Statute of Limitations on Trials of Refusal

[Mendrugo]

Is there a time limit on how long after the fact someone can issue a Trial of Refusal against a prior Trial? 

[Paul]

No, but you'd better have a good reason to explain why you couldn't issue a TOR immediately.

[HABeas2]

Hello,

Actually, outcomes of Trials are intended to be final, with no "double jeopardy". It is not generally acceptable to issue refusals over the outcomes of Trials, lest they become ongoing feuds. (Not to say they can't occur in other ways, mind.) This means that one Trial settles the issue at hand, and cannot be overturned by another (or the Clans could simply Refuse the Grand Refusal by resting, improving weapons, and challenging the Inner Sphere all over again).

You refuse votes and rulings, not Trial outcomes.

Thanks,

- Herb

[Paul]

?

Ah, yes, he did specify trying to Refuse a Trial. Which doesn't happen.
But yeah, if you want to Refuse a Council decision, you'd better do it immediately; if you're Warrior Caste and you were affected by the decision, it's kind of hard to justify why you didn't under normal circumstances. IE, your Cluster/Galaxy was out on an extended tour by order of the Khan, and there was no contact when the vote happened.
Still puts you at the odds with regards to the vote ratio that actually occurred, even if all the Bloodnamed Warriors in your unit would've altered the ratio in some way.

TORs aren't common.

[Mendrugo]

The question came up looking at "Whispering Death," in which the Nova Cats choose to issue a Trial of Refusal against a recent Ice Hellion victory in a Trial of Possession as a tactical matter - wanting to put the Ice Hellions on the defensive rather than waiting to defend themselves against a new Ice Hellion challenge.  The Nova Cats explicitly refer to it as a "Trial of Refusal" against the Ice Hellion victory.  Was this just a slip in nomenclature?  (Since it technically appears to be a new Trial of Possession for the Ice Hellions' recently acquired facility.)

[Paul]

Dunno, haven't read it, but it could be a mistake, or it could simply be an ironic remark by the Nova Cats. Depends on the context. It's not possible to issue a TOR against the outcome of a Trial, but in theory, TOP's could go back and forth indefinitely. In practice they don't because the victor of the first Trial proved their worth to control the objective. Something substantial has to change before there's cause for a fresh Trial.
Naturally, a lot depends on how heated the involved Clan are, IE, the CHH/CGB rivalry saw a lot of back and forth.

[HABeas2]

Hi,

Just another sign of how far Clan Nova Cat diverged from the ways of the Clans. Guess they started early.

The Clans aren't nearly so good at following their own rules as they are at making them up.

Thanks,

- Herb

[Mendrugo]

Thanks.  I appreciate the clarification.

[HABeas2]

*starts timer*

Thanks,

- Herb

[Mendrugo]

Hope your stopwatch had a "days" function. :)

Since the story's author, Philip A. Lee, can't post in the "Ask the Developer" forum, he sent me his explanation via PM and said I could append it to this thread:

As the author of "Whispering Death," let me clarify, since I can't post in the developer's forum.

In the novel Roar of Honor a planet was in danger of being won via a Trial of Possession, and Star Captain Angela Bekker said: "I will send an HPG message to command. They will most likely send a force to issue a Trial of Refusal should we lose possession of Toffen." Note that she says "Refusal," not "Possession," indicating that if they lose the planet, the Bear reinforcements that arrive at Toffen would issue a Trial of Refusal over the Possession—not a second Trial of Possession—and if they win, then the Wolves' Trial of Possession would be overturned as though they'd never won the planet.

After reading that book, my assumption was that if someone won a ToP, the loser could declare a ToR—essentially demanding a rematch but at standard ToR odds based on how badly the ToP loser lost—and the winner of the Refusal would take or keep possession of the object in question. Then, if the loser still wanted the object, they would have to declare another ToP. Herb and Paul make a good case against this, and having just reread the ToR section in WoK, I agree with them.

Pardoe using "Refusal" instead of "Possession" may have been an unintentional error on his part that no one caught, but I had just finished reading this book while writing "Whispering Death," so it made perfect sense to me at the time, and no one in factcheck had an issue with it.

[HABeas2]

Hi,

That reads like a confirmation to me, so no need to stop the stopwatch. Close, though!

Thanks,


- Herb