nealhunt wrote:
I'd like to keep this as a general thread discussion the FAQ and progress. If you want to argue a particular rule, please take it up in another thread.
As with all the other issues, this is still a difference in interpretation. The difference of opinion here is over whether there are gaps in the WE rules, with the "all changes described below" text being part of the oversight, or if the "all changes described below" text is definitive.
Again, there is a split across those two interpretations and either way one of the groups is going to experience a "rules change" at the end of things.
My own perspective is this:
If there is ambiguity, there should be an FAQ. But I think the "answer" should be derived by considering which option requires the absolute minimum of
making stuff up. Sometimes the answer will necessarily break one of two contradicting rules. That's fine so long as it has the smallest effect of all the possible answers, but I don't like the creation of new rules out of nowhere just because the rulebook doesn't mention that exact situation explicitly. This way, there can be no divergence based on what different people perceive as the "intention" behind the rules.
For a contrived example, aircraft with a transport capacity can land. Maybe in future it might make sense for a different type of aircraft to be able to land, but the rules never considered it. I would be against creating a new FAQ to allow certain types of units to also be able to land, because the rules are already clear (they just don't work the way you subjectively want them to).