Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,538
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  2. #12
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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.

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.