LOF of enemy troopers 2) we see only with eyes of our troopers, thats why no LOF asking and checking until putting model in a right place. Buuuut...unfortunately authors were not clear ... I had a tourney today. I played my first game with number 1) assumption and my second with number 2) assumption. Because one opponent said it is stupid to play otherwise. And my second opponent said that was the way he and his opponents played on interplanitario. I feel that this is not right. Why to write 300+ pages of rules and adding a new one (hello "fatality" and "full auto") when there are still "holes"?
I cannot vote on forum polls on principle, a moderator can sway votes in whatever they choose, because of various reasons, they can also bring in votes that would not happen otherwise. So I do not vote on forum polls. The poll has already established what I know for a long time, there is a small core of really dedicated forum members that like play with intent, this will not change regardless of ruling in anyone's favour and the vast majority of the player base is indifferent to the subject. I mean no disrespect on the numbers but it is just a hastily made poll without checks so that data can be verifiable, it can be that indeed the players playing intent to not playing intent are 8 to 1 it might be that 79 people is the extent of people playing with intent on the forum, we do not know, I am not sure why people vocal against intent are not voting on the poll maybe they are a silent majority, maybe 9 people is the extend of people against intent, maybe the vast majority of players play something entirely different and are not vocal about it or some mix and are indifferent of the subject, we really do not know. The poll was made at a point were intent was extremely contested and intent people might be heavily invested to vote while the opposing side may feel it is not worth voting, we really do not know. I guess the only thing I can do with knowing who voted what, is to establish connections, but is it really worth it? I am not saying the poll is a bad thing or you cannot make some basic assumptions from it, it just does not give me any more data than I already know or assumed and I would say the same thing if it was the other way around. And on that subject if somebody thinks about it, lets not go to a poll war ok, lets just do not.
The poll was structured as a survey about when and how players check LOF during a game. What incentive is there for gotcha players to be a silent majority and not vote, when they are happy to proselytize their horrible vision for the game for 51 pages? It would be less embarrassing to claim Russians hacked the poll at this point.
What is the incentive to vote? beyond that, the 51 pages were mostly me explain rules and the explanation rejected by pro intent people. It does not matter really, no point in rehashing the same thread. What I said is what I said, its a poll, it has some numbers, one can get results, but I would not hold it as a definite conclusion or as hard data.
The Russians hacked the poll. At the behest of the Bavarian Illuminati. Or was it the Rosicrucians? I always get those two confused. This latter thing is a description of use or some such rather than a definition. Sort of like saying a hammer is a tool for pounding nails. This tells me nothing about the hammer itself. Yes, it needs clarification. But you can always ask what a model sees on the table, without any need to call it LoF. After all, a model can see a target and still not have LoF if it cannot see enough, 3mm x 3mm or more, of its target.
Not this crap again. First of all we really don't need what, three? four? topics revolving around the same ultimately unsolvable issue. Second, the poll shows that a clear majority of the participants prefers one of the playstyles. More power to them, especially since nobody was trying to make them change it. And finally, throwing more or less hidden insults around is childish. As I've said before, this topic stopped being about the rules a long time ago. Now it's all about PROVING THE OTHER SIDE IS WRONG, which is about as effective as boxing with mist. @psychoticstorm, can you please try and get CB to either officially speak on this matter, update the FAQ, or equally officially say they leave this up for player interpretation? Without this closing threads will accomplish nothing, things will simply turn ugly in another one.
