The first basic principle is a universal principle for games. It honestly doesn't need to be written down, but I think it might be in the BRB somewhere.Where do I find the "First basic principle"?
I agree that the anvil is not a character but why would it only be considered a character is for point category purposes. To my knowledge I can't find anywhere saying it's not considered a character all the time. That's what's said on page 15.
But we're basically dealing with a case where a specific rule explicitly says 'the general rule doesn't apply'. Surely when given specific instruction not to follow the general rule, we shouldn't ignore it - it necessarily implies that basic principle.
@Lagerlof @Shlagrabak @youngseward
It's the problem of using slightly heterogeneous vocabulary. Some people will read a difference in it, but it doesn't necessarily indicate more than a variation of language. If you look at the BRB and look at the context, you see that the phrase "to be considered" is used to establish new definitions.
"Everything that stands on the same base is considered the same model"
"The extent of the model is considered to be its base."
"Two units are considered in base contact with each other if the rectangles formed by the outermost edges of their Footprints (called Boundary Rectangle) are touching one another, including corner to corner contact."
There is no intended difference between the use of "to be considered", "to be defined as", or even when language allows it "to be". The exception is (and that's where I think we should really be using the word "considered" over "defined") when something is considered to be/have a certain property, for the (sole) purpose of a specific situation. Otherwise that thing would not be considered to have that property. For example, the Great Green Idol is considered to have a Greenhide Race for the purpose of Waaargh!.
As with any piece of text, logic need you to define a general statement before mentioning any exceptions to it - it is impossible to make it the other way around. That's what's happening between this two rules, that's also why we don't define that logic rule (it would be a tautology).
But to be honest, fine tuning the vocabulary is really difficult in the project. First, there is a multitude of writers, which means a lot of diversity in writing styles patched together - some of which remains even after review. And second, the more you fine tune it, the higher the sensitivity of the readers to differences in the language. What used to be understood as good enough for common sense now gets questioned through inductive reasoning. "If that was true, why would you not use the exact same words? They did streamline that other rule, which means the exact wording is important." It sort of has no end. That isn't to say that we should keep streamlining the wording, I'm just trying to get you a feel of the situation.
In this case, please read "is considered a character" and "is not a character" on the same level. The answer to this question lies in the anvil rule: it's not a character, but it counts towards the Category "Characters" for point allowance, which is an exception to the general rule of the BRB that such entries are normally characters.