Most (note: qualifier) folks that use the IIFT don’t care about the math. In many (qualifier) cases this can be directly related to laziness.
In (some) other cases, it is due to inability to grasp that there is a difference and one that can affect performance in the game.
In other cases it’s due to the “don’t care, I just like it”. IMHO, this is the only excuse for such sloppiness. YMMV.
In 100 years nobody will give a damn what chart was used.
I am interested enough in the math to have read the (endless) debate about IFT vs. IIFT several times over.
As the IIFT and IFT are not identical, I wonder how anyone could believe that using one or the other could
not affect the performance in the game. This is a no-brainer.
Even if the IFT with all its consequences is considered a design decision, I find it a hardly convincing one. That is, why I prefer the IIFT.
You can build your optimized FP stacks around any set of rules, be it the 548+LMG or the dreaded 15FP column on the IIFT to name but one example for IFT/IIFT applications. It is just a matter of habit or practice.
For most scenarios, I consider the potential impact of the difference between the two tables minor. Just one of the factors that we accept without even losing a word about it: There is no real 'established' balance for scenarios. We play them. The Sniper attack. We resolve it. The skill level of you opponent. We don't send him off if it does not match. The occasion, in which you roll your boxcars. We just apply the result. The list goes on.
Remarkably, it is only some of these factors, that people get heated about. IFT vs. IIFT (again). Or - really absurdly for their minimal impact - precision dice. Some others could be added.
So calling a particular reason to use the IIFT an 'acceptable excuse' or its application altogether 'sloppiness' is bollocks.
Such tags are merely a rationalizations for one's personal preferences. The same guys that are all anal about the 'design decision' and the 'math' of the IFT are still mostly (qualifier) fond of and users of the Pleva OBA rule. Is, for some reason, the original design of the OBA rule of lesser consequence, despite the Pleva rule being not even considered 'optional' in the ASLRB?
The point is, they prefer it. That's why they use it. That's all there is to it.
Some need to rationalize their preference, some need to convince themselves that their 'official optional rule' or ' house rule' is superior and thus the other view inferior. Most (qualifier) accept Perry Sez as ultimate judgements, less (qualifier) only those that are printed in a Journal or published on the MMP website.
What it boils down to:
This whole thing is not really about 'right or wrong', 'superior or inferior'. It is about your attitude towards the game and your personal preferences. I believe one should simply accept that preferences are not 'better' or 'worse'. They are different.
von Marwitz