While I agree with your general premise of removing the ambiguity, I disagree in the way you have chosen to do that in this case. This is a fuzzy, inexact rule. That's why there have been so many cases involving it. (Even if some, like the Tara/Coria one, are completely absurd.) But you can't (well, you can, but you shouldn't) just ignore precedent just because you think it's a bit messy, and want to clean things up a bit. You will be completely destroying the intended spirit of the rule, as well as making the situatuion overall, IMO, even worse. Yes, there have been a few cases of this lately, but there many more that weren't cases that your new interpretation will drag into the forum here.
IMNSHO, the Magistrates should rule this case in line with prior cases that have already set the precedent, and then kick this rule back to Tom/the players for it to be debated and overhauled. That's the proper way to do it, rathed than legislating from the bench and completely changing the purpose and the historical interpretation of the rule.
I will go a step further.
Tom
hates clearly spelled-out rules, that specify all cases where they apply and all cases where they don't.
You know this. I know this. We all know this. It's been true for the entire lifetime of BattleMaster. It's certainly been true for the entire lifetime of
both of the quasi-judicial systems we currently have to resolve breaches of the rules and in-game disputes. So why, at this late date, are people who should totally know better still acting as if anyone should expect rules in BattleMaster to be of the type where you can read it and see every single sharp boundary line (and thus be able to carefully avoid breaking the letter of the rule, while trampling all over its spirit), rather than the type where they explain what's forbidden, but those whose duty it is to enforce the rules are expected to use
common sense and
real human judgement, as well as an understanding of the rule's original intent, to determine whether it has been broken or not?
