Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman
I think for most of us there's a lean away from semantic rules-lawyering. I usually try to interpret the rules as meaning what they seem to intend in simple English, in the context they are presented in. I occasionally see people trying to parse specific word choices from different rules, well separated in the books, in a way to support an interpretation that allows what seems to me far-fetched or contrary to what appears the intent of one of the rules. This kind of approach feels more appropriate to seeking out exploits and synergies between Magic the Gathering cards or D&D-type feats and talents.
|
To take that a step further, I always assume that if there are two possible interpretations, which one makes the most sense is a far more important criteria than which one more closely matches the actual text.
For example, in the Mass Combat rules, fortresses seem to have a defense bonus that can never be claimed (they only give a defense bonus to a bunkered force, a force can only claim a defense bonus if it won initiative, a force that is bunkered cannot win initiative). Adding an unwritten "or" clause to who can claim a DB into the rules make it make sense, and is completely at odds with what the rules actually say.