> > In the past, contract-defined dependent/tabled actions have been read to > implicitly function as closely to the rules as possible (treating them > as jargon), but the rules have never before been held to authorize > contract-defined actions as dependent actions themselves, so the game > custom argument doesn't work in this case.
I think the judgement works even without the game custom argument, as nothing seems to say or even imply theoretical tabled actions aren't still considered tabled actions, even if they can't actually be taken. > > This also misses some discussion of R2125's implications here, which I > think suggest that only rules-defined tabled actions can have intents > tabled. I don't see this at all; I looked at R2125 when making this judgement and concluded that tabling an intent is obviously a regulated action, even tabling one that isn't defined, because it's done so "using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action". Intending is clearly defined to work for tabled actions, not just rules-defined tabled actions. -- secretsnail
