The rules only forbid, to move characters into already resolved spaces, but not, to remove characters from already resolved spaces. So I assume, that you can remove a character from an already resolved space with "Eye for an eye"? Furthemore I assume, that you can omit to "avenge"? Is it allowed to omit the first removal, and just to choose a player which removes one of your own characters? This could be part of an agreement between players to "recycle" already resolved characters.
I am aware of the rule that you have fulfill a magic cards as completely as possible. But the card text says "They CAN then remove one of your characters", so it seems optional. An instruction which is optional, is logically already fulfilled, if it is not carried out.
Regarding the face up tokens, they are also face up in the space being currently resolved. But my question explicitely referenced the former spaces.
I don't think, that we overthink the game, we just try to follow the exact wording of the rules as precisely as possible. It's you, who fills rule gaps with own premises. Of course, with this approach, you have no open rules.
Last edited Tue Nov 6, 2012 3:22 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
I won an Games for Geekgold Lottery with 0.09% Chance of winning. You sure you wanna mess with me?
The rule says explicitly the token may be face up or face down, but not come from palace guard space. If it shouldn't have come from resolved spaces as well don't you think it would have been in this very sentence in the rules?
I don't think that the fulfill "eye for an eye" partly-case is covered by the rules and you'll probably not get an official ruling for a 12 year old game.
Of course I (we in our gaminggroup) fill rule gaps with own premises (usually by a quick vote), because we would like to play onwards and not spend our gamingnight discussing rule details. If we afterwards still feel a rule needs clarification we try to get it as you did. But somehow I can't get rid of the feeling that you (or someone in your gaming group) is looking out for loopholes in the rules and trying the hardest to take advantage of them.