Dan Drontle
United States
Saint Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Sorry if this question has been answered previously. Section 9.3 addresses the process of suing for peace. This came up in a game we played (and we house ruled it because it seems crazy).

France and the Hapsburgs were at war and both managed to lose a leader to the other side. The Hapsburgs, because the leader in question was Charles V, were forced to sue for peace to get him back.

Here was the problem we ran into: Section 3 of suing for peace "Give up Control" specifically states that the losing power must return all of the winning powers home spaces that the loser currently controls, but does not address the return of captured leaders.

Section 6 specifically states that the losing power can recover a captured leader at the cost of a card draw or VP given to the winner.

No where in section 9.3 does the rulebook address how the war winner(in the example given, France) gets his leader back. Section 9.4(Ransom of Leaders) does state that, "a captured leader whose return was not negotiated in the Negotiated segment." However, this negotiation can be refused, leading to the awkward (and in my opinion indefensibly illogical) situation where the war loser can (and must) get his captured leader back, but the war winner can be refused.

Our house rule was that section 3 of 9.3 also applied to captured leaders for the war winner and that they also get any captured leaders back in addition to captured home spaces.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evgeny Reznikov
Israel
Haifa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Winner's leaders are not returned during sue for peace, as far as I know (because there's no rule stating they are).

Also, you're confusing some rules:

First, you do the Negotiations segment (9.1), in which people can exchange items they both agree on (including the return of leaders), for whatever price they want to settle for.

Then, you can sue for peace (9.3). The suing side has to return control of all the other side's home spaces, and disband two units, and award the other side War Winner VP, to make the war end.
All other things the suing side wants to recover are optional subject to the suing side's decision to get them back or not (keys, non key spaces and captured leaders) and will award the other side either a card draw or additional VPs (or some of each).

Then, in the ransom segment(9.4), any player (including both the losing and winning players in that suit for peace, but not limited to them), can get back a captured leader, by giving the capturing player a card draw from his hand. This does not require the capturing player's consent.

Therefore, the losing side in the war may (but not must) get his leaders back in the sue for peace segment (for a VP or a card draw to the war winner for each leader) or in the ransom segment (for a card draw for each leader).
The winner's leaders remains captured during a peace suit, but he may likewise pay for them in the ransom segment, without requiring the other side's approval.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Drontle
United States
Saint Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Okay- you are correct that the leader could be returned as a separate arrangement between both powers in 9.1, though that would have to be specifically arranged for that to happen.

However, I do disagree with one of your other points. Specifically, 9.4 DOES require the capturing players consent- from the relevant section: "However, there is never any requirement to ransom an army leader; a power may choose to let him remain a captive indefinitely."

This is my problem with the rules as written: section 9.3 mandates that, as long as the losing power is willing to pay for their leader (with either a VP or random card draw), the winning power MUST return that leader. However, for the war winner, there is no mechanism that guarantees that they get their leader back, because a player can sue for peace unexpectedly (in the game I played that is exactly what the Hapsburg player did), so negotiating as described in 9.1 may not be feasible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Drontle
United States
Saint Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Consider if France had sued for peace first- they could have kept Charles the Fifth as a captive for as long as they wanted- and indeed, considering how powerful his ability is, I would be tempted to keep him as a permanent captive.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristian Thy
Denmark
Taastrup
flag msg tools
Together, we are the United Nations
badge
Gunulfr ok Øgotr ok Aslakr ok Rolfr resþu sten þænsi æftir Ful, felaga sin, ær warþ ... døþr, þa kunungar barþusk.
Avatar
mb
crazypumaman wrote:
However, I do disagree with one of your other points. Specifically, 9.4 DOES require the capturing players consent- from the relevant section: "However, there is never any requirement to ransom an army leader; a power may choose to let him remain a captive indefinitely."


You are misreading this rule. Any power can choose to pay a card draw during the Ransom Segment to recover a captured ruler. This does not, repeat not, require the consent of the capturing power. The verb "ransom" means "obtain the release of (a prisoner) by making a payment demanded", i.e. it is an action done by the power owning the leader.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin
United States
San Diego area
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
turbothy wrote:
crazypumaman wrote:
However, I do disagree with one of your other points. Specifically, 9.4 DOES require the capturing players consent- from the relevant section: "However, there is never any requirement to ransom an army leader; a power may choose to let him remain a captive indefinitely."


You are misreading this rule. Any power can choose to pay a card draw during the Ransom Segment to recover a captured ruler. This does not, repeat not, require the consent of the capturing power. The verb "ransom" means "obtain the release of (a prisoner) by making a payment demanded", i.e. it is an action done by the power owning the leader.


Evgeny and Kristian are correct. What 9.4 is saying is that a power doesn't have to pay to get their leader back if they don't want to. If someone *does* want their leader back, however, you have to take the card draw and return him.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Drontle
United States
Saint Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Wow! That is confusing wording on that rule. Thanks for clarifying it for me, everyone.
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.