Scholar's Dream

Type chart

Not eighteen subjects — eighteen ways of arguing (plus Lie, which is not a way of arguing at all). The question is never “does Experience beat History?” but “if I argue from Experience, how well does that land against someone arguing from History?”

Experiential

ExperienceSpiritualityFaith

Exegetical

BibleExegesisBiblical Theology

Doctrinal

ChristologyTheology ProperSoteriologyEschatologyEcclesiology

Philosophical

RationalityPresuppositionNatural TheologyAnthropology

Ethical

Ethics

Literary

Allegory

Historical

History

Outside the families

Lie

1.5× — it lands harder0.66× — the two talk past each otherblank — no ambient effect

Arguing from ↓ · against →	Exp	Spi	Fai	Bib	Exe	BTh	Chr	Tri	Sot	Esc	Rat	Pre	Nat	Ant	Eth	All	His
Experience	0.66×	1.5×	1.5×		0.66×						0.66×				1.5×		0.66×
Spirituality		1.5×
Faith
Bible	1.5×			1.5×											1.5×
Exegesis	1.5×				1.5×				1.5×							1.5×
Biblical Theology							1.5×									1.5×
Christology	1.5×					0.66×	1.5×	0.66×						1.5×	1.5×	1.5×
Theology Proper							1.5×	1.5×	1.5×				1.5×	1.5×
Soteriology									0.66×
Eschatology										0.66×
Ecclesiology
Rationality	1.5×										1.5×
Presupposition												0.66×
Natural Theology													1.5×
Anthropology									1.5×						1.5×
Ethics	1.5×		1.5×	0.66×			0.66×							0.66×		1.5×
Allegory	1.5×				0.66×	0.66×									1.5×	0.66×	0.66×
History	1.5×															1.5×	1.5×
Lie

A book can carry two types, and the game multiplies one row entry per defending type — so two weaknesses compound. The product is then clamped to between 0.66× and 1.5×, which is why no argument ever lands more than half again as hard, however badly matched the other side is.

This grid is the ambient effect only. It is not how a heresy is answered: for that, a specific move or a specific chapter of Scripture is keyed to the error, and cuts through regardless of type. Those are listed on each book’s page.