It is not abusing the rules. Not at all. Staying in a sweet spot is a well known strategy in War, and fits both the letter and spirit of the current rules. If you wish to state that the current rules still need to be improved, that we need to change them so that sweet spots are no longer part of the equation, I will easily agree. In previous War feedback threads, I myself have attempted to suggest alternate rules to eliminate these sweet spots.
However, to attack the integrity of our team over this is uncalled for, unfair, and smacks of bad sportsmanship. Please redirect your frustration towards improving the rules for future Wars, and I will happily join you in working towards that end.
I agree with you and UT in that if I were in your position, I would likely forfeit salvage salvage as well to give my team the best chance of winning. In fact, I asked kev in an earlier round if there was some way i could get a 3-card penalty to bump my team down 1 duel. I was denied as it was deemed unfair, and any penalty I made before the end of that round would be assessed 2 rounds later so that I could get no benefit from the penalty. However, accepting a penalty to improve one's chances of winning completely defeats the definition of a penalty as Oni so nicely explained. If this is the "spirit of the current rules" how come kev did not let me accept a penalty to help my team?
Based on your perception of the "spirit of the current rules" and the comments posted in chat by members of team fire regarding their opinions of the rule (which I have no specific quotes of atm), I think an "attack on your team integrity" is perfectly warranted. I'm not sure what your definition of "bad sportsmanship" is, but I'm pretty sure no one on team fire will be winning a sportsmanship award this war (same goes for team aether, I think
).
Unfortunately, this rule cannot be fixed this war because kev did not address the issue soon enough. IF fire does go on to win war, it will be a tainted war win in that fire would not have won war if it wasn't for that rule, which will likely no longer be available in future wars. While I would want to do everything in my power to win war, I wouldn't get any satisfaction out of winning by exploiting a rule. Like I said, there is nothing we can do about it now to make things right this war, which really sucks because winning war is the biggest achievement within the community and I feel like no one truly wins this war (except maybe time if they can pull off the upset).
When I refer to the "spirit of the rules" I refer to their intent. It is well known that strategic subbing is legal within the current rules. No one (that I know of) intended the current ruleset to eliminate that option. Therefore it is intended.
As for my "hypocrisy", your argument makes no sense. I think the rules for War can/should/will be improved. I have from time to time put forth suggestions as for how that could (imo) be done. Following your logic, the only way to play War that is not "bad" or "hypocritical" would be for me to make up and play by whatever rules I personally think would be the most fun, even if those rules are the complete opposite of what is actually in the official rules topic.
Hope that clarifies things.
You ninja'd me 8)
People have complained about strategic subbing almost every war, and rule changes have been gradually changed to minimize this option being available to teams. The "intention" of the rule changes was to prevent strategic subbing from happening. Unfortunately, the rule changes haven't eliminated it, they only made it less common. It upsets me that you think strategic subbing is a fair rule rather than just a legal one. And everyone is all up in arms about it this war because it is even more unfair given the support team rules. When fire dropped to 1 deck, about 1/2 of your vault was unknown, you had the most relics, and you were able to field 7 support members each round (fire is the most balanced element, so their support team is OP as is). Strategic subbing in this instance was far more advantageous than any other instance in any other war. The reason it was never eliminated is probably because it never really completely impacted the outcome of a war until now.
Again, there is nothing we can do about it now, and I would be doing the same thing as you if I were in your position. But I think everyone is upset over the way fire has stated their opinions of this issue in chat.
