I've noted 40k has a rules commentary that has statements like that, and I know some gamer somewhere has had that conversation.
I know I've seen "it doesn't say anywhere that a model removed from play can't act" in the wild, which I feel like is pushing the limits of semantic readability of game rules.
I read a story on 40konline back in the day where someone placed a character on top of another model and then moved the other (much faster) model around. It's pretty wild what shit people will pull.
If I'm doing tabletop rules writing, I try to be clear without getting trapped in the weeds of arguing with that sort of player. :/
I've noted 40k has a rules commentary that has statements like that, and I know some gamer somewhere has had that conversation.
I know I've seen "it doesn't say anywhere that a model removed from play can't act" in the wild, which I feel like is pushing the limits of semantic readability of game rules.
Amazing
"There's no rule that says a
dogmotorcycle messenger can'tplay basketballteleport!"I read a story on 40konline back in the day where someone placed a character on top of another model and then moved the other (much faster) model around. It's pretty wild what shit people will pull.
If I'm doing tabletop rules writing, I try to be clear without getting trapped in the weeds of arguing with that sort of player. :/
At least one edition of D&D has had a "the dead condition doesn't technically say you can't act" prior to an errata.
Hey, it's out-of-the-box thinking like that that had me dual-wielding Thunderhammers in my Space Wolves back in the day.