>I'm sure there are conventions in reading game rules--have to be--but "not
all that

>uncommon" doesn't make it. Yet I'm sure that the root of many rules
confusions is

>assuming that "this set of rules is like that set of rules". I am quite
literal-minded,

>don't try to read between the lines like some people, maybe that helps me.
It would

>really be a bad idea, I think, to try to write rules for people who "read
between the lines".

>Rules are like technical writing, there shouldn't be any reading between
the lines.



I'm not sure if I'm being accused of something sinister here or not. J



I'll simply state this - if a rules writer intends to explicitly allow or
disallow something, then it really needs to be explicit in the rules
written. My conclusion (although not your intent) isn't unreasonable with
the rules as presented. Nor is the alternative conclusion. The rules are
simply unclear in this area because there is literally no mention of armies
continuing to move in the rules presented. And the example provided in the
rules also doesn't speak to the specific situation. Nor did the AH rules,
as I recall.



That's not a huge flaw in the game - it's a reasonably rare situation that
often isn't even a factor because other legal moves produce the same
results. Coming out of Wales or moving into Scotland are about the only
times that it's likely to occur.



It's not "reading between the lines," it's trying to interpret what's
actually there.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]