Republic of Rome Rules Clarifications by Lou Jerkich

7.332: Do leaders and/or wars with the same picture always match?

In the Early Republic Scenario when wars and leaders match there is no confusion. All are properly matched by having the same illustration.

In the Middle Republic, there is some confusion possible over the various wars (Numantine, Sertorian, Spanish Revolt, and leader Viriathus) that occur in Spain. One approach is given in the Unofficial Errata by Roberto Ullfig (rule 7.332) and is also reiterated in the Latest "Official" Errata (rule 7.332). However, another approach to dealing with them is at the end of Roberto Ullfig's Variant Scenario III (http://www.suba.com/~robo/ror/Scenarios.html). Players need to agree on how to handle these wars prior to the start of the game.

In an Extended Game or Alternate History Scenario, the Syrian War and Antiochus may be in play when the Alexandrine War and Cleopatra are in play. These have matching pictures and would be considered a match per the Latest "Official" Errata. We can assume in this case that Antiochus and Cleopatra have made an alliance which makes their wars harder to defeat.

7.3321:  Is the time-delay rule for Matching Wars ever ignored?

I have checked the Web sites and the original time-delay ruling as published by the Avalon Hill General in vol. 27, no. 4, page 15.

The published version from the AH General reads in its entirety:

"RULE 7.3321 TIME DELAY: Whenever a War or Revolt card is drawn from the deck that would match a face-up War or Revolt card already located in the Forum, the drawn card is placed face-down in an Inactive War slot for the remainder of the current turn. If the face-up card is currently located in an Inactive War slot, it is immediately moved to an Active War slot; otherwise face-up cards are not affected in any way. At the beginning of each new turn, before any other action is taken, all cards in Inactive War slots are turned face-up, and one card for each War or Revolt is moved to an Active War slot on the Forum. Wars should be selected for activation in chronological order (e.g., 1st Macedonian before 2nd Macedonian) whenever possible. An Inactive War and its Leader are instantly matched and activated; there is no delay. If a Leader is drawn that matches an Active War, the Leader is immediately played on the Active War card -- but no additional War cards are activated.

EXAMPLE: First Punic War begins the game face-up in an Inactive War slot. Second Punic War is drawn; it is placed face-down in an Inactive War slot and the First Punic War is moved to an Active War slot. Third Punic War is drawn in the same turn; it is placed face-down in an Inactive War slot. The Hannibal Leader card is then drawn; it is immediately placed with the active First Punic War. At the start of Turn 2, Second Punic War is moved to an Active War slot but Third Punic War remains Inactive until the start of Turn 3. If the Hamilcar Leader card is drawn during either turn, it would be placed with an active Punic War card. Third Punic War would remain inactive.

This rule allows Rome at least one opportunity to deal with a war, having a reasonable chance of success before its strength multiplies without resorting to extraordinary measures such as a Dictator."

The last sentence of the ruling is interpreted by me as saying that players may have several opportunities to deal with a war, but they will always be guaranteed at least one opportunity to fight a war alone before its strength multiplies. There is nothing, however, which indicates that if the Senate has delayed fighting a war, or perhaps has reached a stalemate situation, that the time delay rule is ignored. Therefore I conclude that the time delay will occur in all cases, even if the Senate has had one or more opportunities to fight the war before the matching war card was drawn.

In addition to the above reasoning, the Matching War rules prevent a later war from being prosecuted unless all earlier wars of the matched series are also prosecuted. Thus, when the 1st Punic War becomes active, Rome will no longer be able to fight against the 2nd Punic War unless it also simultaneously attacks the 1st Punic War.

9.11, 9.34:  Presiding Magistrate and Proposals and Loss of Influence - PBEM procedure.

***I WILL PERMIT the presiding magistrate to post a series of proposals, such that if one fails the next is automatically put to vote.***

In this case, I would expect players to make conditional votes if they so choose for such a series of proposals. This would still save time, but allows players more freedom of action while keeping to the spirit of the influence reduction rule (9.34). It allows for vetoes of specific actions, which would not reduce the magistrate's influence but might force the presiding magistrate to bring up another issue or candidate upon which someone may wish to vote. During the open session, it also might allow for a faction to use a tribune to interrupt the proceedings and make a proposal of their own before concluding all the magistrate's proposals.

9.2, 9.34, 9.623, 9.91:  Can an unaligned senator be nominated for a major office?

I have studied the rules and found that the only clear reference to this issue is in rule 9.2 where it says:

"The first act of any Presiding Magistrate must be to conduct elections for new Consuls from among the ranks of Aligned Senators."

Rule 9.623 specifically indicates that unaligned senators may be governors.

As for Dictator and Master of the Horse, the rules (9.91) only say that:

"...the Consuls, acting together, may appoint any Senator on whom they can agree and who is not already holding an office, Dictator....The chosen Senator takes the Dictator marker...and appoints any Senator of his choice not already holding an office his Master of the Horse."

It would appear, then, that unaligned senators may become Dictator and Master of the Horse. However, we can well ask, why not Consul? The obvious answer is that an unaligned senator has no player to control him. A governor may be forced to fight against a war, but one merely makes the necessary calculations and refers to die rolls for the results. The governor conducts no other essential business requiring active player involvement. (An unaligned governor is always honest!) But the Rome Consul obviously must make nominations and other proposals. This requires the active involvement of a controlling player or else no business could be conducted. Since a Dictator is appointed before most business is conducted, it would appear that even though the rules do not forbid it, appointing an unaligned Senator to be Dictator would throw the Senate into the position of having an HRAO who could not speak.

If one suggests that the GM is then supposed to do the honors of controlling the Dictator, the reply would be that this would place the GM in the position of conducting actions which must inevitably be more favorable to one faction than another. Moreover, there is no GM in a face-to-face game, and the PBEM rules should be consistent with the FTF game. Finally, having the players try to control an unaligned Dictator as a committee could lead to many unsatisfactory situations.

I conclude, therefore, that the rules were poorly written in regard to eligibility for office. Every official, including the Master of the Horse and even the Pontifex Maximus, has a chance to become HRAO if one takes into account assassinations, loss of influence situations (rule 9.34), proconsulships, or even battle deaths and mortality. If none of the six regular officials are available, the Senator with the most Influence/Oratory becomes HRAO. In each case, the HRAO must be able to conduct business, which quite clearly is not possible for an unaligned Senator.

***Due to the above considerations, I conclude, therefore, that any nominated or appointed official, except for governor, must be an aligned Senator present in Rome.***

9.2, 9.7: This statement is in Roberto Ullfig's "Senate Phase Errata": Note: The HRAO always makes the first proposal for Consuls; A Tribune cannot be used to prevent him from making his first proposal though an assassination attempt can be made before the HRAO makes his first proposal. Is this an official rule, or one of his own?

Rule 9.2 says that "The first act of any Presiding Magistrate must be to conduct elections for new Consuls from among the ranks of Aligned Senators." Technically then, I conclude that the Senate could be considered to not open until the Presiding Magistrate has actually nominated two candidates. However, the Latest "Official" Errata say that a tribune can be used (rule 9.7). Roberto Ullfig comments that his group has a house rule that the Presiding Magistrate can always get off the first proposal. He incorporated this house rule in his "Senate Phase Errata" that is quoted above.

To find an easy solution to this question, what is needed is a clear indication of when the Senate Phase begins. Rule 3.V says that the "HRAO summons the Senate." Thus, it is up to the player having the HRAO to convene the Senate. If he says that the Senate is opened and immediately names his two nominees for Consul, then there is clearly no way for a Tribune to make a prior proposal. However, if the Senate is opened and the HRAO opens a debate on possible candidates for Consul, then I conclude that a tribune can be used to make the first nomination proposal, as indicated in the Latest "Official" Errata.

It is therefore important that players clearly know when the Senate has been convened. Thus, it will be my House Rule that the first time after the Population Phase that the HRAO speaks to and/or addresses the Senate as a whole, the Senate will be considered convened. Thus, if that speech or address to the Senate contains his nomination statement, then no Tribune can be used to make a prior nomination. However, if the HRAO announces that he is open to discussion on the topic of candidates, then there will the possibility that a Tribune can be used to make the nomination. This aligns the PBEM style of play as closely as possible to what would happen in face-to-face play.

The Senate is not considered convened if the player having the HRAO makes contact on an individual basis with one or more factions, but if he sends a broadcast message to all factions, or if he sends a message or orders to the Gamemaster to post to the group, the Senate will be considered convened from the moment that message is sent. In essence, any public communication made after the Population Phase by the HRAO to all factions regarding any business proper to the Senate convenes the Senate. (A message not pertinent to Senate business, such as the announcement that a player will be unable to receive e-mails for a few days, a question for the Gamemaster, vacation announcements, etc. does not convene the Senate.) The Gamemaster will be the final arbiter on whether or not the Senate has been convened. The HRAO player should help avoid any possible confusion by including the simple statement that "the Senate is now convened."

9.24: Can a Dictator be elected Consul in the turn following his own term as Dictator?

In effect, this question asks whether the Dictator can propose himself as Consul.

Here is the reading of rule 9.24: "ELIGIBILITY: To be nominated, a Senator must be in Rome and not hold any office (except Censor). This prevents outgoing Consuls from nominating themselves as incoming Consuls. A Senator may not decline a nomination although he may vote against himself."

***It must be ruled, therefore, that a Dictator cannot propose his own consulship.***

First, the nominees for the Consulship must not already be holding any office except Censor. Secondly, if the Dictator could nominate himself, he would have the same ability to perpetuate his control of the Senate that rule 9.24 is very clearly designed to prevent. So on both grounds the Dictator is forbidden from nominating himself.

9.3, 9.6, 9.67:  Can a player who is not Presiding Magistrate, and does not have a tribune card nominate a candidate for Consul for Life?

As GM for the Romulus Game, I recently made these observations:

Note that rule 9.6 indicates that senators other than the Presiding Magistrate "may place motions on the floor only by playing a tribune, although the Presiding Magistrate may sponsor their suggestions if he wishes. The voting is always conducted by the Presiding Magistrate, regardless of who makes the proposal."

Rule 9.3 is titled "Voting" and speaks of the Presiding Magistrate as the one who chooses the order of Faction voting. Moroever, the rule says that the "voting procedure of the Senate is the same for all business requiring a vote...."

***Therefore I must conclude that whenever a tribune places a proposal on the floor, the Presiding Magistrate is the one who determines the order of voting by Factions.***

In reviewing rule 9.67 regarding the Consul for Life I see that it says that "Anytime during the Senate Phase following the Consular Elections, a player may nominate any Senator in Rome with an Influence > or = 21 "Consul for Life"."  The Senate Phase Errata by Roberto Ullfig that we use are also consistent in indicating that anytime after the consular elections a Consul for Life proposal may be made.  So once the consuls have determined who has what office, the Consul for Life proposal may be made by the Rome Consul [Presiding Magistrate] or by any player playing a tribune.

Avalon Hill also ruled on this in its Official Clarifications from Feb. 15, 1994. It responded "No" to this question concerning rule 9.67: "Can a "Consul for Life" nomination be made without the approval of the Presiding Magistrate or use of a Tribune."

That seems to settle it.

9.411:  If a Senator has previously collected income from a Concession but didn't collect income from them in the last Senate phase (for Ship Building or Armaments) or in the last Revenue phase (for all the others), can they be subject to a minor prosecution for concession abuse?

I haven't found any clear statement on this in the rules, nor was there anything in the errata I have seen. However, misuse of an Office is clearly a more significant activity than collecting concession income because it can be a reason for a major prosecution. Rule 9.411 limits prosecution of office-holders clearly to those holding the office in the previous Game Turn, so I conclude that collecting income from a concession must likewise pertain to no more than the previous turn.

Rule 6.12 defines corrupt governors and indicates that they CAN be prosecuted, so they don't have to have collected income in just the immediately preceding turn.

9.611: Destroyed Concessions, especially Tax Farmers.

Both the Second Punic War and Hannibal can cause Tax Farmers to be destroyed. The 2nd Punic war card states "make dr to determine Tax farmer eliminated every year until defeated." The Hannibal Card reads that Hannibal "makes extra Tax Farmer loss roll/ Turn." Rule 9.611 states "During each turn of the Gladiator Slave Revolt and Second Punic War, a dr is made to determine which area of Italy is being laid waste and consequently which Tax Farmer Concession has been destroyed. If Spartacus or Hannibal is also present, a second dr is made each turn to determine further possible Tax Farmer losses."

***Since rule 9.611 says that if Hannibal is "also" present, and since the Hannibal card refers to an "extra" die roll, I conclude that the Tax Farmer depredations due to Hannibal himself only apply during the Second Punic War. There are no depredations if the second Punic war is not active.***

In addition, although it was made clear by Avalon Hill that the depredations occur in the Senate phase, I have found no rule that specifies when exactly the Tax Farmers are lost during the Senate Phase.

Nevertheless, I have found in the "Series Replay" article in volume 27, issues 4 and 5, of the Avalon Hill General that the moderator/GM recorded Tax Farmer depredations at the end of the Senate phase or sometimes at the end of the combat phase. Don Greenwood, executive editor of the magazine and also the knowledgable moderator of this game supplied the commentary on strategy and diplomacy. His commentary for turn 4 of the Series Replay indicates that Tax Farmer 2 went to Macedonicus, Faction Leader of EAGLE, near the end of the Senate session. Then after reporting the combat results he says: "Meanwhile, Hannibal again destroys EAGLE'S Tax farmer 2 and CRESCENT's Tax Tarmer 5." (Note that the depredations are doubled when both Hannibal and the 2nd Punic War are in play.)

So clearly in this published example the Tax Farmer 2 is won in the Senate session and then shortly thereafter lost due to Hannibal's depredations. At the end of the Senate Phase of turn 6 of the Replay, and before combat resolution, it is happily announced that Hannibal has not burned any new Tax Farmers.

*** Therefore, on the basis of all the evidence, I conclude that any Tax Farmer Losses due to either Hannibal or the 2nd Punic War should occur immediately prior to the closing of the Senate Session, after all other business has been ended. ***

So, just because you gain a Tax Farmer concession during the Senate phase doesn't mean that you will keep it!

(Both of these rulings differ from that of Roberto Ullfig in his "Unofficial Errata" for rule 9.611, but my rulings will take precedence over his in my games.)

9.69:  Proposal Alteration.

According to Rule 9.69, "Defeated proposals may not be introduced again in the same senate Phase without significant change."  After examining the examples given in the rules, to avoid any ambiguity, I conclude:

***Any proposal that is otherwise legal and does not exactly match a defeated/vetoed proposal "in content" is valid.***

Thus, if a proposal to send 4 legions to Gaul fails, one cannot propose sending legions VII, XI, XV, and XX to Gaul, since the content remains the same and there is insufficent change in the proposal to meet the requirements of rule 9.69. However, a new proposal to send 4 legions under the command of a specific senator would entail a significant change, since now a commander is also involved.

Joan C. Artes adds (26 May 1999):  I agree completely with Lou. In fact, I proposed a way to send Cunctator with exactly the same units as in the defeated proposal, by sending him with less legions, and reinforce him in a new proposal. Of course, this has the risk that the number of votes could change upon the departure of the FC, and someone could try a betrayal. You cannot recall legions which have just departed (to war or provinces), but you can always reinforce.

Note an interesting thing about DIFFERENT proposals, which Joan Artes has stated, to which I agree:

If the sending of one regular legion (let us say, legion X) has been vetoed/defeated then the proposal to send regular legion XI is not acceptable.

But if the proposal to send an aligned veteran legion is vetoed/defeated, then, another proposal to send one vetetan legion aligned to a different senator (even if the same faction) or even unaligned, must be considered a different proposal.

9.84: If an assassin is caught, and his Faction Leader is currently out of Rome, is the Faction Leader recalled for the prosecution?

According to the Avalon Hill official rulings for rule 9.84, a faction leader not in Rome (such as a governor) could not be prosecuted for an assassination attempt made by another member of his faction. [See the Official Errata and the Latest "Official" Errata.]  Roberto Ullfig disagrees, because it makes it too easy to conduct an assassination attempt, so he would agree with the 9.84 ruling in the Unofficial Errata that says the Faction leader is recalled. There are good arguments for both points of view.

After studying this, I have decided to take the middle ground and make a House Rule. The Faction Leader would not come back for prosecution unless the Presiding Magistrate or a tribune decides to conduct a vote on his recall, and that recall is successful. This vote must occur immediately after the actual assassin is killed, and if it passes, the Faction Leader is immediately recalled to stand trial. If the Presiding Magistrate declines to make the recall vote, any of the players may use a tribune to conduct this recall vote before any other business is conducted. (The Presiding Magistrate would still decide the order of voting.)

9.9:  Is an active 1st Punic War alone sufficient for permitting the appointment or election of a Dictator?

According to rule 9.9, "Prior to the Censor election the Consuls may choose to appoint a Dictator only if Rome is currently facing three or more Active Wars or one with a strength > or = 20.  If no Proconsuls exist from the previous year, this is the only way the Republic can prosecute three wars at once."

Dave Berry has posted some House Rules at http://grognard.com/errata/ror1.txt which without any specific source listed state under rule 9.91 that "The naval strengths of wars are not counted when determining whether a Dictator may be appointed."  Since there is no authority given for this rule, it must count as an opinion.  Moreover, it is an opinion for which no rationale has been provided.

Roberto Ullfig has an article on the Web titled "Early Republic Strategies (for the Good of Rome)" (at http://home.uchicago.edu/~rullfig/ror/earlystrat.html ).  In this article, among other things Roberto argues for playing Scipio as soon as possible to defeat the 1st Punic War.  He also states that " Though Scipio can't be elected Consul on the first turn (if Cornelius is in play as well) he can be appointed Dictator if the situation arises. It would be a shame to not make use of his abilities on the first turn. In my opinion an Active 1st Punic War is enough to activate a Dictator as I would add the Land and Fleet strengths together (a 10/5/10 war is more dangerous than a 20/0 war in my opinion and the Dictator is there for emergencies.)"

My own inclination is to follow Roberto's lead on the issue of the 1st Punic War being active.  The appointment of a Dictator can clearly be made when a War has a strength of 20 or more.  I consider that the full strength of a war must involve the addition of all relevant strengths--Land and Fleet.  Nothing in the rules indicates that the Fleet Strength should be ignored and not added together with the Land Strength.  On the Contrary, there are clear efforts made (rules 7.33 and 7.34) to show that some wars can have two kinds of strength factors.  The fact that two separate battles must be fought (one naval, one land) cannot lead to the conclusion that these are two separate wars.   The 1st Punic War is still one and the same war regardless of which campaign is being fought.  The appointment of a Dictator rests on the strength of a War and not on individual campaigns within the war.

Personally, I have long considered the 1st Punic War to be the single most dangerous war faced by Rome.  At a time when Rome is cash-short and has few forces already at hand, the Senate must build both a Fleet and an Army strong enough to win two decisive victories.  Moreover, if the 2nd Punic War becomes active before both victories are achieved, the Romans will generally be in dire straits.  Once the 1st Punic War is defeated, the 2nd Punic War is still a threat but not an impossible one.  Moreover, it is possible that with some luck the 2nd Punic War alone can be won in one campaign.  The 1st Punic War normally requires a
minimum of two turns to finish it off, in my experience, because Rome seldom has the resources to guarantee both a naval victory and a land victory against it on the first turn.  If ever there was a war that created an emergecy for Rome, it is the 1st Punic war, in my opinion.

I am of the opinion that Rome would probably not have prevailed in the historical 1st Punic War without having achieved some degree of naval supremacy.  The 1st Punic War even lasted longer than the 2nd Punic War.  Historically, Hannibal made the 2nd Punic War a very serious threat, but I hold that in the 1st Punic War it was the Carthaginian navy rather than one key general that made it so difficult.  To neglect the naval strength of a war doesn't do justice to either reality or history, in my opinion.  [One would not consider the Japanese navy a negligible factor in assessing the Japanese strength in World War II, so why should we neglect naval strengths in the Punic Wars?]  In fact, if the naval strength of Carthage in the 1st Punic War had not been serious, there would be no requirement to win a naval battle before conducting the land battle of that War.

So, for essentially the same reasons as Roberto Ullfig, plus the lack of any convincing evidence within the rules that the Fleet Strength should be considered negligible in assessing the strength of the war, I conclude that the 1st Punic War, when Active, has a strength of 20 and makes it possible to appoint a Dictator.

The next question that arises is in regard to what happens if there is a naval victory over Carthage in the 1st Punic War.  Since the naval battle need never be refought, it would appear that the Romans have achieved mastery of the seas versus Carthage and that the 1st Punic war has become only half the threat it used to be.  I conclude therefore that after a naval victory against the 1st Punic War, its intrinsic Strength reverts to the 10 Land Strength Points and no new Dictator can be appointed or elected unless there are also two other wars or both Hannibal and Hamilcar have raised the Land Strength of the 1st Punic War to 20 points.

Incidentally, the rules make no clear statement that the election of a Dictator is contingent upon the same requirements as the appointment of a Dictator.  [See the quotation of rule 9.9 above which nowhere mentions "election" of a Dictator.]   Rule 9.91 indicates the procedures for appointing or for electing a Dictator.  In no games I have seen nor in any articles I have read has anyone suggested that a Dictator can be elected in circumstances other than those which allow a Dictator to be appointed.

Therefore, I conclude that it is not legal to hold an election for Dictator unless the same circumstances exist, as defined in rule 9.9, for appointing a Dictator.

9.9, 9.91:  Can a consul become Dictator immediately upon the new consuls being elected?

According to rules 9.9 and 9.91: If Rome is facing three or more active wars, or one war with a strength greater than or equal to 20, "the Consuls, acting together, may appoint any Senator on whom they can agree and who is not already holding an office, Dictator." This appointment is made after the Consular Elections but before the election of the Censor. If there is only one Consul present due to assassination, that Consul can act alone to appoint a Dictator. If neither Consul is present, the HRAO may nominate someone to be elected Dictator by the Senate.

***No current Consul can become Dictator because the rules forbid the holding of two offices. Nothing prevents a consul, or a previous Dictator, who has just lost his office upon the election of his successors, from becoming Dictator during the new Consulships.***

12.31:  What does obeying the orders of the Consul for Life entail?

The Consul for Life must ensure that a Censor is voted upon and all governors are appointed. However, he can make the senators all vote in favor of the candidates he nominates for each office, and he can tell the Censor whom to prosecute, and whether it can be a major or minor prosecution, assuming that the normal criteria are met for major prosecutions. He can assign concessions as he wishes, since the players all must vote as he wishes. He also will determine who goes to fight which war, if any, and with what forces. In this respect, he can compel a senator to agree to go to war with less than the minimum force required by rule 9.624.

The Consul for Life can even compel a senator to make an assassination attempt on a chosen victim in Rome, although the die must still be rolled. (I.e, the Consul for Life cannot compel someone to slit his own veins, although I suppose I will allow one to do so voluntarily!) However, the Consul for Life will not be allowed to order the assassination of any of his own senators, nor those "loyal" to him, which include all senators not belonging to a faction controlled by a player with an announced rebel. (Rule 9.8 specifies that players may attempt to "eliminate opposing Senators," and that is why I specify that the victims must be from the rebel faction, since all others must obey the Consul for Life and therefore cannot truly oppose him.)

The Consul for Life can look at all cards held by players of the "loyal" factions. Rebel senators can still keep their cards secret. The Consul for Life can force players to play their cards, trade them off, or hold onto them. If captured in battle, the Consul for Life must be ransomed in order to still be able to win."

13.7: What constitutes a two-thirds majority in a vote for the removal of the Pontifex Maximus?

Rule 13.7 states that "the Pontifex Maximus may be deprived of his office during any Senate Phase by a two-thirds majority vote of those present."  However, the rules do not define the phrase "two-thirds majority vote of those present."

Looking at rule 13.7 in conjunction with the regular rules on voting (9.3, 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33) it is clear from rule 9.33 that under normal circumstances "A simple majority (> 50%) of votes cast is required to pass any measure." Now, "votes cast" and "vote of those present" aren't necessarily the same. For example, a faction with 10 votes could abstain. Those ten votes would thus be "present" but not "cast."

***Therefore I understand the phrase "two-thirds majority vote of those present" to be following the same principal as rule 9.33 except that the amount of votes needed for passage is higher, namely two-thirds of the votes instead of just more than 50%. Moroever, two-thirds of all the votes "eligible" to be cast for the removal vote must actually be cast in favor of the removal. An abstention will thus have the effect of being a negative vote.***

Rule 9.31 makes it clear that a Senator controls a certain number of votes that arise from his oratorical skill. (This presumbaly means he can influence others to vote as he wishes due to his superb ability to persuade.) The Knights which have attached their fortunes to his will also vote as he wishes. Finally, a Senator may gain further votes by bribing the Populus Romanus to vote as he desires.

14.4:  When "Victory" in a Provincial War is reduced to "Stalemate" for lack of sufficient fleets, does the governor still gain popularity and influence?

When a governor fights a provincial war a lack of sufficient Roman fleets will mean that a "Victory" result is treated as a "Stalemate" (rule 14.4). In the case of a provincial war, the meaning of the terms "Victory" and "Stalemate" are given in rules 14.413 and 14.412 respectively.

The question arises as to whether or not the governor who achieves a "Victory" which must be treated as a "Stalemate" gains influence and popularity.

Since rule 10.4 allows a gain of influence and popularity for a "naval battle" even though the war still exists after that battle, I conclude that the gain in influence and popularity is for victory in a particular battle rather than for winning the war.

Therefore in regard to rule 14.4, I rule that: Even when for lack of sufficient fleets the effects of a governor's "Victory" in a provincial war are reduced to the effects of a "Stalemate," that governor will still gain the normal popularity and influence for his military achievement in that battle.  In essence, the governor has still won a victory, but it was not a decisive one, just as is the case for a victory in a naval battle.



Lou's Republic of Rome Page    Joan's Republic of Rome Page    Game Auctoritas   Return to Lou's Game Corner
This page last updated on 1 January 2005.   If you have a game interest or question, you can leave a message by writing to "gamecorner".  I use earthlink.net.