That rule is also written around intent, but it is not quite the same in my reckoning. There's more of a gray area about who exactly is getting hurt in the event of a realm merger, as well as a decidedly different intent behind the rule. Most of BM's rules are designed to protect players from each other. The realm merger rule is not. I'd elaborate but that would be decidedly off topic. In short, I do not accept the equivalence you are posing.
Edit: Also, as to intent, it's virtually impossible for us to prove, reliant as we are on evidence provided by others. Unless the defendant has been relatively open with at least one person about their intent, a person who then comes forward with the evidence to prove it, there's not much we can do other than look at what happened and the evidence provided and try to guess what the actual intent was. Sometimes it may seem like the only reason to do something is for advantage but we can't really know, and our decisions will end up being essentially arbitrary and heavily weighted toward innocence in virtually all cases that invoke this rule since it is so narrowly interpreted.
And you know what, that is fine. You guys aren't omnipotent, you can only do as the evidence provides base on your own logical though process suggests. Juries are no different though we often like to pretend that somehow they are. My argument is that to simply throw intent out the window is not the way to handle it. I can argue till I'm blue in the face that I believe his intent was not to provide strategic advantage, but I can't know that either, it is just my opinion. This is why magistrates work as a group, so deliberation does not rely on a single opinion of the facts.
