No problem Ignoramus, I'm glad to be of help on all language-related topics. :beam:
Also I gotta say I love the timing of Stuperman! :2thumbsup:
Printable View
No problem Ignoramus, I'm glad to be of help on all language-related topics. :beam:
Also I gotta say I love the timing of Stuperman! :2thumbsup:
Whoa, in case anyone were wondering why I haven't been very active the last couple of days, I've been insanely busy. Hope I haven't missed anything too important.
Also just a quick note. According to the library, Jobst's last name is Salza, not Salva as everyone seems to call him ;)
Good catch - Warluster, please can you correct your user CP title, it's confusing everyone. Unless you are roleplaying a chap with a lisp or something. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jalf
https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/...ealps10xr8.png
Here's Sigismund's last battle results. I'll get the other one up soon.
Gosh, looks like a really close one. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Yeah, sorry about that, just couldn't wait to get my 2 pennies in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
That would slow the game down a lot, and now that I think about it my original question didn;t entirely make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Er... does that count as a battle? I'll definitely add it to the kill/loss ratio, but should I give a +1 to battles based on squashing 34 men?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Why not? It was a general after all.
idk... he lost 18 good men in the squishing of the 34... that may make it a battle... but a +1 idk bout that :laugh4:
so im going to DC this weekend (friday-monday) for our school band... yay St.Patricks Day Parade!
anyways... the voting is going till when?... because if its done before Monday at like 9 or 10 pm... (central standerd time USA) then i cant vote... so if it ends before then... is there a way to like cast my votes on the currents ones before i lose Internet tommarrow?
ty...
PS... i may get internet there... but idk...i dont have a labtop so im hoping that i get WiFi in the room to use dad's internet-phone thingy... but i doubt it'll work...
I noticed just before how his name was Salza not Salva, but I really liked the name Salva, so i kept it,
I will change it now...mumble,mumble
I'd normally say a battle against 34 would barely count as one, but with over a thousand men against 34? Thats not a battle, thats a manhunt
Tincow is maintaining the library, so it is up to him what he defines as a battle, but if he is counting the casualties, for consistency, I think he should count the battle.
IIRC, this was an encounter in which Sigismund and his escort fought the Milanese general and his escort, one on one - he ordered his army to keep out of it. I think it was a characterful and chivalrous encounter and personally would record it.
Due to Sigismunds chivalric nature he has fought out this particular 'battle' only using his own bodyguard against he enemies general.
So while the setup was not very balanced, the fighting itself was, so he should get the acknowledgement for this battle, if you ask me.
Edit: Too slow :beam:
I really should post those screenshots up. It was quite a colourful affair. Oh and econ, can you pop over to the Swabia forum?
Yep, a 1 on 1 fight definitely works. I'll give it a +1. That stats are really only for curiosity anyway.
Just some clarification reading the edicts. Do they need TWO seconders to go to a vote?? Also another post mentioned the limit of edicts per character I don't know if it was amended. Electors 3 Dukes 5 and Kaiser unlimited. We have not been following that if it does matter.
I was more curious about having two members required to second an edict.
I've never heard of that limit on edicts, but given the excessive number we have during this session, that might be a good idea. The requirement of two seconders has been enforced from the beginning and is definitely still in effect. That's one of the reasons that econ21 makes the edict summarys, so that we can see what has been seconded and what hasn't.
The issue on vote limiting was proposed as a Charter Amendment during our first Diet session where we had an equally high amount of Edicts being proposed. I have to agree that the situation becomes a bit messy, but usually many of the Edicts don't receive the required number of seconders to be voted upon.
Since we're discussing rules, I've got a question. Otto will soon become Duke of Bavaria. Nuremburg is the capital of Bavaria.
The way I read this, Max will lose control of Nuremburg, which will become Otto's domain. If this is the wish of Duke Otto, it should definitely be done. However, if for whatever reason Otto wants to allow Max to remain in control of Nuremburg, this rule seems to prohibit him from doing that. Is that right? Could this be gotten around by formally moving the capital of Bavaria or would that also be prohibited?Quote:
4.4 Dukes can then grant a settlement to a player, making him Count of that settlement. The settlements remain nominally within the relevant Duchy. There are no Counts at the start of the game. Capitals of a House need no Counts and cannot be given to them - they belong to the Duke (or his Steward)
I think relocating the capital would be a characterful way to get round that rule, TinCow.
On the number of edicts, I confess I am getting alarmed. I think I am going to propose a draconian Charter Ammendment, allowing only 2 edicts or ammendments to be proposed per player. We now have around 20 players, so there could still be 40 edicts. But it will make people prioritise and think a bit more about them. It should also encourage intra-House communication, as players with lots of ideas try to persuade others to propose them.
I think its a good idea. I dont want us to drown in bureocracy. I think that with 40 possible edicts we can decide all the matters possible for a single Chancellors reign.
If we need to limit the number of edicts proposed, let's do it in such a way as to utilize the House threads we've already got going. Let's do something like 1 to 2 edicts per Elector, with an extra 3 or 4 surplus per House which can only be posted by the Duke. So, if you want to propose edicts beyond your personal limit, you've got to convince your boss to support them. That would seem to play into our greater emphasis on the Houses.
I like that idea also Tincow. Maybe there should those two Edicts per Elector and a single or two house edicts,which could only used if the whole house agrees on the subject? I think this could create lot more discussion in the house threads.
I agree with TinCow's proposal on the matter, if any restriction will be put forward. But to be frank I don't see the point right now, we haven't even reached the 40 posts that the restriction would bring. I'm fine with the way it is now with some Electors posting many Edicts and others posting none.
Although I must say I'm intrigued by the In-House meanings of TinCows proposal.
Maybe another route would be to just generally hold back and instead of just proposing a list of Edicts,you start out with stating the personal opinion and agenda and see how other people react to it, before pressing it into a formalized Edict. The only problem I see right now is that we have many Edicts with similar meanings, but I'm even alright with that.
How about 2 edicts/elector + 2 House edicts, which must be proposed by the Duke and seconded by 2 electors of the same House? (avoids having to have formal votes within houses)
I don't want to be too generous on the numbers, as finding a like minded person to propose something should not be too hard.
Ituralde: I think the issue I have with the edicts is that some may be motherhood & apple pie stuff; others may be minutae that should be left up to the Chancellor. I think edicts should be for grand strategy and diplomacy - who do we attack/ally? I am not sure it would be much fun being a Chancellor with a checklist of 20+ tasks.
I think the 2 edicts/elector cap would in practice cut down the number of edicts dramatically - the 40 max is just to say if we desperately need 40 edicts, we could have them.
I agree with Econ´s last draft. I think in the future,the number of allowed edicts per Elector could be dropped even to 1+ couple house Edicts.. After all most people dont have lot to do specially at the times when the Chancellor reigns and this would allow for people to talk inside the houses and gather support/wrestle about the issues,they want to see proposed in the next Diet.
Yes the number of edicts has gone off the chart!
I'd say it's time to have the Dukes be the only ones proposing edicts and the House thread be used for the discussion on what each House wants to put forward.
I simply can't keep up and it's as if everyone is running off in a different direction.
In this form things would have to be discussed, thought out and persented in a co-ordinated fashion through a single point of representation rather than having 20 different agenda's trying to the tabled at the same time.
At the moment the overall effect it's reducing the significance of what people are trying to convey in the edicts.
What do you all think?
I'll go along with the Amendment, but Ituralde does have a point. I ran some stats and the 30 edicts and Amendment 5.1 were all proposed by 14 people. Of these, only 2 people proposed more than 2. Of those two, one was Ituralde himself, but since he's a Duke he would get the extra +2 anyway, so he'd only really be 1 edict over. So, under the proposed system the only serious violation would be the Fifth Elector of Swabia, who proposed 8. It looks to me like the 2 + 2 restrictions would cut down only slightly on the proposed edicts. In order to have a major cut down, it would have to be 1 + 2. I'm not saying we should do that, just puting the information out there.
Alright, I think I can see the point of making the House threads a kind of filter for the Diet. So I'll go with the last proposal made by econ21.
I just generally like for those things to regualte themselves without putting harsh measurements on them, but maybe in this case it's better to make official restriction to let it happen.
Good work on the stats, TinCow. Ok, it's disproportionate to have a Charter Ammendment just to beat down on one Elector. :sweatdrop: Let's beat down on all of us. :whip:
How about: 1 edict/elector; a kind of "private member's bill" as we call it in the UK
Plus 3 edicts/Duke which must be presented with the support (seconding) of 2 same House members. (i.e. should be discussed in-House first).
My current feeling is a bit ambigious. I know I would not have liked that too much back when I was just a simple Elector, but maybe it will become better. I had hoped that just by discussing the issue all player (me included) would automatically cut back on the Edicts.
And there's still the two seconders to consider that are needed for an Edict to become reality for any Chancellor. So my gut says that 1 vote per Elector is too little, but then TinCows numbers indicate otherwise.
I'd give it a try to see how it works, but am not opposed to let it fall if it doesn't work out and you feel like you can't get important issues raised within the Diet.
Should we give it a trial period then? Do it like this for the next session, but only make it permanent if people again vote to do so?
Im ready to give it a try.Ofcourse we can chance it,if it doesnt work. I would be ready also that the Dukes should have complete support of his counts in order to create house Edict. This would give more power to the Counts also and the Dukes should really work hard also to create house edicts,ofcourse by bribery,threatening and blackmailing.~;) Is it just me or are we moving all the time more towards a more feodal system?:book:
Ahem... speaking of a feudal system, Dukes have to have heirs.
To my knowledge, no Duke has named an heir. This should probably be done and is another good way to 'reward' a loyal Count. Removal of heir status would make a good threat as well.Quote:
4.7 Dukes and Counts should name a successor, who will take over their titles and settlements when they die. If no successor is named, the oldest natural son inherits, (if none, oldest adopted son; if none again, then the oldest son-in-law).
Now are we seriously proposing regulations on making edicts?
The bureaucracy is going to grind us to a halt soon.
Dukes, the only Steward, the Chancellor the Kaiser and Prinz Henri. Done.
All other electors use the House Threads to thrash out and collate their respective ideas and they then get sent in by the 4 house dudes.
The Electors can petition the other 3 by PM's or public requests.
More numbers and more rules...:wall:
I'm not trying to sound harsh but we only each have a limited amount of time to play this game and I can see the technicalities and reference material not even being used because it is becoming so cumbersome.
Well, I'm all for a feudal system, this is MEDIEVAL, after all! :yes:
Well Dietrich is on a bad spot there,since his line will die with him on the mans side.He has the little daughter,but it will take bit of time before she grows up and Dietrich might not see that,but die of old age before. Im personally thinking about naming the heir of Franconia during and after the next Chancellors reign. To make it even more complicated he has two adopted oldest sons of same age.:sweatdrop: I like the direction we are going with this amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
2 things:
Firstly, I guess I have been proposing too many edicts - I guess some of them are common sense, but seeing the past edicts also being of the same type, I proposed them. Others are actually (i feel) important policy issues.
I can agree with econ21's suggestion that there should in the future be only 2 edicts per elector, although personally I feel 3 would be better (since most will not propose any or less than 3 anyway) Besides, without seconding, an edict never becomes an edict either.
Secondly, I am wondering what the policy on battles is. I noticed in the Imperial Library that only mentions of "battles fought" are listed but not divided in "battles won" vs "battles lost". Does that mean the comanding player gets to reload as much as he wants until he wins a battle (and does not die as a general)?!? I would have thought 1st attempt only would be fair (although it might be hard to enforce unless several electors go to the player's home and watch :p) but could still be as a code of honor.
This is a valid point as well. It should really be a heirarchy of responsibility. Obviously the Chancellor will have to keep track of a great deal of rules and information, but that's a voluntary position so no one should complain about it. Dukes have less responsibilities, but more than most, but they should be somewhat voluntary as well (refuse to be heir if you don't want it). Counts have few responsibilities and only need to remember to submit build queues. Electors don't need to know much at all, unless they want to rise in rank, which again would be a voluntary decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
If you guys want, I will be happy to clean up the rules and write a simple "How To" for all the various positions. I think I could make it pretty simple so that most of the roles can be explained in brief terms in a paragraph or two. Then, if people want more info on the specifics they can refer to the full rules list.
Exactly :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
Geez TinCow, Max wants Nuremberg and to be named Otto's heir :dizzy2: ? I shudder to think what will happen to poor Otto if Max is elected.
"Yes my Duke, I'm dispatching you with a unit of peasants to assault Corsica, Godspeed!" :laugh4:
Seriously though, Otto will probably shift the Bavarian capital to Innsbruck, his original County. This shift takes into account the new territories of Bavaria and is more central.
As for an heir, besides Max, who isn't on the family tree, it's slim pickings for Bavaria, not to mention Austria as well. The best I could do for the moment is appoint Max Regent, assuming Otto has kids, in case of Otto's early demise.
As for CA 5.2, I'm all for encouraging house cooperation. A good majority of the proposed edicts don't make it to the ballot anyway. It'll be good to have a pre-screening process in the House threads.
The "battles fought" thing doesnt mean anything because no general has lost a battle yet. The only losses we have had so far have been auto-calced and so they don't show up on any Bios. I will certainly list battle losses for avatars when they happen. Reloading is strictly forbidden.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
LOL, I wasn't refering to Bavaria at all actually. It wouldn't make any sense for Max to be heir, just doesnt work for RP. I really was just talking about Swabia and Franconia, since they have a ton of candidates for the positions.
It would be good to add that part into the rules then, because I didn't find it there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I think some one else, should second the amendment. Dietrich shouldnt be jumping up and down to the speaker stand on his advanced age.:clown:
Mandorf raised an interesting point in the diet, which was that fleets can only carry one unit [sic] per ship. If I remember correctly, the rules stated 2?
Even so, I feel this is kind of unrealistic and this is why:
1 ship unit actually consists of 30 ships (small unit size, dunno how much on large) and 1 peasant unit consists of 60 peasants (on small unit size). Since those likely can be extrapolated, this would mean that each ship (not ship unit) can only carry 2-4 (depending on who is right) peasants (not peasant unit)?!? Those ships surely can carry more historically? I'd say 4 units per ship at the very least... maybe 3 for balancing purposes.
My apologies about the 1 unit per ship thing. That was the WOTS rule and I forgot that we changed it to 2 for KOTR.
That would be great TC. I also believe that a feudal top down hierarchy is a good way to go. Econ's given enough leeway for personal agenda's but it would make things a little more like the real situation we are role playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
What about the changing of the Reich's capital? For instance, if we conquer all of Poland, then Frankfurt would be too far west to be an effective capital.
I assume it requires an edict in the Diet?
Good question. I'd like to see that be a power given to the Kaiser. Let him move the capital to wherever he wants whenever he wants.
Hmm... or how about once Rome is captured, the capital must be at Rome, since you are the HRE? In WoTS, the question nvr actually came up.
I see the edict restrictions generated some conversation. It was early morning and I hadn't gotten through my first cup of java doing some reasearching and I saw this post.
Swabian Elector: My fellow electors, I have noticed the enthusiasm in which many of you have put forward your proposals, however, the Diet's time is limited, so I propose the following:
Edict 1.21: Each elector is only allowed to put forward 3 edicts to the Diet. Dukes are allowed 5, while the Chancellor has no limit.
I jsu got home and followed the post through and seen that it died on the 1st Diet floor. However there were some good suggestions made. I was just a bit overwhelmed to read through the Edicts being purposed before econ cleans them up and list them. I think the house idea works and then the Diet post can talk what has been proposed and seconded by the House. Good try for the next session.
StoneCold - do you want to take up a role in this PBM? I suspect I've asked you this before and maybe you said you don't have M2TW, but as you can see we have a fair number of Electors without avatars so you joining in a kind of "Upper House" role would be fine. For example, we're stopping the Franconians getting any more avatars for the moment, but they could use a 5th Elector. If my memory is wrong and you do have M2TW, then you could join as a conventional participant.
well... im off to Washington DC :2thumbsup: for 4 days... St. Patricks day parade... if your there and you watch it... look for Ross High School Band... i plat the Suzaphone on the left... :beam: anyways... i left in the diet... and i may get internet there long enough to vote if i wont get back in time... sry to everyone missing my lovly and informitive speaches on poland... :laugh4:
have fun... and dont kill eachother!
I'm writing up the rules summary and I've got a question about one of the rules.
Does this mean that when Henry (and any other Prince) becomes Emperor, he can instantly kick out the elected Chancellor and take that post for himself?Quote:
5.2 Once in his reign, typically when crowned, the Emperor can automatically assume the post of Chancellor.
I guess so. Perhaps you won't want to run for Chancellor this term? Of course Heinrich could live for a while yet, although most charcters die at 60.
No, I was thinking instead of an election, a new Emperor can become Chancellor to make his mark - like GH did at the start of this PBM. So he would wait for the Diet after his father's death.
That makes sense.
Ok, here's my draft of the game summary. I've designed it in a simple -> complex manner, so that newcomers can pretty much stop reading after the Electors section if they really want. I wrote it assuming that Amendments 5.1 and 5.2 would pass. If they don't I'll edit it appropriately. The more you read, the more detail you get. I've looked at the Rules but I'm becoming reluctant to edit them at all, even to make them look nice, simply because I don't want to accidentally change their meaning.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Concise and clear TC, I did notice one thing. . .when talking about edicts you wrote:
These can be very wide ranging in scope, but typically include such things as declaring war against another nation, attacking a specific target, or seeking an alliance with an enemy.
You might want to rewrite it as something like this, ". . .seeking an alliance with a neutral country, or making peace with an enemy nation."
Other than that, very well done. :2thumbsup:
Very well done an easy read. Nice to get a refresher while in the game.:2thumbsup:
LOL... yeah, no alliance with enemies. Changed that.
I like the limit edicts as well, and the idea of several ducal or house sponsered edicts is very interesting I think. A couple of questions though, could say, a swabian elector have their edict put foreward by the duke of Franconia, or smoething like that?
and edict 5.18 and 5.20 give orders concering what to build, but since this is under the watch of Govener's and the like, and edicts are for the Chancellor to follow, aren't they kinda useless?
I guess if you asked really nicely, then an elector from another house could propose an edict for you, but it would be their one edict, not a House one. The thinking, as far as I can tell, was to encourage use of the House threads to craft edicts for the Diet as a team effort.
As for mandating building queues, yup edicts can't do that. However, in the last Diet I put forward an edict, which passed, that called for the Chancellor to build navies in the Med and Baltic, and I encouraged the building of port facilities. So you can't mandate construction of buildings in edicts, but you can encourage or suggest buildings.
Here's how I phrased it:
Edict 3.11: The Chancellor will endeavor to construct naval forces capable of blockades and transport of mid-sized armies in the Baltic and especially the Mediterranean. Dukes and Counts are encouraged by the Diet to build port facilities in their domains, if applicable.
Hope that helps.
I am glad that a limit was imposed on edicts. I tried to do this in the first Diet, but then there weren't so many edicts so it didn't pass.
I am going to make one post in Diet proposing my edicts and answering edicts put forward. It's going to take a while.
Also, I really need to discuss "certain matters" with Otto, OverKnight, so expect a message soon.
Well done TC.
You have a gift my man!! :2thumbsup:
Well done TC.
You have a gift my man!! :2thumbsup:
Governors and Dukes should post build queues by Monday.
Let's assume the Household armies ammendment goes through - Dukes should post:
(a) where they want their Household army garrisoned (does not have to be a settlement)
(b) who should lead it
(c) what standing orders it has
During the Chancellor's reign, Dukes can liase with the Chancellor to react to events, but to keep the game running smoothly the obligation is on the Dukes to keep up to date (e.g. download saves occasionally) and Chancellors are not obliged to obey orders made between Diets (e.g. they may have played on).
In terms of the voting, I am thinking of opening the balloting on Saturday night and closing it Monday night (UK time). That should give everyone a chance to vote.
Hi All,
Ok so some news.
The timing could not be worse.
I'm heading to Australia from Switzerland this Saturday for three weeks holiday.
That means I'll be "in the air" for most of the voting period.
I'll be in Perth from about 18:00 local time on my dad's dial up connection so that should give me enough badwidth to click a few buttons.
For the rest of the 3 weeks I'll have very limited ability to read and respond to what is going on.
I hope this doesn't deter me from getting an Avatar if one pops up.
Tonight I'll be online of course in between all the packing.
Cheers
AG
GH stated that the Diet would stay open for one day longer than you originally posted. Since he's Kaiser, he has the right to do that. That would make it 8am Sunday, GMT. Informally, I think he did that so that he could get back from his trip before voting ended. He said he would be back Sunday night, EST. So, your close date/time looks fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
It comes with being a "blood sucking" lawyer. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
You've been very active, so we should do everything we can to help out. It might be wise to pre-vote for your candidate and Edicts. Just assume that they all get seconded and send econ21 a PM that says "5.1 - Yes, 5.2 - No, 5.3 - ..." etc. If you get back in time, you can put in the vote anyway, but if you don't he could use your PM to add in your votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
I originally posted closing the Diet Saturday 8am. The problem is I can't guarantee posting on the Org at 8am on a Sunday morning - I can't guarantee doing anything at 8am Sunday - and polls can only be open for a given number of days, not hours. So, we have a choice - open the polls on Saturday night for 48 hours; or open Sunday whenever sleepy head gets up for 24 hours. Given the weekend tends to be rather a quiet time at the Org, the former option seems better to me but I'll go along with whichever choice people want.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Hey TC,
YOU'RE A LAWYER!!
Mother of Mary :laugh4:
I'll do as you suggested and PM econ and see if he is happy with that.
Cheers
Ok so there is not real need to PM you Econ.
As TC suggests can I send you my votes so you can do it for me?
Cheers
AG
Oh and Ituralde,
Can you PM me your voting preferences?
Yes, anyone can PM me with their voting preferences. I'll add them in manually when making the final tally.
I'm adding the military ranks to the Library bios. In doing so, I remembered that there was some discussion about what to do with the Field Marshall rank several days ago. It was suggested that this would become an excessive position if the Household Armies were enacted. Well... how about we just give the title of Field Marshall to the commanders of the Household Armies? That's very much in-line with the intention of the FM position, since the Household Armies can't be abolished without Ducal permission and the Field Marshal exists independent of the Chancellor.
I am also going to draft a "Rule Cleanup Amendment." There seem to be a lot of Rules which have become wholey or partly obsolete as we've developed the game. There are also some that we're not using quite in the manner that we intended them to. I think we really should formally re-write them to keep them in-line with how we're playing now and to make sure that there aren't any future problems from Rule confusions or conflicts. Since this needs to be done by a formal Chartar Amendment, I'll write one up and we can vote it in, but since it's entirely OOC and rule based, can I just propose it and discuss it in here?
Tincow.If we give the commanders of the Ducal armies,the title Field Marshall,would that also mean that The Duke couldnt change the commander of the army to another count or knight,when he would for example want the army to move into other parts of the Duchy?
I like having the rank of Feld Marshall be separate. Yeah, it wouldn't have much in game meaning, but it would be a nice honorific to have if your Avatar has been around forever and has fought many huge battles. Anyone can be a General or Commander, but you have to earn FM. Even if the only benefit is you get to tell long winded stories in the Diet about how you refused a flank and killed the Milanese Duke in one on one combat 40 years ago.
I'm not saying keep the current Field Marshall rule, just call the commanders of the Household Armies Field Marshalls as a point of prestige above Army Commander.
Here's my Rule Cleanup Amendment. There's actually not as much stuff to fix as I thought.
These are just proposals, so suggest more, disagree, etc.Quote:
Charter Amendment 5.3: This Amendment revises several Game Rules to keep them updated and prevent future confusions. The following Rules are revised as listed.
All lines with strikethroughs will be permanently removed.
Rule 2.4 is revised to state: 2.4 The Chancellor is elected every 10 turns. Incumbent Chancellors can run for re-election if they wish.
Rule 3.7 is revised to state: 3.7 Every 10 turns, or on the death or impeachment of the Chancellor, there is an election for the post of Chancellor. Ties lead to a fresh ballot. A second tie is decided by seniority (avatar age). Voting is open for 2 days.
Rule 5.2 is revised to state: The Emperor may automatically assume the post of Chancellor. If the Emperor chooses to do so, no Elector can run against him. The Emperor can only exercise his right of un-opposed election during the first Chancellorship term that begins immediately after his coronation. The Emperor may run in future elections, but must compete in them as normal.
Rule 6.4 will have the following words deleted from it “get a permanent +1 influence and”
Rule 6.6 is revised to state: 6.6 The title of Field Marshall shall be given to the commanders of the Household Armies for the duration of their command.
Thanks TinCow for all the effort you put into so many parts of the game. The Library, now the guide and the revising of rules, I'm really glad we have you onboard! :2thumbsup:
Concerning the revisal of 5.2, I always understood it that the Emperor can run for Chancellor unopposed once in his lifetime, not only at the beginning of his rule. I think it said usually at the beginning, in the original rule, but this is not mandatory.
Also to what OverKnight said about building related Edicts. Your Edict about the ships was aimed primarily at Recruitment though, which is totally all right by the rules as it falls into the Chancellor's domain. Even a recommendational Edict concerning build queues can not be followed by the Chancellor. The only thing you can do is express your concerns in the Diet and hope that the appropriate Dukes/Counts listen to you.
If the Emperor is to take chancellorship, can he be impeached during his term? I mean if noone actually wanted the emperor to become chancellor or wanted someone else to become chancellor, wouldn't people just kick the current emperor/chancellor out to force their own election?
Thanks, TinCow. :bow: I'll have a look at the rules again tonight and get back to you about the housekeeping ammendment.
With no mid-terms any more, impeachment requires an emergency session of the Diet and only the Emperor can call that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Ah, so he basically couldn't get impeached eh?
So what if he then sends everyone on suicide missions (imagine an emperor being crowned who has the "Deranged" line of traits)