I certainly don't have the energy to respond to all that at midnight, and maybe not in the morning either. Maybe someone else wants a go at it
. I'm not ignoring it, but this isnt even my fight to begin with and I still stand by my posts and the points of ambiguity and how it supports the alternate concept within the rules.
But to touch on one thing, because it IS core to the difference in theory. RAW vs RAI. As here...
The rules say UNITS must do x y z, (RAW), therefore LEADERS must also do x y z (RAI).
The rules say UNITS firing is a fire activation (RAW), therefore LEADERS using their combat modifier is a fire activation (RAI).
After moving a M/F marker is placed on a unit (RAW), therefore at this exact instant it ceases to be activated (RAI). (Note, nowhere did either Shad nor I say the moving leader never gets a M/F marker).
Your RAI are valid RAI, and most likely the most common ones (well except maybe that last one which I doubt any have considered before this conversation whether it was actually ceasing to be activated at the end of the action segment, the placement of the marker, or some other minute moment that was never relevant to any other interaction). However, the alternate theory RAI are also valid. Its all about the ambiguity over what is ACTUALLY there in the text RAW.
Seeing that both are valid within the ambiguity of the rules, one can't simply discard the other without some form of clarification. Even though we all know that the RAI treating leaders similarly to units is the most likely one.
