No, you don't need to remind anyone of that, because it isn't relevant. No one is suggesting that we add relevance to rulings that are out-dated by more recent rulings or that have been made irrelevant due to HSN3 (for example). What we're getting at is that we sort of need resolution to some issues that CB has been taking years to answer, and that removing those answers are going to push the issues back to being unsolved with two or more interpretations. Hence losing the old forums' rulings actually means we'll get the community solutions that you're not fond of.
Not to derail anything here but if we lose the old forum rulings, we rip open the old hornet’s nest with Prone being cancelled by Jump or Climb, as that’s literally impossible by RAW and only supported by a ruling by Palanka. Not trying to beat a dead horse here, I’m merely pointing out that there’s a lot of stuff that starts to behave differently if we accept to ditch the old forum rulings.
I believe the concern that people are raising, and advocating for CB to address, is that if the old forum is gone, where do we point people when a rules clarification is cited? Consider the following scenario: A confusing rules interaction comes up that is not clearly addressed in the rules or the FAQ. Player 1 comes in and says, "oh, yeah, this is resolved by doing x, y and z." Player 2 says "i think it should be resolved in the opposite way, why is your resolution correct?" Player 1 says "Oh, because a CB member posted about it on the old forums, but I can't show it to you because they are gone." How is that a satisfying answer to Player 2? This is less about the validity of the old rulings and more about having a legitimate place for them to exist that players can be directed to. And while it's great that people are willing to pull stuff from the old forum and make some sort of master post/community FAQ, the burden of that, frankly, is on CB not the community.
I think this topic is pretty solidly derailed at this point. For myself, I haven't been arguing that the ruling patches from the old forums should go away. They should, however, be evaluated and properly rolled into an official source that isn't going to go away.
I agree. As someone who's done my share of arguing about the rules of this game... we need clearer rules that are well-translated. I'd offer my services on helping but I don't have the fluency in Spanish I'd need or the goodwill with the community to pull that off. "N 3.5" would be a good idea.
Yes. But it appears that IJW and Storm are arguing that since they're going to disappear in ~3 months, for all practical purposes they don't exist now and we need to redevelope interpretations of the rules absent Palanka's historical rulings until an FAQ appears. @daboarder @Spleen and I are arguing "that way madless lies" and the traditional hierarchy (Palanka > IJW) should remain in place as a least bad solution until an FAQ appears. Separately we questioned the 'states don't have NFB' interpretation in order to prevent another 'B2B = Sil to Sil', 'I stick you to a wall' issue.
I do not think this is an argument any of us made. We both said that there needs to be officialisation of anything from there that is valid and I said that the only valid way is to enter the FAQ. We are working on ways to improve the FAQ and the rules clarification experience and speed, please be patient. Relevant as in a CB employee ruled wrong and was fixed in the FAQ, nobody is infallible.
Yes, relevant for a conversation, but not this one. The faq takes precedence over forum answers, and so does chronologically more recent answers to older ones. Therefore it isn't relevant to use overruled answers as an argument against chronicling the old answers. And while some of the answers which might be wrong might not have been overruled, such doubt would also have to be applied to the FAQ document itself, but it is sufficient that we play the same game and can settle arguments quickly and efficiently by looking up the most recent clarification - even if it might prove inaccurate in the long run. The alternative is so much worse, as that means accepting the words of the local rules person, who it goes without saying is both less likely to be correct and less likely to rule the same as other rules personages around the world.
The FAQ even if wrong is the law forum posts are not. Simply because FAQ is widely accessible and in reach of everybody.
The official Infinity FAQ is only somewhat more accessible than the unofficial forum compilation FAQ document. People want to play consistently across groups, and with no idea how much help CB will be in that endeavor, they're going to organize their own efforts to do that. Even if it's just to convince people to fall in to the informal "Well, Palanka and IJW must know what they're doing, let's follow their lead" pattern.
I support all previous speakers, who want to play "consistently"! Didn't realise till now how messy rules on NFB and states are 0_0... Why to make "rules with holes" for a game and ask people to play tournaments or campaigns? Argumentation on infinity rules sometimes can be so exhausting, that make me look more towards X-wing\Malifaux.
Not yet. Can we please note that CB and Warcors are working on it? Soon we all have answers to many doubts (and this is in the queue of Qs). Can we please move away from this topic after 9 pages?
Ah. It's coming Soon(Tm). I for one am filled with confidence, you have assuaged all my fears. Thankyou for your valuable update.
While the sarcasm might be a bit pushing it. I agree with the reasoning behind it. We have had just recently been confused on the most basic of things: how states work and how does climb work. And just promising to have an faq to answer all our questions is extremely optimistic at best. One faq and done does not solve the underlying problem, which is the unclarity of the rules. Either we need a revision to the rules so there is less ambiguity or someone with authority to be able to answer these questions with approval and backing by cb. Just answering the current questions and then not having faq for long periods of time means we will find ourselves in this exact scenario again. That said, if a faq is the start of a much larger project to assist in the rules, i support it, even if doubt its existance.
I do not know what to say more that this: If this is no enough for you, maybe the problem is elsewhere.
I and people like me have been sign-waving for official clarifications on things for years (literally years). Pardon if I'm not overly confident in the vaguely "soon" promises, but as much as I love playing the game I am ever optimistic.
We understand your concerns and work on a better FAQ schedule and experience, it will not happen immediately, but we work hard on it. I am positive we will deliver a FAQ that will satisfy the player-base in the end.
