[GUY] Kobolds or Reptiles ?

Since the are labeled as "Humanoid(Reptilian)", do the Kobold Warrior and the Kobold Skirmisher count as Kobolds for the purpose of the Kobold Sorcerer commander effect ?
I thought it read
Type: Humanoid (kobold, reptilian)

So if so, yes! ;)
I thought it read
Type: Humanoid (kobold, reptilian)

So if so, yes! ;)

I don't have them with me. But if I remember correctly, only the recent like the Kobold Sorcerer or Kobold Champion have both. Multi-types appeared in Aberrations (see Ryld Argith, Bladebarrer Hobgoblin, etc.)

Older Kobolds stated : Humanoid (Reptilian)
Older Kobolds stated : Humanoid (Reptilian)

Just looked at the cards -- that is correct.

Steve

If your only tool is a warhammer, every problem looks like a gnoll.

Neither the Kobold Warrior nor the Kobold Skirmisher count as Kobolds for purposes of the Kobold Sorcerer's commander effect because neither one has the word Kobold in its Type stat.

R&D is already working on ensuring that this sort of strangeness doesn't happen in the future, and I'm going to write a FAQ item to explain exactly how to determine whether a creature counts as a , but the details aren't ready yet.

You can't just look for the given word in a creature's name, otherwise the Purple Dragon Knight, the Cultist of the Dragon, and the Dragon Samurai would count as dragons!
This is another reason an oracle style document of modern wordings really really needs to be produced. And updated versions of Stat Cards too.
I'm not sure I agree with that. The more changes there are to card text, the more complicated ajudication becomes.

When possible, I prefer to see explanations/clarifications in the glossary without adjusting card text.

If that means a few creatures get stuck with a few weird abilities, I can live with that, particularly when they are not-often-used creatures.

I know R&D wants to avoid these sorts of things in the future, and there are several mechanisms in place to help that plan work. (And one of them always makes me really happy ;))
Neither the Kobold Warrior nor the Kobold Skirmisher count as Kobolds for purposes of the Kobold Sorcerer's commander effect because neither one has the word Kobold in its Type stat.

Are...you...ing...kidding?

That is, by a wide margin, the single most ridiculous thing I have yet heard in relation to DDM.

But wait. What about the Champion of Eilestreaa...uh whatever her name is?

Her warband building says Drow, but since early drow figures didnt say Humanoid (drow), we were told that if in doubt, look at the D&D side of the stat card and if it is a drow there, then it counts. Same with her +2 to sword-wielders. Using that same logic, can we not just say "Look on the D&D side of the stat card. If it says it's a kobold, then it counts?"
Are...you...ing...kidding?

Nope.

That is, by a wide margin, the single most ridiculous thing I have yet heard in relation to DDM.

Well, saying anything different sets a precedent that would be even worse. See that PDK thing I mentioned above.
I agree Sulaco and Xyvs this is an insane ruling.

Grey cloaks and Rav Vamp use the name of the creature not the type.

As pionted out the champion of Eilestr. had an identical problem with a different ruling.

I say we over rule Rob on this one and call for a revolt.

As much as I appriciate the work you do Rob. We can not let this stand.
The kobolt sor. command effect is the only reason you might ever want to use a kobolt warrior.
Using that same logic, can we not just say "Look on the D&D side of the stat card. If it says it's a kobold, then it counts?"

Yes, in theory that would work. However, referring people to the roleplaying side of the skirmish card is somewhat problematic and is considered something to avoid.

In addition to the swords confusion/issues that arose from referring people to the roleplaying side of the card, it also doubles the potential for statistics mistakes that slip through, and it doesn't help people that don't have the roleplaying side of the card. (For example, they may have a chainmail proxy, which doesn't include a roleplaying side. Granted, there are currently no chainmail proxy cards for the kobolds, but the principle still stands.)
Strange. The Drider Sorcerer can be errata'd for its game-breaking Transposition spell, but the Kobold Sorcerer - apparently - can't be errata'd to cover a pair of lousy Kobolds.
Grey cloaks and Rav Vamp use the name of the creature not the type.

There's a difference; Graycloaks and the Ravenous Vampire refer to something which isn't a creature type.

The kobolt sor. command effect is the only reason you might ever want to use a kobolt warrior.

As a player, IMO even if I had a Kobold Sorcerer in my warband, I'd still prefer to use a Goblin Skirmisher instead of a Kobold Warrior and a Blue instead of a Kobold Skirmisher. IMO, Conceal 6 just doesn't make up for the fact that the two Kobolds are inferior in most situations.
Yes, in theory that would work. However, referring people to the roleplaying side of the skirmish card is somewhat problematic and is considered something to avoid.

In addition to the swords confusion/issues that arose from referring people to the roleplaying side of the card, it also doubles the potential for statistics mistakes that slip through, and it doesn't help people that don't have the roleplaying side of the card. (For example, they may have a chainmail proxy, which doesn't include a roleplaying side. Granted, there are currently no chainmail proxy cards for the kobolds, but the principle still stands.)

So just to be clear: Yes, WotC has done this in the past (asked us to use the D&D side). But it has decided not to do this for the Kobold Sorc, even though it has ruled affirmatively on behalf of the Champion. So using your reasoning here, are we going to see a re-ruling that says, "On second thought, don't use the D&D side for the Champion. Only minis from Aberrations and up can benefit from her CE (since only then did we use drow as a type)."

I think because many more people use Drow than Kobolds, WotC thinks it's okay to make this ruling for the Champion of E. But because not many people use the kobolds, no similar action is being taken for the Kobold Sorc. Am I correct here? There seems to be no other explanation, since we have absolutely identical situations here, but contradictory rulings.

Double standard here. I say all Kobolds revolt. That next kobold soldier mini better be hella strong to make up for this inequity. ;)
Strange. The Drider Sorcerer can be errata'd for its game-breaking Transposition spell, but the Kobold Sorcerer - apparently - can't be errata'd to cover a pair of lousy Kobolds.

There's a difference. The Drider Sorcerer was errataed so that baleful transposition worked the way R&D wanted it to work. Because the Drider Sorcerer is an important metagame piece, the cost of issuing errata was worth the benefit.

In contrast, the benefit of including those two weak and inefficient kobolds in the suite of creatures that can be affected by the Kobold Sorcerer's commander effect probably isn't worth the cost of the errata.
Certainly. There is no benefit to making the game as logical as possible. Or to provide the ability for someone to do a theme band, should they want.

Heck, if you're not going to bother errata'ing obvious mistakes on "inefficient" pieces, why bother to make them in the first place?

Wow. I thought I'd seen some silly rules in the past, but this takes it.
I don't know how many Canadian are out there, but this remains me of the hertiage moment that they play about our first female senator.

different rules for drow and kobolts.

ARE NOT KOBOLT CONSIRDER PERSONS UNDER THE LAW? :D

That aside I do strongly diagree with this. It just seams wrong.
I'm thinking that in informal play noone is going to care if you play the kobolds logically rather than by the strict interpretation, and the chances of those pieces appearing in actual sanctioned matches are small.

I do think they shouldn't be quite so scared of errata, but I shudder thinking about the hundreds of pages that specific card errata/rulings take up for MtG.

EDIT: Guy, what do you mean by 'cost' of the errata btw?
So using your reasoning here, are we going to see a re-ruling that says, "On second thought, don't use the D&D side for the Champion. Only minis from Aberrations and up can benefit from her CE (since only then did we use drow as a type)."

Yes, that may happen. The Champ of E may get errataed to say "Followers of any faction with Drow in their name or type are legal in your warband" (or something similar).

There's little cost in errataing the CoE that way because she already has errata/clarification. If we made this change, we'd only be changing an existing errata/clarification.

I think because many more people use Drow than Kobolds, WotC thinks it's okay to make this ruling for the Champion of E. But because not many people use the kobolds, no similar action is being taken for the Kobold Sorc. Am I correct here?

Nope. The rationale does not depend on whether many people use kobolds.

As a player, I'm saying I could care less whether there's errata to include those kobolds in the Kob Sor's CE. I think most players would agree, considering most players don't use those two kobolds. It's just not worth the energy for more players to care about.
It may not even be worth bothering with issuing errata for the Champ, since you still would have to go to the D&D side to see if your minis count as 'sword users' for her commander effect.
Certainly. There is no benefit to making the game as logical as possible.

Nobody said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Or to provide the ability for someone to do a theme band, should they want.

Nobody is preventing anyone from building a Kobold-themed warband. We both know that.

Heck, if you're not going to bother errata'ing obvious mistakes on "inefficient" pieces, why bother to make them in the first place?

Who said the wording of the Kobold Sorcerer's commander effect was a mistake?
it doesn't help people that don't have the roleplaying side of the card. (For example, they may have a chainmail proxy, which doesn't include a roleplaying side. Granted, there are currently no chainmail proxy cards for the kobolds, but the principle still stands.)

I don't get this either. There's no reason the Chainmail replacements can't have the RPG side too. You print out something that looks like two cards side-by-side, fold in the middle, stick it in a transparent sleeve, or tape the side, and *bang* you have a two-sided card.
Ah, lets play the game then. Sure, it wasn't a mistake, the designers meant to exclude the only other two pre-Aberrations Kobold pieces from the Kobold Sorc's CE.

As to putting words in your mouth, you explicitly stated "In contrast, the benefit of including those two weak and inefficient kobolds in the suite of creatures that can be affected by the Kobold Sorcerer's commander effect probably isn't worth the cost of the errata." Implicitly that means that no reason was worth the cost to errata them; hence making the game more logical, a natural extension of including both previous Kobolds under the Sorc's CE, is not worth the cost.

Guy, I tremendously respect what you do, but sometimes a silly decision is just simply a silly decision. (And I'm not saying it was YOUR silly decision, just A silly decision.)
EDIT: Guy, what do you mean by 'cost' of the errata btw?

You mention most of it:

I shudder thinking about the hundreds of pages that specific card errata/rulings take up for MtG.

Essentially, every single piece of card errata stands in the way of players joining competitive play. Even tiny things add up. I'm sure the amount of card errata right now has turned at least one player away from the game. (Heck, long clarifications can drive away players, even if the long clarification eventually gets added to the rulebook. Complex rules are a barrier to entry.)

The ideal situation is to not have any card errata. Starting with set 7 (IIRC), I've worked pretty hard trying to catch card text mistakes and problem areas. If I'm doing my job right, you won't see anything like the lack of a range in a spell description, the lack of "replaces attacks" in somebody's Lay on Hands ability, or the lack of a Flight special ability on a creature with Speed F8.

However, I'm sure a few mistakes will still creep through. If they don't really harm the game as a whole, we'll just live with them (as we did on the Blue Wyrmling, who officially does not have Immune Electricity) because it's not worth increasing the amount of errata. If they do have really bad repercussions, we will put out errata.
As to putting words in your mouth, you explicitly stated "In contrast, the benefit of including those two weak and inefficient kobolds in the suite of creatures that can be affected by the Kobold Sorcerer's commander effect probably isn't worth the cost of the errata." Implicitly that means that no reason was worth the cost to errata them;

I'm not sure about that. I used the word "probably" intentionally.

And it isn't true that no reason is worth the cost to errata them. (Ack. Too many negatives.) If, for example, an efficient metagame creature were coming up that was designed to synergize with both Kobold Sorcerers and Kobold Skirmishers & Warriors, the cost could be worth it.

It's just that there isn't such a creature on the horizon.

Even if there were such a creature coming up, you'd also have to weigh the benefit of the errata against a player's ability to acquire the necessary creatures from sets 1 and 2.
Certainly. There is no benefit to makeing the game as logical as possible

Nobody said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

or to provide the ability for someone to do a themed band, should they want.

Nobody is preventing anyone from building a Kobold-themed warband. We both know that.

Heck, if you're not going to bother errata'ing obvious mistakes on "inefficent" pieces, why bother to make them in the forst place?

Who said the wording of the Kobold Sorcerer's commander effect was a mistake?

Ohh, that was a burn, burn dude....you got burned....burned.......sorry, couldnt help a Red V. Blue reference there :P . I stand with you on this one Guy, there just seems no point in adding errata on pieces that are out of date and rarely used. If anyone used either of the Kobolds mentioned in a tournament game against me, then I would probably be called for stalling due to orrendous fits of laughter :D , so the errata is totally un-necissary. If both players in a casual game agree that the Kobold Sorcerer's commander effect should work on those pieces, then fine, they can do it their own way, but there needs to be concistancy in the rules, and adding errata in certain places just doesn't make a good formula for that consistancy.
I actually understand full well the reluctance of the designers to change card meanings and errata like what we are discussing here. It sets a dangerous precedent and its simply much better to forego errata unless a pressing need dictates it.

However, I only argue vociferously on behalf of the kobold because the precedent was broken once for the CoE. If WotC hadn't already done this with the CoE, then WotC's rationale (as expressed through you) would be much easier to swallow. But having seen WotC not follow through on its own rationale the first time, I feel the need to speak up.

Guy, none of this is meant towards you of course. I appreciate you outlining WotC's stand on all of this. And at least from my perspective, I'm not arguing against you. Far from it. Thanks for taking the time to answer here.
Guy. It seems that there actually be no rule to define which creature is Kobold and which creature is not. Neither current skirmish rule book nor Miniatures Handbook have "Kobold" entry in their glossary. And Kobold Sorcerer's stats card is not specifically saying that "Kobold" is a creature type (or subtype).

So IMHO this is a rule which may change by clarification. If R&D (or you) clarify and define that "Any creature with Kobold in it's name or in type entry is a Kobold.", problem seems to be solved in a smarter way.

And, as you mentioned regarding Chainmail stats card, I have a related question. I have a Chainmail Drow Fighter mini. It must be used with a Chainmail Equivalent stats card but that card does not have RPG side. Is he using a sword?
I don't see why we can't have a clarification that says something like "Kobold Skirmishers and Kobold Warriors can be treated as kobolds for the purposes of the Kobold Sorcerer's Command Effect." I can't imagine anybody fighting this interpretation, even if they didn't have the most up-to-date clarification where this might appear.

After all, it seemed easy enough to make a clarification for the Graycloak Ranger to be able to have a Timber Wolf as a minion, when the card specifically says "1 Wolf", not "1 creature whose name contains Wolf" like they do now with the Ravenous Vampire.

I can't imagine that there would be many people who would use Kobold Skirmishers or Warriors in a tournament. Who knows, maybe someone wants to try it with a new Beholder band or something. But with the way this ruling currently stands, there are absolutely zero.
Guy. It seems that there actually be no rule to define which creature is Kobold and which creature is not. Neither current skirmish rule book nor Miniatures Handbook have "Kobold" entry in their glossary. And Kobold Sorcerer's stats card is not specifically saying that "Kobold" is a creature type (or subtype).

So IMHO this is a rule which may change by clarification. If R&D (or you) clarify and define that "Any creature with Kobold in it's name or in type entry is a Kobold.", problem seems to be solved in a smarter way.

As explained above, it could certainly be ruled that way, but that isn't a good way to handle the general case. (See the problematic example of the Purple Dragon Knight and others above.) Therefore, this clarification would be a Kobold Sorcerer-specific clarification, which is essentially Kobold Sorcerer errata, and -- like I said above -- we want to avoid that unless the benefit outweighs the cost. IMO, it's not.

And, as you mentioned regarding Chainmail stats card, I have a related question. I have a Chainmail Drow Fighter mini. It must be used with a Chainmail Equivalent stats card but that card does not have RPG side. Is he using a sword?

Yeah; the back of the Drow Fighter card shows that it's using a sword.

(See: Right there, there was a cost of referring to the roleplaying side of a stat card. I had to spend time answer a question about it. Referring to the roleplaying side is a bad thing.)
As explained above, it could certainly be ruled that way, but that isn't a good way to handle the general case. (See the problematic example of the Purple Dragon Knight and others above.) Therefore, this clarification would be a Kobold Sorcerer-specific clarification, which is essentially Kobold Sorcerer errata, and -- like I said above -- we want to avoid that unless the benefit outweighs the cost. IMO, it's not.

I see. Using only the type/subtype for that kind of definition will certainly be the smarter way. I tend to agree with that DDM should go that way. But then the next rulebook should include that rule clearly.

Also, at this moment we need some description why Wolf and Timber Wolf are both wolves and Kobold Warrior and Kobold Skirmisher are not Kobolds.

If the basic rule is "unless otherwise noted only type/subtype counts", there is no "wolf" or "Hyena" in current environment unless defined specifically.
Strange. The Drider Sorcerer can be errata'd for its game-breaking Transposition spell, but the Kobold Sorcerer - apparently - can't be errata'd to cover a pair of lousy Kobolds.

There's a difference. The Drider Sorcerer was errataed so that baleful transposition worked the way R&D wanted it to work. Because the Drider Sorcerer is an important metagame piece, the cost of issuing errata was worth the benefit.

In contrast, the benefit of including those two weak and inefficient kobolds in the suite of creatures that can be affected by the Kobold Sorcerer's commander effect probably isn't worth the cost of the errata.

How ironic in hindsight, that the very errata in question is largely responsible for the drider's current DCI status :D Maybe its for the best the kobold doesnt get errata'd ;)
I think the problem is that we need a PA.

Then each player could vote on changes. It of course would have no power. The PA would carry more weight when talking to wizards. they could say stuff like 69% of our membership is agaist this or 83% wants the drider reinstated. You could jion the PA by using your DCI number. 1 player 1 vote.

The 69 and 83 are just two numbers I made up so don't jump on me for them.
You wanna be able to vote on stuff Hasbro does??

Buy stock.
now bunny don't go jumping on me or I jump on your mini on Thrusday. A players association is totally reasonable.
Egads... snuck attacked in the darkness by some one who knows I am full of crap yet does not reveal thier face!
its scott, by the way i do have some Hasbro stock. Not enought to do anything with, but I do have some
I see from the thread explosion that people don't agree with the ruling here.

Personnaly, the part I don't agree with is when Guy says that errata aren't important because the pieces aren't used much. I agree with all the "trouble" part, but saying that a piece isn't used doesn't mean it's not good. Perhaps it is just that people have not seen yet a good strategy with it.
Guy, as Graycloak Ranger is widely considered to be one of "the problem 4", it could be very important. So I repeat.

If Kobold Warrior and Kobold Skirmisher are not "Kobold", and the reasoning is that they do not contain the word "Kobold" in their creature type line, current Wolf and Timber Wolf minis should not be "Wolf" either. (And Hyena is not "Hyena", too).

So when making clarification of "Kobold" problem, you (or R&D) should also decide how to reason the definition of "Wolf" & "Hyena".

Maybe you should just apply the same reasoning and conclude that there is no Wolf or Hyena in current environment. Or, you may make specific clarifications (or maybe erratas?) for Wolf and Hyena.
It's fairly obvious that Drow Fighters have swords; however, it's less obvious that Drow Rogues and the Elf Pyromancer, for example, have swords. Any chance the Chainmail equivalency cards could get an update/upgrade?

P.S. I feel that this ruling about Kobolds is silly, but follows the current rules. Maybe add a glossary entry for the Reptilian subtype that says something like "reptilian creatures with Kobold in the name are Kobolds, and reptilian creatures with Lizardfolk in the name are Lizardfolk".