by Hermjard
I accept the answers from the community, if they are logically derived from the existing, written rules. Or when they are derived from confirmed substance of the rules, how they were meant. Or if they are official clearings. Or, if they are derived from official clearings. Or, only in a pinch, by an overwhemling convincing argument regarding the general game model or game balance. Up to now, I regard neither of these being the case.Look at my posting before this: I did exactly, what you wanted, I argumented not only from the written rules, but furthermore assumed, how the rules would be, if the other approaches, which were presented here, would be right.
I think, to investigate other opinions that deeply, this is the most, you can expect from me, apart from just saying: "Hey, two of you disagreed to me, yes, let's play like you think in the future!".
I do more, than you do with my position. All I have read up to now is "Hey, we all know, the are rules holey! Frank, what you say, feels somehow odd to us and is not the way, we played up to now. You must warp the written rules a bit, and add a little bit of our playing-philosophy, and you will agree to us.".
Of course, the way you play, is always they way, that makes more sense. No matter, how few arguments you have. Who requests to ignore some rules, warp some others and invent some more new? Me? You? So, who is the rules lawyer?
Is that all, what you have? I try to argument unimpassioned with the rules. And when I say, "with the rules" I do not mean, to warp the written rules in an absurd way, like a rules lawyer would do. I mean to try to think the rules out, from what I know about the game model.
It's not my fault, that the arguments, presented up to know are weak. It's not my fault, when people substitute hard arguments with personal game habits, they had come to love. I don't let me be convinced by arguments, which are totally unconvincing, if you try to get into the act by impartial logical reasoning.
And when you want to say now, that this is the wrong approach, then look into the forum, from Troyes and from many other games, and count, how often "the majority community" argumenting with their guts and usage, was disproved by the minority of so called "rules lawyers", who in turn were finally confirmed by game authors.
Then, of course, "the community" is always surprised, right? Then, all the people, who usually come with their accusations about twisting the written rules, remain silent, right, instead of appreciating the attempt of an unbiased rules exegesis.
Fortunately, the right way to play a game regarding the rules, or, if the rules fail, the way, the game was meant to be played by the author, does not depend from the personal habits of the majority or from what is repeated most often in postings, but only from rules wordings, reasoning and, sometimes, with Troyes more than sometimes, by judgement of the makers.