NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/games/board/13686

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 5.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!ulowell!news.bbn.com!usc!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!caen!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!peters
From: [e-mail] (Dan Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Republic of ROME question, HELP
Date: 27 Jan 1993 04:12:03 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

Melvin H. Nicholson writes:

>Exactly.  If the state goes bankrupt, the Rebel must count himself as a
>war in his attempt to keep Rome standing.

ok... How about if the senate doesn't send an army against the rebel at all?
Is the civil war still ongoing in this case?

[stuff deleted about my question #1]

ok, that's cool.

(I write:)
>>2. At what point in the sequence of play do you make Tax Farmer destruction
>>rolls (for the 2nd Punic War and the Gladiator Slave Revolt)? Again, the rules
>>give no clue!

>I think this one is covered.  It happens during the forum phase.

I have never found this, and I have searched the book several times to find this
exact thing.... Oh well, maybe I'm just unobservant....

>Rather than leave this all up to you, I'll throw some of my own back:

>1) How should a faction who loses it's leader to an assination be
>treated.  When should that faction be allowed to appoint a new leader
>assuming it was not eliminated?

I assume you mean a faction which loses its leader in the prosecution following
an assassination attempt. I don't think any special treatment is needed: the
faction, if it still exists, does not have a leader at all until its next
Forum Phase initiative, during which one can be appointed in the usual way.

>2) If the faction leader is a caught assassin, does the prosecution
end with his death?

I think so. No defendant, no case.

>3) if the censor is either the victim of a successful assination where
>the assassin is caught, or is a caught assassin, who conduct the
>prosecution?

Last line of 9.84: The Censor is not involved in this prosecution. (So it
doesn't make any difference.) I would imagine that whoever was presiding
at the moment of the attempt would conduct the prosecution (after all,
_someone_ has to call for votes etc.) Does this sound ok to you?

Of course this just begs another question: what if _that_ guy was involved
somehow in the assassination? I would say the HRAO conducts it, but for
this purpose the defendant is not considered "Available". I would even
prefer to add that any member of the defendant's faction is not "Available"
for this purpose. ("Available" = the "A" in "HRAO".)

By the book, "Available" simply means alive and in Rome. The book gives no
exceptions to this, so the answer I gave to your question has the problem
that there is no precedent for making such exceptions.

This reminds me of another one of my questions:

Suppose the HRAO steps down to avoid influence loss (9.34). Suppose this
happens before prosecutions. (for example: new RC has trouble electing a
Censor and steps down; FC conducts Censor election.) When the prosecutions
are over, does the HRAO preside again (which is the literal meaning of 9.46)
or does the guy who was presiding immediately before prosecutions started
preside again (which is what I think was more likely the intended rule)?

Now suppose the HRAO steps down after prosecutions, and suppose the presiding
dude gets sent off to war. He's not the HRAO, so the Senate Phase doesn't end,
if we take the book literally. Is this a mistake? I.e., when it says "Passage
of any measure sending the HRAO to War ends the Senate Phase" (middle of 9.65)
should "HRAO" read "presiding magistrate"?

Let's assume, in this latter case, that there is no mistake. Then when the
(non-HRAO) presiding magistrate is sent to war, does control of the meeting
drop to the next guy (e.g. from FC to Censor), or does it jump back up to the
HRAO? I would say the former, but the book doesn't cover this.

In effect, my opinion here is equivalent to saying that anyone who has stepped
down is no longer "Available" that turn, thus making another exception to the
usual definition.

An unrelated (and slightly silly) question:

How do you handle "DRAW 2" in multiple chit draws? Take Epidemic for example.
Which of the following procedures do you do?

A: 1. Draw 6 chits.
   2. If there are no "DRAW 2"s, then
    END
      Else
    Put back the "DRAW 2"s
    Draw the appropriate number of extra chits (2 or 4).
      End If
   3. GOTO 2.

or

B: For I = 1 to 6
   do Subroutine (shown below)
   Next I
   END

   Subroutine:
     draw chit
     If it's a "DRAW 2" then
       put it back
       For J = 1 to 2
     do Subroutine (yup, it's recursive)
       Next J
     End If
   End Subroutine

I would say B. What do you think?

Drin
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think I think, therefore I think I am."
- Descartes' failed attempt to discard the notion of objective reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------