Rules questions

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The rulebook states the rules as concisely as possible while trying to be clear. Given that they are not perfect, and many words have multiple meanings, the casebooks are extremely helpful in showing us the intent of the rules. The casebooks are not a liability - they help us rule as consistently as possible. Without them, insane internet wordsmiths (I can think of three) would continually pick apart the rulebook looking for obscure situations and using odd interpretations of different words' definitions.

But that's the problem. The more valuable a casebook is, the more it points to problems with the rule book.

There's nothing wrong with mnemonics, restatements of rules, or examples being given when working thru the rules requires multiple steps that can cause one to stumble; you see that sort of thng in any math textbook, for instance. What's wrong is when different readers (or even a single reader with a mind to it) can start with a single rule book and follow every possible step thru it and wind up with different answers. If a case book in that case is acknowledged to be correct, the next edition of the rule book should be rewritten to conform to that fact. If anybody who's concerned with the game comes up with a different answer from anybody else, and the only way to say who's correct (because they both give their reasons) is whatever has come thru the grapevine as "the way it's done", then the rules have failed in that particular.