new regent nullifying other emissary actions

[unclemike]

When a ruler is lost by a group conquering a capital or if the ruler is kidnapped/assassinated, the next highest emissary assumes the role of regent and is considered to be the sole action of that emissary but is this truly fair?

The spell Augment Title grants a new level to an emissary (i.e. baron becomes count) and allows that emissary to be given an order in the same turn so why not allow the soon-to-be regent to also issue an order as well?

The Augment Title spell hasn't imbalance the game so far so why not allow the soon-to-be regent to execute an action in the same turn when they receive the new title? It would make the game more consistent in such matters and allow players to be effective with the emissary that is assuming regent duties in that given turn.

Since we're on the subject regarding regents, what determines the succession order of the next regent? If a kingdom had three barons, which one will become the next regent? Is it by alphabetical order or sex (baron before baroness)?

The importance of knowing this is that then a player may plan ahead which orders should be specified for the kingdom if they are limited for the turn (e.g., why waste an order if the emissary's action will be nullified when assuming regent duties).

[kevindusi]

Likely Augment Title hasn't had an unbalancing effect because it is a Power-9 spell. Very few kingdoms will ever see it, and those that do likely have other things to do with a P-9.

If the King were to die, I doubt the Prince (or Duke, or whoever) would pull a Kayne and say "Ima be King, but first lemme finish this incite order". I'd assume the instant that a king is lost, whoever is next in line would make a mad dash for the capital so that the kingdom continued to operate.

[Kellenved]

Likely Augment Title hasn't had an unbalancing effect because it is a Power-9 spell. Very few kingdoms will ever see it, and those that do likely have other things to do with a P-9.

If the King were to die, I doubt the Prince (or Duke, or whoever) would pull a Kayne and say "Ima be King, but first lemme finish this incite order". I'd assume the instant that a king is lost, whoever is next in line would make a mad dash for the capital so that the kingdom continued to operate.

Well put, both regarding the unlikely use of a p-9 to use Augment Title (when there are Soooo many other, more vicious options) as well as the Prince/Duke dropping all duties to grab ultimate power

[Jumbie]

knowing how the succession works for emissaries of the same rank could be useful though.

How does that work?

[Acererak]

What are the other power 9 options that are out there? The old webarchive of the complete spell list and artifact list do not work because they required input. Does anyone have this?

[unclemike]

Likely Augment Title hasn't had an unbalancing effect because it is a Power-9 spell. Very few kingdoms will ever see it, and those that do likely have other things to do with a P-9.

If the King were to die, I doubt the Prince (or Duke, or whoever) would pull a Kayne and say "Ima be King, but first lemme finish this incite order". I'd assume the instant that a king is lost, whoever is next in line would make a mad dash for the capital so that the kingdom continued to operate.

Well put, both regarding the unlikely use of a p-9 to use Augment Title (when there are Soooo many other, more vicious options) as well as the Prince/Duke dropping all duties to grab ultimate power

Take for example, the difference when an emissary becomes regent when a military group conquers a capital vs. an agent kidnap/assassinate a ruler.

If a group conquers a capital (and captures the ruler), the next in line emissary assumes regent duties and nullifies any order given to that emissary. However, if a foreign agent kidnaps/assassinates the ruler then the next in line emissary is able to carry out an order before actually becoming the acting regent.

So the event of becoming a regent is not an automatic sole action for the given emissary. The game is as inconsistent as your above logic for not correcting the problem. In my opinion, the software should handle the event of an emissary becoming regent the same in every case: allow to carry out an order for that given turn.

I only brought up the subject of the wizard spell to show the additional inconsistencies associated with this subject.

[kevindusi]

This is precisely why you need to understand the order of events in the game. Military actions take place before agent actions. In both cases, the next-in-line becomes regent the very instant that something happens to the king. That seems pretty consistent to me. King dies. Prince becomes king. Regardless of when it happens. Consistent.

[unclemike]

This is precisely why you need to understand the order of events in the game. Military actions take place before agent actions. In both cases, the next-in-line becomes regent the very instant that something happens to the king. That seems pretty consistent to me. King dies. Prince becomes king. Regardless of when it happens. Consistent.

Order execution is not relevant here. The point of the argument is whether to fix the inconsistency associated with an emissary being allowed an action for the turn (or not) when assuming regent duties. How the emissary attains regent status is not relevant. What is relevant is if such a condition is considered to be a sole action for the emissary or not.

[Cipher]

Order execution/sequence of events is always relevant.

But the crux is presented in UncleMike's restatement of the question - should becoming Regent be the sole action for the new ruler?

There are some other issues with this. Orders for Kings/Queens/Regents don't overlap very much with orders for the other courtisans, there would have to be a later 'event' that moves the next in line to Regent status in the program. And the kingdom would be without a king, not very good for the kingdom, generally.

If we delay the 'coronation' of the Regent to some later point in the turn, what happens in the interim? There are several orders/spells that might target a king/emissary that would have to be considered and then addressed.

Protecting your capital/king is important. Later turns where larger groups, more enemies, more potent spells, higher level agents abound all likely with more information can make this critical later in the game. The other side of the sword is that these kingdoms have all been nurturing these resources in order to make this impact, so there will definitely be arguments in favor and against changing the impact of the loss of a ruler.

Currently, if the next in line hasn't undertaken an order, the coronation consumes the sole action and the kingdom is never without a king. Conceivably this can be a detriment (a prince didn't get to execute the 330 order prior to be whisked away to be anointed with oils, et al) but might be an advantage (the prince is whisked away from a town about to be conquered where the kingdom would have lost even more influence when the Baron in line behind the prince must now be chosen as Regent).
If the regent-to-be has already completed an action, this may be a boon to the affected kingdom (330 works) or a detriment (330 imprisons the regent to be, see above for the impact from the poor Baron).

And so it comes back to sequence of events.
I don't believe that the unfairness/inconsistency argument is very strong here. There are different ramifications based on when in the sequence of events the loss of a ruler occurs. This can be good or bad for either the kingdom losing the ruler or any other kingdom.

From my perspective, understanding what happens is the important thing for the players to plan their attacks and defenses.

[unclemike]

If we delay the 'coronation' of the Regent to some later point in the turn, what happens in the interim?

No need to delay the coronation of an emissary to be regent in the game. Just add a boolean flag to the emissary object (something like JustBecameRegent or PendingRegent) so that if this flag is set to true, you may allow for emissary-like orders for the turn (like rebel or such). This is very easy to code, will solve all of the above cases regardless of order sequence, and the game will be consistent in handling the event of becoming a regent. Consistency is important and relevant to proper game design otherwise there will be holes in the game that certain players will be able to capitalize on.

But the crux is presented in UncleMike's restatement of the question - should becoming Regent be the sole action for the new ruler?

This question has yet to be addressed on this thread. Some advantages/disadvantages were given about losing/gaining a new ruler as well as order sequencing but that's not the real issue here. Should gaining a new title be considered to be a sole action for the emissary? In some cases it is while others it is not. There is an inconsistency in the code. My question was whether it should be addressed (and fixed) or to keep it like it is and allow certain players to take advantage of the situation.