Once all movement is completed, the Argument Phase begins. The Umpire asks each eligible Player to describe what happens next. Players take it in Turn to make Arguments. These Arguments can cover any events the Players can imagine. The Argument should describe both what happens next and why it happens. The Argument phase runs in the following sequence. Making the Arguments Because it is for Players and Umpires to put their own interpretation on things, we do not offer a set of instructions to the people making Arguments other than to list the sort of things that might be covered. Any Argument can cover the actions of either side or the environment in general and can cover anything including: Changing the orders of a Formation or Unit Charging, shooting or otherwise fighting. Moving to a particular position or deploying in a certain way Building or destroying defences Changes in weather, light or time of day. Events affecting officers or communications Units or Formations becoming visible to the other side Changing status of supply The arrival of reinforcements (where these are uncertain) Casualties, exhaustion or panic. Arguments can be complex, and it is best to at least note the essential details in writing to save dispute at a later stage. Players should note that simpler arguments tend to be stronger. Rating the Arguments As each Argument is made, the Umpire classifies it in terms of how strong it is as a proposal of what might happen next. This determines the score required on a normal six sided dice for the events to be deemed to happen. The Umpire should note the rating he gives to each Argument. The ratings and die sores are as follows: Absurd or stupid 7 Very weak 6 Weak 5,6 Average 4,5,6 Strong 3,4,5,6 Very strong 2,3,4,5,6 The Umpire should not question the Argument; merely rate it in the light of the Briefing information, his own knowledge and common sense. Should the rating be contested by the Players, then he should re-consider, but not necessarily change his verdict. In assessing Arguments, it is important that under-performance is rated as a weak Argument as much as over-performance. Example. It would be as weak an Argument to say that a body of aristocratic horse, charging down hill at ill-armed peasants they outnumber, would rein in before impact as it would be to say that a battalion of infantry, in the open daylight, walking toward an active enemy machine gun manage to cross 500 yards with only the lightest of casualties. Scale of Arguments and preparations Umpires should look at Arguments in terms of how prepared large bodies of forces may be to undertake a particular co-ordinated task. In general, it is difficult to predict outcomes for Formations that may be all or partly engaged or dispersed over a large area and facing different enemies or terrain. Umpires should be aware of prior Arguments dealing with orders, communications and/or preparation and strong leadership to motivate bodies by Argument. Generally, the greater the balance of an Argument dealing with why rather than what happens, the stronger it should be Example: A Player in a game of Waterloo might propose a fully co-ordinated attack by I Corps against the Allied line to the left of La Haye Sainte by a single Argument. The Argument to launch the attack may be strengthened by successful Arguments in preceding Turns such as “I Corps prepares to launch a mass attack to its front.” When such a Conflict comes to be resolved, however, the fact that so many permutations and combinations are possible (Success on the left, defeat on the right, or vice versa and so on), then almost any Argument would be weak and the outcome something of a lottery. Repeated arguments Where a Player repeats an argument in succeeding Turns, the Umpire may improve the rating if there is a time element involved. Example: Player A argues that his battery has limbered up. Owing to casualties, the Umpire might rate this as only an “ average” argument. Should it fail, if the player attempted exactly the same argument next Turn and no other events had intervened, it would be reasonable for the argument to be strengthened to “strong” given that more time has now lapsed. Contradictory Arguments Once he has heard and rated all the Arguments, he decides which Arguments are contradictory. These are Arguments proposing events that could not logically happen at the same time. This is a matter of judgement, some instances being more obvious than others are. Example: Player A argues that Unit X advances while Player B argues that it retires. These are contradictory Arguments: Unit X can only do one or the other. However, If A argues that Unit X attacks Unit Y and B argues that Unit Y attacks Unit X, then it is not entirely illogical for both Units to launch mutual attacks. For the purpose of this game, however, since these Arguments imply different movements and actions occurring for the same Units, then they would be classed as contradictory. First roll-off After all Players have made an Argument, they roll their dice simultaneously to see if they obtain a score that makes their Argument succeed. More than one Argument may succeed. The results of succeeding Arguments are implemented immediately. Rolling will need to continue in the following circumstances: No Argument succeeds, in which case all Players roll again retaining the original ratings until one or more of their Arguments succeed. More than one contradictory Argument succeeds. The Players proposing these Arguments roll together again until only one or none succeeds. If all of these contradictory Arguments fail and no other Argument has previously succeeded this Turn, then the whole dice rolling process restarts, retaining the original ratings, until one or more Arguments succeed without contradictions. One or more Arguments cause Conflict, in which case there must be further throws to determine the outcome. The Umpire decides which arguments cause conflict. The Umpire decides that the outcome of any argument causes Trouble that has to be dealt with by the Players. Conflict Arguments A Conflict Argument is one where Units or commanders are pitted against one another in some way with an outcome that will benefit one side to the detriment of the other. It includes, but is not limited to: Use of weapons against enemy Units. Moving to occupy ground where the enemy also wish to move. Moving or charging to displace the enemy from their positions. Destroying or neutralising field-works or fortifications Trying to detect a hiding enemy When a Conflict Argument succeeds, then a further procedure is required to determine the outcome. Ignore any outcome specified by the Player making the argument. The Umpire decides who is the stronger Player in the situation. This he does by reference to all the factors that might be relevant. These will include, but not be limited to: Numbers of forces involved Power and range of weapons Training and organisation of forces Skills of the commanders Position advantage (flanks, terrain) Weather conditions The Umpire declares which Player is the stronger and for what reason and asks that Player for an Argument as to what happens next and why. The Umpire rates the Argument and the Player throws a die. Should the Argument succeed, then the results are implemented immediately and play continues. The Conflict is over. Further Conflicts and Trouble Arguments may be required in response to the outcome at the Umpire's discretion. If the strongest Player’s Argument fails, then the next strongest Player makes an Argument. The Umpire rates this argument and the Player rolls a die. Should this fail, then play passes to the next strongest Player and he tries an Argument. If play passes to the weakest Player and he fails, then play passes back the strongest Player and the whole process continues until one player’s argument succeeds. In a second or subsequent Conflict roll, a Player may propose an Argument identical to one previously proposed during this particular Conflict. If he does so, then the rating remains as it was originally. It is not rated again by the Umpire. Trouble Arguments Once there is a legal combination of succeeding Arguments, the Umpire decides whether the consequences of any of the successful Arguments cause Trouble for one or more Players. Trouble can be any event or circumstance that might have a detrimental effect on the fighting capabilities of any Units. It might include, but is not restricted to: Consequences of changes in weather Consequences of falling into disorder Consequences of seeing nearby events If so, then the Umpire designates an impact on each Player involved and calls for an Argument to prevent that impact. Each Argument is rated by the Umpire Example: A. Player A successfully argues that the ammunition of Battery X explodes. The Umpire judges that this might cause Trouble for nearby Cavalry Formation Y. The Umpire rules that the cavalry will immediately move away from the explosion and the enemy for the Critical Distance in panic unless their owner prevents it. The Umpire then calls on Player B to make an Argument that will prevent this Trouble. Player B argues that his Formation is a veteran of previous battles and the horses are used to cannon fire. Furthermore, he argues that the Formation is currently in good order, under no other threat and temporary problems such as this will be overcome very quickly by experienced officers and troopers. The Umpire rates this as a Strong Argument. B rolls immediately and scores a three. He succeeds and there is no ill effect on the cavalry Formation. Trouble can affect everybody and can be anything that the Umpire deems to be a consequence of a successful Argument. It need not involve a direct imposition by the Player creating the Argument. The effect of an Argument may also have more than one “Trouble” impact for Players to face. Player A succeeds in an Argument causing it to rain. The Umpire calls for Arguments for each Formation of musketeers to prevent their fire becoming permanently ineffective owing to soaking gunpowder. Since the ground is already soaked, he then calls for Arguments to prevent all cavalry Units’ speeds being permanently reduced to that of infantry. This having been done, he calls for Arguments for each heavy gun to prevent it from becoming permanently immobile. The failure of an Argument to suppress Trouble may give rise to further Conflict or Trouble Arguments at the Umpire's discretion. Results of Arguments Arguments are resolved in the order in which they were called. So if it is Player A’s Turn to make his Argument first followed by Player B and both Player’s Arguments succeed, ALL the results of Player A’s Arguments are implemented before Player B’s Arguments (including re-rolls, Conflicts and Trouble). Where the implementation of the result of an earlier argument prevents the execution of an Argument to be resolved later, then that Argument gives rise to a Conflict or Trouble argument that needs further resolution. Example: Player A argues for Unit X to attack Unit Y. Player B then argues that Unit W moves into a building just behind Unit Y. In the initial roll-off, both arguments succeed. Since Player A was first to argue in the Phase, then the results of the Conflict argument are resolved first. Because of this resolution, Unit Y now occupies the very building that Unit Y was argued to occupy by Player B. There is now no room for Unit Y in the occupied building. The Umpire has conduct a further Conflict Argument to see what happens. Results of Arguments are always expressed in qualitative terms. Numbers are used to describe forces as part of the Briefing and can be used by the Umpire to determine his Argument rulings (Are these really at short range? Does Formation X outnumber Formation Y? How many rounds per minute can that gun fire?). Numbers are not used to change the status or position of forces. It is possible to use the Critical Distance in an Argument, but others should be otherwise described. Example: OK “Units move back to here (indicated physically) “Units move back to the woods” “Formations fall back out of musket range”. “Morale of the unit is shattered” “Casualties suffered are light” “The Formation opens fire at very close range.” “The ship has several fires burning” “The whole tank squadron is disabled or destroyed” “Virtually all aircraft in the attack are destroyed.” NOT OK “The unit loses 50% of its strength” “The tank has used 5 rounds of its HEAT ammo” “The forces fall back 100 yards” “All forces within 100 yards are affected” An exception to this rule relates to time. It is permissible to argue that the time is now a specific date and time. This will relate to the starting time that is stated in the Briefing. Example: A battle starts at 1100hrs on 22nd August 1485, A player could argue “The time is now 1230hrs” or “An hour and a half has passed since the battle started”. The Umpire should rate these arguments on the basis of what has happened since the last time check. Taking into account the movement of Units and the amount of fighting, the Umpire needs to take his own view of the likely time passage and rate this against the arguments of player. However, the judgement should not be too rigid and should be heavily influenced by the Player’s reason as to why he has proposed this particular time. This avoids the issue of Players being able to use the seemingly precise calculations that are rarely present in battles but are often central to many wargames. For similar reasons, unless it involves the actual complete destruction of a Unit or Formation (e.g. an aircraft explodes in mid-air, an entire company is killed or wounded), then one would not remove models or markers to represent casualties. Units and Formations are assumed to be thinned by losses. These are not represented by specific numbers (in reality, only finalised with the next roll-call). It encourages estimation and the imprecision of real war. The essential status of units will not be lost. The Umpire is always there to reflect the necessary numerical measurements through the Argument ratings. He should not discuss these directly with the players. Example: Player A argues “Formation Y opens fire with muskets and causes heavy casualties to Formation X”. The Umpire mentally notes that the range is about 150 yards and the numerical strength of the target is about 600 against 400 men. 150 yards is a relatively ineffective range for muskets especially given that, in the game, they have already been firing for some time. He just rates the argument as “very weak”. End of Round Once all the Arguments for the Round are resolved, the Umpire checks to see if ending conditions have occurred or if Players will agree to end the game. If not, play proceeds to the next Round. More Table Top Matrix Games: Historical Miniatures Introduction Preparation: The Battle Arena and Critical Distance Scales Ground Formations and Units Players The Battle Rules Arguments and Results Players and Umpires Notes Back to Table of Contents -- Matrix Gamer #30 To Matrix Gamer List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2002 by Chris Engle. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com