Markconz wrote:
Apocolocyntosis wrote:
*or every firth sub-element if using the Turing-Wiffle Dutch interpretation of the rules – see 'what you need to play' section 1.1.1.1.1.5.6.1.8 §9, though this is hotly contested by NZ players and the micro-tournament scenes of several lapsed German principalities.
Indeed and for good reason as the existing rule makes a mockery of effective implementation of the 1.1.1.1.1.4.6.3b subclause, as can be plainly seen by anyone who cares to look. The New Zealand / Saxony position is clearly the most logical intepretation.
Really? this again? we both know that subclause only came about after the grammatical mess caused by the magyar translation of 6th edition. It seems obvious but that's only due to a it being translated back again via the legacy Cockney rhyming rules, which, i might add
aren't sanctioned for tournament play in the fist place! Anyway even if you do claim it as the best interpretation, i've yet to see you post a battle report making full use of articulated range ankus in anything like the prescribed manner. Speaking of which, the crudités and dip visible on table in the last bat rep with glyn were clearly out of formation in an illegal discard pile. As for Saxony, they don't even rule counter-snap-fire-underwatch-supressinon-clipping as legal in the 1997 RAW, so you can hardly cite them as an example of good form.