“the Dynastic Rules has two sub-rules one named Spades and one named Hearts”

A sub-rule at the top level seems odd, but looking at the ruleset nothing precludes a sub-rule existing by itself. (There’s only one passing mention of what a “sub-rule” is.)

Ah that was unintentional odd wording. However it is technically correct since the Dynastic rules are all subrules of Rule 2.

Does this mean that Diabecko is still “the King” for the purposes of Core Rules (because “a new Dynasty begins with the Pawn who made the DoV as its King”), and is the only one of the two who has a veto power and can’t declare victory? This rule doesn’t seem to be explicitly overriding any of that.

I’d assume since Special Case rules have the same priority as Dynastic Rules, i.e. above Core Rules, and it states we’re both Kings which head the Coregency, that I’d be the same as Diabecko for the Core Rules.

I would agree with card on this. At least that’s what we had in mind.

But if we have multiple Kings and a rule referring to “the King”, it’s unclear which of them is the King. It’s just as if we had a rule saying in isolation that “the player” could do something - with more than one player, who is it referring to?

I think we need to explicitly state that both Kings are considered to be the King, if you both want all the powers.

One of them could be the Queen.

@Cuddlebeam: lol

@Kevin: True. I’ll propose that as soon as possible.

(sorry I meant Kevan :D)

This coregency is experimental so there’ll be a few things to iron out.