you can, usually when you start arguing that whatever the other guy does is not the "spirit of the game" because how dare they do that..... The rule clearly has only talked about CORE fireteams, thats been stated multiple times now. quite frankly arguing with that is arguing with RAW and Spirit of the game
Well, except when two people disagree about what that spirit is. But I've never known wargamers to have wildly different or contentious opinions on subjective elements of our shared experience ;)
I know people who say playing more than 1 combat group is against the "spirit of the game" because it becomes less of a skirmish game.
There are too much people that things differently about what the spirit of the game is, because usually we don't get the complete knowledge for that. In this case, I thing for example that there is no spirit whatsoever, they just try to tweak rules and try to find a balance in there, but nothing truly related with "the spirit of the game". In fact, mixed fireteams started as something outside of that SotG, because that was only for tryads and enomotarchs.
That is similar to what I use: "is better to use the interpretation that has the minium disadvantage to the person who can not choose". I mean, if I have the option to use/put X rule in the game, then is the oponent who can not choose, and if there are 2 possible interpretations of the rule, the best one (until there is an errata or faq) will be the one that bring less burden to the rival (who cannot choose). The reason is: if it appears a faq/errata and I'm correct, is ok. Amd if I'm mistaken, I used a less impactful rule so the next game I will have a little buf. But if I were to use the more burdening option for the rival, in case of beign in the right, os ok. But if I were in the wrong, then I would have been cheating, getting an undeserved buff. And that's the worse output possible here.
that implies that acting to your advantage in a game is somehow immoral or at the very least morally ambiguous. Not really nice now is it to imply that of others.
To be fair, by conceding any advantage between two possible interpretations, he's trying to avoid the appearance of any bias. Unfortunately this doesn't work very well if the other player is trying to do the same. Instead of players arguing for their own interpretation, advantageous or not, both are now arguing for the least advantageous position. Which only one person can occupy.
