"Clear Scenario Objectives" Topic

The objective was to take a bridge. At the end of the game, there was one squad on each side of the bridge, one squad on the bridge- suppressed/ pinned marker on it.
Opponent said the bridge was not taken as he had a Pak40 that had an unobstructed view of the objective- from across the table- the objective was contested.

Play for fun. 😜

Dear Mr. Opponent, unless the Rules you're playing specifically state one only needs a LOS to contest an objective I would just say, "Pack It, Thank-You!"

By the way, that will be the last game we ever play together!

In Iraq, that bridge scenario counts as a "win" by some propagandists.

Objective was to take the bridge. By your example the physical structure of the bridge was taken.

PaK 40 with unobstructed view: Use smoke to obscure LOS.

the bridge was not taken

it is still where the builder put it!

the objective was met. your opponent is a tool.

The challenge in this issue comes with the definition of "the end of the game".

If the Pak40 unit did not meet the criteria for continuing the game when the scenario said "done", then the bridge was not contested.

This is why I always break scenario descriptions down into:

1. Initial Conditions
2. Play Flow
3. Special Dynamics
4. Terminating Conditions
5. Victory Conditions

I usually group 2, 3, and 4 into one block of test. I keep them in that order in the text (it seems a natural flow to me), unless there is a special dynamic that affects play flow. Often Play Flow or Special Dynamics are empty; rarely both are.

TNE2300 for the win…

See The Defense of Duffer's Drift for the classic answer. gutenberg.org/ebooks/24842

agree with Extra Crispy

Possession is nine tenths of the law.

That's what the post-game discussion is for. We always conclude the game is a draw, with one side claiming marginal moral victory ;-) Sometimes it also helps discussing "What would most likely have happened if would have played for another 2 turns." You need gentlemen players for that.

But anyway:
Either scenario objectives are rather loosely defined, to steer the game forwards. Very often, whether you have reached the objective or not will be a gray zone. "Delay the enemy as much as possible", "Take the bridge", "Hold at all costs", …

Or – if you want to declare a sure winner – you should define the objectives in such a way that no discussion arises. E.g. "After 10 turns, if one side has a unit on the bridge, and no enemy units with 6", then that side has won. All other cases are a draw." But even then, some weird unexpected circumstance might arise.

To conclude: wargaming is not a competition sport.

I agree with Phil Dutre up to this point:

To conclude: wargaming is not a competition sport.

Discussion, ambiguity, and changes to rules because of situations that occur during a game are not unique to wargames. link

(For those unfamiliar with gridiron football – bluffers.com/bluffers-guide-nfl – read "How does the game work?" and "what should I say during a game?".)

The ambiguity comes from the fact that a well-defined set of rules (a consistent formal system) can never completely describe an idea (well, technically an idea as or more complex than addition and multiplication together, which is pretty dang simple in terms of ideas).

There are two options to make rules complete: (1) Have them be inconsistent (in extremely particular and difficult to scope ways). (2) Make them non-formal, in our case by accepting that human judgement is part of the rules.

Competitive sports also takes etiquette and consideration. Otherwise, it would not be "news" when someone in sports doesn't use them.