Rules update 2026 - Revision history

Rafferty: /* Opportunities */

2026-05-07T15:37:10Z

Opportunities

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, 7 May 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:

	==Opportunities==		==Opportunities==
	We have updated the rules for [[opportunity\|opportunities]] to make clear that the benefits they offer are not available for ever. We will usually state how long the opportunity is available for - if we don't provide that information then you can email plot~~@profounddecisions.co.uk~~ to check, but the default amount of time is a year from the event where it first becomes available. That means that if you don't take up the opportunity before the same event comes round next year, then it will no longer be available.		We have updated the rules for [[opportunity\|opportunities]] to make clear that the benefits they offer are not available for ever. We will usually state how long the opportunity is available for - if we don't provide that information then you can email {{plot}} to check, but the default amount of time is a year from the event where it first becomes available. That means that if you don't take up the opportunity before the same event comes round next year, then it will no longer be available.

	In all cases, the availability exists while nothing substantial changes. If the situation changes and other developments overtake it, then an opportunity may cease to be available earlier than promised. For example, if there is an opportunity to build a sinecure with the help of a sept of orcs - but the Empire declares them to be barbarians and attacks them - then the opportunity will no longer be available. It is always possible to email plot@profounddecisions.co.uk to check if an outstanding opportunity is available, but it is only necessary to do so if something significant has changed regarding the particulars.		In all cases, the availability exists while nothing substantial changes. If the situation changes and other developments overtake it, then an opportunity may cease to be available earlier than promised. For example, if there is an opportunity to build a sinecure with the help of a sept of orcs - but the Empire declares them to be barbarians and attacks them - then the opportunity will no longer be available. It is always possible to email plot@profounddecisions.co.uk to check if an outstanding opportunity is available, but it is only necessary to do so if something significant has changed regarding the particulars.

Matt at 15:36, 7 May 2026

2026-05-07T15:36:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 7 May 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:

	We try to include a section after each update to explain the reasoning behind the change, as well as providing an in-character rationale for what has changed where appropriate. As ever, it is important to remember that the rationale is there purely to provide a way for characters to explain any changes, it's not an actual plot development.		We try to include a section after each update to explain the reasoning behind the change, as well as providing an in-character rationale for what has changed where appropriate. As ever, it is important to remember that the rationale is there purely to provide a way for characters to explain any changes, it's not an actual plot development.

			==Opportunities==
			We have updated the rules for [[opportunity\|opportunities]] to make clear that the benefits they offer are not available for ever. We will usually state how long the opportunity is available for - if we don't provide that information then you can email plot@profounddecisions.co.uk to check, but the default amount of time is a year from the event where it first becomes available. That means that if you don't take up the opportunity before the same event comes round next year, then it will no longer be available.

			In all cases, the availability exists while nothing substantial changes. If the situation changes and other developments overtake it, then an opportunity may cease to be available earlier than promised. For example, if there is an opportunity to build a sinecure with the help of a sept of orcs - but the Empire declares them to be barbarians and attacks them - then the opportunity will no longer be available. It is always possible to email plot@profounddecisions.co.uk to check if an outstanding opportunity is available, but it is only necessary to do so if something significant has changed regarding the particulars.

			Where possible, we will work through the wiki to update old opportunities to indicate where they are no longer available.

			===Reasoning===
			As the game continues to develop an ever longer history with opportunities going back years, it becomes harder for us to maintain the game consistently. We regularly update parts of the game to keep improving Empire every year, and that can cause problems with old opportunities that no longer make sense under the new rules. Crucially, as events change it often makes no sense for an opportunity to still be available. The Empire can't benefit from a deal offered by a Jotun jarl, if the character is long since dead. A player can't tell that from reading the wiki, but it's a vast amount of work to go back and update every old opportunity each time anything happens in the game.

			The new system means that most opportunities will be available for a year by default. In the past we've often provided less time than this. Some opportunities may still do that - but the majority will now be available for one year unless events change. That will give players more time to try and take advantage of an opportunity and a clearer sense of how long something will be around for. Of course events can move fast in the Empire, setting, there is never a guarantee that an opportunity won't be invalidated in under a year if the events supporting it have changed, but we hope that will be clearer when dealing with current events.

			===IC Justification===
			The Imperial civil service are working to provide updated guidance on opportunities that were available in the past, reassessing them and letting citizens know when something is no longer possible.

	==Fortifications==		==Fortifications==

Twiggy at 17:13, 13 April 2026

2026-04-13T17:13:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:13, 13 April 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:

	===Nightwoven and Enigmatic===		===Nightwoven and Enigmatic===
	The effects of the [[Region_qualities#Nightwoven\|Nightwoven]] and [[Madruga#Enigmatic\|Enigmatic]] qualities have been changed in line with the changes to magically summoned "citadels".		The effects of the [[Region_qualities#Nightwoven\|Nightwoven]] and [[Madruga#Enigmatic\|Enigmatic]] qualities have been changed in line with the changes to magically summoned "citadels."

	* When [[Dripping Echoes of the Fen]] is cast on a Nightwoven or Enigmatic region, it increases the victory points necessary to claim the region by an additional fifteen, up from ten.		* When [[Dripping Echoes of the Fen]] is cast on a Nightwoven or Enigmatic region, it increases the victory points necessary to claim the region by an additional fifteen, up from ten.

Twiggy at 17:11, 13 April 2026

2026-04-13T17:11:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 13 April 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:
	* [[Mournwold#Farstrider's_Watch\|Farstrider's Watch]] in Greensward, Mournwold, had suffered 2319 casualties. The garrison is at 681 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 2536.		* [[Mournwold#Farstrider's_Watch\|Farstrider's Watch]] in Greensward, Mournwold, had suffered 2319 casualties. The garrison is at 681 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 2536.
	* [[Feroz#Mora's_Rock\|Mora's Rock]] in Morajasse, Feroz, had suffered 635 casualties. The garrison is now at 5365 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 5873.		* [[Feroz#Mora's_Rock\|Mora's Rock]] in Morajasse, Feroz, had suffered 635 casualties. The garrison is now at 5365 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 5873.
	* [[Sarangrave#Tower_of_the_Skink\|Tower of the ~~Skin~~]] in Thornfen, Sarangrave, had suffered 464 casualties. The garrison is now at 11536 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 11908.		* [[Sarangrave#Tower_of_the_Skink\|Tower of the Skink]] in Thornfen, Sarangrave, had suffered 464 casualties. The garrison is now at 11536 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 11908.
	* [[Skallahn#Walls_of_Kierheim\|Walls of Kierheim]] in Bjarkey, Skallahn, had suffered 3233 casualties. The garrison is now at 2767 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 5353.		* [[Skallahn#Walls_of_Kierheim\|Walls of Kierheim]] in Bjarkey, Skallahn, had suffered 3233 casualties. The garrison is now at 2767 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 5353.

Hailmur at 16:56, 13 April 2026

2026-04-13T16:56:43Z

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 We try to include a section after each update to explain the reasoning behind the change, as well as providing an in-character rationale for what has changed where appropriate. As ever, it is important to remember that the rationale is there purely to provide a way for characters to explain any changes, it's not an actual plot development.
 {{CaptionedImage|file=Bishop Oberon.jpg|caption=The Imperial Synod is a place of politics, as well as a bastion of faith.|align=left|width=450}}
 ==Synod Update==
 We're in the process of reviewing the Synod game, with a view to reducing the time spent queueing and voting on things that individual priests are not invested in, or are not contentious. Rather than implement a single major overhaul in one go, we're looking to implement some smaller changes over time, so that we can see what impact a change has.
-The first set of changes are around the Synod judgement of [[inquisition]]. We've changed this judgement so that it can only be submitted in a nation or Virtue assembly - it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. As before, if the judgement is escalated to a [[sanction]], then the new judgement must also be in the same assembly.
+The first set of changes is around the Synod judgement of [[inquisition]]. We've changed this judgement so that it can only be submitted in a nation or Virtue assembly - it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. As before, if the judgement is escalated to a [[sanction]], then the new judgement must also be in the same assembly.
 We've updated the title pages for [[Imperial Inquisitor]], [[Arcane Inquisitor]], [[Basilisk of the Bourse]], [[Auditor of Senatorial Accountability]] and the [[Chaplain Consular]] to make clear that their "free" inquisition is escalated to the Assembly of Nine. This change enables the Assembly of Nine to hold an inquisitorial court if they wish to do so - if the Assembly of Nine wish to hold court at a given time, these titles could present their findings, request a judgement of [[sanction]] from the Assembly of Nine and have them vote on it there and then, if they have quorum and the Tribune is present. The escalation of the "free" inquisition for [[Virtue inquisitor|Virtue inquisitors]] will sit with their respective Virtue Assembly.

Matt: /* Synod Update */

2026-04-12T20:36:13Z

Synod Update

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:36, 12 April 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:
	===IC Explanation===		===IC Explanation===
	The changes are part of a set of administrative changes being implemented by the Tribune at the request of the Constitutional Court following the changes to the way Imperial law is implemented with regards to religious crimes.		The changes are part of a set of administrative changes being implemented by the Tribune at the request of the Constitutional Court following the changes to the way Imperial law is implemented with regards to religious crimes.

			===Transition===
			There are a handful of judgements of inquisition that were submitted last event. If the priest wishes to escalate one of these judgements, they should be escalated to the same assembly the original inquisition was submitted to.

	==New Army Qualities==		==New Army Qualities==

Emmanovi: /* Synod Update */ minor correction

2026-04-12T18:55:07Z

Synod Update: minor correction

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 12 April 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	The first set of changes are around the Synod judgement of [[inquisition]]. We've changed this judgement so that it can only be submitted in a nation or Virtue assembly - it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. As before, if the judgement is escalated to a [[sanction]], then the new judgement must also be in the same assembly.		The first set of changes are around the Synod judgement of [[inquisition]]. We've changed this judgement so that it can only be submitted in a nation or Virtue assembly - it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. As before, if the judgement is escalated to a [[sanction]], then the new judgement must also be in the same assembly.

	We've updated the title pages for [[Imperial Inquisitor]], [[Arcane Inquisitor]], [[Basilisk of the Bourse]], [[Auditor of Senatorial Accountability]] and the [[Chaplain Consular]] to make clear that their "free" inquisition is escalated to the Assembly of Nine. This change enables the Assembly of Nine to hold an inquisitorial court if they wish to do so - if the Assembly of Nine wish to hold court at a given time, these titles could present their findings, request a judgement of [[sanction]] from the Assembly of Nine and have them vote on it there and then, if they have quorum and the Tribune is present. The "free" inquisition for [[Virtue inquisitor\|Virtue inquisitors]] ~~remains~~ with their respective Virtue Assembly.		We've updated the title pages for [[Imperial Inquisitor]], [[Arcane Inquisitor]], [[Basilisk of the Bourse]], [[Auditor of Senatorial Accountability]] and the [[Chaplain Consular]] to make clear that their "free" inquisition is escalated to the Assembly of Nine. This change enables the Assembly of Nine to hold an inquisitorial court if they wish to do so - if the Assembly of Nine wish to hold court at a given time, these titles could present their findings, request a judgement of [[sanction]] from the Assembly of Nine and have them vote on it there and then, if they have quorum and the Tribune is present. The escalation of the "free" inquisition for [[Virtue inquisitor\|Virtue inquisitors]] will sit with their respective Virtue Assembly.

	We've also amended [[statement of principle]] so that under normal circumstances it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. We've given each [[cardinal]] the power to elevate a single statement to the General Assembly at the point where it is submitted. We have changed the rules so that if no statement in the General Assembly achieves a greater majority, than the single statement that passes that has the highest margin in favour will take effect. Statements will only create an effect in the world if we're able to think of one to create.		We've also amended [[statement of principle]] so that under normal circumstances it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. We've given each [[cardinal]] the power to elevate a single statement to the General Assembly at the point where it is submitted. We have changed the rules so that if no statement in the General Assembly achieves a greater majority, than the single statement that passes that has the highest margin in favour will take effect. Statements will only create an effect in the world if we're able to think of one to create.

Hailmur: /* Synod Update */

2026-04-12T18:37:58Z

Synod Update

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:37, 12 April 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	The first set of changes are around the Synod judgement of [[inquisition]]. We've changed this judgement so that it can only be submitted in a nation or Virtue assembly - it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. As before, if the judgement is escalated to a [[sanction]], then the new judgement must also be in the same assembly.		The first set of changes are around the Synod judgement of [[inquisition]]. We've changed this judgement so that it can only be submitted in a nation or Virtue assembly - it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. As before, if the judgement is escalated to a [[sanction]], then the new judgement must also be in the same assembly.

	We've updated the title ~~page~~ for ~~[[Virtue inquisitor]],~~ [[Imperial Inquisitor]], [[Arcane Inquisitor]], [[Basilisk of the Bourse]], [[Auditor of Senatorial Accountability]] and the [[Chaplain Consular]] to make clear that their "free" inquisition is escalated to the Assembly of Nine. This change enables the Assembly of Nine to hold an inquisitorial court if they wish to do so - if the Assembly of Nine wish to hold court at a given time, these titles could present their findings, request a judgement of [[sanction]] from the Assembly of Nine and have them vote on it there and then, if they have quorum and the Tribune is present.		We've updated the title pages for [[Imperial Inquisitor]], [[Arcane Inquisitor]], [[Basilisk of the Bourse]], [[Auditor of Senatorial Accountability]] and the [[Chaplain Consular]] to make clear that their "free" inquisition is escalated to the Assembly of Nine. This change enables the Assembly of Nine to hold an inquisitorial court if they wish to do so - if the Assembly of Nine wish to hold court at a given time, these titles could present their findings, request a judgement of [[sanction]] from the Assembly of Nine and have them vote on it there and then, if they have quorum and the Tribune is present. The "free" inquisition for [[Virtue inquisitor\|Virtue inquisitors]] remains with their respective Virtue Assembly.

	We've also amended [[statement of principle]] so that under normal circumstances it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. We've given each [[cardinal]] the power to elevate a single statement to the General Assembly at the point where it is submitted. We have changed the rules so that if no statement in the General Assembly achieves a greater majority, than the single statement that passes that has the highest margin in favour will take effect. Statements will only create an effect in the world if we're able to think of one to create.		We've also amended [[statement of principle]] so that under normal circumstances it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. We've given each [[cardinal]] the power to elevate a single statement to the General Assembly at the point where it is submitted. We have changed the rules so that if no statement in the General Assembly achieves a greater majority, than the single statement that passes that has the highest margin in favour will take effect. Statements will only create an effect in the world if we're able to think of one to create.

Twiggy at 18:20, 12 April 2026

2026-04-12T18:20:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:20, 12 April 2026
Line 24:		Line 24:
	The new system ensures that the General Assembly of the Synod will almost always have some impact on the game. However it deliberately pits all the statements of principle each season against each other, making them inherently competitive - as the one that passes with the highest margin is the one guaranteed to have an effect. Our goal is to reduce the number of statements of principle that priests need to vote on, and to ensure that their votes, for or against a statement, are vital.		The new system ensures that the General Assembly of the Synod will almost always have some impact on the game. However it deliberately pits all the statements of principle each season against each other, making them inherently competitive - as the one that passes with the highest margin is the one guaranteed to have an effect. Our goal is to reduce the number of statements of principle that priests need to vote on, and to ensure that their votes, for or against a statement, are vital.

	It is much easier for players to get statements of principle passed a national or virtue Assembly with a greater majority. Most of these do not have a game effect, due to the sheer number of them. It's not possible to have unlimited numbers of statements of principle have a game effect, we can't respond to that number of judgements. We may respond to a statement of principle if it looks like the potential consequences could be controversial - we've updated the OOC guidance to try and make things as clear as we can, as we know that players are often disappointed when a statement that gets a greater majority doesn't create a response from the plot team.		It is much easier for players to get statements of principle passed in a national or virtue Assembly with a greater majority. Most of these do not have a game effect, due to the sheer number of them. It's not possible to have unlimited numbers of statements of principle have a game effect, we can't respond to that number of judgements. We may respond to a statement of principle if it looks like the potential consequences could be controversial - we've updated the OOC guidance to try and make things as clear as we can, as we know that players are often disappointed when a statement that gets a greater majority doesn't create a response from the plot team.

	We updated the guidance for statements of principle to make clear that any warning won't arrive in time. There have been more and more warnings published though the Synod using this method in recent times and initially we took account of them in the flavour text of winds of war (although they didn't have an appreciable game effect), but on later reflection, we realised this was a mistake. These judgements simply add to the record number of judgements for priests to vote on without directly adding to the game. We've made clear that they won't work, to discourage them, so that the focus remains on statements of principle that could be important in the game.		We updated the guidance for statements of principle to make clear that any warning won't arrive in time. There have been more and more warnings published though the Synod using this method in recent times and initially we took account of them in the flavour text of winds of war (although they didn't have an appreciable game effect), but on later reflection, we realised this was a mistake. These judgements simply add to the record number of judgements for priests to vote on without directly adding to the game. We've made clear that they won't work, to discourage them, so that the focus remains on statements of principle that could be important in the game.

Rafferty at 17:55, 12 April 2026

2026-04-12T17:55:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:55, 12 April 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:

	We try to include a section after each update to explain the reasoning behind the change, as well as providing an in-character rationale for what has changed where appropriate. As ever, it is important to remember that the rationale is there purely to provide a way for characters to explain any changes, it's not an actual plot development.		We try to include a section after each update to explain the reasoning behind the change, as well as providing an in-character rationale for what has changed where appropriate. As ever, it is important to remember that the rationale is there purely to provide a way for characters to explain any changes, it's not an actual plot development.
			{{CaptionedImage\|file=Bishop Oberon.jpg\|caption=The Imperial Synod is a place of politics, as well as a bastion of faith.\|align=left\|width=450}}
			==Synod Update==
			We're in the process of reviewing the Synod game, with a view to reducing the time spent queueing and voting on things that individual priests are not invested in, or are not contentious. Rather than implement a single major overhaul in one go, we're looking to implement some smaller changes over time, so that we can see what impact a change has.

			The first set of changes are around the Synod judgement of [[inquisition]]. We've changed this judgement so that it can only be submitted in a nation or Virtue assembly - it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. As before, if the judgement is escalated to a [[sanction]], then the new judgement must also be in the same assembly.

			We've updated the title page for [[Virtue inquisitor]], [[Imperial Inquisitor]], [[Arcane Inquisitor]], [[Basilisk of the Bourse]], [[Auditor of Senatorial Accountability]] and the [[Chaplain Consular]] to make clear that their "free" inquisition is escalated to the Assembly of Nine. This change enables the Assembly of Nine to hold an inquisitorial court if they wish to do so - if the Assembly of Nine wish to hold court at a given time, these titles could present their findings, request a judgement of [[sanction]] from the Assembly of Nine and have them vote on it there and then, if they have quorum and the Tribune is present.

			We've also amended [[statement of principle]] so that under normal circumstances it cannot be submitted to the General Assembly. We've given each [[cardinal]] the power to elevate a single statement to the General Assembly at the point where it is submitted. We have changed the rules so that if no statement in the General Assembly achieves a greater majority, than the single statement that passes that has the highest margin in favour will take effect. Statements will only create an effect in the world if we're able to think of one to create.

			We've also updated the guidance for statements of principle to make clear that it cannot be used to issue warnings to people outside Anvil.

			===Reasoning===
			A judgement of inquisition is rarely contentious - they often pass with no votes against. In many cases they are most relevant to a specific Assembly. Confining them to a virtue or national assembly means less judgements in the General Assembly for all priests to view and vote on. If a priest is convinced something needs to be brought before the General Assembly, they can still do that, but someone will need to use a judgement to submit that sanction. That means that it can still be done, if players think it is worth the cost, but we expect that most sanctions will be dealt with by the other assemblies.

			Any member of the Synod can use their own judgement to submit a sanction, so in cases where a [[sanction]] is genuinely contentious, then a different member of the Synod can use their own judgement to submit a competing sanction if they disagree with a verdict.

			There are often a lot of statements of principle submitted every event, many of which have almost no chance of achieving a greater majority. Getting a greater majority is, by design, very difficult. This is important, because it is required for very powerful effects, like [[excommunication]], [[veto]], and [[change of doctrine]]. However the current design is stymying the Synod by making it unnecessarily hard for them to achieve any effect. It also leads players to perceive the system (the difficulty of getting a greater majority) as their barrier to success rather than convincing enough fellow players to support them.

			The new system ensures that the General Assembly of the Synod will almost always have some impact on the game. However it deliberately pits all the statements of principle each season against each other, making them inherently competitive - as the one that passes with the highest margin is the one guaranteed to have an effect. Our goal is to reduce the number of statements of principle that priests need to vote on, and to ensure that their votes, for or against a statement, are vital.

			It is much easier for players to get statements of principle passed a national or virtue Assembly with a greater majority. Most of these do not have a game effect, due to the sheer number of them. It's not possible to have unlimited numbers of statements of principle have a game effect, we can't respond to that number of judgements. We may respond to a statement of principle if it looks like the potential consequences could be controversial - we've updated the OOC guidance to try and make things as clear as we can, as we know that players are often disappointed when a statement that gets a greater majority doesn't create a response from the plot team.

			We updated the guidance for statements of principle to make clear that any warning won't arrive in time. There have been more and more warnings published though the Synod using this method in recent times and initially we took account of them in the flavour text of winds of war (although they didn't have an appreciable game effect), but on later reflection, we realised this was a mistake. These judgements simply add to the record number of judgements for priests to vote on without directly adding to the game. We've made clear that they won't work, to discourage them, so that the focus remains on statements of principle that could be important in the game.

			===IC Explanation===
			The changes are part of a set of administrative changes being implemented by the Tribune at the request of the Constitutional Court following the changes to the way Imperial law is implemented with regards to religious crimes.

	==New Army Qualities==		==New Army Qualities==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 13 April 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:
	* [[Mournwold#Farstrider's_Watch\|Farstrider's Watch]] in Greensward, Mournwold, had suffered 2319 casualties. The garrison is at 681 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 2536.		* [[Mournwold#Farstrider's_Watch\|Farstrider's Watch]] in Greensward, Mournwold, had suffered 2319 casualties. The garrison is at 681 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 2536.
	* [[Feroz#Mora's_Rock\|Mora's Rock]] in Morajasse, Feroz, had suffered 635 casualties. The garrison is now at 5365 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 5873.		* [[Feroz#Mora's_Rock\|Mora's Rock]] in Morajasse, Feroz, had suffered 635 casualties. The garrison is now at 5365 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 5873.
	* [[Sarangrave#Tower_of_the_Skink\|Tower of the ~~Skin~~]] in Thornfen, Sarangrave, had suffered 464 casualties. The garrison is now at 11536 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 11908.		* [[Sarangrave#Tower_of_the_Skink\|Tower of the Skink]] in Thornfen, Sarangrave, had suffered 464 casualties. The garrison is now at 11536 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 11908.
	* [[Skallahn#Walls_of_Kierheim\|Walls of Kierheim]] in Bjarkey, Skallahn, had suffered 3233 casualties. The garrison is now at 2767 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 5353.		* [[Skallahn#Walls_of_Kierheim\|Walls of Kierheim]] in Bjarkey, Skallahn, had suffered 3233 casualties. The garrison is now at 2767 strength, and the bastion's integrity is 5353.