But tranfering those ruling doesnt count because.... Has cbs opinion of how the game works fundamentally changed in the last year? Ie: they change forums so they think theres a difference in the game now.....
Not the answer. Cb has a long history of being vastly inadequate at that. They havent transfered anything. But seriously why do you think the rulings would change regardless of if they are tranfered..... Edit but hey lets get @HellLois or @Koni in and see if they can comment on why the rulings are being transfered
How many times do I have to say it, I don't care what the ruling is, as long as it's accessible... If the old rulings are on a forum that is about to be shut down, they will no longer be official rulings. This is a problem. Either they need to be republished in an official format, added to the FAQ, or they will no longer apply, because they will literally no longer exist.
But screenshotting them and transferring them doesnt count.... The rulings exist and theres no reason to believe that cb will change what it rules on them. Quite frankly the idea that the game changed because the forims got a new host server is....odd
You are not an official source. So yes, screenshotting something that can no longer be cited does not count. We have all been saying for a long time that CB needs to ramp up the use of the proper channels for clarification and errata, at a minimum adding things to the FAQ more often. This is a part of that issue.
The ruling does not exist and the existence it happened will not exist in the near future, FAQ and not some obscure ruling in the forum is the official answer to anything, even if it is by a CB employ. And I do need to remind that not all rulings by CB employees stood the test of FAQ, if I really need to remind the base to base contact in stares ruling.
Allow me to demonstrate the problem with "screenshots as official" that can no longer be cited: (For anyone watching later, this is fake.)
I strongly dislike Kafka's work its so grindy to read it... Ahem What I said is the FAQ is above everything else what matters, Infinity is not a minor game were a few players can all be updated to a forum post about something, a ruling needs to be in FAQ to be official and accepted, there are many forum ruling that were altered in the FAQ. Now a forum ruling may not go into the FAQ because it is deemed not worthy to be included in the FAQ, or because it is considered at a later examination wrong, it does not matter, if it is not in the FAQ it is not visible to most and I am loathing to have as an answer "No it is done this way it was ruled tot he old forum that is deleted now, but that guy has a screenshot" it is unacceptable. As for the question of skills and states been separate I gave examples I also see the questions about how that works fixed themselves with correct modifiers applied. The question that remains unanswered is if a state can or should be optionally lifted, I was on the yes camp,I am uncertain now because states have a framework I do not want to upset.
If that is unacceptable then Corvus Belli need to do something about all those rulings. It's even less acceptable that Infinity reverts to being a broken mess because that repository of clarifications is no longer usable. There's a very large number of rules predicaments that were solved either by a palanka ruling or by a community answer being marked as "solved" and never FAQ'd and they are some pretty fundamental aspects of the game. And honestly to @macfergusson point about fraudulently recreating Palanka posts: I'd legitimately rather fraud and consistency in my game than having to argue with my opponent every time these multitude of issues come up.
We agree, except I find no value in agreeing "it should be in the FAQ but it's not". That doesn't help me actually play the game and because CB rarely FAQ and omit things when they do, we need to find a community solution.
The palanka ruling? Yes its the ruling and should be in an FAQ. Its not however but that doesnt stop it existing and being made. As spleen pointed out responsibility for those ruling should be taken. They exist and therefore should be made accessible. Either by porting them across or by updating the FAQ with the.....god it was huge.... list of questions and answers
The old forum's rulings, even those that didn't make quality or content for FAQ, serves a single important purpose: They let us settle rules arguments and play in a unified manner. Even if the rulings aren't going to last, they are still needed until CB publishes an official ruling on an issue. Without the rulings we are back to a state where the rules risk fundamentally not working and where the community will be split into local, incompatible, versions of the rules. This will make it progressively harder for players to engage in play outside their local circle. So it would absolutely help if a trusted individual of the community were to enshrine them in accessible form until such a time as CB publishes official clarification that says otherwise, it would mean we can have a continued international competitive space for ITS to develop in. Without these rulings there is increased risk that CB's ITS project and their Interplanetario will simply fail.
So I need to remind people that the first ruling about bast to base contact and stairs was "the bases are not in contact so there is no contact" anybody wanting to save themselves from an angry CC specialist need only to find a stair not wide enouph to support two bases. Of course it was one of the fist rulings changed in the FAQ. I am not fond of "community solutions" I am all for using the community for a solution, but the solution must always be official in nature.
being changed in the FAQ is different to throwing them all out because you changed forum. If CB wants to change them all they can write and update the FAQ, not hope they will go away and we can have all the long drawn out arguments all over again. And as much as using IJW as a "interim" ruling is beneficial if its starts conflicting with previous rulings it will be a nightmare of sodding epic proportions, an aboslute mess that wont work
1. Nobody has claimed that CB hope they will go away. 2. That they need to be covered in the FAQ one way or the other is the whole freaking point of this side-topic.
and until such a time as they are directly addressed and rules one way or another in such an FAQ they still exist and are still the rules
