Who Can Agitate? [Archive]

Peter Lubke

04-24-2002, 12:56 AM

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:30 AM
>
>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:23 AM
>>>
>>>>Just because he has access to espionage doesn`t qualify him for agitate.
>>>>
>>>So, spies have never spread rumors that have inflamed the populous?
>>>
>>of course - but that`s using spies - not a holding. I thought we`d
>>already agreed that espionage could create an event.
>>
>
>You are now aware that in less than seven hours you have taken two opposite
>possitions. You ended your 12:23 post this morning saying "doesn`t" and now
>at 7:30 you say "could".
>
Yes, did you read the posts between ? It seems that unlike you, I
actually read the other side`s argument, and consider it carefully to
determine if it has merit before replying.

I stated that: Yes, regents can create events (with espionage) --
acknowledging the validity of the point raised (that espionage can do
so), I raised the question of whether this was (i) an additional event,
or (ii) replaces the next event without a die roll. I argued that - to
be consistant, and to preserve anonymity most perfectly, it should
replace the roll for a random event in the next turn. I also pointed out
that "such as" did not "open up" to any and all events (as was
erroneously suggested), but that the presence of "such as" was a
restricting qualifier - restricting the events not to those in the list,
but to activities with results similar to those listed. Under no
circumstances does espionage count as a backdoor for an agitate action -
even though it may achieve the same result in some cases. And lastly, a
minor point only, that espionage being available anywhere, to anyone,
has been debated in the past as being too powerful - while everyone has
spies etc, only regents with guilds have powerful spy networks.
Character actions (adventure) are always available to any regent to
create the same effect as agitate also.

If you can show good argument for a case, I`ll certainly take it on
board. What I`ve mostly heard so far from you is: "I`ve been playing it
wrong, and it hasn`t been working for me. I want a better system." With
lots of arguments that the event mechanisms, are indirect proof that
agitate should be available as an action to regents without holdings -
despite direct evidence to the contrary, and that loyalty should be
adjusted on the fly - despite evidence to the contrary.

Further, I presented a case that - should you work through it with your
alternate system or interpretation should answer some questions you have
been unable to supply so far. The main case included eight(8) potential
changes of loyalty in one domain turn using legal actions, while a
second case being a modification of the first presented a slightly
different scenario. There were upwards of 10 simple questions designed
to highlight the salient snapshots of a province under political attack
using the BR sequence of play. I presented answers to those same
questions as pose the challenge that you answer in kind. From a
comparison of both results it should be possible to determine firstly,
what salient practical difficulties arise, and secondly, whether your
alternate method shows any value beyond the standard ruleset.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

04-24-2002, 12:56 AM

Peter Lubke

04-24-2002, 04:24 AM

Gary wrote:

> At 09:51 PM 4/22/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>>> If you take a look at the Espionage action you`ll see that a regent can
>>> perform random events. The Espionage action specifically says it
>>> can be
>>> used to "Create a random event such as assassination, intrigue,
>>> corruption, or heresy in another domain." It only lists those four
>>> events, but "such as" opens up pretty much all the random events to
>>> being
>>> caused by an Espionage action.
>>
>>
>> Ah -- a much better argument, but still wrong (but with a good point
>> regardless). The good point is that an action can create an event. Is
>> this
>> in addition to the usual random event?, or instead of it? (for
>> complete anonymity it would replace, but partial anonymity would be
>> possible with additional - I`d tend to replace for both that reason
>> and to
>> make the espionage action no more powerful than contest).
>
>
> It`s in addition to the regular random event. Take a look at the
> description of determining random events on p40 of the Rulebook.

In addition?
Do you mean the part that says
"..so the players don`t know whether an event is staged or the result of
a random roll.." ?
^^^ first para on page 40.

That would indicate strongly that players don`t get extra events sprung
on them. To read on
"They`ll [players] be forced to treat every event with equal importance
and will always wonder about the significance of events..."

that`s a strange argument for extra events! It seems to very strongly
support using events created by espionage (or by the DM) as replacement
event (instead of rolling a random one).

There are good and bad points for either argument - but page 40 [roll
random events] doesn`t support multiple or extra events - quite the
opposite.

Are you sure you don`t just take a contrary view to be contentious?

>> The wrong part is the idea that "such as" opens something up. "Such
>> as" is
>> a qualifier which restricts the type of event that can be created (quite
>> the opposite of what you state) -- to those of a similar nature to the
>> ones in the list. Without the qualifying phrase "sach as...", it would
>> indeed be open to any event.
>
>
> There`s definitely a judgement call required, and as I noted in the text
> you cut from the above quote, there are a couple of random events that
> would be very difficult to include in that list of ones available to the
> Espionage action, such as Natural Event or Magical Event.
>
> It would be very easy to justify any of the other random events as being
> created by an Espionage action. "Such as" does not limit the random
> events
> that can be created to the four listed, and any of the other random
> events
> are similar enough to those listed to be justified as the focus of an
> Espionage action.

Oh I agree. I did not state that "such as" limited it to only those
listed, but your original post included the words "any event". (although
you did go on)

> But I suppose if you`re going to parse the sentence, "A
> ruler can agitate in favor of himself" down to mean that he can`t
> actually
> agitate unless he also controls a holding then I suppose you could

I don`t parse that sentence that way at all !!!!!!!!!!!! Please don`t
put words in my mouth. It is your assertion that the sentence has the
meaning that "A ruler without a holding can agitate in favor of
himself". What I say is that you are missing the message of the
sentence. (actually you`re expanding on it - interpreting something that
is simply not there)

The sentence in question that contains that idea (of needing a
holding)is the first one, "A regent with a holding can....". What I
don`t do is assume that the sentence "A ruler can agitate in favor of
himself." means more than it says.

"A regent without a holding can..." - would be an exception to the
previous sentence. The actual sentence used however, has a clear meaning
itself -- there is no reason to assume that it was incorrectly phrased,
or that it has a different meaning.

That sentence says quite clearly -- and can you honestly say it doesn`t
convey this message -- that the ruler mentioned in the previous sentence
and the regent in the previous sentence can be the same person ?

And, without that - is it completely clear from the previous sentence
standing alone - that such was the case ?

>
> similarly justify the "such as" descriptor to mean only those random
> events
> listed....

I didn`t do that. I didn`t state what they were restricted to. You have
a habit of reading meaning beyond what is written.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

04-24-2002, 09:10 AM

At 02:02 PM 4/24/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>Are you sure you don`t just take a contrary view to be contentious?

It wouldn`t be the first time someone has levelled that particular
accusation at me, I`m afraid... but, no, I`m not taking the contrary view
just to be contentious. (I wasn`t aware that there was a contrary view on
this particular issue because you asked an "Is it X or Y?" question, so if
it came out as contrary and contentious then I guess you picked the
opposite view. A lucky guess on my part....)

>>It`s in addition to the regular random event. Take a look at the
>>description of determining random events on p40 of the Rulebook.
>
>In addition?
>Do you mean the part that says
>"..so the players don`t know whether an event is staged or the result of
>a random roll.." ?
>^^^ first para on page 40.
>
>That would indicate strongly that players don`t get extra events sprung on
>them. To read on "They`ll [players] be forced to treat every event with
>equal importance and will always wonder about the significance of events..."
>
>that`s a strange argument for extra events! It seems to very strongly
>support using events created by espionage (or by the DM) as replacement
>event (instead of rolling a random one).
>
>There are good and bad points for either argument - but page 40 [roll
>random events] doesn`t support multiple or extra events - quite the opposite.

OK, I`ll grant you that it doesn`t explicitly say there can be multiple
random events in a domain turn, though it certainly doesn`t indicate the
opposite either, and you`re argument that it does don`t add up in any
way. Just because the DM is supposed to fake rolling dice whether he`s
really rolling a random event or performing a "staged" one does not mean
that there`s only one random event effect. That`s just a note of advice
about how to run events so that players don`t know what to expect.

It does, however, say that there are multiple causes of random events, and
it consistently uses the plural in referring to random events in a domain
turn. The point in referring to that section of the Rulebook, though, was
that random events serve many purposes at the realm level of play, and can
be used to bridge between the adventure level of activity and the realm
level. If they can be used to create adventures, which can be recurring or
take an unspecified amount of time then it`s reasonable that more than one
such event could be strung together.

In any case, if you`d like to present an argument that a regent shouldn`t
be able to perform Espionage actions to create random events for an
opponent because one has already taken affect in that domain then I`d love
to hear it. How would you justify not allowing random event effects if
they were created by rival regents using the Espionage action?

>>It would be very easy to justify any of the other random events as being
>>created by an Espionage action. "Such as" does not limit the random
>>events that can be created to the four listed, and any of the other
>>random events are similar enough to those listed to be justified as the
>>focus of an Espionage action.
>
>Oh I agree. I did not state that "such as" limited it to only those
>listed, but your original post included the words "any event". (although
>you did go on)

Actually, in the original post I said "pretty much any event" before I went on.

>>But I suppose if you`re going to parse the sentence, "A ruler can agitate
>>in favor of himself" down to mean that he can`t actually agitate unless
>>he also controls a holding then I suppose you could
>
>I don`t parse that sentence that way at all !!!!!!!!!!!! Please don`t put
>words in my mouth. It is your assertion that the sentence has the meaning
>that "A ruler without a holding can agitate in favor of himself". What I
>say is that you are missing the message of the sentence. (actually you`re
>expanding on it - interpreting something that is simply not there)

I`m just saying that it means a ruler can Agitate in favor of himself. In
order to be able to agitate in favor of himself he`d have to be able to
Agitate. If that`s an expansion then I`ll go ahead and plead guilty.

Please correct me if I`m wrong, but you are saying that a regent without
some other holding in a province can`t agitate, aren`t you? The previous
sentence gives him the ability to Agitate in his own favor already, though,
correct? So, in your estimation, the sentence is just meant to convey a
sort of general truism about how a regent with a holding who is also the
province ruler could use that holding to agitate in his own favor because
that wasn`t clear enough from the first sentence and the rest of the action
description. A player could become confused and think that because he was
also the province ruler, he might not be able to Agitate in his own favor
even though he also controlled several (even all) the holdings in the
province.... If you took the second sentence out of the action
description, would it change anything? Why is the sentence there at all?

>The sentence in question that contains that idea (of needing a holding)is
>the first one, "A regent with a holding can....". What I don`t do is
>assume that the sentence "A ruler can agitate in favor of himself." means
>more than it says.
>
>"A regent without a holding can..." - would be an exception to the
>previous sentence. The actual sentence used however, has a clear meaning
>itself -- there is no reason to assume that it was incorrectly phrased, or
>that it has a different meaning.
>
>That sentence says quite clearly -- and can you honestly say it doesn`t
>convey this message -- that the ruler mentioned in the previous sentence
>and the regent in the previous sentence can be the same person ?

Yes, actually, I can honestly say that it does not convey that message. It
has to refer to a different person because there can only be one possible
person referred to in the second sentence. There`s only one possible
province ruler. There can be any number (depending on whether you use the
holding restrictions by population level that even the books don`t use)
other regents in the province. "A regent with a holding" refers to any
regent with a holding. "A ruler can agitate in favor of himself" can only
refer to the province ruler. The province ruler _could_ be "a regent with
a holding" but he need not be and there`s nothing in either sentence to
indicate that he must be. By definition a category of 1 cannot encompass a
category of many. Because it doesn`t note whether it means one or the
other, and in the absence of some other notation or game mechanical reason
to pick one, it means either.

>And, without that - is it completely clear from the previous sentence
>standing alone - that such was the case ?

No. It`s not. Sorry, but it just isn`t. I know you`d love for that to be
the case, but because it doesn`t specify whether it means the ruler must
also have a holding, it can just as easily mean he needn`t. In fact, I
find the broader reading to be much more sensible not just as the text
alone, but as a guideline/game mechanic. Province rulers have to have a
holding in order to Agitate? That doesn`t make any sense to me.

>>similarly justify the "such as" descriptor to mean only those random
>>events listed....
>
>I didn`t do that. I didn`t state what they were restricted to. You have a
>habit of reading meaning beyond what is written.

OK, fine. You didn`t say it was restricted to the list in the
description. That was an exaggeration of you`re parsing of the sentence
(which, I`m afraid, you did parse.) You`re exact paragraph was:

>The wrong part is the idea that "such as" opens something up. "Such
>as" is a qualifier which restricts the type of event that can be created
>(quite the opposite of what you state) -- to those of a similar nature to
>the ones in the list. Without the qualifying phrase "sach as...", it would
>indeed be open to any event.

So, aside from the two random events I noted (magical or natural events)
which random events do you think are so dissimilar from those listed in the
Espionage description that they can`t be created using that action?

Festival is the only other one that might be hard to rationalize using
Espionage, but I`d argue that if you could create a rebellion, then you
could throw a party that demanded a regent`s attention. (The rebellions
I`ve been in have had a decidedly celebratory atmosphere.) I could even
justify the natural or magical events using Espionage very easily given the
access to magic that regents have as I noted originally, so are there any
random events that couldn`t be created using an Espionage action?

Just as a general sort of conceptual question for you, since this really is
the point we`re trying to get at here. Let`s go ahead and assume that the
Rulebook really does mean what you`ve suggested, that province rulers
cannot Agitate in their provinces unless they also control a holding
there. How do you justify that? What is it about being a regent in charge
of a law(0) (or whatever) holding that provides access to the loyalty of a
province through the Agitate action that province rulers lack? Given that
province rulers can provide loyalty grade shifts during the loyalty phase
of the domain turn by passively choosing what rate of taxation they want,
by winning major battles, that a regent with the Leadership NWP can shift
the loyalty of a province once per domain turn as a free action, that the
free Grant action can be used to increase the loyalty of a (non-rebellious)
province, that they can negatively affect the loyalty in their provinces in
several different ways, that they can use the Espionage action to create
loyalty shifts in other ruler`s provinces whether they control holdings
there or not, why can`t they use Agitate?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

04-24-2002, 03:15 PM

Gary wrote:

> At 02:02 PM 4/24/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>>> It`s in addition to the regular random event. Take a look at the
>>> description of determining random events on p40 of the Rulebook.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition?
>> Do you mean the part that says
>> "..so the players don`t know whether an event is staged or the result of
>> a random roll.." ?
>> ^^^ first para on page 40.
>>
>> That would indicate strongly that players don`t get extra events
>> sprung on
>> them. To read on "They`ll [players] be forced to treat every event with
>> equal importance and will always wonder about the significance of
>> events..."
>>
>> that`s a strange argument for extra events! It seems to very strongly
>> support using events created by espionage (or by the DM) as replacement
>> event (instead of rolling a random one).
>>
>> There are good and bad points for either argument - but page 40 [roll
>> random events] doesn`t support multiple or extra events - quite the
>> opposite.
>
>
>
> OK, I`ll grant you that it doesn`t explicitly say there can be multiple
> random events in a domain turn, though it certainly doesn`t indicate the
> opposite either, and you`re argument that it does don`t add up in any
> way. Just because the DM is supposed to fake rolling dice whether he`s
> really rolling a random event or performing a "staged" one does not mean
> that there`s only one random event effect. That`s just a note of advice
> about how to run events so that players don`t know what to expect.

Oh that`s a good point. I did think on it - and also that what if
several regents all espionage in the same province creating multiple
events? And of course, there`s different sizes of domains ? And also,
there`s not always *one * event in any case, there could be "no event" !

It`s not that I don`t see an argument for multiple events, I do.

> In any case, if you`d like to present an argument that a regent shouldn`t
> be able to perform Espionage actions to create random events for an
> opponent because one has already taken affect in that domain then I`d
> love
> to hear it. How would you justify not allowing random event effects if
> they were created by rival regents using the Espionage action?

Oh no - I do agree with you that they can create them. I`d just have
them pop up in the next domain turn. That`s got much more evidence to
support it. The point of page 40 is that a regent cannot tell if an
event was created by the DM, rolled randomly, or introduced by another
regent.

>>> But I suppose if you`re going to parse the sentence, "A ruler can
>>> agitate
>>> in favor of himself" down to mean that he can`t actually agitate unless
>>> he also controls a holding then I suppose you could
>>
>>
>>
>> I don`t parse that sentence that way at all !!!!!!!!!!!! Please don`t
>> put
>> words in my mouth. It is your assertion that the sentence has the
>> meaning
>> that "A ruler without a holding can agitate in favor of himself". What I
>> say is that you are missing the message of the sentence. (actually
>> you`re
>> expanding on it - interpreting something that is simply not there)
>
>
>
> I`m just saying that it means a ruler can Agitate in favor of
> himself. In
> order to be able to agitate in favor of himself he`d have to be able to
> Agitate. If that`s an expansion then I`ll go ahead and plead guilty.

If the first sentence had read " A regent can ... " -- you would be
correct. However, it deliberately excludes regents without holdings.
Whether you need to add or remove words, doing so changes the message of
the sentence.

> Please correct me if I`m wrong, but you are saying that a regent without
> some other holding in a province can`t agitate, aren`t you? The previous
> sentence gives him the ability to Agitate in his own favor already,
> though,
> correct?

Yes, but it`s not entirely clear that this is so. It could be argued
that, without the second sentence present at all, that the regent and
the ruler should be separate persons.

> So, in your estimation, the sentence is just meant to convey a
> sort of general truism about how a regent with a holding who is also the
> province ruler could use that holding to agitate in his own favor because
> that wasn`t clear enough from the first sentence and the rest of the
> action
> description. A player could become confused and think that because he
> was
> also the province ruler, he might not be able to Agitate in his own favor
> even though he also controlled several (even all) the holdings in the
> province.... If you took the second sentence out of the action
> description, would it change anything?

yes .. see above - but it`s not a general truism it`s a specific one.

>
>
>> The sentence in question that contains that idea (of needing a
>> holding)is
>> the first one, "A regent with a holding can....". What I don`t do is
>> assume that the sentence "A ruler can agitate in favor of himself."
>> means
>> more than it says.
>>
>> "A regent without a holding can..." - would be an exception to the
>> previous sentence. The actual sentence used however, has a clear meaning
>> itself -- there is no reason to assume that it was incorrectly
>> phrased, or
>> that it has a different meaning.
>>
>> That sentence says quite clearly -- and can you honestly say it doesn`t
>> convey this message -- that the ruler mentioned in the previous sentence
>> and the regent in the previous sentence can be the same person ?
>
>
>
> Yes, actually, I can honestly say that it does not convey that message.

Then by your own logic, a province ruler cannot agitate. But you lie, or
perhaps you didn`t read the statement - your claim is that the sentence
allows a ruler without a holding to agitate for himself. In order to do
that he must be the regent of the first sentence and the ruler also
referred to.

> It
> has to refer to a different person because there can only be one possible
> person referred to in the second sentence. There`s only one possible
> province ruler. There can be any number (depending on whether you use
> the
> holding restrictions by population level that even the books don`t use)
> other regents in the province. "A regent with a holding" refers to any
> regent with a holding. "A ruler can agitate in favor of himself" can
> only
> refer to the province ruler. The province ruler _could_ be "a regent
> with
> a holding" but he need not be and there`s nothing in either sentence to
> indicate that he must be.

If a province ruler does not have a holding then he cannot be "a regent
with a holding".

> Just as a general sort of conceptual question for you, since this
> really is
> the point we`re trying to get at here. Let`s go ahead and assume that
> the
> Rulebook really does mean what you`ve suggested, that province rulers
> cannot Agitate in their provinces unless they also control a holding
> there. How do you justify that?

The suggestion (from agitite) is that regents use their influence.
Influence is an attribute of holdings - check "Create Holding" it`s the
place where that is mentioned. (apart from Agitate of course). In other
cases the term "interest" is used instead. It doesn`t seem a coincidence
to me that these two are so closely related.

Also, just because a regent is declared ruler does not mean that any
mechanisms are in place to support that ruler. A decree (for example) is
pretty well useless if you control no holdings or assets to back it up.
Most province regents have some law, but there are cases where a
province ruler may find it very difficult to enforce anything. e.g. A
contested or occupied province. -- at such a point they can scarcely be
held to have more influence than their contested holdings can apply.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

04-24-2002, 03:15 PM

Gary wrote:

> It
> has to refer to a different person because there can only be one possible
> person referred to in the second sentence. There`s only one possible
> province ruler. There can be any number (depending on whether you use
> the
> holding restrictions by population level that even the books don`t use)
> other regents in the province. "A regent with a holding" refers to any
> regent with a holding. "A ruler can agitate in favor of himself" can
> only
> refer to the province ruler. The province ruler _could_ be "a regent
> with
> a holding" but he need not be and there`s nothing in either sentence to
> indicate that he must be.

If a province ruler does not have a holding then he cannot be "a regent
with a holding".

> Just as a general sort of conceptual question for you, since this
> really is
> the point we`re trying to get at here. Let`s go ahead and assume that
> the
> Rulebook really does mean what you`ve suggested, that province rulers
> cannot Agitate in their provinces unless they also control a holding
> there. How do you justify that?

The suggestion (from agitite) is that regents use their influence.
Influence is an attribute of holdings - check "Create Holding" it`s the
place where that is mentioned. (apart from Agitate of course). In other
cases the term "interest" is used instead. It doesn`t seem a coincidence
to me that these two are so closely related.

Also, just because a regent is declared ruler does not mean that any
mechanisms are in place to support that ruler. A decree (for example) is
pretty well useless if you control no holdings or assets to back it up.
Most province regents have some law, but there are cases where a
province ruler may find it very difficult to enforce anything. e.g. A
contested or occupied province. -- at such a point they can scarcely be
held to have more influence than their contested holdings can apply.

> What is it about being a regent in charge
> of a law(0) (or whatever) holding that provides access to the loyalty
> of a
> province through the Agitate action that province rulers lack?

Omigod a real point! -- I think the key is the distinction between
influence and interest. But as to why the designers chose this - I don`t
know - perhaps to increase the dynamic of province takeover - perhaps
because they invisaged that provinces would require an investment in law
holdings to operate.
There`s no consistant pattern among the domain actions. Why can you only
rule multiple holdings as a realm action and not multiple provinces? Is
it necessary for a regent of a priestly domain to be a priest in order
to be able to cast priest realm spells ? Why is Declare War a domain
action and Move Troops a free action - yet no unit can be the subject of
both actions ? (unless the Move Troop for that unit is aborted - which
is a sort of affected but not situation)

Obviously, for reasons that make the chicken and the egg argument look
trivial, Create Holding must be available to a regent in any province -
although I`ve heard argument that this should be a character action
rather than a domain action. Possibly, I`m not sure that the distinction
carries any real value - the first Create Holding yes, but subsequent
Create Holdings - anyway that will just get us side-tracked. Create
holding also talks about influence, as opposed to interest - a term used
again in Agitate. Create Holding cannot be opposed by just any regent
with an interest - it is limited to regents with the same type of
holding, or the province ruler - yet another case.

Regents with an interest in a province can affect the outcome of actions
taking place in that province. An interest is defined as any regent with
a province holding, or the province regent. -- but don`t jump up and
down too quickly, that`s only for others bidding on an action. Holdings
seem to be the factor that determines influence - influence and interest
are two different things described and used in BR.

Contest (holding) is explicitly defined - by both language and mechanics
as being allowed to both province rulers without holdings, as well as
other regents. The implication here is that a regent must have an
influence to Contest in the first place. Contest (province) is not so
well defined, yet still (I think) undeniably only regents with holdings
in the province can Contest the province. [[Harking back to an earlier
argument though, can the current province regent Contest the province ?]]

Diplomacy: "... basic contact with neighbors ..", seems limited to
neighboring domains (and you would assume intersecting domains), unless
additional steps are taken. Still, you`d have to give this to any regent
who has contact.

Espionage: Ahhh, yes. There is no specific requirement that a regent
have either interest or influence in the target province. (Without any
such requirement, the espionage action is far more powerful than any
other so it is reasonable to assume one of them) Clearly, regents with
guilds gain an advantage in performing this action - and this is meant
to be an advantage. I interpret it to mean any interest - which includes
the province regent even if he has no holding. Note that Wizards can use
the Scry spell in provinces beyond those in which the have interest or
influence - but are limited in their capabilities (which is an argument
for influence instead).

Agitate has mechanics that never mention province level as active on the
part of the acting regent (which is reasonable given that only holdings
are used to agitate).

> Given that
> province rulers can provide loyalty grade shifts during the loyalty phase
> of the domain turn by passively choosing what rate of taxation they want,
> by winning major battles, that a regent with the Leadership NWP can shift
> the loyalty of a province once per domain turn as a free action, that the
> free Grant action can be used to increase the loyalty of a
> (non-rebellious)
> province, that they can negatively affect the loyalty in their
> provinces in
> several different ways, that they can use the Espionage action to create
> loyalty shifts in other ruler`s provinces whether they control holdings
> there or not, why can`t they use Agitate?

Because they do have other methods available to them doesn`t mean that
they should have agitate as well - this is a pouty little argument akin
to "Jimmy`s got an icecream - I want one too!"

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

04-24-2002, 11:58 PM

At 01:14 AM 4/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>It has to refer to a different person because there can only be one
>>possible person referred to in the second sentence. There`s only one
>>possible province ruler. There can be any number (depending on whether
>>you use the holding restrictions by population level that even the books
>>don`t use) other regents in the province. "A regent with a holding"
>>refers to any regent with a holding. "A ruler can agitate in favor of
>>himself" can only refer to the province ruler. The province ruler
>>_could_ be "a regent with a holding" but he need not be and there`s
>>nothing in either sentence to indicate that he must be.
>
>If a province ruler does not have a holding then he cannot be "a regent
>with a holding".

Exactly. He can`t be. That`s my point. The ruler referred to in the
second sentence, "A ruler can agitate in favor of himself" can only refer
to the province ruler. Since the province ruler need not be "a regent with
a holding" per the first sentence, the second sentence must expand the
scope of who can perform the Agitate action. Since a province ruler may or
may not control a holding in a province the only way a (province) ruler can
agitate in his own favor is if he has access to the Agitate action. Now,
it would also mean he can`t agitate to get a negative loyalty grade shift
in the provinces in which he rules, but that seems an unlikely event, so it
doesn`t make much of a difference. Scribble up a quick Vinn diagram and
you`ll see what I mean (since you said my logic is flawed because you`re
not a cow.)

>>Just as a general sort of conceptual question for you, since this really
>>is the point we`re trying to get at here. Let`s go ahead and assume that
>>the Rulebook really does mean what you`ve suggested, that province rulers
>>cannot Agitate in their provinces unless they also control a holding
>>there. How do you justify that?
>
>The suggestion (from agitite) is that regents use their
>influence. Influence is an attribute of holdings - check "Create Holding"
>it`s the place where that is mentioned. (apart from Agitate of course). In
>other
>cases the term "interest" is used instead. It doesn`t seem a coincidence
>to me that these two are so closely related.
>
>Also, just because a regent is declared ruler does not mean that any
>mechanisms are in place to support that ruler. A decree (for example) is
>pretty well useless if you control no holdings or assets to back it
>up. Most province regents have some law, but there are cases where a
>province ruler may find it very difficult to enforce anything. e.g. A
>contested or occupied province. -- at such a point they can scarcely be
>held to have more influence than their contested holdings can apply.

So it`s your interpretation that province rulers are figureheads with no
actual influence (or, at least, not enough influence to justify them using
the Agitate action) in the provinces they rule unless they also control
holdings there? Correct me if I`m wrong here, but it is your
interpretation that even a contested holding would allow access to the
Agitate action, isn`t it?

I`ve never heard that before. In fact, I would assume the exact
opposite. A regent who was "declared ruler" does not sound at all like the
function of the Investiture action, which transfers the actual reigns of
power from one regent to another. Province rulers generate RP from their
provinces, can muster troops, rule the province, contest the holdings in
his province, etc. but he can`t Agitate because he doesn`t have enough
influence there.... That doesn`t add up at all to me. He can change the
loyalty in his provinces in several different ways, but he can`t Agitate
there. That doesn`t add up to me. That`s all beside the point that my
reading of the Agitate description includes province rulers.

>>What is it about being a regent in charge of a law(0) (or whatever)
>>holding that provides access to the loyalty of a province through the
>>Agitate action that province rulers lack?
>
>Omigod a real point!

Sheesh, man, that`s been the crux of the whole issue to begin with... sorry
it took until now for you to recognize it.

>I think the key is the distinction between influence and interest. But as
>to why the designers chose this - I don`t know - perhaps to increase the
>dynamic of province takeover - perhaps because they invisaged that
>provinces would require an investment in law holdings to operate. There`s
>no consistant pattern among the domain actions.

I wouldn`t expect that the domain rules would be consistent to this
"influence and interest" issue. It`s not something that even entered into
the designers` process because it`s something you`ve just decided was a
differentiating factor for reasons of your own. There`s no reason the
domain actions should follow the "influence and interest" pattern because
it only exists in your interpretation.

>Why can you only rule multiple holdings as a realm action and not multiple
>provinces?

Despite the interpretations of many folks who express province population
levels as being more like holdings--that province level represents
influence over a fraction of the already existing and pretty much immutable
population in a province--I think the designers really mean province levels
to represent actual numbers of people. They placed the above limitation on
the Rule action to control population growth in the domain system. Most
people feel this was not enough of a limitation. (I would generally
agree.) At the same time it is possible to rule up multiple holdings
because they represent control of a populations activities, where control
of a province represents control of the population. Control, BTW, is I
think a much better descriptor of what it is the province ruler has rather
than "interest" over the population. A province ruler is generally more
powerful in a province than a regent who controls holdings alone. He can
perform more domain actions, collects a higher rate of income, generally
gets more RP, etc.

>Is it necessary for a regent of a priestly domain to be a priest in order
>to be able to cast priest realm spells ?

Yes, it specifies this in several places. That is unless you think "Like
mages, priest regents may cast realm spells" (Rulebook, p86) really means
non-priest regents can cast realm spells, and that "Priests cannot use
realm spells from spheres not allowed to them" (ibid) really means that
characters who can`t cast spells at all (let alone have access to spheres
of influence) means they can cast realm spells too.

>Why is Declare War a domain action and Move Troops a free action - yet no
>unit can be the subject of both actions ? (unless the Move Troop for that
>unit is aborted - which is a sort of affected but not situation)

Because Move Troops is a free action, but it takes a month (an action
round) for the troop movement to take place, so moved troops can`t both
move as part of the free Move Troops action (which allows them to move a
much greater distance than a war move) AND participate in the same action
round with in a Declare War action because the war moves of the Declare War
action take place before they have completed their movement from the Move
Troops action. It`s kind of like the Build action being a free action for
the regent. He can simply order a construction, but it takes GB and time
for that construction to take place.

I don`t think there would be any problem with a regent using Move Troops
and then Declaring War and specifying that he was cancelling the Move
Troops action. (I`d rule that he`d still have to pay the movement costs
per the Move Troops description on cancelling troop movement if a regent`s
domain is invaded) but if you allow Move Troops and Declare War to affect
the same troops then you could move troops any distance instantly and
they`d then get four war moves on top of that.

Note that you get movement at the same cost (just not the same distance) in
a war move that you get in the Move Troops action, and even the slowest
troops are going to be able to move four provinces in four war moves, so
most regents will be able to invade using War Move movement unless they are
more than 4 provinces away. unless you were moving troops a distance
greater than that it wouldn`t make a lot of sense to use Move Troops action
before declaring war.

>>Given that province rulers can provide loyalty grade shifts during the
>>loyalty phase of the domain turn by passively choosing what rate of
>>taxation they want, by winning major battles, that a regent with the
>>Leadership NWP can shift the loyalty of a province once per domain turn
>>as a free action, that the free Grant action can be used to increase the
>>loyalty of a (non-rebellious) province, that they can negatively affect
>>the loyalty in their provinces in several different ways, that they can
>>use the Espionage action to create loyalty shifts in other ruler`s
>>provinces whether they control holdings there or not, why can`t they use
>>Agitate?
>
>Because they do have other methods available to them doesn`t mean that
>they should have agitate as well - this is a pouty little argument akin to
>"Jimmy`s got an icecream - I want one too!"

You keep making the "that`s whining/pouting" argument, but I`m afraid
that`s just another thing you`re attributing to the text (in this case it
just happens to be my text rather than the Rulebook) without it really
being there. In fact, I`m not whining, but presenting tangential reasons
(in addition to the simple reading of the Agitate action`s text) why
province rulers should have access to the Agitate action. Normally I
wouldn`t even bring this up, but you keep insisting that this is a whiney
argument and refuting it on that basis alone without looking at the
connections in the domain system.

Now, I understand that the point is that just because a holding rulers have
access to something doesn`t mean that a province ruler has to have access
to it as well. What you seem to be missing, however, in light of your
examples (spellcasting and realm spells) is that this is a very different
case. No, a barbarian shouldn`t have access to casting spells just because
a cleric can do so, and no a province ruler shouldn`t be able to cast realm
spells simply because a priest (who also controls a temple holding)
can. There are no steps between those two extremes, however. If
controlling a province granted spell-like abilities then it would be much
more logical to assert that a regent who controlled it might be able to
cast spells or realm spells. There are many things that shift
loyalty. From what I can tell you`re saying that province rulers have
access to them all, except one. They can`t Agitate. They can influence
loyalty using every other method listed in the Rulebook, but you`re
interpretation of the Agitate action precludes them from that one method.

Anyway, here`s the tangential stuff again, just to give you an opportunity
to respond to it. The domain system as a whole allows a province ruler,
whether he controls a holding in a particular province or not, affect the
loyalty of provinces by:

1. Using the Espionage action to create random events.
2. Altering the taxation level in his own provinces.
3. Conducting successful military operations.
4. Using the Grant action to increase the loyalty of a province. (Note
that a regent could use Grant--a free action--as many times as he likes in
a domain turn to shift loyalty up one level, so he could very easily
replicate the affect of Agitate using this action alone.)
5. Using his Leadership NWP to increase the loyalty of a
province. (Note that there is no cost for using this ability at all, so it
can be used to Agitate at no cost in a single province unopposed.)
6. Using troops (which province rulers can muster more effectively than
other regents) to ignore loyalty shifts.
7. Using troops to induce loyalty shifts (by occupation.)

Of course just because a province ruler can do 1-7, doesn`t necessarily
mean he can also do 8 (Agitate) but even using you`re interest and
influence argument--which I reiterate is not something from the BR setting,
but a concept of your own invention--does it really hold up that province
rulers can`t use Agitate when they have both the interest and influence to
shift loyalty in the all the ways noted above? Isn`t more than a little
contrived to say that they can`t because your interpretation of the second
sentence of the Agitate action is just a general truism?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

04-25-2002, 06:34 AM

Gary wrote:

> At 01:14 AM 4/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>>> It has to refer to a different person because there can only be one
>>> possible person referred to in the second sentence. There`s only one
>>> possible province ruler. There can be any number (depending on whether
>>> you use the holding restrictions by population level that even the
>>> books
>>> don`t use) other regents in the province. "A regent with a holding"
>>> refers to any regent with a holding. "A ruler can agitate in favor of
>>> himself" can only refer to the province ruler. The province ruler
>>> _could_ be "a regent with a holding" but he need not be and there`s
>>> nothing in either sentence to indicate that he must be.
>>
>>
>> If a province ruler does not have a holding then he cannot be "a regent
>> with a holding".
>
>
> Exactly. He can`t be. That`s my point. The ruler referred to in the
> second sentence, "A ruler can agitate in favor of himself" can only refer
> to the province ruler.

All rulers are regents but not all rulers have holdings, therefore
regents with holdings does not include all rulers. A ruler can be a
member of regents with holdings, but is not necessarilly so.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

04-25-2002, 06:34 AM

Gary wrote:

> At 01:14 AM 4/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>
> doesn`t make much of a difference. Scribble up a quick Vinn diagram and
> you`ll see what I mean (since you said my logic is flawed because you`re
> not a cow.)

It` Venn diagram. Don`t have a drawing tool here.
Regents is the largest set.
All rulers are regents - this is a complete subset (is wholly contained
by) Regents.
Regents with holdings is another subset of regents.
Rulers with holdings is the intersection of the Rulers set and the
Regents with Holdings set.

It`s possible for an element to be a member of Rulers, but not a member
of Regents with holdings. Such Rulers are rulers in name only, and have
no influence in that province.

>>> Just as a general sort of conceptual question for you, since this
>>> really
>>> is the point we`re trying to get at here. Let`s go ahead and assume
>>> that
>>> the Rulebook really does mean what you`ve suggested, that province
>>> rulers
>>> cannot Agitate in their provinces unless they also control a holding
>>> there. How do you justify that?
>>
>>
>> The suggestion (from agitite) is that regents use their
>> influence. Influence is an attribute of holdings - check "Create
>> Holding"
>> it`s the place where that is mentioned. (apart from Agitate of
>> course). In
>> other
>> cases the term "interest" is used instead. It doesn`t seem a coincidence
>> to me that these two are so closely related.
>>
>> Also, just because a regent is declared ruler does not mean that any
>> mechanisms are in place to support that ruler. A decree (for example) is
>> pretty well useless if you control no holdings or assets to back it
>> up. Most province regents have some law, but there are cases where a
>> province ruler may find it very difficult to enforce anything. e.g. A
>> contested or occupied province. -- at such a point they can scarcely be
>> held to have more influence than their contested holdings can apply.
>
>
> So it`s your interpretation that province rulers are figureheads with no
> actual influence (or, at least, not enough influence to justify them
> using
> the Agitate action) in the provinces they rule unless they also control
> holdings there? Correct me if I`m wrong here, but it is your
> interpretation that even a contested holding would allow access to the
> Agitate action, isn`t it?

To the first part, yes - a province ruler without any holding at all
(including 0-level holdings or contested holdings) has insufficient
influence. And to the second part, yes also, a 0-level holding
establishes a basic influence - and I`m taking the viewpoint that a
contested holding is equivalent to a 0-level holding.

>
> I`ve never heard that before. In fact, I would assume the exact
> opposite. A regent who was "declared ruler" does not sound at all
> like the
> function of the Investiture action, which transfers the actual reigns of
> power from one regent to another. Province rulers generate RP from their
> provinces, can muster troops, rule the province, contest the holdings in
> his province, etc. but he can`t Agitate because he doesn`t have enough
> influence there.... That doesn`t add up at all to me. He can change the
> loyalty in his provinces in several different ways, but he can`t Agitate
> there. That doesn`t add up to me. That`s all beside the point that my
> reading of the Agitate description includes province rulers.

I`m not claiming that it`s all terribly consistant -especially the bit
about contesting holdings in the province - I`m claiming that was the
clear intent of the agitate action.

>
>
>>> What is it about being a regent in charge of a law(0) (or whatever)
>>> holding that provides access to the loyalty of a province through the
>>> Agitate action that province rulers lack?
>>
>>
>> Omigod a real point!
>
>
> Sheesh, man, that`s been the crux of the whole issue to begin with...
> sorry
> it took until now for you to recognize it.

No, I know what you wanted to believe. But wanting something to be true
and it being true are not the same thing.

>
>
>> I think the key is the distinction between influence and interest.
>> But as
>> to why the designers chose this - I don`t know - perhaps to increase the
>> dynamic of province takeover - perhaps because they invisaged that
>> provinces would require an investment in law holdings to operate.
>> There`s
>> no consistant pattern among the domain actions.
>
>
> I wouldn`t expect that the domain rules would be consistent to this
> "influence and interest" issue. It`s not something that even entered
> into
> the designers` process because it`s something you`ve just decided was a
> differentiating factor for reasons of your own. There`s no reason the
> domain actions should follow the "influence and interest" pattern because
> it only exists in your interpretation.

There`s no reason not to believe they don`t either. It`s certainly not
given any great emphasis, but neither is it used inconsistantly. The
Contest action is very specific about province rulers being allowed to
Contest, and specifically details how this would be worked out. Why
single them out so specifically in that one instance if not for the fact
that it is such an exception to the general rule ?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

04-25-2002, 06:34 AM

Gary wrote:

> At 01:14 AM 4/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>
>> Why can you only rule multiple holdings as a realm action and not
>> multiple
>> provinces?
>
>
> Despite the interpretations of many folks who express province population
> levels as being more like holdings--that province level represents
> influence over a fraction of the already existing and pretty much
> immutable
> population in a province--I think the designers really mean province
> levels
> to represent actual numbers of people. They placed the above
> limitation on
> the Rule action to control population growth in the domain system. Most
> people feel this was not enough of a limitation. (I would generally
> agree.)

Yeah - I agree with you on all counts here. My point is really that
there are unexplained and arbitrary decisions. I`m not saying that you
can`t house rule them.

> At the same time it is possible to rule up multiple holdings
> because they represent control of a populations activities, where control
> of a province represents control of the population. Control, BTW, is I
> think a much better descriptor of what it is the province ruler has
> rather
> than "interest" over the population. A province ruler is generally more
> powerful in a province than a regent who controls holdings alone. He can
> perform more domain actions, collects a higher rate of income, generally
> gets more RP, etc.

Generally yes, but a province ruler with no holdings is little more than
a figurehead - his ability to collect tax is marginalized by the loyalty
of the province. It`s pretty clear (from the rebellion and Contest
Province rules) that a province regent without any law is in deep ca-ca.

>
>
>> Is it necessary for a regent of a priestly domain to be a priest in
>> order
>> to be able to cast priest realm spells ?
>
>
> Yes, it specifies this in several places. That is unless you think "Like
> mages, priest regents may cast realm spells" (Rulebook, p86) really means
> non-priest regents can cast realm spells, and that "Priests cannot use
> realm spells from spheres not allowed to them" (ibid) really means that
> characters who can`t cast spells at all (let alone have access to spheres
> of influence) means they can cast realm spells too.

Yeah - again I know that`s the rule. These were rhetorical questions
(which I should have pointed out). But even so a faith regent, e.g. The
Queen of England is head of the Church of England, need not be a priest.
Yet, they would have many under-priests some of whom could be blooded
enough to work the domain spells on her behalf. One such BR situation is
in Ariya, where a Paladin is the head of the ATA.

>
>
>> Why is Declare War a domain action and Move Troops a free action -
>> yet no
>> unit can be the subject of both actions ? (unless the Move Troop for
>> that
>> unit is aborted - which is a sort of affected but not situation)
>
>
> Because Move Troops is a free action, but it takes a month (an action
> round) for the troop movement to take place, so moved troops can`t both
> move as part of the free Move Troops action (which allows them to move a
> much greater distance than a war move) AND participate in the same action
> round with in a Declare War action because the war moves of the
> Declare War
> action take place before they have completed their movement from the Move
> Troops action. It`s kind of like the Build action being a free action
> for
> the regent. He can simply order a construction, but it takes GB and time
> for that construction to take place.

Yeah yeah - again I know that. But you missed the point: why is one a
domain action and the other a free action? (it`s still rhetorical tho`)

>
>
> I don`t think there would be any problem with a regent using Move Troops
> and then Declaring War and specifying that he was cancelling the Move
> Troops action. (I`d rule that he`d still have to pay the movement costs
> per the Move Troops description on cancelling troop movement if a
> regent`s
> domain is invaded) but if you allow Move Troops and Declare War to affect
> the same troops then you could move troops any distance instantly and
> they`d then get four war moves on top of that.

Yes yes I know.

>
>
> Anyway, here`s the tangential stuff again, just to give you an
> opportunity
> to respond to it. The domain system as a whole allows a province ruler,
> whether he controls a holding in a particular province or not, affect the
> loyalty of provinces by:
>
> 1. Using the Espionage action to create random events.
> 2. Altering the taxation level in his own provinces.
> 3. Conducting successful military operations.
> 4. Using the Grant action to increase the loyalty of a province. (Note
> that a regent could use Grant--a free action--as many times as he
> likes in
> a domain turn to shift loyalty up one level, so he could very easily
> replicate the affect of Agitate using this action alone.)
> 5. Using his Leadership NWP to increase the loyalty of a
> province. (Note that there is no cost for using this ability at all,
> so it
> can be used to Agitate at no cost in a single province unopposed.)
> 6. Using troops (which province rulers can muster more effectively than
> other regents) to ignore loyalty shifts.
> 7. Using troops to induce loyalty shifts (by occupation.)
>
> Of course just because a province ruler can do 1-7, doesn`t necessarily
> mean he can also do 8 (Agitate) but even using you`re interest and
> influence argument--which I reiterate is not something from the BR
> setting,
> but a concept of your own invention--does it really hold up that province
> rulers can`t use Agitate when they have both the interest and
> influence to
> shift loyalty in the all the ways noted above?

First, it`s not whether it holds up or not - it may or may not - it`s
not relevent to the argument of whether it is allowed. You`re arguing
there that it should be allowed, so therefore it was allowed. Even
should I agree with the argument that it should (which I don`t in any
case), that doesn`t change the rule.

Second, interest and influence are critical to agitate. Interest defines
who can bid on the action, influence is defined as the motivator in
changing the loyalty. The connection purely between influence and
holdings (and not provinces) is not my invention, but speculation based
on the usage in two cases where only holdings participate. Influence is
not mentioned in Contest Holding for example -- a situation where
province participation is specifically allowed.

> Isn`t more than a little
> contrived to say that they can`t because your interpretation of the
> second
> sentence of the Agitate action is just a general truism?

No. Isn`t it a little contrived of you to suggest that the second
sentence changes the message of the first ?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

04-25-2002, 07:30 AM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-04-25 07.48:

> One such BR situation is in Ariya, where a Paladin is the head of the ATA.

But then, paladins can collect Temple regency by the basic rules.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

04-25-2002, 09:14 AM

At 03:48 PM 4/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>>Why is Declare War a domain action and Move Troops a free action - yet
>>>no unit can be the subject of both actions ? (unless the Move Troop for
>>>that unit is aborted - which is a sort of affected but not situation)
>>
>>Because Move Troops is a free action, but it takes a month (an action
>>round) for the troop movement to take place, so moved troops can`t both
>>move as part of the free Move Troops action (which allows them to move a
>>much greater distance than a war move) AND participate in the same action
>>round with in a Declare War action because the war moves of the Declare
>>War action take place before they have completed their movement from the
>>Move Troops action. It`s kind of like the Build action being a free
>>action for the regent. He can simply order a construction, but it takes
>>GB and time
>>for that construction to take place.
>
>Yeah yeah - again I know that. But you missed the point: why is one a
>domain action and the other a free action? (it`s still rhetorical tho`)

I understood that you were asking rhetorical questions, but my point in
answering them was that they aren`t actually very rhetorical. They`re
easily explained without having to invent a new category of influence and
interest in order to justify how they work. The same could be said of this
whole argument about the Agitate action. Given the way the domain system
works it`s very easy to justify that province rulers can agitate in their
own favor whether they control a holding or not.

>>Anyway, here`s the tangential stuff again, just to give you an
>>opportunity to respond to it. The domain system as a whole allows a
>>province ruler, whether he controls a holding in a particular province or
>>not, affect the loyalty of provinces by:
>>
>> 1. Using the Espionage action to create random events.
>> 2. Altering the taxation level in his own provinces.
>> 3. Conducting successful military operations.
>> 4. Using the Grant action to increase the loyalty of a
>> province. (Note that a regent could use Grant--a free action--as many
>> times as he likes in a domain turn to shift loyalty up one level, so he
>> could very easily replicate the affect of Agitate using this action alone.)
>> 5. Using his Leadership NWP to increase the loyalty of a
>> province. (Note that there is no cost for using this ability at all, so
>> it can be used to Agitate at no cost in a single province unopposed.)
>> 6. Using troops (which province rulers can muster more effectively
>> than other regents) to ignore loyalty shifts.
>> 7. Using troops to induce loyalty shifts (by occupation.)
>>
>>Of course just because a province ruler can do 1-7, doesn`t necessarily
>>mean he can also do 8 (Agitate) but even using you`re interest and
>>influence argument--which I reiterate is not something from the BR
>>setting, but a concept of your own invention--does it really hold up that
>>province rulers can`t use Agitate when they have both the interest and
>>influence to shift loyalty in the all the ways noted above?
>
>First, it`s not whether it holds up or not - it may or may not - it`s not
>relevent to the argument of whether it is allowed. You`re arguing there
>that it should be allowed, so therefore it was allowed. Even
>should I agree with the argument that it should (which I don`t in any
>case), that doesn`t change the rule.

That`s just part 2 of my argument. Part 1 is that the text is very easily
interpreted to mean that a province ruler gains access to the Agitate
action. Part 2 is all supporting evidence that they can do so. It`s
relevant not because "it should be allowed" but because it supports the
interpretation in Part 1. That`s all. If there wasn`t the text in the
Agitate action description about province rulers, one could use all this
stuff as an argument for a house rule, but I would just say "house rule"
and be done. The reason I`ve spent so much time debating this point is
because I not only think I`m interpreting the action`s description
correctly, but because the rest of the domain system seems to support that
interpretation as well.

>Second, interest and influence are critical to agitate. Interest defines
>who can bid on the action, influence is defined as the motivator in
>changing the loyalty. The connection purely between influence and holdings
>(and not provinces) is not my invention, but speculation based on the
>usage in two cases where only holdings participate. Influence is not
>mentioned in Contest Holding for example -- a situation where province
>participation is specifically allowed.
>
>>Isn`t more than a little contrived to say that they can`t because your
>>interpretation of the second
>>sentence of the Agitate action is just a general truism?
>
>No. Isn`t it a little contrived of you to suggest that the second
>sentence changes the message of the first ?

I`m not saying it changes the meaning of the first sentence. You`ve read
more into the first sentence than it actually says, apparently, so I can
see how you see it that way, but nothing in the first sentence is altered
in any way by the second sentence. The first sentence just gives full
access to the Agitate action to regents who control holdings in a
province. The second sentence adds another category of regents who have
access to the action. It doesn`t change the meaning of the rest of the
action description either. It would change the meaning of the first
sentence if it said "Only a regent with a holding..." instead of just "A
regent with a holding" but it doesn`t say that, so the access to the
Agitate action provided by the first sentence isn`t altered at all.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.