Spotlight on Games
Empires of the Middle Ages
Errata for the SPI board game
- Saxony and Brandenburg speak Old Saxon, not Old High German.
- Hungary speaks non-Indo-European, not Langue d'Oc.
- Smolensk is Eastern Orthodox, not Pagan.
- Kiev is adjacent to Smolensk and Ryazan.
- Croatia is adjacent to the Adriatic Sea.
- Lithuania, Prussia and Livonia are of the Roman Catholic religion.
[9.32][9.52] Effectiveness Ratings are halved for multiple
sea areas if positive; if negative, use 1.5 times the Effectiveness
Rating, round up, and then add gold.
[9.4] A Diplomatic Conquest does not include or imply a
[18.0] A player may obtain possessions and form a tie in
[21.3] An exile automatically acquires any Area of the
identical Language and Religion as his Leader if a Magnate
[17.22] The Unrest and Rebellion Value of an Area is -2 if
the owning player has a Diplomatic Tie to the Area and +2
for one or more unfriendly (unwaived) Diplomatic Ties to the
[22.3] Non-Indo-European Pagans have Proselytic Ability of 0
and Convictional Strength of 16.
- When attempting to convert an area's religion, fortifications
that you own do not subtract from your Leader Effectiveness.
- A magnate is destroyed if he retains no areas of the
same language and religion as his original court area.
- Syrian magnates always attack Jerusalem before any other
- The Turkish player may obtain Claims under 18.0 #2 and
18.0 #4, provided, of course, that the area is Moslem. This
is the only way the Turk may obtain Claims.
- The T/C result on Diplomatic Endeavors gives a Tie and a Conquest.*
But does it also give a Claim? The rules are not explicit. However,
we play that as long as the area's religion meets the requirements
for a Claim, a Claim is indeed conferred.
*Some disagree, admitting that while the Empires of the Middle Ages
rules are silent on what "T/C" exactly means, in the similar,
subsequently-released The Sword and the Stars by the same company
(SPI), the rule is that one gets a Tie, unless the numerical requirement
of the C is met, in which case one gets a Conquest instead.
Here's the take of myself and my gaming friends on that:
Of course, since it's not defined in the rules everyone is free to do
whatever they think best. We bought our copies of the game
at the Origins national convention in 1981 and have been playing it
this way from the beginning – including two complete Grand Scenarios
– and the rule has never caused a problem.
- SPI was not one mind. The people who designed and developed the
first game were not the same as the ones who created the successor. The
fact that The Sword and the Stars instructions are so careful to
define the result tends to indicate that that group did not know the
answer and decided to reach their own solution, which may or may not
have been what the original team decided. If they had been completely
sure of the answer they would more likely have felt that the original
rules were adequate and not gone to those lengths – individual
result paragraphs – to define it.
- Some Year cards have a result of "T/C" and no numerical
requirement. Why have this when there is also C with no minimum? Who
cares about a tie when you can get conquest? A tie and conquest, that
makes sense. But a tie if zero or higher unless it's zero or higher and
therefore a conquest? Makes little sense.
- In real life terms, if you are doing so well that you manage to
conquer – conquer! – a major area via mere diplomacy it
completely makes sense that in addition to the ownership you would also
have excellent ties with the area. I mean, how could you not? That would
be the more astonishing result. Inded, there's a good argument that all
C results should include a T.
- Diplomatic conquest is quite rare on the cards and therefore hard to
do. Given that, also giving the tie compensates for that a bit, makes
this very low probability endeavor more rewarding and therefore makes
for a more interesting game. It's a better design choice.
Wed Mar 1 22:08:43 UTC 2017
This web page entered:
Fri Oct 16 16:16:23 PDT 1998