Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Contest Actions

  1. #1
    Robert Harper
    Guest

    Contest Actions

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

    I agree on surface this seems drastic outcome.

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

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

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

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

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

  2. #2
    Jonathan Picklesimer
    Guest

    Contest Actions

    On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Robert Harper wrote:

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

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

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

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

  3. #3
    James P. Doherty
    Guest

    Contest Actions

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

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

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

    Do the rules explicitly state otherwise?

    Jim Doherty
    doherty@ctron.com

  4. #4
    Robert Harper
    Guest

    Contest Actions

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

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

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

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

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

  5. #5
    Ian Hoskins
    Guest

    Contest Actions

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


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

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

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


    - --
    Darkstar

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

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

    A.J. Rimmer Bsc Ssc

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Contest Holding
    By BRadmin in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-09-2009, 11:38 AM
  2. Contest
    By Sir Tiamat in forum BRCS 4th Edition
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 07:02 PM
  3. Chap 5 - Fortifications and contest actions
    By irdeggman in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-10-2006, 03:56 AM
  4. Fortified Holdings and Contest Actions
    By soudhadies in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-02-2005, 05:31 PM
  5. Contest Province
    By Osprey in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-13-2004, 04:04 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.