It matters not a whit if it’s not the game as the designers want it. After all, various posters have already said they and their meta have a way they play and that’s how they’ll play regardless of anything CB does. As such, why would CB take that into account? Why make a decision to appease/placate/ingratiate yourself with a group that will do as they wish regardless? Why would a designer change their game, which they enjoy, and which many enjoy the way they envision it, for a vocal group that has distinctly said they’ll play how they want regardless?
And here I was...hoping for a new Kazak sectorial or Ramah, but the big reveal all along was a decision on a RAI/RAW dispute. What are we going to talk about for 13+ pages after this...the new Asawira's ass-wings? :neutral:...:neutral::neutral::neutral::neutral::neutral:
Basic economics means it does. CB isnt stupid they absolutely know they have to consider what the community wants to play, the claim of otherwise is just silly. But hey, whatever I know how this argument is perceived in the wider community so I really am not that worried by what CB will clarrify
Well, quotes went tits up on me, but it was a reply to the what we will debate in the future comment...
If the designers want "gotcha" play, they want a worse game, and possibly an unplayable once, since terrain can be jostled around.
The "silent majority" argument for PAIL is not going to cut it with me, nor is the "vocal minority" for PHI a good argument to make. These are the official forums for the game in which the developers engage with the community directly. The fact that the community both within these forums, on Facebook and at one of the largest events in the world are in favour of the PUB method matters and CB would be foolish to ignore this.
Are you saying 'play by intent' was formally described in a player pack at an event and officially supported by the event organizers? This sounds a very good thing - seriously. Can you tell us more?
I think it's the lack of exchanges that are more illuminating - "gotcha" supporters running away from strong critiques of their position, as well as avoidance of the fact that the best thing to practice when playing against a "gotcha" player is not so much precise model placement as self-defense.
Ok, we take your point. This is something you've said several times before, and we do appreciate that you're concerned about 'gotcha' play. (And so am I, for what it's worth). However, please also note that just because 'Play The Lie' (PTL) advocates don't continually debate the point every time it's raised doesn't also mean they concede the point. I think it fair to say that for any bipartisan reader, the point was satisfactorily made weeks ago. There is an issue that - regardless of how they read they rulebook, PTL advocates are people who can accept that Infinity is much like other tabletop games in that it's fraught with inherent inaccuracies, and the inevitabilities of terrain being jostled and models being misplaced. And hence we're trying to avoid making the game into one of micrometer precision. Like others in the PTL camp though, I think the game can quite naturally be courteous, rewarding and competitive without also using PBI, and we see no reason for the game to disintegrate into 'gotcha' play, time wasting and arguments about micro-positioning without PBI. Again, were PBI more clearly described in the rules, most of the PTL players would in fact advocate that instead. And speaking for myself, if Corvus Belli do come out and say that PBI is now their official position, then that's what I'll teach and what I'll champion in formal situations.
No, you're not. "Gotcha" play *is* your playstyle. The term was invented to describe the way you play. It's more the fact that "gotcha" players avoid actually addressing the significant flaws in their framework, and not so much their debate endurance. Again, "gotcha" play *is* your position.
I do not think "Gotcha" or "Play as it lands" have any good attributes attached to them, both were spawned to mock the opposing side of PBI on the big locked thread advocating that any method other than PBI is just throwing models on the table or that the proponents of not playing with PBI are mean people who only want to catch their opponent off hand in order to win the game. Moreover as some posters have pointed out in reports "PAIL" sounds and looks like "FAIL" I believe and supported that this was unintentional, but it shows how heated is the debate and passion about the play styles is, I think @ijw has already suggested Play as it Is Placed "PIP" as a suggestion and it is (hopefully) more neutral since it is not suggested by anybody from the PBI side and it is descriptive of the gameplay the PIP side describes, model is placed and there are no takebacks or adjustments from the final position. I can only confirm that CB is aware of the issue (which is already stated by @Koni on the locked thread) and that there will be a clarification on the issue, I do not know any more information or a time-frame so I cannot give any more information on the subject, I will advice as always caution and to wait for that.
