Rule Interpretation and Dispute Resolution
This thread is closed, hopefully permanently. Let's pretend it never existed in the first place.
This post will be filled with more information later.
Please do not post in this thread yet.
Rule Clarification Summary:
- Horse Archer units count as BOTH cavalry and archer when determining whether they meet PA/RA minimum strength requirements.
- Q: Under what circumstances, if any, can the Megas retreat an avatar who is attacked on the AI's turn.
A: Only if the player who controls the avatar has given the Megas permission to control his avatar or in some other way indicated that the avatar can be retreated from battle.
In re: Kagemusha v. Privateerkev
The Situation:
A private army is being constructed for Kagemusha. In 1129-2, his army consists of his bodyguard, 2 town militia, and 1 spear militia. Nearby is an army which apparently was originally recruited to help bulk up Kage's PA. This army consists of 2 peasant archers and an Alan Light Cavalry. Trebizond is also nearby, and its garrison consists of Lisas Attaleiatas, a peasant archers, and a Skythikon (HA unit).
The Megas Thread includes the following posts at the start of the 1129 turn:
Quote:
Kan: I recruited a HA at Treb to replace the cavalry I am taking back from him.
...
The Alan Cav that came from Trebizond is now reclaimed by the office of the Megas. It is not to be moved.
The second line references the Alan Light Cavalry which is in the nearby Captain-led 3 units stack. This statement clearly prevents that unit from being moved by anyone.
Kage then takes the save, moves his stack slightly east, and merges into it the following units: 1 peasant archers and the Alan Light Cavalry from the nearby 3-unit stack, and the Skythikon from Trebizond. This is found in 1129-3.
At this time, Trebizond is owned by Lisas Attaleiatas and the following orders apply to its garrison:
Quote:
Garrison movable by any Komnenodoukai general, as long as 2 units are left to act as a garrison.
...
leave all units unless ordered to move
Following this, PK takes the save and does the following: disbands the Alan Light Cavalry in the stack with Kage's avatar and merges the remaining peasant archers into the stack. This is found in 1129-5.
At the time, Kage's SOT orders for his PA are:
Quote:
Private Army:
My private army should be gathered in Tblisi.
----------
Analysis:
Kage's movement of the Alan Light Cavalry is a clear violation of the rules. The rules very clearly do not allow him to have command over the nearby Captain-led stack of 3 units. That is the domain of the Megas alone. Though all three of these units were initially recruited to make up Kage's PA, PK very clearly stated that the Alan Light Cavalry were no longer his to use and were not to be moved. As they were still in the Captain-led stack at the time this order was made, it was valid. Kage had no right to move the Alan Light Cavalry and violated the rules by doing so.
Kage's movement of the HA is legal, because he is a Komnenodoukai general and Lisas Attaleiatas and one other unit remain inside Trebizond, meeting the Trebizond SOT orders.
PK subsequently disbands the Alan Light Cavalry inside of Kage's army. This is an act of retribution for Kage's illegal movement of the Alan Light Cavalry. This disbanding is legal because Kage did not put any restrictions of any kind on the composition, movement, or disbanding of any units in his PA. Kage claims this is illegal, because the Alan Light Cavalry was his only unit of cavalry, since the Skythikon counts as archers instead of cavalry. This argument is irrelevant to Kage's own rule violation, though it has bearing on PK's actions and raises an issue that I will clarify for future reference:
Horse Archer units count as BOTH cavalry and archer when determining whether they meet PA/RA minimum strength requirements. Thus, a unit of HA can count towards the cavalry requirement or the archer requirement
----------
Conclusion:
Kage violated a game Rule by moving a unit that he had no right to command under the rules and which the Megas had specifically stated could not be moved. Even if Kage was correct that HA counted only as archers, he still had no right to move the Alan Light Cavalry. If I had ruled that HA were only archers, then Kage should have used the proper legal method for dealing with a Megas' failure to bring his PA up to minimum strength.
PK's disbanding of the Alan Light Cavalry was legal because there is no possible way to read Kage's SOT post as forbidding such an action and it did not reduce Kage's PA below the minimum requirements, because HAs can count as cavalry or archers. However, he disbanded the Alan Light Cavalry unit full well knowing that it was unclear whether HAs counted as cavalry or archers. Had I ruled that HAs counted as archers only, he would have violated the rules by reducing Kage's PA below the minimum strength requirements. While this thread and its instructions were not posted at the time that he did this, PK knew exactly what was going to start happening with this thread because he read and acknowledged my post on it in the OOC thread. Thus he was aware that unclear situations like this must be clarified first and that even though I have ruled that he acted properly, the fact that he did not check before doing something that was known to be vague is itself a rule violation. The proper course of action should have been to contact me to determine whether HAs count as cavalry or archers.
Kagemusha is hereby given a warning due to a rule violation. There are no penalties for a warning.
Privateerkev is hereby given a warning due to a rule violation. There are no penalties for a warning.
Re: Rule Interpretation and Dispute Resolution
I have a question on a totally different subject.
When I hit end turn for 1128, EF was attacked by the Turks. It was 13 bodyguards versus 600 Turks. Lots of them HA's. Instead of putting the save up, I simply hit the white flag. He pulled back and was safe. The AI's turn progressed and we went into 1129.
Now, I admit this could be seen as a loophole. But if there are no rules for it, the Megas can do it. And if it is a loophole, I would argue I did it to help an avatar, instead of hurting him.
But I am uncomfortable with the precedent. There are many cases I can see where someone would not want the Megas retreating them during defensive battles. But in KotR, we did this all the time. Also, it saves time if the Megas can just retreat avatars that he knows would retreat anyways. We could have been waiting all day and night waiting for EF to simply hit a white flag icon.
So, my question is this: Under what circumstances, if any, can the Megas retreat an avatar who is attacked on the AI's turn.
In re: Tristan de Castelreng v. woad&fangs
The Situation:
The Crusade has recently ended. Alexandria is owned by Tristan de Castelreng and part of his Crusade army remains inside as the garrison. woad&fangs is also inside Alexandria with his entire Crusade army. w&f wants to attack a nearby rebel stack. The following statement is made in the Magnaura:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tristan de Castelreng
Turning to Annios Solomon
Avenge Laskaris...
I know he was no friend of yours but he died doing something just and true and died a true warrior's death...
Show these brigands what it costs to defy the power of the Empire.
Bring them down.
The following PM exchange is made between w&f and Tristan:
Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
A message is delivered to you via messenger pidgeon. You open the letter and begin to read...
Quote:I can't stand being cooped up with that scum any longer. I humbly request your permission to take the garrison(minus Laskaris' ilk) and eliminate the army of rebels outside of the city. While I can beat them with only my crusaders, I would prefer to use overwhelming force so we take fewer casualties. I can easily eliminate them and return to city before riots occur.(ooc: in the same turn)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng
You have my permission but be advised that if you remain out of the city with your men by the end of the season, the Megas could do away with them.
At the time, Tristan de Castelreng's SOT post for Alexandria read as follows:
Quote:
no units disbanded or moved without my prior consent.
w&f then took all of his old Crusade army units, plus 2 units from Tristan's old army, left the city, defeated the brigands, sent one of Tristan's units to Cairo, and took the rest east towards Gaza.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Took Solomon's ex-crusaders + 1 unit dismounted and 1 unit mounted lancers. Attempted night attack on rebel army and won, though with higher casualties then I would have liked. Sent the mounted lancers to Cairo, took the rest of the army east with me towards Gaza. Alexandria is yellow, Cairo is red. Annios got a MoH. I didn't know if it was up to me to accept it so I've left it up. If the descision is only up to me then I accept.
Tristan complained that w&f did not have the authority to take his 2 units from the city.
----------
Analysis:
This is a case of intermingling of two armies in one settlement. As w&f was not of high enough rank to own a PA, he has no right to command his own units once the Crusade was over. If he had been out in the field, the units would have been the Megas to do with as he wished. Since he was inside Alexandria, they were under Tristan's power. Tristan had 'locked' the entire garrison of Alexandria in his SOT post, which essentially confiscated all of w&f's men.
w&f then asked for permission to take units out of the city to attack some brigands. The specific words he used were "I humbly request your permission to take the garrison(minus Laskaris' ilk)." w&f did not ask for only his own units. He specifically stated "the garrison" with the only limitation being that he would not use Laskaris' men. At that point, the "garrison" comprised ALL of the Crusade units that had previously belonged to Tristan, w&f, and Ibn. Thus, a request to take "the garrison(minus Laskaris' ilk)" was a request to take both Tristan's men and w&f's men.
Tristan then gave his permission, and urged caution to prevent the Megas from confiscating the men once they were outside the city. After the battle, w&f did not heed his caution and kept going eastwards. He also sent one of Tristan's units to Cairo, potentially allowing it to be 'seized' by Ramses II CP.
w&f legally took Tristan's two units because he specifically asked the "the garrison" which included Tristan's units. Tristan gave his permission and did not limit in any way which units from "the garrison" could be removed. Once w&f was outside the city, these units were then no longer under Tristan's control and w&f could do anything with them that he wanted, though the Megas can fiddle with them if they stay out in the open. Thus, it was legal for w&f to keep one of Tristan's units and send the other to Cairo.
----------
Conclusion:
No rule was violated here. This was a simple misunderstanding which was caused by lack of clarity and specificity on both sides.
Re: In re: Tristan de Castelreng v. woad&fangs
Question: Under what circumstances, if any, can the Megas retreat an avatar who is attacked on the AI's turn.
Answer: Only if the player who controls the avatar has given the Megas permission to control his avatar or in some other way indicated that the avatar can be retreated from battle. While the rules do not discuss the retreat option, Rule 1.3 still covers it with the following statement:
Quote:
A player whose avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle will be expected to fight that battle.
If an AI army attacks a player, that player's avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle. He is therefore expected to fight it. If he chooses to retreat, that is his decision. However, we have many insane players in LotR who will happily charge a 600 man army with just their bodyguard (and sometimes win). Thus, the decision is up to that player to make unless they have given permission for someone else to make the decision for them.
Re: Rule Interpretation and Dispute Resolution
My PM to Tristan occured before Laskaris died and before the post in the Magnaura. I don't know if this matters but I think it's worth making that clear.
Re: Rule Interpretation and Dispute Resolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Privateerkev
I have a question on a totally different subject.
.......
I would have fought that battle, I could have killed a few Turks, got some experience and then ran off. What you did has a good chance of giving my avatar negative traits for fleeing a battle, you did not have my permission to do that so add another rule violation to PK :no:
Even if you would have been waiting a while does it really matter? We aren't in a rush with this game you know, breaking the rules and risking negative traits for my avatar just because you want to play faster isn't fair.
Re: Rule Interpretation and Dispute Resolution
Apparently no one is reading the initial warning I posted at the top. I have therefore increased it in font size and I will post it here as well to make sure it's understood:
Please do not post in this thread yet.
If you have a problem or a complaint, send me a PM about it.
Re: Rule Interpretation and Dispute Resolution
The Situation:
During the AI turn, Elite Ferret's avatar was alone in the field and was attacked by a large Turkish army. PK retreated the avatar to safety.
----------
Analysis:
Not a whole to analyze, this is a basic rule violation. The choice of whether to fight or retreat was EF's. We've been using this kind of rule since WotS, so this shouldn't be a tough one to obey.
----------
Conclusion:
PK clearly violated a rule. The violation was done to help EF, not to hurt him, as the odds of victory in such a situation were absurdly low. Even so, the choice should have been EF's and retreating potentially added points towards a cowardice trait for EF, though no trait changes actually occurred yet. So, it's a violation of major rule, but the actual impact on the game is very minor and it was done with good intentions.
One point of influence is hereby transferred from PK to EF for the next Senate vote only.
