In my head I was thinking of an interpretation where one would first select land to be taken away arbitrarily, and if it happened to be already placed, it wouldn't be transferred. But likely the rules wouldn't have been interpreted that way. I can remove the second sentence if it's clearer without.
In my head I was thinking of an interpretation where one would first select land to be taken away arbitrarily, and if it happened to be already placed, it wouldn't be transferred. But likely the rules wouldn't have been interpreted that way. I can remove the second sentence if it's clearer without.
It's fine. Maybe there's some small semantic case I'm not thinking of.