Conscripts — Levy & Leidang

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

No,it just means he can't call out all the levy that is available.

[Ohlaak (Alan)]

No,it just means he can't call out all the levy that is available.

Indeed. You can only call out levies when you control manor holdings.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

there is only one ship available per leidang action. So controlling a single manor holding is enough to take full advantage of the action.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

It isn't common for the domain ruler (liege) of a landed realm to control a majority of manors.  This means that unless he has the backing of his lords and ladies, the domain ruler won't be able to call out the levy.

I remember comments on that when the rule changed - it's a good switch in that it cuts the power of law holdings in favour of manor (law is over-powered) - but it also makes the levy a much more "emergency only" sort of thing - which could be positive or negative depending on point of view.

I think that I gave the rulers 1/3 to 1/2 of the manor when filling out the P&H though - enough to raise a fair number of troops, so the law holder isn't totally reliant on their vassals.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Not all rulers. Some of us were lucky to get 1/4 of the manor.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

And before anybody thinks I am complaining about it, I think the current set up is both logical and appropriate.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

Not all rulers. Some of us were lucky to get 1/4 of the manor.

uh, whups.  Didn't I leave an empty slot or two that you could swipe if you moved quickly?

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Nope, not a one. However there are some that belong to the goblins and I doubt any of my vassals or allies would object too strongly if I roped those into greedy little clutc... I mean brought them under my benevolent rule.

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

Hmm, its law holdings that you haven't maxed out yet, I knew I'd left some slack in your realm somewhere. 

Well, and one trade holding and a source holding, but I knew I hadn't given you you any of those.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

What's this? Encouraging me to grab a trade holding and become a multi-focus domain? 

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

What's this? Encouraging me to grab a trade holding and become a multi-focus domain? 

I've nothing against the odd one or two, it keeps the guilds on their toes 

You'll note that Taren and Donalls both claimed some guild rights, Taren even took some trade.  All things in moderation as long as they involve consenting adults...

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

And yet, you have claimed in another thread that that is a game killing thing that needs special rules to prevent. make up your mind.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

And yet, you have claimed in another thread that that is a game killing thing that needs special rules to prevent. make up your mind.

That is IMO a gross misinterpretation of what Andy have said.
He said that having all holdings is game breaking, and there is a huge difference between all, and the odd holding or two.
That being said a cap on prosperity would hit equally hard on a domain with the odd holding or two of a different type than their focus and a sun king type domain.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Perhaps so, however that is only a question of degree. The argument I referred to was made in support of a rule that would punish those same NPC domains that he created - they are "multi-focus" domains. My point is that he has argued that such domains must be discouraged with an arbitrary rule with no in-character justification, yet he designs just such domains.

If you don't see the inherent flaw in that, oh well - you can lead a horse to water and all that, right?

[Yggdrasil (DM Andy)]

Perhaps so, however that is only a question of degree. The argument I referred to was made in support of a rule that would punish those same NPC domains that he created - they are "multi-focus" domains. My point is that he has argued that such domains must be discouraged with an arbitrary rule with no in-character justification, yet he designs just such domains.

If you don't see the inherent flaw in that, oh well - you can lead a horse to water and all that, right?

Try reading my posts Bob.  I realise that you are struggling with this, fairly basic point, but being offensive about your ignorance isn't acceptable.

As repeatedly explained you are the one arguing for arbitrary rules, you are the one arguing for random without-warning punishment - repeatedly and despite very simple explanations.

All I am doing is looking at a suggested rule which reduces the need for the DM to waste time on fiddling small crud that should be handled by a simple mechanic and which reduces (in small part) a very particular syndrome which, despite having had repeatedly explained to you, you seem to struggle to grasp.