Contesting

[Sean Brown]

> I would say that the Holding would drop one level at a time. A third contest
> action wouldbe needed to destroy Guilder B in that Province.
>
>
> The Golden Griffon

This seems to me to be a bit of overkill..its already hard enough to
contest holdings, let alone having to do it one level at a time.
Beside, this would indiacte that the holdings are all separate, which
they obviously aren't (otherwise you would collect GB as if it were 3
level (1) guilds, not a level (3)). If contested once, all levels
are useless..not just one.

Sean Brown

[verruchter@menagerie.ne]

IM>Another question that I'm sure has come up in the past :

IM>When a regent contests another regents holding (for the second time) does
>all levels of the contested regents holding become uncontrolled ? Or does
>it proceed one level at a time ?

IM>For e.g. In a province rated 5/2 Guildmaster A has 3 levels and Guildmaster
>B has 2 levels of Guild Holdings. On has first action Guildmaster A
>successfully contests Guildmaster B's holding. (This however only means
>that the holding in question cannot generate income or regency for the
>regent) However on Guildmaster A's second action he contests successfully
>again on Guildmaster B's holding. Does Guildmaster B's holding drop from 2
>to 1 or does he loose control of both levels ? (In fact is his holding
>destroyed completely?)

IM>hmmm? Look forward to your answers.

Actually after the second successful contest, the guild holding becomes
"uncontrolled". That means that Guildmaster B no longer has a holding
and Guildmaster A can now rule his guild holding up to 5 (provided he
is successful).

* 1st 2.00 #9097 * The only winner of the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky.

[Goldngrifn@aol.co]

I would say that the Holding would drop one level at a time. A third contest
action wouldbe needed to destroy Guilder B in that Province.


The Golden Griffon

[verruchter@menagerie.ne]

IM>I would say that the Holding would drop one level at a time. A third contes
>action wouldbe needed to destroy Guilder B in that Province.

Thats not what the guidelines say. But you can do it your way, I just
think you're making it a little *too* difficult.

* 1st 2.00 #9097 * Some days you step in it...some days you don't...

[Darkstar]

mhale wrote:

> For e.g. In a province rated 5/2 Guildmaster A has 3 levels and Guildmaster
> B has 2 levels of Guild Holdings. On has first action Guildmaster A
> successfully contests Guildmaster B's holding. (This however only means
> that the holding in question cannot generate income or regency for the
> regent) However on Guildmaster A's second action he contests successfully
> again on Guildmaster B's holding. Does Guildmaster B's holding drop from 2
> to 1 or does he loose control of both levels ? (In fact is his holding
> destroyed completely?)

How I have been handling the contest action is in provinces of size 4
and above allow the contester to contest one level at a time. But in
provinces of size 3 or the contest action give the winner control of all
of the provinces guilds/temples etc.

- --
Darkstar

e-Mail: hoss@box.net.au
Home Page: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss
Page Updates: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/update.html

>From the Darkness we came.
And to the Darkness we will return.

[Kariu@aol.co]

IM>When a regent contests another regents holding (for the second time) does
>all levels of the contested regents holding become uncontrolled ? Or does
>it proceed one level at a time ?

IM>For e.g. In a province rated 5/2 Guildmaster A has 3 levels and
Guildmaster
>B has 2 levels of Guild Holdings. On has first action Guildmaster A
>successfully contests Guildmaster B's holding. (This however only means
>that the holding in question cannot generate income or regency for the
>regent) However on Guildmaster A's second action he contests successfully
>again on Guildmaster B's holding. Does Guildmaster B's holding drop from 2
>to 1 or does he loose control of both levels ? (In fact is his holding
>destroyed completely?)

>>Actually after the second successful contest, the guild holding becomes
>>"uncontrolled". That means that Guildmaster B no longer has a holding
>>and Guildmaster A can now rule his guild holding up to 5 (provided he
>>is successful).


I like your example but in it does not work that way. When Guilder A
contests for the second time Guilder B loses just one level not all his guild
holdings in the province. So now Guilder A would have 3 guild holdings,
Guilder B one guild holding, and in the province 5/2 there will be one
available guild opening if either one then wishes to rule his guild.


Kariu

[Kariu@aol.co]

>
>>I would say that the Holding would drop one level at a time. A third
contest
>>action wouldbe needed to destroy Guilder B in that Province.
>
>
>>The Golden Griffon

It does drop one level at a time....As to a third conest...no...the process
starts over again...Guilder A then can rule his guild 3 to a 4 or he may
choose to contest Guilder B again. If he rules his holding is now 4 and
guilder B is still a 1. If he then chooses to contest again guilder B's 1
level holding will be frozen...no rp no gb...and then a second contest is
again needed to reduce it to a level 0 guild holding.

Guilder A then may rule again to increase his holding to a level 5 holding.
If guilder A wishes he then may deiced to conest Guilder B's 0 level
holding. If he is succesful once the 0 level holding is destoryed.


Kariu

[Kariu@aol.co]

You got it the right way Espen....one holding level is destoryed on a second
successful contest....unless that hold was a level 0 holding in which case it
is destoryed on the first contest.


Kariu

[Kariu@aol.co]

IM>I would say that the Holding would drop one level at a time. A third
contes
>action wouldbe needed to destroy Guilder B in that Province.

>>>>Thats not what the guidelines say. But you can do it your way, I just
think you're making it a little *too* difficult.

* 1st 2.00 #9097 * Some days you step in it...some days you don't...

[Eric Beaudoin]

At 21:27 1997.05.06 -0400, Kariu@aol.com wrote:
>
>IM>I would say that the Holding would drop one level at a time. A third
>contes
> >action wouldbe needed to destroy Guilder B in that Province.
>
>>>>>Thats not what the guidelines say. But you can do it your way, I just
>think you're making it a little *too* difficult.
>
> * 1st 2.00 #9097 * Some days you step in it...some days you don't...is that it is all destroyed....not so...accoding to the rules....besides it
>would take years to make a high level holding and it does make sense that two
>contests destroys it...the rules say A holding is destroyed not all
>holdings.

I just reread the rules and it seems to me that a holding, no matter its level, is still only one holding. See the RULE action to convince yourself.

Now, you may play it any which way you like but too many things in the rules would not make sense if we were to accept your interpretation. For example, the Domain Maintenance Costs would be 30 GB each turn for Endier instead of 3. This is a lot of money, even for Endier. And to think of the poor (or very rich) Gavin Tael who is rumored to control all the law holdings of Ghoere. Now we know why he want to invade every one, he need the money!!!!

Best
- ----
Eric Beaudoin
Groupe conseil DMR inc.
(514) 877-3301

[verruchter@menagerie.ne]

>>>>Thats not what the guidelines say. But you can do it your way, I just
IM>think you're making it a little *too* difficult.

IM> * 1st 2.00 #9097 * Some days you step in it...some days you don't...would take years to make a high level holding and it does make sense that tw
>contests destroys it...the rules say A holding is destroyed not all
>holdings.

Huh? No offense but I'm not sure I understand. I didn't say that
contesting destroys ALL holdings. Besides the word I used was not
destroyed but "uncontrolled". It states in the rules that if a holding
(of any level) is successfully contested (remember this roll is
modified by the level of the holding) then the holding does not
generate rp or gbs. Now if the holding is successfully contested *a
second time* (also modified by the level of the holding) the slots
become "uncontrolled". Then the winning regent can rule up his/her
holding to the amount of available slots.

* 1st 2.00 #9097 * Dijon Vu: The feeling you've tasted this mustard before

[verruchter@menagerie.ne]

IM>You got it the right way Espen....one holding level is destoryed on a second
>successful contest....unless that hold was a level 0 holding in which case i
>is destoryed on the first contest.


IM>Kariu

No that is wrong.

* 1st 2.00 #9097 * Minds & parachutes only function properly when open.

[swords]

At 10:57 PM 5/6/97 -0600, you wrote:
>IM>You got it the right way Espen....one holding level is destoryed on a second
> >successful contest....unless that hold was a level 0 holding in which case i
> >is destoryed on the first contest.
>
>
>IM>Kariu

That is incorrect. When a holding is contested twice successfully all of
them become uncontrolled not just one.

Michael

[Cec Stacey]

>
>
> IM>When a regent contests another regents holding (for the second time)
does
> >all levels of the contested regents holding become uncontrolled ? Or
does
> >it proceed one level at a time ?
>
> IM>For e.g. In a province rated 5/2 Guildmaster A has 3 levels and
> Guildmaster
> >B has 2 levels of Guild Holdings. On has first action Guildmaster A
> >successfully contests Guildmaster B's holding. (This however only
means
> >that the holding in question cannot generate income or regency for the
> >regent) However on Guildmaster A's second action he contests
successfully
> >again on Guildmaster B's holding. Does Guildmaster B's holding drop
from 2
> >to 1 or does he loose control of both levels ? (In fact is his holding
> >destroyed completely?)
>
> >>Actually after the second successful contest, the guild holding becomes

> >>"uncontrolled". That means that Guildmaster B no longer has a holding
> >>and Guildmaster A can now rule his guild holding up to 5 (provided he
> >>is successful).
>
>
> I like your example but in it does not work that way. When Guilder A
> contests for the second time Guilder B loses just one level not all his
guild
> holdings in the province. So now Guilder A would have 3 guild holdings,
> Guilder B one guild holding, and in the province 5/2 there will be one
> available guild opening if either one then wishes to rule his guild.
>
>
Read your rulebook - it does happen that way. On a sucessful second
contest action, the target loses control of "all levels of contested
holdings in the affected province". Not one at a time.

[Diana L. Paxson]

How I look at it:
Through a campain of public appeal (advertising through public cryer
- -"buy our oxen, Points East Oxen are stronger!"), intimidation (Thugs
got to earn their keep), or outright criminal acts (oops, dropped my lit
match in your warehouse full of oil), its easy to see how a guild could
be nocked down to a 0lvl holding or even be destroyed in only a few
month's time.

Grendel Todd

[Kariu@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-05-07 04:19:12 EDT, you write:


>IM>I would say that the Holding would drop one level at a time. A third
>contes
> >action wouldbe needed to destroy Guilder B in that Province.
>
>>>>>Thats not what the guidelines say. But you can do it your way, I just
>think you're making it a little *too* difficult.
>
> * 1st 2.00 #9097 * Some days you step in it...some days you don't...is that it is all destroyed....not so...accoding to the rules....besides it
>would take years to make a high level holding and it does make sense that
two
>contests destroys it...the rules say A holding is destroyed not all
>holdings.

>>>>> I just reread the rules and it seems to me that a holding, no matter
its level, is still only one holding. See the RULE action to convince
yourself.

Now, you may play it any which way you like but too many things in the rules
would not make sense if we were to accept your interpretation. For example,
the Domain Maintenance Costs would be 30 GB each turn for Endier instead of
3. This is a lot of money, even for Endier. And to think of the poor (or very
rich) Gavin Tael who is rumored to control all the law holdings of Ghoere.
Now we know why he want to invade every one, he need the money!!!!

Best
----
Eric Beaudoin
Groupe conseil DMR inc.
(514) 877-3301
*********************

[Caitlanagh@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-05-07 04:23:46 EDT, you write:

>Karius,
>
>>I like your example but in it does not work that way. When Guilder A
>>contests for the second time Guilder B loses just one level not all
>>his guild holdings in the province.
>
>Okay follow me here because you have this a little confused. Both
>Guilders only have 1 holding each in the province. Each holding has
>"slots" or levels.
>
>>So now Guilder A would have 3 guild holdings, Guilder B one guild
>>holding, and in the province 5/2 there will be one available guild
>>opening if either one then wishes to rule his guild.
>
>No Guilder A has *1* level 3 guild holding. Guilder B has *1* level 2
>guild holding. Guilder A contests the *1* level 2 guild holding
>successfully. No regency or gold bars can be generated because the
>trade and influence of that *1* holding is effectively cut off.
>Guilder A successfully contests a second time, the *1* level 2 holding
>is now uncontrolled. Now 2 of the 5 province slots are uncontrolled and
>Guilder A can now rule up his Guild to 5.
> Open your rulebook to page 52. Look at the Contest action. Now look
>just below the little red diamonds. It states (and I quote), "If a
>contested holding is contested a second time, its owner loses the
>holding and its slots become uncontrolled." You are confusing the
>words holding and slots.
> Example: Guilder A has a level 3 holding. Guilder B has a level 2
>holding. Guilder A has 3 "slots". Guilder B has 2 "slots". If the
>holding, being ALL the slots, is contested a second time, its owner
>loses the holding and its slots become uncontrolled.
> You don't contest "slots" which is what you are trying to say.
>
>Verrucht

Verily I am forced to agree. I also interpret it to mean that all slots of
the *1* holding that Guilder B controls become ***uncontrolled*** (NOT
Destroyed!!!). The holding must be interpreted this way, because the holding
level (slots) just indicates how powerful that holding is, not how many there
are. This also explains why it is more difficult to successfully contest a
larger holding (a law 5, for example, can withstand much more dissention than
a law 1).

Richard Macri

[Olivier]

Kariu@aol.com wrote:

> It does drop one level at a time....As to a third conest...no...the process
> starts over again...Guilder A then can rule his guild 3 to a 4 or he may
> choose to contest Guilder B again. If he rules his holding is now 4 and
> guilder B is still a 1. If he then chooses to contest again guilder B's 1
> level holding will be frozen...no rp no gb...and then a second contest is
> again needed to reduce it to a level 0 guild holding.
>
> Guilder A then may rule again to increase his holding to a level 5 holding.
> If guilder A wishes he then may deiced to conest Guilder B's 0 level
> holding. If he is succesful once the 0 level holding is destoryed.
>
> Kariu

You're totaly wrong !! when you succesfully contest a holding for the
second time, it is destroyed !! Completely ! Haven't you read the rules
?
For level 0 holdings, you need only 1 contest.

when you make an investiture, all the contested holding is divested, not
one level ! For the contest, it's the same.

Olivier

[Dustin Evermore]

Kariu wrote:
>
>What if the holding was a level 4,5,6,7 and it gets contested....your
theory
>is that it is all destroyed....not so...accoding to the rules....besides
it
>would take years to make a high level holding and it does make sense
that two
>contests destroys it...the rules say A holding is destroyed not all
>holdings.
>
>
>
>Kariu

You have it right, you're just interpreting it differently. _A_ holding
is a holding, not a holding level. This means the whole shebang. But
play it any way you like in your game.

Yes it does take a long, long time to successfully rule up holdings that
high, but when a regent is having one of his powerful holdings contested,
then she'd better pay attention and defend them, like now!! This way your
regents don't sluff off and think, "Well, I'll ignore these actions right
now because I wanna build up this other stuff." They could loose it all
in a few short months if they'r not careful, and in my campaign, it keeps
people interested, excited, and wary.

Evermore

[johnpost@umich.ed]

There was discussion on the AOL TSR board about this problem several
months ago. It was decided by some of the contributors to the board,
who also happen to be Birthright designers, that a contest action
should only disrupt one level of that holding. This is contrary to
what the rule book states. The designers felt that a high level holding
should not and could not be totally destroyed or uncontrolled after
only six months of contesting. Rome was not built in a day and neither
did it collapse in a day. But, as in all things it is upto the
individual
DM to decide.

I play it like this: one successful contest action disrupts
one level of the contested holding the next success disrupts another
level of the holding. This is a compromise between the painfully slow
way of two contests to disrupt one level and the blindingly quick way
of all levels in only two seasons. I would like to think that it would
take more than six months for complete control of Guilder Kalien's
guilds in Endier to be disrupted and become uncontrolled.

John Post
Graduate Student
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor

[Undertaker]

At 01:33 PM 5/7/97 -0400, John Post(johnpost@umich.edu)wrote:
>
>There was discussion on the AOL TSR board about this problem several
>months ago. It was decided by some of the contributors to the board,
>who also happen to be Birthright designers, that a contest action
>should only disrupt one level of that holding. This is contrary to
>what the rule book states. The designers felt that a high level holding
>should not and could not be totally destroyed or uncontrolled after
>only six months of contesting. Rome was not built in a day and neither
>did it collapse in a day. But, as in all things it is upto the
>individual
>DM to decide.
>

This is an interesting point. Since we have a few of the BR heavys here on
the List maybe they could fill us in on this. How about it Rich, Carrie, Ed?
Will this rule be made official when a revised edition of BR comes out?

Undertaker, richt@metrolink.net

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

[802967876@RUMAC.UPR.CLU.]

Revised BR edition?

Luis

[Goldngrifn@aol.co]

>It does drop one level at a time....As to a third conest...no...the process
starts over again...Guilder A then can rule his guild 3 to a 4 or he may
choose to contest Guilder B again. If he rules his holding is now 4 and
guilder B is still a 1. If he then chooses to contest again guilder B's 1
level holding will be frozen...no rp no gb...and then a second contest is
again needed to reduce it to a level 0 guild holding.

Guilder A then may rule again to increase his holding to a level 5 holding.
If guilder A wishes he then may deiced to conest Guilder B's 0 level
holding. If he is succesful once the 0 level holding is destoryed.


>Kariu

I agree with your logic, but as I read the existing rules, once a Contest
Action starts, and continues unceasingly, the third Contest action would drop
the Holding another level.

The Golden Griffon

[JOHN RICKARDS]

> >It does drop one level at a time....As to a third conest...no...the process
> starts over again...Guilder A then can rule his guild 3 to a 4 or he may
> choose to contest Guilder B again. If he rules his holding is now 4 and
> guilder B is still a 1. If he then chooses to contest again guilder B's 1
> level holding will be frozen...no rp no gb...and then a second contest is
> again needed to reduce it to a level 0 guild holding.
>
> Guilder A then may rule again to increase his holding to a level 5 holding.
> If guilder A wishes he then may deiced to conest Guilder B's 0 level
> holding. If he is succesful once the 0 level holding is destoryed.
>
>
> >Kariu
>
> I agree with your logic, but as I read the existing rules, once a Contest
> Action starts, and continues unceasingly, the third Contest action would drop
> the Holding another level.
>
> The Golden Griffon

I took a look at the rulebook for the contest action. According to
the description:
".... if the attempt is successful, the contested holding does not
generate regency or gold bars for its owner. A level 0 holding is
destroyed by being contested.....
..... the holding remains contested until:
the attacker relents.
the attacker loses all of his own holdings or rule of the province.
the defender succeeds at a rule action.
..... if a contested holding is contested a second time, its owner
loses the holding and its slots become uncontrolled."

It seems that a level 0 holding is destroyed if the first contest
action is successful, any other level of holding is merely prevented
from generating RPs and GBs.
If successfully contested again while in this contested state, the holding
is destroyed, no matter how large.

In game terms, I suppose by being successful the first time, the
contester has already neutralized all of the defender's business
interests/temples by scaring off customers/worshippers, property
destruction, by buying out his opponents customers or subsidiaries
etc., and if the attacker successfully carries on while the defender
is in this weakened state, then their business interests/worshippers,
ie. their power base in that region, is lost - they've been
out-competed.

To put it in a contemporary context - suppose we consider TSR and
WotC to be competing guilds. TSR has been successfully contested by a
different set of guilds (ie. other game companies) and WotC have then
performed a second successful contest action (their buy-out), giving
them the opportunity to Rule their holding to contain all the slots
that TSR formerly occupied, before the competition get in.

My 2GBs

John Rickards

"He who is looking for something has lost something."
"And he who is not looking?"
"He gets run over."


PS. Dan. Hahahahaha.

[Goldngrifn@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-05-08 03:37:09 EDT, you write:

[HCD or SIR SPUD I]

Goldngrifn@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-05-08 03:37:09 EDT, you write:
>
> I play it like this: one successful contest action disrupts
> one level of the contested holding the next success disrupts another
> level of the holding. This is a compromise between the painfully slow
> way of two contests to disrupt one level and the blindingly quick way
> of all levels in only two seasons. I would like to think that it would
> take more than six months for complete control of Guilder Kalien's
> guilds in Endier to be disrupted and become uncontrolled.
>
> John Post
> Graduate Student
> University of Michigan--Ann Arbor
> >>
>
> I totally agree. In a previous listing I erringly referred to the Rulebook
> (my Rulebook that has the Updated Rules agreed to by the Designer). Sorry
> guys, I forgot where I got the Info.
>
> The Golden Griffon


What "updated rulebook?"

Sir Spud I

[Anonimous]

JOHN RICKARDS wrote:

> To put it in a contemporary context - suppose we consider TSR and
> WotC to be competing guilds. TSR has been successfully contested by a
> different set of guilds (ie. other game companies) and WotC have then
> performed a second successful contest action (their buy-out), giving
> them the opportunity to Rule their holding to contain all the slots
> that TSR formerly occupied, before the competition get in.

No, i don't think so. TSR and WOTC are competing guilds, but WOTC made
an investiture of TSR, they bought all the TSR slots and became a bigger
holding.
We can imagine that a market place (like wall street, i don't know how
do you call it in English) made the ceremony.

Olivier

[TSRRich@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-05-08 03:37:09 EDT, you write:

>It was decided by some of the contributors to the board,
>who also happen to be Birthright designers, that a contest action
>should only disrupt one level of that holding. This is contrary to
>what the rule book states. The designers felt that a high level holding
>should not and could not be totally destroyed or uncontrolled after
>only six months of contesting.

Au contraire...I designed the contesting rules to hammer an entire holding,
regardless of level, because early playtests of the BR rules system revealed
that contesting 1 level of a holding at a time bogged the game down
tremendously. It led to a campaign of "nickel and diming", in my observation,
and I decided that I'd make the Contest action a real threat...especially
since it's one of the few weapons available to a regent who can't put
military forces into an area to burn stuff down in person.

Rich Baker
Birthright Designer

[TSRRich@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-05-09 01:44:34 EDT, you write:

>I totally agree. In a previous listing I erringly referred to the Rulebook
>(my Rulebook that has the Updated Rules agreed to by the Designer). Sorry
>guys, I forgot where I got the Info.
>
>

Boy, I'd like to see a list of these! If they work in your campaign, great,
but I really don't recall viewing a list of Updated Rules! Who'd you talk to?

Rich Baker
Birthright Designer

[Robert Harper]

At 11:44 PM 5/9/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-05-08 03:37:09 EDT, you write:
>snip<
>
>Au contraire...I designed the contesting rules to hammer an entire holding,
>regardless of level, because early playtests of the BR rules system revealed
>that contesting 1 level of a holding at a time bogged the game down
>tremendously. It led to a campaign of "nickel and diming", in my observation,
>and I decided that I'd make the Contest action a real threat...especially
>since it's one of the few weapons available to a regent who can't put
>military forces into an area to burn stuff down in person.
>
>Rich Baker
>Birthright Designer

And I hope that finally puts this to rest. As I said long ago, the
difficulty of overwhelming a well entrenched holder who has Ruler's support
is high and worthy of momentous success. Rapid change should be feasible in
the game, both realistic (remember the Evil Soviet Empire) and more fun.

__________________________________________________ _________________
| |
| 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 |
|_________________________________________________ __________________|