For detail’s sake, note that “metadynasty” is not defined by any rule (it was a core rule in Ruleset 60, but was later dropped), and Dynasty 100 has not explicitly ended.

I thought the same, but apparently we’ve reinstated the rule. Rule 1.3: “If there is no Time Buddha, the Dynasty is a Metadynasty.”

By implication, Darknight is now no longer the Time Buddha.

Oh, fair enough. But I think all we can take from that is that a Metadynasty is a type of Dynasty (so, fair enough, a “new dynasty” has begun).

I don’t think the lack of a Time Buddha goes both ways, though - it’s not saying “a Metadynasty is a Dynasty with no Time Buddha”, it’s just describing one legal way by which a Dynasty becomes known as a Metadynasty. Ruleset 60 gave us another, unrelated way.

I’m not entirely convinced that that leaves it defined as to who the Time Buddha is, if anyone. (Does it default to previous-value, or undefined?)

I guess we have to fall back on the ordinary-language definition of “metadynasty”, which is, umm, anyone know? A quick search implies that the term is primarily used in the context of BlogNomic, so I guess the ordinary English meaning is “a BlogNomic dynasty with no Emperor”. (The other uses seem to be in what I can only assume is fanfiction, where the meaning seems to approximate “a dynasty-like structure formed out of dynasties rather than out of individual reins.” Not sure what starting a new one of those would mean in the context of BlogNomic.)

I think we just experienced it, ais.