I think a good rule would be that the fortified holding can be contested,
but the fortification remains under the control of the first regent. You
can take away the congregation and the merchant's business, but the stone
walls remain.

That's my opinion anyway.



- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dunn [SMTP:eric@cyberserv.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 1:11 PM
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] Fortified Holdings

Remember a week or so ago, I brought up the idea of contesting castles, and
we all pretty much agreed that that was out of the question--

Well, wouldn't you think the same rule would apply to fortified holdings?
If it's fortified, you pretty much HAVE to come by with guns ablazing, so
to speak, to get the influence of the "contested" regent out of there?

So bascially, what I'm saying is this, or rather what's the opinion on

If someone has fortified their holding, it can't be contested. It must be
attacked, or seiged, like a castle.

BTW, I can't find a word about it in the rules. The word fortification
isn't even mentioned under the "Contest" rule.

begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M>)\^(BKT!0 `(, #2Z0:X>KT!"P``@ @@!@``````P ```````$8``````X4`
M```````#``* "" &``````# ````````1@`````0A0````````,`!8 (( 8`
M`````, ```````!&`````%*%``"W#0``'@`E@ @@!@``````P ```````$8`
M````5(4```$````$````."XP``,`)H (( 8``````, ```````!&``````&%
M````````"P`O@ @@!@``````P ```````$8`````#H4````````#`#" "" &
M``````# ````````1@`````1A0````````,`,H (( 8``````, ```````!&
M`````!B%````````'@!!@ @@!@``````P ```````$8`````-H4```$````!
M`````````!X`0H (( 8``````, ```````!&`````#>%```!`````0``````
M```>`$. "" &``````# ````````1@`````XA0```0````$`````````'@`]
;``$````%````4D4Z( `````#``TT_3