Just a search on the text suggests that's in the Arelat chapter, so Lachie will be most familiar with it.
-Ben.
It's part of Portus Cottiae and the site of one of the Chapter Houses of the fallen covenant of that name. It's along the route to the pass of the Mons Genevre ie. the old route through the Alps from northern Provencal into Italy. Map reference.
Does that help?
My bad, I was trying to figure out what page in the text Chorges is actually mentioned on.
On the map on page 113 it's 32 ie. along the upper Durance.
The insert regarding "The Lost Chapters of Portus Cottiae" is on page 129. Chorges correlates with Caturigomagus.
Hope that helps!
Lachie
And just to note, we'll likely put the Provence issue of Sub Rosa together for #17, as #16 is pretty well put together, and it's fairly full.
Anyone have a review of this book posted somewhere?
-Ben.
So, I take it that SR #15 and #16 are coming soon? 
#15 is just awaiting three pieces of art, which should arrive in the next day or so-- and I need to give Mark a stat block I owe him for the adventure, but otherwise, it's just about ready to go. I would expect it out within a couple days of that art.
#16 is going to need art, and we need to finish #15 then get it out to folks, and then look at commissioning the art for #16, but that does remind me that we could start asking authors for art briefs now. The artists who help us with Sub Rosa are very generous with their time, and we will need to work with their schedules. Otherwise, Sub Rosa #16 is should be following quick on the heels of #15.
I have quite a bit of material for Sub Rosa #17 already in hand, I'm planning another Mythic Blood of Non-Founders for that region (there's one for #15, and I need to decide if there'll be one in #16, as it's looking pretty big already).
-Ben.
... aaand that reminds me I should get back to writing on that article for #17
I've had a set of three pages of notes in a notebook for over a year just waiting for me to type them up.
To prevent more offtopic-debate in the Mythic Africa thread, I relocate the discussion about the Provencale Tribunal book in his own thread
1.+4. Maybe, I took no notice.
2.+5. This is pure nostalgia. If you take the angle of view of the new tribunal book, Mistridge and Windgraven simply weren´t very important. Why is the fall of Mistridge "one of the biggest things in tribunal history"? There are many more failed covenants in every Tribunalbook.
3. I don´t know, what you mean.
Chiarina.
I particularly agree with #2 and #5. As unfortunate as the legal situation may be, those iconic covenants were part of what constituted the setting and character of Ars Magica to me. Doissetep shall always remain Doissetep in my saga, and seeing those covenants devalued from their former glory in 5th edition kinda pains me to see. 
(And this is coming from me as someone who only really got into Ars Magica with 5th Edition to begin with.)
But their glory was metagame glory. That is, they were important to players, not to characters. Even Windgraven, which was a winter covenant and thus supposedly a former glory, was no longer relevant to the whole tribunal politically.
Look at it another way: all those places probably played an important part in people's sagas, if those sagas came back from the days of 3rd edition and were set up in the Val du Bosque. If that's the case, Mistridge and related covenants probably have well-stablished histories in those sagas, so that the less detail in the tribunal book, the more it will fit seamlessly with those sagas. And if they weren't set up there, then it's not as important. In other words, if those places were already important to the players, it's better that they're not very much detailed, because it gives you more leeway to have them your way, IMHO.
At least, that's how it is for me: we started playing in the Val du Bosque in 3rd edition, and it certainly works better this way for me, but of course YSMV.
I can't lie, I was hopeful to see Doissetep and Mistridge in a bigger way in the F&F tribunal book. I understand there were legalities involved, so "le sigh" there's only so much one can get despite what you hope for.
1 Like
So the enormous covenant made up of the "Dorsum" & "Templum," occupying a whole mountain didn't scratch one of those itches?
...just checking.
-Ben.
Aedas Mercurri is Doisettep. The way I play it, Doisettep is the commonly accepted and used nickname, more well known than the actual name that no one uses.
But it is that same covenant, some 23 years latter (the original was 1197 I believe?).
See here for an explanation. 23 years on allows us a bit of liberty but you can still use the relevant ArM3 material as background. The suggested effects of the Albigensian Crusade detailed in the earlier editions are accounted for in the ArM5 supplement (I read everything relevant already published as did Erik and the others I think). We chose to follow a path that made the most sense given the way Hermetic society was portrayed in ArM5 core.
Doissetep is apparently a (cool sounding) Tibetan word so it's even more anachronistic than many names in earlier editions of Ars. It's also unfortunately White Wolf trademarked (as is House Tremere incidentally but there's some sort of agreement with Atlas about that I gather). The concept of the covenant is based around a Mercurian temple or specifically an altar, hence literally "Aedes Mercuriae". I literally suggested we change the name and keep everything else the same - the serial number has been scratched off but if you look closely, all the core elements for Doissetep are still there and the earlier material can be made compatible, accounting for the time difference (the same goes for Val-Negra actually because that's the way Marko and I envisaged it originally). The relative political position of Aedes Mercuriae / Doissetep is the same as it would have been so I'm not sure if I see the "devaluing".
As to Mistridge... well, "the Fall of Mistridge" game/scenario from Grand Tribunal UK 2014 should hopefully make it into SubRosa or similar in the future. I'd agree with the meta-game comment about Mistridge - there's nothing really to stop you from playing with Mistridge (or Windgraven) etc, but the ArM5 line is specifically designed from a writing perspective so that playing any particular supplement does not require past editions / other supplements than the corebook (if possible). That's not to say we don't take account of history but we don't let ourselves be limited by it either. Oh and I always thought Grimgroth was a creepy git....
A saga based on the restoration of Mistridge would be an interesting idea.
The broken references are everywhere. Page 65, has Feminine Ceremony in Rebecca's stat block. Page 64, middle column references "Chapter 1: Overview" about the Maters and Matrones cult. It also says "including Feminine Ceremony". Chapter One is a page. I think they meant "Cults and Factions of Provence" in chapter three page 27. There is nothing about Feminine Ceremony. Folk Witch Ceremony minor virtue "grants the Minor form of the Supernatural Ability of Feminine Ceremony, beginning at a score of 1. See Chapter 3 for details regarding this ability." Which still doesn't actually seem to exist. There are probably others.
1 Like
Does Feminine Ceremony need some kind of errata to be usable? Or do the page references simply point to the wrong places?
I think it was cut, and some of the references got missed. Sorry about that.
There is a sticky thread about what do with errata: send them directly to me. That gets them fixed, while mentioning them here doesn't, necessarily.
2 Likes