Rules as Fluff as Rules

[Oldenhaller]

There have been a number of discussions of the minutae of rules on these austere forums which have come down to the interpretation of what constitutes rules and what constitutes fluff. In some instances the differences between the two are clearly defined, in others not. It is this issue whree the line between fluff and wording is ill defined that i'd like to discuss here. I'm not looking state that mine is the correct interpretation, just looking for informed discussin as to what other people think. And in everything I have a tendency to play devils advocate, I like argueing a point so may welldo so so long as its tenable and not stupid ^_^

 

So, to the crux of things...

 

Where there is flavour text in with the meat of the rules for any entry how do we define this? In some instances where the fluff is in a separate paragraph from the rules we can easilly spot it for what it is. When the rules themselves have 'additional text' withinthem which adds flavour but could easilly be construed as rules, how ought we interpret this?

 

My initial reaction ( as with many other's i assume ) would be to treat each an every case individually. If the rules suggest that there is a specific way that they ought to be played, be it from the fluff or the wording of the rules then the most sensible course ought generally prevail. While this would seem like the most sensible course of action it can often be the case that two opposing parties might vehemently disagree upon how things are worded and this is where the problems begin.

 

In my mind the first port of call to determine what is fluff and what iss not would be to see if there are any other instance of the words in question elsewhere in the rules or codex. If there's nothing of this nature then it's highly unlikely that this wording is going to be a rule which is going to make the exposition/background/fluff a new rule which is going to affect the flow of the game. If there are other instances in similar situations then it's quite probable that this was intended and is therefore rules rather than fluff.

 

Next would be intent. If it's too good to be true then it probably is. Consider the rules, it's context and how it interacts with your army. Wording stating that sinething is 'invulnerable from harm' ( for example ) is unlikely to mean that said unit cannot be killed, even though the use of the english language might suggest that this isn't the case. If the wording gives you more than you'd expect then again, it's probably fluff. If the wording is specific and states exactly one thing, don't try to argue something else because of the fluff around it.

 

If we're still at odds then the last thing i'd consider would be the words themselves. What is trying to be conveyed? If the wording is emotive, paced or generally of a thrilling nature its fluf. If it's laid out logically then it's probably rules. This of course falls down a little where rules are split by fluff in the middle of them but we persevere. It's difficult here to describe the feel of words. My wife is synesthetic, when she describes words as a colour she's invariably right....but when they have a shape and possibly a flavour aswell it gets confusing. However, rules tend to be bland, flat and tsaste like cardboard. If this isn't what is being conveyed it's probably fluff.

 

Finally, if your possition isn't tennable admit gracious defeat...and so's your face ;)

 

~O

[nighthawks]

I'm not sure of your point, but GW does write a story with rules dashed in, and it can at times be very subjective as to what is rule mechanic and what is pure, unnecessary fluff. GW has see fit not only to CONTINUE wrting in this way (though credit is given to their newer arrangement of the lists, since C:CSM) but to go a step further and tell us that their FAQs, which used to help settle things, are not official - a move that has rendered them completely inadmisable in a RAW discussion. their new default is to play it as you see fit. this works fine right up to tournament time, at which point people have a vested interest in a firm, established, and understood ruleset. this void is filled by the tournament organisers and the specific rules of that match, which are also inadmissable to a rules discussion, generally.

 

so honsetly, for those types of issues, all these fora do is allow us a place to voice our interpretations. occasionally someone will find good evidence to support their reading within parallel or related rules, but usually it boils down to symantics and subjective readings of the language, which is rather difficult in its current levels of understanding and the wide range of places where it is spoken. english is NOT a "common" language and that holds as much truth with regard to the writers as it does to the players.

 

I come here to learn about rules I may not have played with or against, to see how others play, and to endulge in a little 40k at work. nothing here will solve the problems with 40k rules writting.

[greatcrusade08]

I come here to learn about rules I may not have played with or against, to see how others play, and to endulge in a little 40k at work. nothing here will solve the problems with 40k rules writting.

 

Yeah nighthawks has hit the nail on the preverbial head right here.

At home we all play by the rules as we see them, and usually can find our way around the complicated rules without too many arguments.

There are a few B&C members that do reguarly attend tournaments and so know what the commonly used rules are, but for those of us who dont know we use threads/topics on this forum to work our way around the more comlex combinations of the rules.

Of course just because these guys attend the tournaments doesnt mean that the rules they use for said events are the intended rules as written/intended by the games designers (except touneys run by said designers). Most of the time it is a person or groups opinions on what is and will always be very subjective rules.

That being said i usually give more weight to the opinions of regular tournament players and there are one or two i reguarly ask for advice on the ultramarine forum.

 

Getting back on point though as nighthawks said the 40k rules are not always written well and this is the first step in causing any disagreements beween players.

The second is perspective, any one who works within the law (police/lawyer etc) knows that eye witnesses are extremely unreliable, every single person sees things in a different way, even if it happened infront of their faces. So should it surprise us to learn that they interpret rules differently too?

Ultimately we should arrive at the consensus that even if the rules were written to what we think is a good enough level, then others may not agree with our assesment.

 

When i wrote my tactica for the 10th company, i came across two of these badly written rules, the first is the space marine captain on bike. and his special rule: Mounted assault, which allows space marine bike squads of 5 or more to be taken as troops choices.

So how is the best way to resolve the issue of scout bikes?, are they allowed under this rule as troops choices?

If we break down the Rule then it allows all 5+ man space marines bike squads to be taken, well scout bikers are space marines and bikers, so if we go down this route, then we can say YES.

Using RAW however it doesnt allow this, because it doesnt specifically mention 'scout bikes' in the rule.

There was a thread or three discussing this and in the end i had to go forward by assuming they couldnt have this rule. I decided this using pure RAW, but put a sidenote in the tactica:

Mounted Assault

Space marine captains on bike can allow 5+ man bike squads to be counted as troops choices, it is still unclear however whether or not this covers scout bikes, and is still a matter of hot debate. At the moment for the purpose of this article i am assuming they do not have this bonus, but feel free to ask permission from your opponent to use this rule in a friendly game .

 

The second point of confusion was whether or not every single pinning wound causes a pinning test or if each unit causes only one regardless of how many wounds were caused.

Again there was a thread on this, but the difficulty came in working out RAW as the rule itself allowed too much room for interpretation, it was difficult to assume what was intended by the author either (RAI) as it is an obsure rule not used too often.

In the end i had to go with general consensus and leave another sidenote.

Pinning

There seems to be some debate on whether each unsaved wound causes a pinning test, or if it is one test per unit as a whole. Its always worth discussing this with your oponnent before or during the game to clarify this point.

 

Personally with the subjectivity of certain rules, i believe the only real way to form a well informed decision is to use these forums and threads. We should listen to every argument and make our own minds up at the end.

In fact there has been several occasions when i waded into an argument and by the end had changed my viewpoint.

The only problem i see with the OP is that yes he has a good system to judge what rules really mean, but by no means does that make it the correct way...as i said no two people will read a situation in the same way.

 

Confused yet?....yes me too, im going for a cuppa

GC08

 

Edit: my system is this

1st: RAW

2nd: RAI

3rd: General consensus

[Steelmage99]

My system is as follows; (take note of 4. I'll return to that)

 

1. We need a rule to tell us to do something, in order to do anything.

 

The way GW has set up the rules, means that they describe a set number of things allowed to us. An action not expresly allowed in the rules cannot be taken. Also know as the "The rules doesn't say, that I can't do it-fallacy".

 

2. Break no rule.

 

If a given solution to a rules dispute require us to ignore a rule (without being told to), the solution is unplayable and needs to be rethought.

 

3. Codex trumps Rulebook.

 

If a situation occurs where the Rulebook and a Codex is in opposition, the Codex is used to resolve the issue.

 

4. Fluff is not rules.

 

The fluff is a literary tool used to tell good stories and set a mood. Nothing more.

Drop Pods land in a storm of fire, Orks can crush a mans skull in his hand and Genestealers move so fast Marines even miss them. This is not rules and cannot be used to argue as such.

 

5. "The Golden Days".

 

What has gone before does not effect what comes after.

Drop Pods used to be able to shoot on the turn they Deep Strike, Land Speeder Tornados used to be exclusive to Ravenwing and Orks used to be able to buy Bolt-on Big Shootas on their Battle Wagons. Things change and we must change along with them.

 

6. "Intention"

 

None of us knows the intentions of the Games Designers. Using sentences like; "The Games Designers clearly intended..." or "The intention is obviously...." will only make you look silly. The proper sentence would be; "I believe/It is my oppinion that the Games Designers intended that....." and one must realize that such an argument can be refuted by a simple; "I don't".

 

7. Rules are rules.

 

The rules come out of the Rulebook, the various Codecii and on GW-released PDFs.

The word of John Turner, you local Red/Black-shirt, GT tournaments, not even Phil Kelly/Jervis Johnson are rules unless presented in the above mentioned formats. They can indeed give us an indication of which way FAQs and the future rules make take, but they have no effect on the current rules.

 

8. Houserules

 

Everything can be changed by houserules. Feel like making Bolters strength 5, give Tyranids save 2+ across the board and make Terminators Troops? Go ahead and make it a houserule.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Point number 4 and the inconsistencies surrounding that is obviously what inspired the OP to start this thread. In the few cases of a possible "fluff-mixed-with-rules", I usually try to determine the logical consequences of following such a reading and how it applies to other armies as well.

 

An example is Telion and his gun and the comparison to Wazdakka, that I posted in the Telion thread. If the result of such a reading appear absurd, I'll rethink the application of the wording. I realize that the definition of what is "absurd" is highly subjective, but it has worked ok for me so far.

[Praeger]

I always look at it like this:

 

WHAT? - this is the "heading" etc of the rule. Its the quick few words that mention what this is. Bolter. Stormbolter. Fleet of foot. Deep Strike.

 

This isnt rules but a quick way of finding the rule by giving it a general name.

 

HOW? this is the section that says EXACTLY how the rule works. 24" rapid fire S4 AP5. May roll D6 instead of shooting and move this extra distance etc.

 

This is the rule. This is the bit that needs to be followed.

 

WHY? anything that comes under this heading is fluff. Its there to describe how this rule works in a real world setting. The gun fires miniture grenades. The troops are experts and running over cracks in the ground without tripping.

 

This is not rules even if it mentions some of the same words as the rule itself - such as "bolters fire" it does mention the word bolter, but that does not make this section have anything to do with the rules themselves.

 

When looking over the rules you just need to simply work out what section falls into each part.

 

Big Shoota

 

A big shoots is a loud, heavy, large-calibre machine gun that bucks and sparks like crazy when the trigger is pulled. It has the following profile:

 

Range 36" / Str 5 / AP 5 / assault 3

 

In the above example we see how this works.

 

Big Shoota

 

This is the WHAT. The name of the rule. Whenever you see "big shoota" in a units entry you know that you are meant to come right here for the rule.

 

A big shoots is a loud, heavy, large-calibre machine gun that bucks and sparks like crazy when the trigger is pulled.

 

This is the WHY. This is not rules but is fluff. Make note that although the sections says "heavy" this does not mean that in any way it follows the heavy rules.

 

Range 36" / Str 5 / AP 5 / assault 3

 

This is the HOW. This is the rules for the weapon and how they are used. Note again that although the fluff mentioned heavy we can see here that this is clearly an assault weapon.

[Oldenhaller]

Cheers guys - nice to know others have a means by which they approach things to get the best out of the way things are written. I can see the logical progression of the way things are thought through and how they can be applied to both rules and fluff. My query (and thus the point of all this verbal meandering) is when there is not a cut and dried answer - for example where thhere are weapon stats to go on; how do we proceed then. We can see from rules such as the drop pod's landing and the Librarian's GoI that there are many interpretations, and with what might appear as fluff mixed into the rules (hatches blown/there is no risk) this can create some quite heated debate. As these phrases are subjective in their wording - as a number of the other posters here have stated can we know that they are fluff or rules and isa there a means of working this out?

 

~O

[Playa]

Hey,

 

Fluff is not rules

 

Amen.

 

What has gone before does not effect what comes after

 

If only! Read any WD BRs lately? That said, Alessio did a good job with v5.

Now, if he can only get Jervis back on task . . .

 

Things change and we must change along with them

 

Meh. Outside of tourneys, that's only true of things that change for the better.

Jervis has already stated that the devs will *not* write rules for tourney players.

Neither will they playtest "extreme" army builds - because *they* don't use them.

 

None of us knows the intentions

 

Well, their bleating about "the most important rule" and "streamlining" has to be taken into account.

You don't need The Amazing Kreskin to see where something would detract from those stated goals.

If a new rule introduces a cumbersome/counter-intuitive mechanic that slows play, Karnak says:

 

"The letter 'F' does not naturally occur in the word "weigh".

 

one must realize that such an argument can be refuted by a simple; "I don't"

 

Hmmm ... to be fair, there is a difference between an opinion and a prejudice. Example -

I think that the goal of GW books - to sell Citadel models - is a fairly well-documented fact.

Even though it's not in the printed RaW, you don't get to hold up "I don't" as a valid opinion.

 

The burden of proof seems to me to be upon dissenters of documented fact - however dated.

This is true of the RaW, and the "historical" context in which they must be viewed.

The idea that the rules exist - for their own sake - in a vacuum begets Silly RaW.

 

The rules come out of the Rulebook, the various Codecii and on GW-released PDFs

 

I'm afraid that with no way of vetting "something printed in my basement", PDFs will have to remain house rules.

I know from Photoshopping homegrown Codices in the past, that counterfeits are too easy to produce.

Errata are welcome, of course, but GW Doesn't seem keen on doing those any more.

 

Does anyone else miss Andy?

 

 

Playa

[Legatus]

3. Codex trumps Rulebook.

That is most true in an ideal situation, where the rulebook is released first, and all Codices are then based on that set of rules. It gets complicated if a new Rulebook is released that still allows the use of the Codices from the previous edition. Previous Codices might have had versions of previous universal special rules in them, that now changed. Example: "Counter Attack" from Codex Space Wolves. In such a case we have to figure out whether they still use the older rules from the Codex, or whether they are supposed to use the new universal special rule. In such situations an Errata or FaQ is most helpful.

 

5. "The Golden Days".

If a rule is ambiguous or there is doubt how it is supposed to work, knowing how such rules previously worked out is helpful to determine the correct application. I have seen the question being asked whether the Bolters on Calgars Gauntlets can both individually be fired as stomr bolters, or whether they both together work like one storm bolter. The 4th Edition Codex said the Gauntlets have "built-in bolters that fire with the same weapon profile as a single storm bolter", which appearently was ambiguous enough for some people. In 2nd and 3rd Edition the rules for Calgar had said that the "bolters fire together with the same effect as a storm bolter", which was quite clear.

 

6. "Intention"

I have no doubt at all that Space Marine Chapter Banners, Company Standards and Sicarius' "Rites of Battle" ability are supposed to only affect your own Space Marine units, and not all Space Marine units, including the opposing ones, like the rules actually say. I am quite confident that "Chapter Tactics" are not supposed to affect allied unit, who are not part of the Chapter. I am pretty sure that characters in terminator armour are not supposed to be able to use melta bombs.

Compared to that, I have no idea whether units that chose to pass a morale test because of Calgars "God of War" rule are supposed to suffer "No Retreat" wounds or not, and in this case I would go strictly by how the rule describes the game mechanics. Sometimes an intention can be guessed with relative certainty, sometimes it is more difficult. In such cases, knowledge of previous rule iterations also helps.

 

7. Rules are rules.

If Gavin Thorpe, the writer of the Dark Elf army book, writes in an interview that his intention was that combining Rending Stars with Manbane will result in Strength 6 attacks, and not Strength 7, even though that is what can be deducted from the text in the army book, then that is as good as any other rule for me.

[Steelmage99]

3. Codex trumps Rulebook.

That is most true in an ideal situation, where the rulebook is released first, and all Codices are then based on that set of rules. It gets complicated if a new Rulebook is released that still allows the use of the Codices from the previous edition. Previous Codices might have had versions of previous universal special rules in them, that now changed. Example: "Counter Attack" from Codex Space Wolves. In such a case we have to figure out whether they still use the older rules from the Codex, or whether they are supposed to use the new universal special rule. In such situations an Errata or FaQ is most helpful.

 

We don't really have to figure anything out. We are told that codex trumps rulebook, and that is that. We are told that if wordings differ, we use the one from the codex.

 

5. "The Golden Days".

If a rule is ambiguous or there is doubt how it is supposed to work, knowing how such rules previously worked out is helpful to determine the correct application. I have seen the question being asked whether the Bolters on Calgars Gauntlets can both individually be fired as stomr bolters, or whether they both together work like one storm bolter. The 4th Edition Codex said the Gauntlets have "built-in bolters that fire with the same weapon profile as a single storm bolter", which appearently was ambiguous enough for some people. In 2nd and 3rd Edition the rules for Calgar had said that the "bolters fire together with the same effect as a storm bolter", which was quite clear.

 

And knowing how the rules used to work, can also muddy up the waters. Drop Pods shooting and Turboboosting during Scout Move comes to mind. If we just stick to what the rules actually say, and not what they used to say/what we wish they say, we are fine.

 

6. "Intention"

I have no doubt at all that Space Marine Chapter Banners, Company Standards and Sicarius' "Rites of Battle" ability are supposed to only affect your own Space Marine units, and not all Space Marine units, including the opposing ones, like the rules actually say. I am quite confident that "Chapter Tactics" are not supposed to affect allied unit, who are not part of the Chapter. I am pretty sure that characters in terminator armour are not supposed to be able to use melta bombs.

Compared to that, I have no idea whether units that chose to pass a morale test because of Calgars "God of War" rule are supposed to suffer "No Retreat" wounds or not, and in this case I would go strictly by how the rule describes the game mechanics. Sometimes an intention can be guessed with relative certainty, sometimes it is more difficult. In such cases, knowledge of previous rule iterations also helps.

 

You sum it up pretty good at the end. Sometimes intentions can be "guessed" at, sometimes we can't. Don't bother trying to guess intentions. Just leave it out and stick to the rules as they appear.

 

7. Rules are rules.

If Gavin Thorpe, the writer of the Dark Elf army book, writes in an interview that his intention was that combining Rending Stars with Manbane will result in Strength 6 attacks, and not Strength 7, even though that is what can be deducted from the text in the army book, then that is as good as any other rule for me.

 

Good for you.

[Legatus]

We don't really have to figure anything out. We are told that codex trumps rulebook, and that is that. We are told that if wordings differ, we use the one from the codex.

And if we are lucky and GW feels like it they will publish an Errata once a new rulebook is released which tells us which old rules in a Codex get replaced by the new rulebook rules. We are not allways lucky.

[Steelmage99]

They already have.

 

And at the risk of repeating myself, we are told that if wordings differ, we follw the codex wordings. There is your Errata.

[greatcrusade08]

The "curent codex trumps all previous rules-sets" is a valid point and is pretty much accepted by all..

But i have seen some who ignore the fact that this only occurs if the two rules-sets contradict each other...Too many people want the best of both worlds, they want thier cake and they wanna eat it (where did this come from?, why else would you have a cake??) :wacko:

 

There has also been alot of confusion about what RAW actually means, in the Telion thread about his gun, someone tried to claim that it was RAW to use it as a regular bolter ;) , unless it actually says in clear terms "MAY BE FIRED AS THIS..." then its wishful thinking and clearly not RAW.

 

Please note i dont want to drag this thread into the Telion argument, any problems with my arguments should be made on that thread and not this one....thank you.

 

I always have problems myself with the RAI (read as intended), i mean how do we lowly gamers know what thought processes the games designers have???

For all we know we are all wrong, i believe RAI should always be supported by quotes from said games designers, saying they wanted X to happen or for people to use it as Y...etc

 

GC08

[Oldenhaller]

we are told that if wordings differ, we follw the codex wordings. There is your Errata.

 

Hey steelmage glad you could join the discussion. The main crux of things here is rather than stating "the codex trumps rulebook" which whilelaudable does not help with the main point of contention of the rules - which is the codex itself. As demonstrated there are numerous instances where the rules/fluff in the codex may appear as if its a hard and fast rule, which would indeed trump the BRB...but how do we tell which is which?

 

I think the as intended is where it breaks down. With the example used it can be seen that one faction believes that the rules intend for a gun to be used in one way and the other in another. Both factions have cited numerous different rules and factors which influence how the wording of the fluff/rules can be read, but neither is able to sway the other as its the belief in the intention of how things out to be played (and dare I say the desire to be playing things correctly and with fun in mind?) as these beliefs are held to be right.

 

I really like the idea of having the games designers have being quotable in how they intended things to work, would be handy wouldn't it B)

 

~O

[Steelmage99]

You are most welcome.

 

Make no mistake. I certainly understand what motivated you to start the thread. I even addressed it in my previous post.

IMO there is no hard and fast way to resolve the issues that arise when fluff is mixed with rules mixed with fluff mixed with rules....

 

As I mentioned earlier, I try to apply any given interpretation to more than the rule in question, but rather see what the consequence is if the same interpretation is applied to all armies across the game. If the result appears absurd to me, I rethink the application. This is indeed very subjective and, in no way. hard and fast, but it works for me.

 

 

 

And yes, I would love for the Games Designers to tell us what their intentions are. Kinda like they did with much of the Necron Codex (but not all of it).

[Praeger]

7. Rules are rules.

If Gavin Thorpe, the writer of the Dark Elf army book, writes in an interview that his intention was that combining Rending Stars with Manbane will result in Strength 6 attacks, and not Strength 7, even though that is what can be deducted from the text in the army book, then that is as good as any other rule for me.

 

No, im thinking you have the whole idea of the word "intention" some how confused.

 

What you INTENDED to do and what you ENDED UP doing can be completely two separate things, and so you can never use the intention to argue the end fact.

 

EG 1 - Tyranids where at one point INTENDED to not be killed by any instant death weapon ever. This was what was initially INTENDED. However after game play this was dropped. However it was still what was INTENDED at the start. Intention does not equal rule, mainly as shown here the intention was deamed unplayable in the end.

 

EG 2 - I INTENDED to buy a new computer, but instead purchased some new riding gear. My riding gear is obviously not a computer even though I INTENDED to purchase a computer and when talking to friends will say it as such.

 

EG 3 - I went out driving. I NEVER INTENDED to hit the dog. Even though I never intended it, that dosnt change the end fact of the dead dog lieing in my neighbors front yard.

 

Simple point is this - Gav might not have initially intended the rule to work like that. And so when he says the above he is not lieing. What we dont know is if HE decided later on to let it get changed and the reasons as to why they let it pass through into play. You can GUESS that it was a mistake. And yes Gav did say that wasnt what he INTENDED but what is not said is if after he wrote what he wanted and intended if he changed his mind.

 

Point being in the end - we play by the written word and only that. If you dont like it fine, house rule it. But when you talk about rules you must act and think as if this is the first game you have ever played, you have noone to ask advice from, and must follow ONLY the rules that you have printed in front of you.

 

Thats how you follow the rules for ANY game.

[Legatus]

No, designers might originally plan to have a rule work in a certain way and then end up having it work a different way. That is different from the designer intending a rule to work in a certain way, but making a mistake or phrasing it unfortunately. The intention is for the rule to work in a certain way, but it ended up not coming across that way. Gav did not state in the interview that he originally had the idea to limit the strength of Manbane+Rending Stars, he asserted in that interview that that is how the rules as they currently are work out. And if you compare the rules for Manbane with the similar rules for Slayers, you might see that the rules actually work out that way. But if you ignore the Slayer rules and focus only on the rule as it is printed in the Dark Elf armybook, you might get the impression that they work differently.

Game Designers and Rules Writers are only human. They make mistakes, or they have not forseen a certain item combination. When the designer says that his intention for this rule was a different one than it comes across, then that is effectively an errata for me.

 

The rules for Space Marine banners were not originally at some point of developement intended to work only for your own units and then it got changed for the final draft to work for enemy units as well. It is an oversight, an unfortunate phrasing, and not intended to work out like it is printed in the Codex.

[Azazel665]

RAW strikes me as is just too intellectually perfect of an idea. Differences in human psychology with regards to problem solving, just don't allow for it when speaking about so many different individuals with different backgrounds, aptitudes, etc. Generally speaking though, when trying to understand a conundrum (say a particularly abstract rule), people will tend to use any tool at their disposal, and trying to get at intent is one of those tools. Fluff in that case tends to be an admittedly problematic but obvious avenue to pursue intent; I'm therefore not sure we can count it out quite so easily. This being evidenced by how much we chase our tails on this board arguing the point over and over again.

 

RAW is certainly a good goal to strive for and a mental exercise, but much messier in execution and frankly not all that important when we're talking about a gathering of friendly gamers rather than a tournament scenario. Discerning the line between rules and fluff then? I guess I'm saying it's not all that relevant since people will to varying degrees leverage whatever information they can get their hands on. Let's face it, the rules would at the very least be much less interesting without it anyway.

 

To be sure, I'm attracted by this idea that the rules can be understood perfectly by just taking them at face value, but if even the Supreme Court can't transcend issues of intent when interpreting the U.S. Constitution, what hope do we have at all with our little document? (See: originalism). Well, little in scope maybe, perhaps not size. :D