The vehemence (from all sides of the question) kind of makes clamping down on any discussion a necessary evil.
Yeah, I get that. Seems to apply to a lot of topics around here. Too much absolutism. It makes sense for CB to not want to touch the subject right now anyway. An edition change is most likely the easiest way to address the topic since whatever decision they made now would have wide reaching impacts on the game and the community.
Is this a joke I'm not getting? Why on Earth would a topic of discussion be banned because of how people behave? If they behave badly, take action. Let the civilized members discuss it. Seeing the staff for this game not even know how to play is funny. That makes me feel better and worse and all at the same time.
@Razi I agree that banning a topic is not really an ideal solution, but this one just gets mean. They'd need a dedicated team of mods just for managing one debate thread! That's pretty unlikely to happen, so better not to drag it up at all. The last debate thread is there to read for anyone that wants to see the arguments and make up their mind.
And considering, again, how heated it gets, best to simply leave the subject be. Peopl3 will play how they wish, regardless, as has been declared multiple times across the many locked threads, and there’s nothing to be gained by being definitive before an edition change, most likely.
Then what happens at tournaments when one player wants to play intent and one doesn't? How is this resolved when neither player will budge? Surely CB have to make a ruling?
Normally, I'd agree that CB needs to make a ruling. But to really clarify how to play the game the core mechanics would need a rewrite, and that spills over into special skills and snowballs into a completely new edition. If it's going to be done right, that is. It's important to keep in mind that Infinity is much more of a co-operative experience than other wargames. You really need to be having a conversation with your oppenent throughout the game. Basically, there are better hills to die on than this one.
I gotta say, the style of "moderation" here comes down to wagging the finger at people, closing threads and banning topics. Not much else ever happens. There are well-known trolls who really would not fly most anywhere else, but have flourished in this space for years on end. Not sure what it would take for them to get banned. Maybe we ought to make them Warcors? :P
This has been a thing for like 5 years now (I'm pretty sure there were relevant threads on the old forum going back to at least 2014). How long does it take for them to decide? If they don't want to make the decision, turn it over to the players or Warcors. Why would the core mechanics need a re-write though? We're already looking to the core mechanics for answers and pulling contrary interpretations from them. The problem is more of a lack of information, than a case of incorrect information. This is maybe a two paragraph FAQ we're talking about here. Perhaps one entry clarifying when/how we're able to check LoF, and another that addresses the actual intent part of whole Intent debate mess (model placement, player agreement, etc).
Why rush a decision or turn it over to people manifestly not qualified to make it? It’s the kind of thing (forum sturm und drang notwithstanding) that works itself out on the table fairly easily. For all the Blues and Greens on the forums, people seem to be doing quite well in the real world?
This. CB wrote the rules and they should therfore know, how the game is meant to be played. So tell us how it is played and that whole debate will come to an end. It cant be that hard...I mean their playtesters need to know how to play correctly so that the whole testing makes sense. So CB just tell us how the testers play and we are fine.
CB doesn't run any of their own tournaments? Or sponsors any with a vested interest in making sure they're played by their rules? Are people really doing well in the real world? Or do the stronger personalities win out while others just avoid tournaments or the game all together? I don't think leaving such fundamental rules down to the players, game by game, is healthy for Infinities growth. I know plenty of people who avoid confrontation at all costs. To the point they let employees get away with murder because they don't want to have that conversation where they fire them. People may not say anything to indicate they're not happy with CB's lack of stance on this matter. It's the kind of thing that can contribute to someone losing interest in Infinity. From the outside, we may never see this. I wouldn't blame them either. Who wants to play a game for FUN, when every game raises potential conflict where you and your opponent disagree on a rules interpretation. Or you have to concede the interpretation every game because the community won't accept anything else.
Given the past behaviour around the debates, you can see them in any case since they are not hidden, we could potentially ban a lot of people including warcors, simply for their posting behaviour on the threads, when I say Intent threads go too easy and too fast really bad I mean it. We did do several heavily moderated attempts to get a wider community opinion on the subject and we found, unsurprisingly, the community has a really wide interpretation on this subject and several noteworthy groups of play style exist, in disagreement with each other, even when they are on the same "general camp". As I said the official response is to wait for one and that discussions about intent are to stop and this is what it is, it is neither an easy nor a fast decision to take because it is not about the rules anymore, but finding the solution that will resonate best with the community while keeping the game balance intact. In any case I think this thread has been concluded quite a few posts ago.
Well, as I understand it, they did decide: They decided not to decide this. Even this is a decision and should be accepted.
Like most rules debates we can all agree that things could be clearer. I really hope N4 or whatever it will be called clears up these things. Honestly with the amount of grey areas in the game I think a reset is easier than an FAQ at this point. We all play games and most here on the forums probably play in tournaments too and we all get by just fine. I hate that we need local house rules but at the end of the day the game is still playable and I enjoy it more than most similar scale games. I will always support Hecaton level of rules questioning and demand for clarity but I get why a lot of people don't care that much. I just wish there was more CB acknowledgement of the grey areas beyond the deciding to not decide that we have for a lot of things. New FAQ schedule seems like a step in the right direction but it needs to hit those hard to answer questions more for me to take it more seriously. In the mean time my locals know how we play the game and we have fun so it's not all bad.
Practically this is unlikely to be an issue. You talk about the extent each player is comfortable with pie slicing (as the most contentious item of intent). Unless you're having a disagreement about whether someone can even check LoF before declaring orders? Its generally accepted that if LoF is open, then helping your opponent determine LoF before they've spent orders is going to be waaaay less heated than having the exact some discussion except now their model (and battle plan) is hanging in the balance.
Seriously, appeal to authority? That's ballsy when we have videos like the one in my initial post, of CB folks not playing the game very tactically or even according to their own written rules in some cases. Who at CB is qualified? The creators/designers who didn't even understand this issue until fairly recently (PsychoticStorm literally had to post a thread asking people how they play it, back in January of 2018)? The same designers/creators who are seldom likely to play those outside their group? So, them versus pretty much everyone who plays Infinity and potentially has to work this stuff out with people they may not know (either due to travel, new players joining local groups, etc)? I actually agree that in practice most players are doing fine. However, this is not because individuals with diametrically opposed viewpoints are coming together and agreeing like mature adults, but because there seems to be a majority of people who are already in relative agreement, and those people have no trouble resolving things among themselves. The problem is when new folks learn about the issue and see the debates that have taken place, they get a skewed perspective that makes it appear there's equal support for both sides (CB's lack of stance, and weird moderation style has not helped this). Stamina and verbosity does not equal public support, but new players with minimal experience won't know the difference. I very much expect that CB is on the opposite side of the debate from the majority of people who play the game. I think that's the sticking point. They don't know how, or can't decide if they even want to express their contradictory vision and potentially upset those players who disagree with them (many of whom are likely American and make up a huge portion of their customer base). Any decision that comes, if it ever does, will very likely weigh this consideration more heavily than the game's intended mode of play. Just like their resistance to FAQs and errata of rules, I feel this is likely an ego thing. CB (or maybe just Gutier), doesn't seem to like admitting when there are flaws or problems with their product (that is not surprising, given that it's made by artists). This is a shame really, because they honestly do an amazing job for the most part, and deserve to be proud of their creation. However, that doesn't mean they should ignore the few things they can improve. Personally, as someone who likely plays differently than they intended, I would just appreciate them being open about it, so I know that for a fact.
