Contest Actions

[Robert Harper]

At 11:50 AM 1/7/97 -0500, you wrote:
> The only problem I have with this is that a successful contesting of a
>holding, in two
>consecutive turns causes that holding to fail. This means a 0 level can,
>after two
>successful turns of contesting Ilien's Law, reduce the Level 7 to a 0.

I agree on surface this seems drastic outcome.

But it has a -7 to each action from the existing Law holding (which
presumably opposes being contested), in addition to RP's spent modifying the
actions. I agree, this is a dramatic outcome, but an unlikely one. In
addition, when whoever it is first tried to create the Holding 0, the 7
levels of Law could be used as a modifier against it, as could the Ruler's
holding level (7) -for all actions.

Furthermore, since the defender could throw in Decree actions (free, 1 GB)
to impose an additional random -1d4 to Contester (i.e. arresting agents
etc.). I let a Ruler have two free Decrees a Domain Turn and a non Ruler
Regent have one (the book says 1-2 for all regents). The Decree action
cannot be used to give a bonus to actions, so the Contesting Regent can't
use it to counter this - all the actions are his.

So it could happen, if three success rolls were made at -14 or more to each
roll before RP's were spent. There is also an opportunity in the second
Contest action for the defender if they have initiative to respond by Ruling
(removing contested status) or Contesting back and destroying the Level 0
holding before it launches its second action.

If someone succedes against all those odds, I think making all holding
levels unclaimed as suggested makes sense. Success is only likely through a
continued, massive expenditure of RP's (outbidding defender) - leaving the
attacker open to others.

__________________________________________________ _________________
| |
| We ask ourselves if there is a God, how can this happen? |
| Better to ask, if there is a God, must it be sane? |
| |
| Lucien LaCroix |
|_________________________________________________ __________________|

[Jonathan Picklesimer]

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Robert Harper wrote:

> At 11:50 AM 1/7/97 -0500, you wrote:
> > The only problem I have with this is that a successful contesting of a
> >holding, in two
> >consecutive turns causes that holding to fail. This means a 0 level can,
> >after two
> >successful turns of contesting Ilien's Law, reduce the Level 7 to a 0.
>
> I agree on surface this seems drastic outcome.
>

Also conisder the anarchy that would follow a foreign (something
other than what is currently the status quo) power of some type invading
your county and setting up a muscle shop that is successful in pushing
your local police force around to the point that the group gains some
real power, though small, in your community. Most likely the who place
wuold go absolutely nuts and anarchy would reign. Your police could not
stop the new kids in town, so how can they stop everyone else from
standing up to them too. The new group is also confident and perhaps
even arrogant in their success in capturing some power, so they will have
pretty well shaken up your local force and be making them think twice and
reorganize before coming back at you.

I think the total loss of the previous holdings helps to simulate the
power struggle of the local militia/police force struggling to reclaim a
foothold in a community where there is no public confidence in them, and
probably at a time when they have little or no confidence in themselves.
That is why provinces' loyalty ratings change when loss of holding
occurs! People are scared to death about their jobs, families, property,
and lives.

Just my 2 GB worth, (Hey, we can be stingy can we?)
Thak

[James P. Doherty]

At 11:50 AM 1/7/97 -0500, you wrote:
> The only problem I have with this is that a successful contesting of a
> holding, in two
> consecutive turns causes that holding to fail. This means a 0 level can,
> after two
> successful turns of contesting Ilien's Law, reduce the Level 7 to a 0.
>

I interpreted the rules to mean that the holding would be reduced
from Law(7) to Law(6), and that the contestor would be awarded a Law(1).

In other words, you contest only 1 level of holding at a time.

Do the rules explicitly state otherwise?

Jim Doherty
doherty@ctron.com

[Robert Harper]

At 12:49 PM 1/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>At 11:50 AM 1/7/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> The only problem I have with this is that a successful contesting of a
>> holding, in two
>> consecutive turns causes that holding to fail. This means a 0 level can,
>> after two
>> successful turns of contesting Ilien's Law, reduce the Level 7 to a 0.
>>
>
>I interpreted the rules to mean that the holding would be reduced
>from Law(7) to Law(6), and that the contestor would be awarded a Law(1).
>
>In other words, you contest only 1 level of holding at a time.
>
>Do the rules explicitly state otherwise?
>
I believe so, the Holding is one Holding, however many slots it has. A
holding 2 and a Holding 7 are each one holding (certainly are treated each
as one holding for upkeep costs). If the holding is in a contested status
the whole holding is contested - no RP/GB generated, not just reduced one level.

Further, the description of Contest on page 52 states "If a contested
holding is contested a second time, its owner loses the Holding and its
slots become uncontrolled." That's "slots" not "slot".

As I noted earlier, creating a Law 0 holding and then contesting twice
against a ruler with a Law 7 holding is quite an accomplishment.

The only interpretation I would add is that the former holder of the lost
holding would retain a toe-hold in the form of a level zero holding of the
appropriate type.

__________________________________________________ _________________
| |
| We ask ourselves if there is a God, how can this happen? |
| Better to ask, if there is a God, must it be sane? |
| |
| Lucien LaCroix |
|_________________________________________________ __________________|

[Ian Hoskins]

On 09-Jan-97, James P. Doherty wrote:


- ->I interpreted the rules to mean that the holding would be reduced
- ->from Law(7) to Law(6), and that the contestor would be awarded a Law(1).

I have done the same thing in my campaign. I though it was unrealistic that
all the law was gone after a couple of months, so ruled that it was reduced by
only one level, showing a gradual wearing away of one regents influence. So
far it has worked really well, and all my players prefer it this way.

I also changed the battle rule a bit. I found that if one side in a war
attacked with all its forces first because it was the attacker or whatever
they would usually win the battle. So I changed to the attacker moving one of
his units first, then followed by the defender and so on. So far like this,
the more powerful side has won each time, except when a Thief regent attacked
a heavily fortified province with out any artillary.


- --
Darkstar

hoss@satech.net.au
http://www.satech.net.au/~hoss/index.html

`Now weary traveller rest your head
because just like me you're totally dead.'

A.J. Rimmer Bsc Ssc