The two positions aren't mutually exclusive. CB say that you can do either, they're not bothered, and also say "so stop endlessly arguing about it here"
Ummm... considering the options are let the creators take the decision they feel is best for their property or allow folks who casually dismiss those creators as not knowing their own game, yeah, I’d appeal to the creators’ authority every day of the week and twice on Sunday. After all, considering the 1) abysmal way we treat one another every time this subject comes up and 2) the revolting combination of gall, entitlement, arrogance and disdain shown by those who want to “fix” the game for CB, far better to leave questions unanswered than turn it over to people, again, so manifestly not qualified.
The problem is, since we're not allowed to talk about the "way we (really one guy in particular) treat(s) one another," it doesn't get resolved.
You answered your own question. They need a rewrite because the language is too loose and too open to interpretation.
Infinity is also complex enough that you see unintended emergent gameplay. Some of this is good, some of it is bad: none of it is the game as conceived by the designers. So CB needs to decide what they want to keep and what they want to discard when they make a new edition. This is what I see as one of the issues with play-by-intent. I think CB conceives of their game as somewhere between the two extremes but formally dictating that risks upsetting either the players who find simplicity in play it as it lies and if anything enjoy the moments of surprise as their understanding of the game state is proved wrong or the players who prefer the control and clear behaviour of the game with play by intent. Neither of the extremes is CB's game as intended but both have emerged from the player base. That sort of fundamental decision requires time and consideration. Which, honestly, I get the feeling that CB has been unable to dedicate to it. They've been focussed on expanding the current edition not revising it for the next.
@inane.imp You said it better than me. I agree that the current release schedule indicates that CB has put this on the back burner while they work on expanding the universe. The real question is will they work on 4th edition before or after the third trilogy? It seems like they can get a whole trilogy released in about a year, based on the time from Uprising to DF. I'm starting to think they'll finish the "final trilogy" before the real work of 4th will start. That would allow CB to have rules and concepts out for ALL the factions before rewriting the rule set.
Oh I agree. 3.5 needs to address all the quality of life issues that have arisen: the increase of needless complexity. But I think settling the intent debate (and associated LOF debate) is an N4 change. I don't expect N3.5 to answer that.
No, I think that could very much be settled in a theoretical N3.5. Everyone basically plays with Intent anyway.
In game I think I have LoF but I didnt, thats it. You have to know that this picture is a recreation photo to show better what happened in game. But in real life I didnt have LoF :P Please dont start with intention debate ;)
This refusal to settle a years old "war" in the rules is a significant part of why I've lost interest in playing the game. I doubt I'm the only one.
