>Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
>>I`m not familiar with the stablize action.
(assuming you are being sarcastic here or are you punning me on spelling?)
You have read the BR rulebook at least once havent you? The part about >domain actions, in particular Agitate? (sarcasm) >"A regent with a holding can use his influence to agitate or stabilize ...." > >Would it be better if Id said “agitate for” and “agitate against” ? Was
that too hard for you ?
Actually, the book uses different terms to describe an “agitate for”
Agitate action. Under “Loyalty” on p36 it uses the term “friendly
manipulation” which has a kind of stark, Orwellian horror if you really
consider it. It does use the word “stabilize” once in the Agitate action
description, but there is no “stabilize action” and I didnt know what you meant either, Im afraid. Mr. Gauck responded before I did.
>Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
>>I`m not familiar with the stablize action.
(assuming you are being sarcastic here or are you punning me on spelling?)
You have read the BR rulebook at least once havent you? The part about >domain actions, in particular Agitate? (sarcasm) >"A regent with a holding can use his influence to agitate or stabilize ...." > >Would it be better if Id said “agitate for” and “agitate against” ? Was
that too hard for you ?
Actually, the book uses different terms to describe an “agitate for”
Agitate action. Under “Loyalty” on p36 it uses the term “friendly
manipulation” which has a kind of stark, Orwellian horror if you really
consider it. It does use the word “stabilize” once in the Agitate action
description, but there is no “stabilize action” and I didnt know what you meant either, Im afraid. Mr. Gauck responded before I did.
> At 10:47 PM 4/23/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>> Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>>
>>> I`m not familiar with the stablize action.
(assuming you are being sarcastic here or are you punning me on
spelling?)
You have read the BR rulebook at least once havent you? The part about >> domain actions, in particular Agitate? (sarcasm) >> "A regent with a holding can use his influence to agitate or >> stabilize ...." >> >> Would it be better if Id said “agitate for” and “agitate against” ? Was
that too hard for you ?
Actually, the book uses different terms to describe an “agitate for”
Agitate action. Under “Loyalty” on p36 it uses the term “friendly
manipulation” which has a kind of stark, Orwellian horror if you really
consider it. It does use the word “stabilize” once in the Agitate action
description, but there is no “stabilize action” and I didnt know what > you > meant either, Im afraid. Mr. Gauck responded before I did.
So youre both claiming you didnt know what I was saying ? (yeak okay -
fair cop – still noone answered the test case yet - still working on it ?)
Anyone ever seen a game called “Freedom in the Galaxy” ? It had a
Mega-Weapon called a planetary stabilizer. Which sounded benign until
you found out that it stabilized a planet - that is - it abruptly
stopped the normal rotation of the planet causing it to break up - death
star style.