The suggestion of IJW isn't intended as a slight on anyone else. there are many forum members I respect. The reasons for putting forward him specifically are: He already does an amazing job across different mediums (here as well as social media etc) of answering rules queries, so it would be just giving official recognition to what he does defacto already, which seems appropriate. Because of the point above he has garnered a lot of respect in the worldwide community, to the extent his word is fairly inarguably the closest of any non full time CB employee to authoritative on rules questions IMHO In fact I would often prefer a ruling from IJW because of his accessibility, ability to explain, proficiency with language etc. He already maintains the wiki, which is already a very responsible, visible and important job related to the rules, and by the nature of the job gives him excellent ongoing knowledge of and closeness to the rules base. Maintaining the wiki also gives direct access to the exact best and most visible place to publish such information He has proven to be highly reliable, and have a stable interest in doing exactly all the above over a long period. CB obviously also hold him in high regard (in fact I've seen them say so) A single, highly respected source is a much cleaner, faster and more consistent method than some sort of council or committee of people who might not always agree and who currently aren't doing most of this in a defacto capacity anyway Of course some other people have some of those qualities, but not nearly all of them. Just the fact that he's basically already doing it means already we know it works. To be clear, it's not uncommon for me to disagree with IJW on semantic rules interpretations. But myself and my meta (along with many others worldwide I believe) basically voluntarily agree to simply take IJW's word (and no one else's) to settle rules questions because things just work better that way. I think that speaks for itself on why he should be able to give officially sanctioned interim clarifications on rules, and probably not anyone else.
Many of us will remember that around the 2017/18 Holiday Season we had a couple of pretty full-on debates that were regrettably marred by some pretty mischievous bullshit. This implied - and in a couple of cases directly stated, that the view of certain of CB's employees or associates was not authoritative in regard to the Infinity N3 ruleset. It was a dismal display, and let's not have a repeat of it here, please. According to Corvus Belli, the following are the people who were involved in the creation and testing of the N3/HSN3 rule set, and whom we might reasonably assume to have an informed opinion about the ruleset they helped design, play-test and proof read. I suggest that whether their opinion is also authoritative is something that they themselves can properly answer - not us.
I understand why a certain moderator would be distrusted by the community but I remember "Worf rullings" still being better then not having answers.
I'm going to sidestep the conversation about who to nominate for an "Infernals" style rules cabal. What I really want to see is a regular (i.e. scheduled and advertised) FAQ/errata release cycle. I would like a commitment from CB that every 6 months (or whatever) they will release a document that clarifies rules or fixes issues. This FAQ also needs thorough review, because some of the previous FAQ documents have created as many questions as they answered. I don't expect this to directly address every question every person has about the rules. But there are several outstanding issues that really do need to be addressed, and once those are cleared up, there will probably be room to start taking on some of the smaller concerns as well. Going through that process may also help the CB rules-writing team anticipate where questions will arise, and lead to either tighter rules wording or explanatory examples that clearly demonstrate the intended way to play tricky interactions.
I have to disagree with this proposal on a few different grounds. 1. This is an unfunded mandate. It's not fair for either Corvus Belli or the unfunded rules advisors. 2. I question any business decision by the Magic the Gathering crowd when applied to war gaming. 3. Implementing this would reduce the number times that players are called upon to engage in single combat to decide rules controversies. We cannot allow the players to become weak and cowardly concerning the rules.
Kinda offtopic but yeah wizards of the coasts grip on their game isnt what youd call tight ;) last year every card shop in the galaxy was dominated by a giant cutout of the lovecraftian horror from their signature card which they banned after like 6 weeks. pundits said they were proving they could be tough on their own products and we thought they were proving they should change their name to Terry Fuckwits Of The Coast.
Very understaffed. As I understand it, CB employs a total of a dozen people. Maybe 25 at the absolute tops. I'm not sure they're even 1% the size of WOTC... Because nobody remembers you weighing in on Rules, just forum moderation stuff (or fluff on the Uprising threads). And that's two different jobs. More frequent FAQs would be good, even better if the FAQs addressed more things. Dunno how we'd need to organize this, probably have a big file of threads labeled "to be resolved in FAQ due [ date ]"
I fundamentally agree with this position, but the problem is that when specifically asked Bostria said (at the Cancon Seminar) that it isn't going to happen in the near future with all the stuff they have going on and how much load that puts on Gutier. And you're right there are some problematic issues IMHO, at least for competitive play. Hence why I believe "IJW rulings" is the next best thing, and the most practical solution in reality - since he basically does that job anyway. [edit] as an aside, you'd be my choice for a second ;)
I have reasonable suspicions this may be changing soon mate, or at least something may be done to address this issue
Then they might need to reconsider their priorities or they might be facing there own "uprising" soon. New released minis mean less if we don't know how to use the bloody things. The idea of a underground unofficial consensus based faq/wiki would be a bitter pill to swallow but still better then...this.
There kinda already is one if you want it. The aus meta goes CB FAQ/Rules CB staff IJW Consensus on the forums, with more weight given to respected posters Consensus on the infinity australia page Group consensus. Only we generally work from the bottom up, discussing internally before looking for IJW or CB rulings
From what I understand they're quite a bit larger, above the 50 mark now But most of that is in production /packaging /customer service, and running a second game (Aristeia!). The rules are basically still bottlenecked at Gutier (with HellLois joining in on the ITS side).
http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/50540-its-9-rules-questions-1-unanswered/ This thread, thought it was HellLios not palanka answering the questions. My bad. But yes props to locksmith for starting it
That was a tradition started by BloodGod on the old forum going back to ITS 2014 I believe. http://www.infinitytheforums.com/fo...-Questions-[Official-Document]-[2-Unanswered]
Yep it sprung from the summer of Palanka where questions were answered within days for a couple months. Its a proof of concept that specific engagement works and is helpful/much appreciated.
That's a pretty facile view, allowing everyone to declare their own authority on a topic seems like a deep dive down the rabbit hole, and it's not a madness I want for the world at large or for my tabletop games. Absolutely, people will claim their own authority and cite evidence, but if there's a demonstrable culture of disbelief in that authority then it's not practicable to install them in a seat of power. Contrarily if there already exists a unified belief in a single source of rules answers, regardless of the antecedent for that belief, it would be wise to acknowledge as much. Public perception is a qualification for the role in question, and not everyone on that list is equally qualified.
