Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

The Republic of Rome» Forums » Rules

Subject: Priests and Consul for Life rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jon Horne
United States
Whitehall
Michigan
flag msg tools
Mr. Axle can do all for you.
badge
Apologize again!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay, here's the scenario.

A Senator with 21 Influence uses a Tribune to force a Consul for Life vote. One of his Influence is from a priesthood he assigned himself back when he controlled the Pontifex Maximus. The new PM reassigns the priest away from the CfL candidate before the vote is finished. So, which happens?

A) The Senator is no longer a viable candidate, so the vote is cancelled (and does this still count as the one CfL vote for the turn?).

B) Vote proceeds as normal, but candidate only gets 20 bonus votes from his Influence.

C) Pontifex cannot reassign a priesthood in mid-vote.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
upandawaygames.com
United States
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
(C) would be the best solution, but it's probably difficult to find support for it in the rules. The game has a large number of problems of this kind, actually, when status changes in the middle of an operation. It's difficult to cover them all. Fortunately they don't come up super frequently.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
When unsure about the correct response in a multiple choice question always go with C.
I agree, this is the best option but there appears to be no clear expression of it in the rules.
I suppose someone might argue that there is, and it's in the declaration that the PM has the ability to reassign priests at any time.
But I think the defense of it is found in the description of the senate phase business, in which voting is under the absolute control of the HRAO, and that factions must vote immediately when called upon. There's an immediacy about this that suggests nothing else can be going on.

I guess, from now on you decide ahead of time, knowing now that this dilemma exists.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
upandawaygames.com
United States
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another angle on this, which I don't necessarily support, but should be mentioned is that of player error. The Pontifex should not have waited until this vote came up, but done it earlier. For his part, the CFL could have anticipated this and spent a few talents to get one more influence so this didn't become an issue.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Damerell
msg tools
tanik wrote:
But I think the defense of it is found in the description of the senate phase business, in which voting is under the absolute control of the HRAO, and that factions must vote immediately when called upon.


But the HRAO is not obliged to call for votes immediately, and in this case, where the Senator used a Tribune to force the vote, we know the HRAO does not control the Senator. Presumably the opposite would be true; the HRAO would decline to call the vote until the Pontifex Maximus had done their thing.

I incline to B. You need 21 influence to be proposed for Consul for Life, not to keep that influence during the vote.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
damerell wrote:
tanik wrote:
But I think the defense of it is found in the description of the senate phase business, in which voting is under the absolute control of the HRAO, and that factions must vote immediately when called upon.


But the HRAO is not obliged to call for votes immediately, and in this case, where the Senator used a Tribune to force the vote, we know the HRAO does not control the Senator. Presumably the opposite would be true; the HRAO would decline to call the vote until the Pontifex Maximus had done their thing.

I incline to B. You need 21 influence to be proposed for Consul for Life, not to keep that influence during the vote.


Yes, the HRAO could certainly take his time--and leave lots of room for say, an assassination attempt--but I was thinking that whether he wants it to happen or not, voting seems to be one of those things that's sacrosanct, and can't be interrupted--except by an assassination attempt. Not sure of the intent, but that makes sense to me.
Frankly, though, any one of the options has merit, and could be adopted by agreement of all players.
It would be interesting to see what the whole RoR community thinks about this.
How about a vote? Maybe we could get a wider response.
Anybody want to offer support for option A? (I would assume that this would constitute the one and only attempt for the turn, if this were the answer.)


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
upandawaygames.com
United States
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We can say "agree on it before the game", but in practice is anyone really going to do that for such a corner case? And if one were, there are probably a dozen more similar cases to cover as well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
AxleKerrigan wrote:
Okay, here's the scenario.

A Senator with 21 Influence uses a Tribune to force a Consul for Life vote. One of his Influence is from a priesthood he assigned himself back when he controlled the Pontifex Maximus. The new PM reassigns the priest away from the CfL candidate before the vote is finished. So, which happens?

A) The Senator is no longer a viable candidate, so the vote is cancelled (and does this still count as the one CfL vote for the turn?).

B) Vote proceeds as normal, but candidate only gets 20 bonus votes from his Influence.

C) Pontifex cannot reassign a priesthood in mid-vote.


Poll
Given the OP's description, which interpretation do you favour?
A) The Senator is no longer a viable candidate.
B) Vote proceeds as normal, but candidate only gets 20 bonus votes from his Influence.
C) Pontifex cannot reassign a priesthood in mid-vote, and vote continues.
      25 answers
Poll created by tanik


Perhaps we could thumb the thread in order to gather a wider audience.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
heli wrote:
We can say "agree on it before the game", but in practice is anyone really going to do that for such a corner case? And if one were, there are probably a dozen more similar cases to cover as well.


I agree it sounds like a pretty rare event.
The aspect of it that may occur more frequently, though, is the reassignment, mid vote-- for any purpose--of the priest. Do we like this idea, or is it that a vote cannot be interrupted in this way?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Rodriguez
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
tanik wrote:
heli wrote:
We can say "agree on it before the game", but in practice is anyone really going to do that for such a corner case? And if one were, there are probably a dozen more similar cases to cover as well.


I agree it sounds like a pretty rare event.
The aspect of it that may occur more frequently, though, is the reassignment, mid vote-- for any purpose--of the priest. Do we like this idea, or is it that a vote cannot be interrupted in this way?



I would vote for A) and say that you may not call for another CfL election.

I say this because there are actions that can absolutely occur mid vote - assassination and tribunes being options.

I would model it around vetos and assassinations (1.09.721) with the assumption that the eligible candidate is simply not eligible so the vote is canceled immediately.

However the nomination did occur.

It is a very unusual situation however I could arguments for the other options.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The rules would support B the best.

1.09.82 (Living Rules v2.16) state that the 21 influence is required for nomination, not for election. Nothing supports A, that the Senator is no longer a viable candidate. Likewise, C is directly contradicted in the rules which state that reassignment of priests can take place anytime. I haven't seen anything in the rules that makes option B problematic.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Horne
United States
Whitehall
Michigan
flag msg tools
Mr. Axle can do all for you.
badge
Apologize again!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My initial gut feeling was the same as John's, that the Senator was no longer eligible. However, without considering designer intent, I think that damerell and Ward make the most compelling argument. Tanik's poll shows a strong preference for option B as well, so that's how I'll play it if it comes up.

tanik wrote:
I agree it sounds like a pretty rare event.
The aspect of it that may occur more frequently, though, is the reassignment, mid vote-- for any purpose--of the priest. Do we like this idea, or is it that a vote cannot be interrupted in this way?

I agree, although the only other time that it would be relevant is during a prosecution, where the accused gets to add his Influence to his votes. Still, if it saves a Senator from being pitched off the Tarpeian Rock, then I would say it's very relevant. Again, I think the reassignment can be done mid-vote. Think of it as a character witness!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Just in case anyone's still following this, I've just checked the poll and to summarize (after 16 votes) it shows a pretty clear peference (52%) for the priesthood reassigning to go ahead and the vote continuing. Thanks for your input everybody.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.