I absolutely agree that players and Narrators need detailed rules on how the magic systems work, including the things that make each of the modes of magic different from one another.
So far in this discussion I think we've been operating on a bit of a false dichotomy, looking at the question as an opposition between rules and no rules.
For me it's not about rules vs. no rules, but words vs. numbers. Where the basic currency of most RPGs is numbers, the HQ engine is meant to be fueled by words.
A very detailed textual description of how magic works, including what you actually do while creating a magical effect, what goes through your mind as you do, which limitations you face, and what obstacles you have to overcome in the storyline to get more of it, would still be a set of rules. It might also be clearer and avoid some of the perennial confusion surrounding efforts to translate numerical rules into what the characters experience and understand. And, especially if we could get Greg to write 'em, would be a heck of a lot more fun to read! Not to mention way less intimidating for the new reader picking up the book looking for a simple, story-based game.
If you know in a very detailed way what can and can't happen with each style of magic, you've got everything you need to adjudicate magic powers using the basic, abstract HQ resolution mechanism.
Sometimes you have to resort to a strictly numerical rule. However, it's often fruitful to look at a numerical rule and ask, "Can we do this with text instead?" We tend to fall back on numerical rules because we are used to them. Finding a textual way to solve the same problem sometimes provides an immensely liberating solution to an age-old conundrum.
Take care >>> Robin
Powered by hypermail