Rules Interpretation

[Kent Lerch]

Jaanus Lillenberg wrote:
"About trade routes: Check once more the rulebook and you will find that there
is noted (perhaps under the Trade Route action) that level 0 holding cannot have
a trade route. Level 1-3 may have one trade route (due to weakness of guild),
4-6 may have 2 trade routes and 7+ may have 3."
Sorry Jaanus, but that's wrong. You are referring to the entry on the Domain
Action "Trade Route", BR Rulebook, p. 60, in the last paragraph of which is
stated: "Provinces [sic!] of level 1 to 3 are limited to one trade route etc.
etc ...".
No mention is made of >Holdingscan< use the Adventure Action as a substitute for a
Contest action. I doubt, however, that a holding does always have a physical
manifestation which can be conveniently burned down. I have rather considered a
holding to be something more like an "influence" one has in a specific field.
Thus a guild holding 1 would not be so much a warehouse and a sales room (which
anyone can build, not just a regent), but business connections, goodwill, a
customer network and such. The makret will only bear so-and-so-many competitors.

In the same vein, I think that a Temple Holding 1 does not even need have a
temple. What about the first Franciscan friars? The whole mendicant movement was
a movement away from material possessions, yet they undoubtedly exerted huge
spiritual influence. Same thing holds for the early Christians and Buddhists.
One of the reasons why they were so hard to suppress ...
Also, your suggestion to use Adventure instead of Contest does not answer my
question whether a regent >can< use a Contest action even though he is only
controlling a level 0 Holding. Any comments on the practicability of such a
thing?
Kent

[Jaanus Lillenberg]

Hello Kent

> Jaanus Lillenberg wrote:
> "About trade routes: Check once more the rulebook and you will find that there
> is noted (perhaps under the Trade Route action) that level 0 holding cannot have
> a trade route. Level 1-3 may have one trade route (due to weakness of guild),
> 4-6 may have 2 trade routes and 7+ may have 3."


> Sorry Jaanus, but that's wrong. You are referring to the entry on the Domain
> Action "Trade Route", BR Rulebook, p. 60, in the last paragraph of which is
> stated: "Provinces [sic!] of level 1 to 3 are limited to one trade route etc.
> etc ...".
> No mention is made of >Holdings (and posted) the question. There is no express statement as to whether or not a
> guild holding 0 will allow a regent to open a trade route. I was hoping for any
> practical insights from running campaigns as to how things have worked out

Check it out above..

> there. Similarly I am not sure as to the practicability of your suggestion to
> use an Adventure Domain Action to get rid of a Holding 1 which blocks the
> advancement of a Holding 0.
> You wrote: "But my dear friends (if you would be able to contest as you noted)
> you also are able then to go to an "adventure" and just burn down
> the market or destroy any other form the holding has. As there is marked in
> rulebook, adventure can be used as duplicate almost of any domain action DM
> allowes."

> I do not doubt that one >can< use the Adventure Action as a substitute for a
> Contest action. I doubt, however, that a holding does always have a physical
> manifestation which can be conveniently burned down. I have rather considered a
> holding to be something more like an "influence" one has in a specific field.
> Thus a guild holding 1 would not be so much a warehouse and a sales room (which
> anyone can build, not just a regent), but business connections, goodwill, a
> customer network and such. The makret will only bear so-and-so-many competitors.
>
Hmm.. well. You say a level 1 holding doesnt have to have even a room to
be in. It goes roughly against your own words. You were looking around
if anyone knows if the guild holding level 0 can have a trade route.
If a level 1 guild wont even have a room to be in.. where will we the
traded goods be at??? Where will caravans targeted at? At the "influence"?
No, friend. There must be a building to be placed at.

Read the player secret books and you will see.

> In the same vein, I think that a Temple Holding 1 does not even need have a
> temple. What about the first Franciscan friars? The whole mendicant movement was

Oh forget about it. Level 0 holding is a shrine. Read Medoere PS.
Level 1 holding is a small temple already that would be able to serve
people of a village. Level 2 Holding is a temple to serve in people of
a small town. Level 3 holding is large temple. It should contain at least one
level 3+ priest to lead the temple. Level 4 is a big temple for lot of people
or some temples of size level 1 and 2 and shirnes around the province.
Level 4 may be also a powerful church having a cathedral in a single province
(read Ilien PS). Level 4+ temples are rare but they will mean
The church will have several temples, monasteries and shrines around
the province and will hold major influence in most of the political
questions of province or perhaps over the whole state.

> a movement away from material possessions, yet they undoubtedly exerted huge
> spiritual influence. Same thing holds for the early Christians and Buddhists.
> One of the reasons why they were so hard to suppress ...

> Also, your suggestion to use Adventure instead of Contest does not answer my
> question whether a regent >can< use a Contest action even though he is only
> controlling a level 0 Holding.

Yes one can TRY to contest (the action is allowed as long as I remember)
but thats really hard by rules given under contest action.
It looks more reasonable and also would contain a lot of fun to try to
contest with a character action.

Any comments on the practicability of such a
> thing?

Please dont whine about practicability because all the things you are
asking about (the guild thing of level 0 and opening a trade route
and contesting another guild) are already happened in my campaign...


With greets
-Jaanus
- ---
jaanusl@postimees.ee




> Kent

[Gronko@aol.co]

100716.2601@CompuServe.COM (Kent Lerch) was recently overheard using the
following pick-up line at a singles party:

>Also, your suggestion to use Adventure instead of Contest does not answer my
>question whether a regent >can< use a Contest action even though he is only
>controlling a level 0 Holding. Any comments on the practicability of such a
>thing?

I'm only going on memory here (as my rulebook is in the other room), but I

think I remember reading about this under the desc. for Contest. Memory
tells me that a regent with a 0 level holding *CAN* contest others. In places
like Ilien where all of the available law holdings are already taken, there
would be no way to have another regent attempt to set up a level 1 (or
higher)
holding without first contesting the regent of Ilien. Thus, they set it up in
such a way that a 0 level could contest, as you have to have an actual
holding
in the province before you can contest anyway.

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'm
more apt
to say that the success reduces the targeted holdings level by one, showing a
more
gradual loss of influence and respect in the area, and allowing for
competetiors to
rise under a similar graduation. This doesn't always fit in (like in times of
compelete
military conquest) but it does during "peace time" contests. Which can
happen....

Craig