Corbon & Antistone, who would think that you two would get so upset when I'm not even saying you're wrong? Yes, the reading you support is correct. But it is not the only technically correct reading. It's not even the only reasonable reading, or the only reading that "makes sense" in terms of the game mechanics.

The biggest complaint seems to be that there is a better way to write the rule if it's supposed to mean something else. But there's also a better way to write the rule if it's supposed to mean what you say it does. Here's one very basic re-write:

Original Rule:
For every wound token lost due to a Leech attack, the target also loses 1 fatigue (or suffers 1 additional wound, ignoring armor, if the target is out of fatigue) and the attacker is healed of 1 wound.

Possible Rewrite:
For every wound token lost due to a Leech attack, the attacker is healed of 1 wound. If possible, the target also loses 1 fatigue (or suffers 1 additional wound, ignoring armor, if the target is out of fatigue).

(This certainly isn't the best way to re-write the rule; it's just a way that requires very little alteration of the original rule.)

I feel like we're talking in circles, though, and it seems rather pointless. So I'll leave this thread alone now. Feel free to interpret that as a victory if you wish, though I honestly don't know why you care how people you don't even play with read the rules.

mahkra said:

No, the biggest complaint is that you're refusing to apply Occam's Razor and are arbitrarily making up complications that have no basis in the rules. Pointing out that the level of explicitness you apparently want is stupidly unwieldy is just a last-ditch attempt to get you to see reason.

mahkra said:

But (by your logic) the fatigue loss is still possibly contingent upon the attacker being healed. What if he can't be healed? (Max health, poison, etc.)

The only way this works is if independence is the default assumption...in which case the original wording is every bit as good.

Not to mention the added confusion due to the fact that the additional wound is already contingent upon the fatigue loss being impossible, so it's not clear what part of that construct "if possible" applies to.

This is strictly less clear and more verbose than the original.

mahkra said:

Oh, come on. If you really felt that way, you wouldn't be reading and responding to rules threads in the forum in the first place. And if we're going to complain about other posters spending times discussing things we consider unimportant, why do you care that we care?