by Hermjard
Anduin wrote:
Hermjard wrote:
Ok, i correct my statement:
"Units routed during the current battle can retreat (this is an exception to the rule that routed figures cannot move)."
[...]
This sentence of the rules implies, that in all other cases, where routed figures are forced to move, they either must be eliminated or another exception must be explicitely mentioned.
"Units routed during the current battle can retreat (this is an exception to the rule that routed figures cannot move)."
[...]
This sentence of the rules implies, that in all other cases, where routed figures are forced to move, they either must be eliminated or another exception must be explicitely mentioned.
eeeh, my lecture in logic (which is already some time ago, I admit) tells me again otherwise :D
The sentence does not imply that another exception must be explicitly mentioned. It says that units routed during the current battle can retreat which is one exception among eventually others. Just because it is explicitly mentioned here does not ensure that other exceptions are explicitly mentioned. (although it would be nice if that was the case ^^)
Yes, indeed, that would be logical, but would break the premise, that applicable rules must be mentioned somewhere. Maybe you should add a lecture for the bar, then it would became aware to you the quite simple and generally accepted fact, the a rule, which is declared as general, can only legally be broken by an exception, which is codified somewhere. And that it is by no way a valid conclusion, to assume further exceptions of a general rule, only by the fact, that there are already one or more codified exceptions existing.
Killing humans is illegal. Killing humans in self-defense is legal under certain conditions. This exception doesn't mean, that I can assume, that it is also legal, to kill a human who jumps the queue right before me in the supermarket, only because there is no special law forbidding that, too.
And like in laws, players rarely play according to rules, which don't exist. Maybe the game author wanted us to play the game only on sundays, but forgot to tell us?
Sorry, but it is logical, to assume, that a general rule is generally valid, except for mentioned exceptions. All other approaches are fishing in the murky waters of the authors intentions.
Of course there could be further exceptions. But to assume, that there are further exceptions is not more obvious at all, than to assume that the game author forgot to codify any arbitrary other rule, whatever you can imagine.
To assume, that there are more exceptions to a general rule, has not more quality at all, than to assume, that the game must be played only on sundays, as long as neither a different interpretation of the general rule nor any other codified hint is presented (like Scott did).
But to base a rule interpretation on logical operations alone is mere nonsense.