First of all, @the huanglong is right, the poll isn't even about intent, it's about simple LoF mechanics that happen to relate to intent based play. It's even more directly relevant to this thread than the closed intent thread. Regarding the veracity of the data, I feel like you're dismissing the results because they don't match your personal experience/viewpoint. What would cause a supposed larger majority of people who share a certain viewpoint to almost completely decline participation? Think about what you're suggesting. Only people who had the opposite viewpoint decided to vote, and apparently all of them (since you're claiming the intent group is small)? Could it be that it is a cultural divide, and you think that this data is inaccurate because it doesn't match what you've experienced? That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that the English speaking Infinity community is possibly playing a very different version of the game than you are. I'm not saying that any of what you're suggesting isn't problematic of polls in general, it just doesn't manifest itself to the degree you're suggesting.
Why is that? This issue is completely solvable. The poll wasn't supposed to be about proving either side wrong, only showing that there was a divide in the community. I even made sure to mention that it wasn't about being "correct," but about how you played LoF. I play intent, but like many others, I legitimately want to know if that's contrary to how the game was meant to be played. I also agree, without CB weighing in, the debate will simply continue.
If it's a small core how come I've played people from every major city in my country (including in a 50+ satellite tournament) and never played someone who does not recognise intent to a reasonable extent. There are certainly people who do not support perfect pie slicing, but no one who I've played who plays simple "play it where it is placed". Even Wolf, the guy who started this with a video telling everyone that's how it is doesn't seem to play that way from his own description. Plebian who placed 2 years in a row at interplanetary is vocally against the way you say is the rules. Krisstoff who won it a few years back wrote in an article on CB's website about his list that said intent was the rules. Those are extremely credible, respected, experienced, expert players who have disagreed with you, not a "small core of really dedicated forum members". I don't see how you can possibly fairly claim it's a "small core" discounting any actual evidence presented, while having none of your own to present about how many play which way. Once again, are your explanations of the rules an official clarification from CB or not? Because at least one poster is referencing them as if they are.
I don't think appealing to CB for some kind of ruling is going to help, even if they were to rule that you are not allowed to confirm LOF before a declaration, even willing players could not abide by it, and it causes a breakdown in the game which I have already described in one of my more reasonable posts (the posts nobody I'm out to persuade really reads or thinks about). CB only have one recourse that is mechanically sound, and that is to explicitly state (rather than inconsistently imply) that players are entitled to know, at all times, which positions of the board could generate LOF based AROs from models and markers on the table if they were to be occupied by an active trooper.
Let me phrase this better: The issue is ultimately unsolvable without an official CB ruling. Oh, I'm not saying is was anything but what you've intended it to be. And while I'm not able to judge how it relates to the general playerbase, it very clearly shows a preference. Huanglong: CB ruling might indeed not change anything, since there's no mechanism to force any group of players to change how they play. People have their preferences and will stick to them. And it's perfectly fine. Both of which I've said at least a few times in the previous thread. The whole attempt to prove that either one approach is objectively better than the other is pointless.
is it really even an issue? apart from forum posts it wasnt and hasnt been. it certainly never comes up from any game ive ever heard of
"Somebody" is indeed trying to make them change it though. That's the whole reason for the blow up, in case you missed it.
yes, some individuals are certainly trying to influence CB and the community at large, they shouldn't be and this whole exercise has been unhelpful and unhealthy for the community as a whole I feel
Then yeah, I agree with that totally. Sorry, but I totally disagree. I think it's still important, regardless of whether people adhere to it. There needs to be a baseline default for what's considered correct play. We're not talking about a corner case rules interaction, we're talking about how we determine and communicate LoF, one of the most important elements of game play. If different groups or TOs want to go in a different direction from there, that's fine. At least everyone is aware that they're doing so, and knows that this change needs to be communicated rather than assumed.
huanglong is arguing that if you remove LOF from being open information and argue that players are not allowed to be careful in placing their models as they move by preventing them from looking at relative positions of other models on the table, then you end up with something of a nightmare of a game which is built around working against your opponent rather than working with them. in essence such a change in perception of the game will undermine the strong good sportsmanship and cooperative nature of the game in the long run.
Guys, I'm not sure it's helpful to keep coming at this with a "I'm definitely on the right side of this" attitude. We need actual clarification, and it's more important that we all agree on that, regardless of what side we're on.
I think its important to get clarity. Otherwise people will take something said in a debate as gospel and try force that on their opponents. Whether its their own version of intent where nothing is out of bounds geometrically speaking or some nightmarish chad play it where it falls game. People who THINK they are right are more likely to be idealogical and uncompromising when met with someone who plays it "wrong". Without clarification we will probably see appeals to authority picking whoever is high up that supported their viewpoint.
i just dont see how CB can make the two extreme views be quite. they already have told us that LOF is open and to disclose LOF that could potentially dirsupt an order, but because they chose the word disrupt theres an argument about the whole thing.
The Pope would never work with the Freemasons. They are diametrically opposed. A condition we are all becoming unfortunately familiar with.
That also something that worries me, that CB will listen to one argument or another based on who makes the argument rather than considering the full implications not only on gameplay but also on the community. I would like them, if they do wish to make a statement to seriously keep in mind what the community wants to play, and im not sure they will do that.
Well, he *is* a Jesuit, so... after all, the Company of Jesus can get up to some pretty shady stuff. And I should have mentioned, it’s purely the Scottish Rite that’s involved, not the York Rite.
No I dismiss them for what I see them be, they are not a survey they are a poll, there are some data in there as I said the poll itself is a good thing it surprised me at least on how many seem to vote, somebody who voted can confirm a number of individual participants but it is not more than anecdotal evidence to get more data from it, on the subject, I do not think I have expressed my personal preference on the debate subject, that would be unprofessional, what I did express is how the rules are written. I think I was quite clear on saying that what I care is the understanding how the rules are, not how you play your games. But I think this is what you may have missed or misunderstood, I never got into a side on the to or against intent, I explained how the rules work and this is part of my work explain how rules work to the best of my ability, yes, I may get something wrong from time to time and I will come back to acknowledge that, I strongly do not think this was the case this time. Regardless, I think right now everything tied to the intent gameplay needs a clarification and FAQ to be properly answered.
