So at this point in my thesis you have well written rules, the margins and cheating. Well written rules and cheating speak for themselves, so it is the margins we must be talking about. The true interpretation to these are by definition unknowable (since once known, they become well written rules). This begs the question, why did you pick your interpretation? Do you always pick the most advantageous interpretation? If you are trying to stiff your opponent and make your army better, then maybe you should think about your motivations for playing the game. This is not the same as playing hard and smart to win. In cricket (don't particularly like the game, but a good example), the umpire errs on the side of the batter in making decisions. International cricket is incredibly competitive, but this is done to make for a better game and the bowlers are still trying to get the batters out. I think in wargaming you should err on the side of you opponent. If you both do this it evens out
and makes for a better game - competitive but still friendly. You
can win without being a jerk about it. If you want you can go the other way, but I think you should probably start off agreeing to this (hell, it's only a game, you can do what you want in private!). But I'd call trying to slip something by you opponent or otherwise brow beat him (or her) to your point of view a dirty trick. Interestingly GW put an explicit rule to cover this type of dispute - if you don't agree roll a die and pick the interpretation.
OK, longer than I expected. </rant>