Investing Uncontrolled Holdings

[Cec Stacey]

> Further to my original query about contesting:
>
> Now what if the regent invested the holding instead of doing the second
> contest ! It seems that this would be a highly efficient way of raising
> ones level of guild holdings ! (Assuming the regent has a friendly priest
> to cast investiture! - n.b. a Free action for the priest) Why take three
> actions (Contest,contest,rule) when it can be done in two (contest,
invest)
> ??
>

What happens during the first contest (against other than Lvl 0 holding) is
that the affected holding does *not* lose any levels. It is prevented from
generating GBs and RPs *only*. The second contest action reverts all
levels of holding uncontrolled (ie. nonexistent - I hesitate to use the
word destroyed). Ergo, there is no drop in level for the contestor to rule
up. As well, you can't invest the holding without the contestee regent.
If you do the second contest, the holdings become uncontrolled,
nonexistent, so there's nothing to invest there either. It is not *a
highly efficent way of raising* holding levels, because the rules don't
work the way you're reading them.

BTW, haven't we beat this topic to death yet? Is there still anyone out
there who doesn't agree with me?

[Kariu@aol.co]

>>>
>>>BTW, haven't we beat this topic to death yet? Is there still anyone out
>>>there who doesn't agree with me?


It is not about agreeing, it's about furthering knowledge. Tsr told us this
way(I know it's not in the rule book--but that is who they interpreted it to
us..but now inlight of the printed I must agree with you, even though I do
assume that it is a lightning quick way to be rid of and opponent.


Kariu

[Caitlanagh@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-05-09 01:51:02 EDT, you write:

>> Further to my original query about contesting:
>>
>> Now what if the regent invested the holding instead of doing the second
>> contest ! It seems that this would be a highly efficient way of raising
>> ones level of guild holdings ! (Assuming the regent has a friendly priest
>> to cast investiture! - n.b. a Free action for the priest) Why take three
>> actions (Contest,contest,rule) when it can be done in two (contest,
>invest)
>> ??
>>
>
>What happens during the first contest (against other than Lvl 0 holding) is
>that the affected holding does *not* lose any levels. It is prevented from
>generating GBs and RPs *only*. The second contest action reverts all
>levels of holding uncontrolled (ie. nonexistent - I hesitate to use the
>word destroyed). Ergo, there is no drop in level for the contestor to rule
>up. As well, you can't invest the holding without the contestee regent.
>If you do the second contest, the holdings become uncontrolled,
>nonexistent, so there's nothing to invest there either. It is not *a
>highly efficent way of raising* holding levels, because the rules don't
>work the way you're reading them.
>
>BTW, haven't we beat this topic to death yet? Is there still anyone out
>there who doesn't agree with me?
>
>

::Standing defiantly with arms crossed:: Well, I certainly don't agree with
you!!

Kidding!

There are some people who haven't seen this entire thread, so don't get so
exasperated.

Richard