"Wargame Rule Interpretation" Topic

What are some incidents where both sides can legitimately interpreted a set of rules, or there are gaps, which have resulted in a lively exchange.
How do you settle the argument? 🤓
For example, once when playing a campaign style game, I politely asked a player if his forces were garrisoning the castle (x2 for defender) or in the territory (able to intercept my force). Because the game had no mechanism for scouts, he argued that I wouldn't know…

Tried 2 ways over time

1) reason out the arguments (like matrix gaming) and come to a conclusion that everyone agrees to hold to – until coming up with a better answer after the game

2) roll a dice

Generally when playtesting, I expect players to come up with situations that weren't accounted for in the scenario spec. These generally manifest as inquiries of the form, "Why can't I … ?"

This generally leads to a decent exchange amoung players on the viability of the unplanned option within the reality of the milieu. People are generally civil and the issue is usually resolved in three or four volleys either way (frequently with players arguing the viability of the result that is not to their advantage).

If the result supports the action in question, I usually ask, well … what are the odds of that working? and then stat it out off the cuff.

Then we see how it goes.

The most interesting one of these recently was, "Why can't my heroic leader rally my routing line abreast into a flying V?" We thought it should be possible, but difficult. We let the mad charging leader rally six guys at the start, then five the next turn, four, then three and so on. Eventually all the crazy people would run out. But we let him add one extra rallying figure per casualty the charge caused. That is, if this was working, additional people would get on the band wagon.

Turns out over time that this works less often than not, but when it does, it becomes a game changer.

Before you start playing, determine points of potential confusion and come to an agreement with the other player on a rules interpretation.

Also, I play every scenario twice. After playing it once, my opponent and I switch sides and play again, remembering any rules interpretation that we had to make in the middle of a game which may have benefitted one side.

Too many rule sets have ambiguous language. This is why I've been playing Commands & Colors Napoleonis almost exclusively.

Roll The Dice

Those situations it is better to have a gm. Reason and dice rolling are the next best thing.

If the discussion takes more than a minute, I like to just play it by my opponents interpretation, we can discuss it in detail after the game. But when I am playing, I want to play, not recite lines from the rule book!

Usually we also roll the dice.

Lately, I insist on house rules. Someone usually hosts the game and has put a table up, provided troops for us to use- their interpretation stands for the night.

1) Talk for 5 minutes.

2) Pull out the old "En Garde" rules (1970's) and duel it out…. funny that the Osprey released a rule booklet of the same title recently. If that doesn't work I keep the historical swords, cutlass, rapiers etc collection locked up.

Optional: Quick way… the rock, paper, scissors dice.

Roll the dice.

But also, at the start of the game, the host who has set everything up, usually gives a brief about the context and spirit of the scenario. Also helps to interpret terrain and avoid discussions later on.

If it can't be quickly reasoned out, we throw a dice too!

Because the game had no mechanism for scouts, he argued that I wouldn't know…

That's an easy one: he's right and you wouldn't know. All he needs to do is write which one of the two options it is on a scrap of paper/post-it note and stick it under a building in the castle. When you are in a position to have their disposition revealed, the paper is produced.

Other circumstances? Yeah: bowl a dice. There are very few things that can't be identified as a 50/50 or "one in six" chance in that kind of off the cuff guesstimate.

If he's still arguing, seriously consider not playing games with him again!

John T

The final page of my SYW rules ('A Glorious War'):

These rules will not cover every contingency. It is expected that when, during a game, an event happens that is seemingly not legislated for, the players will act like gentlemen and logically and amicably find a solution.

Because the game had no mechanism for scouts, he argued that I wouldn't know…

That's an easy one: because the game has no mechanism for scouts they are clearly abstracted and can be assumed to exist. You would know.
However, it seems a fundamental issue and if the rules don't cover that, then there are probably other significant holes…

Advocate, I see the same thing (scouts abstracted) and come to a different conclusion. The attackers scouts run into the defenders scouts (patrols from the castle) and can only tell that there is enemy activity in the province.

Perhaps to solve the issue the defender could write his status down and give it to the attacker in a sealed envelope to be opened when his force actually crosses the border.

Too many rule sets have ambiguous language.

That's the problem with human languages. The problem is nobody wants to read the rules I write in Lambda Calculus (well, LISP, but Lambda Calculus is easier to Google). :(

That's an easy one: because the game has no mechanism for scouts they are clearly abstracted and can be assumed to exist. You would know.
However, it seems a fundamental issue and if the rules don't cover that, then there are probably other significant holes…

Perhaps they were abstracted to the point of not being played. So they are already accounted for in the stats defining the different forces relative capabilities against each other.

We abstract tons of real stuff away. I have yet to see a tabletop where we account for CPL Jone's growing concern that his second son isn't biologically his and how that specifically affects his warfighting capability. We abstract away all the little details into an aggregate warfighting capability for the unit (individual or composite).

The use of scouts could be part of the abstraction for that game.

The use of scouts could be part of the abstraction for that game.

Of course, but such issues should not be decided by a die roll or any type of decision on the spot. This is not a rule interpretation, this is a fundamental assumption of the game in question.

Otherwise, you could always argue in any game that your troops can't shoot because the carts with the ammunition haven't arrived. "What carts? The rules don't say anything about carts?" "See, they're not there, so you don't have ammunition!" "Ok, let's roll a die to resolve this matter!" Then the next turn you can argue about the soldiers having no water because the rules don't say anything about water being supplied. Etc.

If you play a campaign without such assumptions specified beforehand, you really need an umpire and have to accept that you're kriegsspieling the whole thing. Which is fine and fun by itself, but everyone has to be at the same wavelength!

Otherwise, you could always argue in any game that your troops can't shoot because the carts with the ammunition haven't arrived. "What carts? The rules don't say anything about carts?" "See, they're not there, so you don't have ammunition!" "Ok, let's roll a die to resolve this matter!" Then the next turn you can argue about the soldiers having no water because the rules don't say anything about water being supplied. Etc.

That's exactly how the rules "Politics by Other Means" works!!
link

…in Lambda Calculus (well, LISP,…

When I was dealing with LISP the acronym was interpreted as Lots of Insipid Stupid Parenthesis.

We try to sort out what seems to be the intent of the rule, over an exact interpretation, if we've played before.

For the first one or two games, we try to go as much "by the letter" as we can, since we might not catch some nuances in how the rules function.

Occasionally, we look at each other and go "you know, that's crap" and make something up.