I started out this comment worried that top level rules are subrules of the dynasty rules, and thus this might forbid any proposal which only modifies the dynastic rule

I ended it worried that because rules are defined to be “individually numbered sections of the Ruleset” and the ruleset no longer has individual numbering we have no rules

I think the fact that the table of contents is numbered is enough for this not to be an “emergency game is broken need to fix” but we should probably clarify the definition to something like

“Each individually numbered section of the Ruleset (as observed in the table of contents) is a rule, including sections that are subrules of other rules.”

I also think I read this wrong the first time as it does allow changes outside the subrule so I think its probably fine

Okay, I’ve added an appendix change to fix section headers being considered rules.

It’s the fact that rules are technically sub rules of the dynastic rules really something that needs to be fixed? I think it’s also good if we’re touching that part of the rules to clean up the “numbered” issue but overall still probably fine

Explicit Author

gimme empathy its gonna pass anyways