Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  4. #4
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    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.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  7. #7
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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.