Agreed this is my stance too, the rules need to be understood completely before variants can exist, I do not think anybody will object in a group playing with a variant, all do to some extent, but understanding the baseline is really important.
"They're both valid interpretations of the rules, discuss they way that suits you best with your opponent and / or TO" would be a perfectly fine FAQ for mine. "How my way is right (and Interplanetary winners are wrong!), a video by random guy with a bone to pick featuring Palanka, and backed up by a forum moderator" is an example of a non productive way to clarify the rules, in my opinion.
Will you coordinate or otherwise work towards communicating this to CB? Also, do you feel like you can do this in an unbiased manner? I ask, not because I disagree with some of your viewpoints on rules or question your integrity, but because you kind of got right into the thick of this debate, despite claiming neutrality. There was even a point in the intent thread where you and another poster were basically going back and forth calling each other liars. Regardless of what they already think, it's important that CB is aware of all the viewpoints and ramifications surrounding this issue. It's also important that they understand all of the viewpoints being expressed. Translation: If the potential clarification begins with a statement about pre-measuring being against the rules, I'm going to assume they haven't considered any of the above.
exactly, this has the potential to seriously trash the game and trash its reputation for a tight and intricate game experience by turning it into something that people have not been playing it as for years. I must say that PS seems to think there is no evidence the community plays a specific way im certainly afraid that CB is disconnected from the community
CB is well aware of the debate, I guess patience is the key here. I can assure you there is no bias in communication, the game designers know how they want the game to be played.
fair enough and I appreciate that, but are the designers also willing to take into account how the community wants the game to be played? thats just as important as the other. Furthermore do they grasp the intricacies of the debate? perfect pie slicing and knowing LOF may be related but they are also two different interactions on the table
You know, I've given it some more thought and this whole thing is even more silly when you realise that despite Infinity being a "permissive" ruleset, people still accept time limits and TO enforced quick play and no one claims that this is some kind house rule and not "pure" infinity. Not only that, but the people who advocate that LOF (potential or existing) is only open information at resolution barely adhere to it (because it is impossible) from what hey have shown, and cannot articulate its basis in the rules in a way consistent with how they play, so a ruling to that tune would not really change anything but my faith in the company putting deep thought into how the game actually plays.
CB will design the game they want to design, and people will play it or not. Any "debate" is immaterial and irrelevant.
Yes, I abstained @Todd, because it doesn't give us what we really need, which is a fixed position from which we can clearly define our play style, and make it clear to our opponents how we're playing. If we have a fixed position, no-one will be able to coerce or bully other people into playing their way - there'll be no need. We can all just say "The rules say A, B and C but in our club, area or in this particular tournament, we're playing B, C and D". It's notable that some outspoken advocates of 'play by intent' don't actually want the rules to be clarified, no doubt they fear they'd lose the claim that they can force others to play that way 'by the rules', will have to 'play the lie' and risk their units dying in a hail of ARO fire.
Really? no Mao, a company should always listen to its consumers, not the least because if a company does something with a rulesset the consumers dislike, the company will lose those consumers. Building on that further the rules will and do shape the attitude of the community and that needs to be considered as well, particularly when one of the games strengths has often been built on community cooperation Sigh, really, no I think its more we expect people who cant comprehend the implications of what they are asking to still argue after the clarification. I mean you already described how you 1) move pieces illegally according to Storm and 2) play by intent, I doubt you will find the implications of a clarification by CB to your liking regardless of what CB says. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/thoughts-on-play-by-intent.724/page-49
They’ll do what they think is best, and what fits their vision. If what the consumers want fits that, bully. If not, así es. And in a matter where it’s (at best) unclear, and various and sundry have declared their intention to continue acting as they wish, and to make sure their continent follows suit, where is the upside for CB in doing anything save staying true to their own vision? They’ll make what they think is best, and let things fall as they may.
I dunno, there's always ways to make people play how you want, you could physically attack them for example... But you don't need to be told about the wonders of persuasion by assault.
It gives us the answer to the question it was asking though. Maybe you should make a poll you are comfortable with. Who said that?
Belleza. When I do, I will, but in the meantime I'll stay right here. And, again, CB will do what fits best in how they see the game and its future, no more, no less. If our view fits, lollipops all 'round. If not (and as folks have indicated they would) we can continue to do as we wish, playing our own game, rather than playing Infinity as designed.
Is that the fingernail method, esse? What if the original intent of the game designers is actually contradictory and poorly thought-out, therefore impossible to write solid rules for, and the fact that they tried and failed is the reason for this debate? Is it still the right way to play?
The concept that the developers can make what they want and the consumer can either use it or go their own way is an illusion of control. I am not saying that this particular instance will break this illusion (and nobody wins when this occurs mind you). If the developers make something so abhorrent that enough consumers leave, the developers have lost their ability to develop what they want due to lack of finances and support. This means that consumers collectively have some power over what developers make and influence their decision. The developers, of course, try to steer the consumers in the direction they wish as well but must also balance that with the wishes of the consumer. But if the consumers become dissatisfied enough, the illusion is broken and nobody has anything. Developers or consumer.
The only person I've seen saying there's no need for rules clarification outright is @psychoticstorm .
