Printable View
I also concur. I always considered avatars to be separate from garrions or other terms for military units. I think you're ok to move them.
He already has that power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
One veto per 3 ranks of Authority, so from 0 to 3 Vetos per session, depending on his Authority stat.Quote:
(9) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per 3 ranks of Authority.
But then, what if an avatar doesn't want to be moved? Can he stop the Chancellor from doing so?Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Yeah but it is a separate order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
You can say whether you want your garrison moved/not moved/not disbanded/ect...
You can say whether you want your army units moved/not moved/not disbanded/ect...
You can say whether you want your fort units moved/not moved/not disbanded/ect...
And you can say whether you want your avatar moved/not moved/ect...
They are all separate orders. Since the nobles in question did not give an order for themselves and did not specifically forbid avatar movement in the SOT thread, then it fell to Chancellor discretion.
Definitely. That's specifically stated in the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
The Chancellor has to do what you say with your units and avatar. If you don't give any orders at all, or your orders leave some room for flexibility, he can do whatever he wants as long as they don't violate your orders.Quote:
1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the CHANCELLOR will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any army (Private, Royal, or otherwise) their avatar commands, move any military units that start the turn inside a settlement they control (garrison units), move any military units that start the turn inside a fort in a province they control (fort units), and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. The CHANCELLOR may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving.
The current situation is more a situation of potentially conflicting orders. The players submitted orders saying not to move the garrisons, but also to move their avatars. The question is which takes precedent, not whether the Chancellor can do whatever he wants. I think we're all in agreement that there actually isn't a conflict in these orders at the moment. Hypothetically, if there was a conflict, I would say that the most recent order takes precedent.
Just to be clear, the two players did not ask for their avatars to be moved. (I don't want to get them in trouble.) I did. They gave no orders for their avatars and had no restrictions listed on avatar movement in the SOT so I told OK I wanted them moved. I figure it fell to "Chancellor discretion" if those avatars were to be moved or not. Therefore, the Chancellor could choose to listen to his ally with regard to vassal movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
But, OK thought an avatar was part of a garrison which they did indeed say should not to be moved.
And from other posts on here, I get the impression that others had the same confusion. And that is the belief that when an avatar is in a settlement, it is a garrison and does not need a seperate order directing it's non-removal.
Ah, well that's a little different. Even so, I'd say it's ok because I consider settlement garrions, fort garrisons, Private/Royal armies, and avatars to all be separate groups that can be given separate orders. If you give no orders whatsoever, the Chancellor can do whatever he wants. Thus, the movement of the avatars would be perfectly legal.
It's essentially an opt-out system. You can control every last detail about your avatar and his armies if you want to, but you have to make the effort to do so. If you do not do so, you are essentially letting the Chancellor do whatever he wants. The burden is on the player to make his wishes clear, because doing otherwise would slow the game down too much.
The removal or non-removal of an avatar from a garrison is also a relatively minor thing, because the Chancellor can't disband the avatar and any 'erroneous' movement can simply be reversed by the player himself the next turn. This is in direct contrast with the garrisons, which are completely out of the player's control once they leave the settlement or fort. Those are lost to direct control when moved into the field if they do not end in a Private/Royal army. Avatars remain under direct control at all times.
Thats fair already and i like the tying of veto´s to authority, but i think that 0-3 veto´s might not cut enough influence to him, with that amount certain parties could "spam" similar edicts in order to get one through in any case, but of course i might be be just as well wrong about it. Personally i would give him authority to veto each and every edict in diet if it would come to that, of course that kind of behavior could lead into very short number of days of his remaining reign. Im sure the game will eventually show us how it will play out.:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Sorry, should prbly have posted in this thread.
I understand the rules now. I did not ask for Michiel to be moved, because I did not specifically want him to be moved. It would not have mattered much if he was moved, but that was not my intention.
I recognise, however, that this should have been made clear in my orders. I'm still getting my head around the rules :2thumbsup:
I agree that avatars should be different from garrisons etc.
What are the rules on a player personally moving their avatars? Is that only if they are commanding an army?
Hypothetically speaking, since the chancellor by law is allowed to move characters and armies for which there are no orders to the contrary and may engage them in battles, couldn't he use someone's avatar to declare war on another house or send someone on a boat trip or somesuch? Sure, its not something you'd normally do, but chancellors sometimes have an agenda too...
Regarding orders, might it be good to allow higher ups to command what their vassals should do? If the vassal also sends in orders, the vassal's take precedence, but if there are no conflciting (or no orders) from the vassal, his liege lord's orders would be binding.
I guess I don't understand a bit of the rules, can I move my Avatar and garrison out of Pamplona? Or does the Chancellor do it for me? :egypt:
PrinceofTroy,
My understanding is that during free move period, the one we're in right now, you can take the save and move your avatar and the garrison of your province. However, those men are not an assigned army, ie royal or private army, so if they end their turn outside the walls, the Chancellor has final say on their disposition. You always control your own avatar however.
If you don't feel like moving yourself by taking the save, you can always leave specific movement orders for the Chancellor and he is required to do them. However, if the moves are precise or tricky, you may want to do them yourself, as it might be difficult for the Chancellor to replicate exactly what you have in mind.
Edit: To clarify, you always have the option of controlling your own avatar, but if you don't leave orders for their disposition, the Chancellor can move them.
Ok, I think I get the idea.
I am not too sure about having the chancellor move avatars about at his own discretion thought.
If orders are left to the chancellor, everything is obviously fine.
However, it seems that if they are not, and I wanted to move, then that is completely in my control (via doing it myself)
Why then should it be beyond my control not to move?
It's a very minor point, but I foresee many a situation where people forget to update orders along the lines of "dont move me" because it may only apply for a turn.
I understand that we want to encourage people to keep up to date, but is there really any reason for the chancellor moving avatars without the players wanting it.
Note that this is not considering the above suggestions about lieges being able to move their vassals. That is somewhat less arbitrary, although it may still need to be discussed.
I just think the situation where someone inadvertedly forgets to explicitly state: "I dont want to be moved" will come up too often and cause frustration.
:egypt:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I think it is done to save the Chancellor some work. Otherwise, the Chancellor would have to guess what it was you wanted. The rule of thumb is, if you don't forbid something, the Chancellor can probably do it. If you don't want it done, then forbid it. That way, the Chancellor only has to keep track of what not to do. And then he has a free reign on the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
There are plenty of reasons and few of them are good for our characters. It is a good habit to get into giving very very clear and precise orders. :yes:Quote:
I understand that we want to encourage people to keep up to date, but is there really any reason for the chancellor moving avatars without the players wanting it.
You can post in the SOT. If you want to be sneaky, you can PM the Chancellor. If you want to be sneaky from the Chancellor, you can PM the player who plays the Chancellor and ask him OOC.Quote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
While I can certainly see the merit in allowing the Lord to give orders in the Vassal's absence, I am worried it might be a bit over-powered. If the lord and the Chancellor are allies, then the lord can just ask him to move the vassal. So far I think that works fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Just a reminder to those that seem afraid of havin the Chancellor control their actions to some extent. This is actually how it worked in KotR all the way up to the cataclysm. You never moved anything. You just suggested to the Chancellor and he could possibly do as he liked. There were rarely any problems with it.
I understand that the current system evolved after the cataclysm and I like it very much, though I never actually played under it. I just wanted to reassure people that giving the Chancellor the possibility to move your avatar isn't all that bad as it's made out here.
Furthermore coming back to deguerras example. Say you never want the Chancellor to move you. Just post a standing order in the SOT stating that the Chancelor may not move your avatar. That would be your default setting then. This does not prevent you from moving him around at will.
Yeh fair enough. All right, another point down. :2thumbsup:
Guy's,
Being nearly the first chancellor in KotR to have this 24 hour rule in place I'd like to say that the players do not have a strong case to argue movement issues given the opportunities being given to them.
Firstly you have 24 hours to do whatever you want, that may get extended, so if you are feeling a little "anally retentive" then do it yourself.
Secondly you have an Orders thread in which you have the capacity to provide as much or as little detail as you want.
With these two option open to a player, then I'd caution against any further rules trying to clarify this issue. There is little else that can be done to resolve the perceived problem further with these two options open to a player.
Again I'm also putting in a ":egypt:" because even I can see this sounds harsh...sorry guy’s, but it's pretty clear to me that we are splitting hairs to a degree.
If I was a "IC/OOC Chancellor/Player" I'd be a little short with people who can't manage themselves well enough with those mechanisms in place, and then wanted to "chat" with me about movement issues.
And Kag,
You wrote:
"Thats fair already and i like the tying of veto´s to authority, but i think that 0-3 veto´s might not cut enough influence to him, with that amount certain parties could "spam" similar edicts in order to get one through in any case, but of course i might be be just as well wrong about it. Personally i would give him authority to veto each and every edict in diet if it would come to that, of course that kind of behaviour could lead into very short number of days of his remaining reign. Im sure the game will eventually show us how it will play out."
TC has regulated that issue by limiting the numbers of Edicts and CA by ranks.
If you want to waste your finite ability to draft legislation then that can be a "game inside the game"...:2thumbsup:
Point taken AG.
My only issue ever was that you can't not move yourself, by yourself, without going through the chancellors thread, because theres no in-game way of locking your character.
But I am happy enough with everyone just posting a "don't move me without a specific order" order in the Orders thread (damn I was hoping I could work another "order" into that sentence :inquisitive: ), just so long as that is made clear to everyone.
:2thumbsup:
I agree deguerra, I think in the end there will be an agreed set of "legalised" statements that mean certain things when posted in the Orders thread.
TC could come up with a water tight sentence that prevents any loopholes being used by the Chancellor. Players can then just cut and paste that into their orders.
Anyway that's what I'd do if I had a hyper sensitive period in the game due to civil war or other potentially dangerous issues...of course I'd pay TC his usual fee for getting that wording set out for me :clown:
Actually I found it quite annoying during Ignoramus chancellorship where my avatar was moved towards Vienna against my wishes. Sure, he could have moved my army and it would have been borderline OK, but if it is my avatar and I don't want to be moved, then I don't think the chancellor should be allowed to move me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
What was worse with that was that he never actually replied to PMs or public concerns I sent his way about it.
Actually....:shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
I believe Igno was under extreme duress from the Order to do just that...at least that is what I recall. I don't think he replied to you because of that reason also...the Chronicles can confirm I think.
If you don't want your avatar moved, simply put it into writing in the SOT. Unlike the example FH gave about KotR, in this game you can do something about it.
Yep, if you don't want your avatar moved, it is very simple. Just write "Do not move Count Dracula in any way" or something along those lines. That's a hell of a lot faster than doing something inside the game and then re-uploading the save.
No, war on another house requires a Declaration of War in a public thread. Players can only make Declarations of War for themselves, though those declarations may also apply to their vassals. There is no way for a Chancellor to start a PvP war between two other people unless one of them is his vassal and he personally declares war on the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
He can definitely send people on boat trips though. And, more likely, the notorious watchtower building expedition. :laugh4:
Sorry about that FH. AussieGiant's right, it was "required by the Order", and Ulrich was quite stoked at getting elected so he obliged. I understand how annoying that would be, just as Stig got very annoyed when I effectively ruined the first attempt of the Russian Crusade(another of the Order's "requests"). To try and explain such a bizarre act is impossible, so in order not to betray the hand that fed me I had to remain silent.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
When I ignored people IC, I made sure to reply to them OOC. I understand that there are many reasons for one character to ignore another, but I don't like it when one player ignores another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
I share FH's frustration because I would send IC PM's just to watch them get lost in the .Org void. When I would finally send a frustrated OOC PM, I would be informed by someone that they were just ignoring me for IC reasons.
This happened multiple times with multiple people and I started to find it quite annoying and unfriendly. From then on, I vowed to answer every query. If I want my character to ignore someone, then I'll just PM them with a nice OOC letter saying, "you don't know why, but you never receive a reply from character X".
This allows for IC ignoring while still fostering a friendly game environment. :yes:
I suppose I should say here that King Philip ignored your avatar's private communication solely because if we actually managed to work out a solution the test game wouldn't be much fun, and our public discussion essentially covered the same ground. :laugh4:
:egypt:
Nah, I didn't mean you Ramses. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP
I don't expect people to reply to every single IC PM I send. I just meant that when my character asks specific questions, I'd at least like an OOC PM if the other person wants to ignore my character. If my letter is simply an announcement or statement, then I simply track them on the board to make sure they were received.
I do agree that it would be too easy for us to find reconciliation which is why I have limited my IC correspondence with Guillemot's enemies.
I find very little IC motive to continue a civil war and am only pursuing it for OOC reasons. Because if we're going to have a test game to test the civil war rules, then we actually need to have a civil war. :D
Yeah, and Philip's traits are such that I honestly think he would've offered you Marsellies and Ajaccio both to try to avoid a war. Then we trail down into trying to incorporate OOC forced moves into our character's personalities. It's definitely an odd situation.
:egypt:
Thats funny because I was thinking of having Guillemot ask for both. But that would have made for a really boring civil war... :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP
So it must be like that i havent read the new rules at all. I really appreciate that im being talked like a 4 year old.:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Oh wow. Just popping in to say that I totally agree with this post made a couple of pages back:
Gentlemen, let's keep in mind that while this discussion can and should be as dense as possible, the end result should be a lot more user-friendly than the KotR Charter was.Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight