Holdings Loyalty

[geeman]

At 10:47 PM 4/23/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
>>I`m not familiar with the stablize action.
>
>(assuming you are being sarcastic here or are you punning me on spelling?)
>
>You have read the BR rulebook at least once haven`t you? The part about
>domain actions, in particular Agitate? (sarcasm)
>"A regent with a holding can use his influence to agitate or stabilize ...."
>
>Would it be better if I`d said "agitate for" and "agitate against" ? Was
>that too hard for you ?

Actually, the book uses different terms to describe an "agitate for"
Agitate action. Under "Loyalty" on p36 it uses the term "friendly
manipulation" which has a kind of stark, Orwellian horror if you really
consider it. It does use the word "stabilize" once in the Agitate action
description, but there is no "stabilize action" and I didn`t know what you
meant either, I`m afraid. Mr. Gauck responded before I did.

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.

[geeman]

At 10:47 PM 4/23/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
>>I`m not familiar with the stablize action.
>
>(assuming you are being sarcastic here or are you punning me on spelling?)
>
>You have read the BR rulebook at least once haven`t you? The part about
>domain actions, in particular Agitate? (sarcasm)
>"A regent with a holding can use his influence to agitate or stabilize ...."
>
>Would it be better if I`d said "agitate for" and "agitate against" ? Was
>that too hard for you ?

Actually, the book uses different terms to describe an "agitate for"
Agitate action. Under "Loyalty" on p36 it uses the term "friendly
manipulation" which has a kind of stark, Orwellian horror if you really
consider it. It does use the word "stabilize" once in the Agitate action
description, but there is no "stabilize action" and I didn`t know what you
meant either, I`m afraid. Mr. Gauck responded before I did.

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]

Gary wrote:

> At 10:47 PM 4/23/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>> Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>>
>>> I`m not familiar with the stablize action.
>>
>>
>> (assuming you are being sarcastic here or are you punning me on
>> spelling?)
>>
>> You have read the BR rulebook at least once haven`t you? The part about
>> domain actions, in particular Agitate? (sarcasm)
>> "A regent with a holding can use his influence to agitate or
>> stabilize ...."
>>
>> Would it be better if I`d said "agitate for" and "agitate against" ? Was
>> that too hard for you ?
>
>
> Actually, the book uses different terms to describe an "agitate for"
> Agitate action. Under "Loyalty" on p36 it uses the term "friendly
> manipulation" which has a kind of stark, Orwellian horror if you really
> consider it. It does use the word "stabilize" once in the Agitate action
> description, but there is no "stabilize action" and I didn`t know what
> you
> meant either, I`m afraid. Mr. Gauck responded before I did.

So you`re both claiming you didn`t know what I was saying ? (yeak okay -
fair cop -- still noone answered the test case yet - still working on it ?)

Anyone ever seen a game called "Freedom in the Galaxy" ? It had a
Mega-Weapon called a planetary stabilizer. Which sounded benign until
you found out that it stabilized a planet - that is - it abruptly
stopped the normal rotation of the planet causing it to break up - death
star style.

************************************************** **************************
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.