From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Subject: Re: Republic of ROME question, HELP
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:53:29 GMT

In article <1k522jINNnt0@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters) writes:
>Melvin H. Nicholson writes:
>
>>Exactly.  If the state goes bankrupt, the Rebel must count himself as a
>>war in his attempt to keep Rome standing.
>
>ok... How about if the senate doesn't send an army against the rebel at all?
>Is the civil war still ongoing in this case?
>
Hmm.  I was under the impression that all legions in Rome which aren't
sent elsewhere come combat phase AUTOMATICALLY defend Rome (the rebel
must come to Rome, not Rome to the rebel).  Wether a military leader is
assigned to these armies is another question (decided by the senate).

The war would be ongoing then only in case of a stalemate (as usual)

>>3) if the censor is either the victim of a successful assination where
>>the assassin is caught, or is a caught assassin, who conduct the
>>prosecution?
>
>Last line of 9.84: The Censor is not involved in this prosecution. (So it
>doesn't make any difference.) I would imagine that whoever was presiding
>at the moment of the attempt would conduct the prosecution (after all, 
>_someone_ has to call for votes etc.) Does this sound ok to you? 
>
>Of course this just begs another question: what if _that_ guy was involved
>somehow in the assassination? I would say the HRAO conducts it, but for
>this purpose the defendant is not considered "Available". I would even 
>prefer to add that any member of the defendant's faction is not "Available"
>for this purpose. ("Available" = the "A" in "HRAO".)
>
>By the book, "Available" simply means alive and in Rome. The book gives no
>exceptions to this, so the answer I gave to your question has the problem 
>that there is no precedent for making such exceptions.

I agree that the defendent should not call votes, but given the way
interest dealing work in Rome, the non-defendent HRAO should call, even
if it is a member of the same faction (after all, faction membership had
no real legal status)
>
>This reminds me of another one of my questions:
>
>Suppose the HRAO steps down to avoid influence loss (9.34). Suppose this
>happens before prosecutions. (for example: new RC has trouble electing a
>Censor and steps down; FC conducts Censor election.) When the prosecutions
>are over, does the HRAO preside again (which is the literal meaning of 9.46)
>or does the guy who was presiding immediately before prosecutions started
>preside again (which is what I think was more likely the intended rule)?

I *know* this one is answered.  When the presiding magistrate steps down
to avoid losing influence, he is stripped of his office (and therefore
his rank)  This means that after the RC steps down in this way, he is no
longer the RC (and therefore cannot be sent to war).  The new HRAO is
the field consul (assuming he's not been assinated or anything like that).
>
>Now suppose the HRAO steps down after prosecutions, and suppose the presiding
>dude gets sent off to war. He's not the HRAO, so the Senate Phase doesn't end,
>if we take the book literally. Is this a mistake? I.e., when it says "Passage
>of any measure sending the HRAO to War ends the Senate Phase" (middle of 9.65)
>should "HRAO" read "presiding magistrate"?

As per the above interpretation of who the HRAO is, HRAO and Presiding
Magistrate become synomous (except for prosecutions, during which no one
is sent to war anyway)
>
[further implications of the HRAO marker non passing when stepping down
from office deleted --- the contorted rules questions which arise by not
passing the HRAO status seem to make a strong case for passing it]
>
>In effect, my opinion here is equivalent to saying that anyone who has stepped
>down is no longer "Available" that turn, thus making another exception to the
>usual definition.

I would prefer to say the person is no longer "Ranking" (but the effect
is pretty much the same).  The only other case I can see is if *all* the
officers step down (okay, this is contrived and unlikely to happen, but
throw in a few assinations to speed things up and it's possible, though
unlikely) and one of the people who stepped down then was in line to
take the Magistrate job again, could he?  I'd like to rule "no" as a
sort of aesthetic ruling, but don't see any reason why from the rules
as stated (other than some weak analogy arguments)

>An unrelated (and slightly silly) question:
>
>How do you handle "DRAW 2" in multiple chit draws? Take Epidemic for example.
>Which of the following procedures do you do?
>
[in drawing chits, should you A) draw the total number, then replace
"draw two" chits and recurse (verbal form of recursion) or B) draw one
chit at a time, immediately replacing DRAW 2 chits as drawn, adding two
to the number remaining to be drawn]

The rules don't specify, and while I'd argue that B is more correct
since ordered drawing is allready indicated by the fact the the "last"
mortality chit drawn in a stalemate indicates capture (rather than
death), the difference in terms of odds is so slight that I would not at
all be offended if A were chosen for practicallity.

Now to turn this around.  Return to the stalemate/capture issue  Assuming
you use method B, and the "last" chit drawn is "draw 2" : do you now
draw two chits to check for capture, or one for death and the other for
cpature?  (I'd rule the latter with the rules as written, but see the
former as being a "prettier" rule:

	if (casulaties) {
		DrawDeathChits(casualties - 1);
		DrawCaptureChits(1);
	}

Mel