Community

Neon Knight]Why even do that. I said it before, i'll say it again. Just do the follwoign:



Plain simple, and deals with the past mistakes (which will not happen in the future because they are stating Drow/Kobold on the cards now).

Easy eh?

Yeah. But it still does not block future mistakes.
At least race is mentioned on the RPG side of all cards. Only probleme with RPG side is if they actually quit mmaking that s wrote:

Why not just use a warband building Contructs (living) instead of the word Warforged

Because the Lord of Blades specifically tries to recruit Warforged

Last time I checked, there is nothing else in the game that has this type...

The last time you checked, Kobolds in D&D were just "Reptillian", right? Well, in DDM, they're "Kobold" as well, and now it's an issue.

Who is to say that more non-warforged Living Constructs wont come out?

The entire point of fixing the rules now, would be to ensure that if FUTURE releases are made, that the updated rules cover all possible situations.

What this means is that R&D needs to include non-standard D&D types in the "Type" stat, as they already have with the Kobold type and Drow type (and maybe a few others).

If the rules are changed now, and the proper fixes are made, it will make the future of the game healthier, easier to interpret, and less work for Guy.

If you look at older MTG cards, the wording on them is laughable compared to the wording today, which is much more similar in nature to computer code, and runs as predictably. The older wording was not streamlined and often contained words that might be interpreted in different ways. What this gave birth to was a fair amount of errata for the first batch of sets, but a much cleaner game in the long run. Personally I think this is the way to go, if there needs to be errata on the first 7 sets, so be it, if it makes the 20+ sets to follow much easier to play with.

Just my thoughts on this situation, and the broader topic, which is the reluctace to bring errata to the table when needed.

The new player with some inherrited minis that comes to the table with Kobold Warriors & Skirmishers is going to be just as scared away from the game when a veteran player tells him his pieces arent Kobolds because of an arbitrary ruling (that he'll have to bring out from a clarification page he's printed up ANYWAY!) than he will be if it comes up, and the veteran can show an official errata to the card that makes his kobolds as playable as he already assumed they were.

This isint just about Kobolds, it's about the health of the game in the long term. It also may not be about R&D. It could be partially to blame on marketing managers and the like, in a more financially worried, but "disconnected from the game" position. If you've read this far, you deserve a cookie. If the emoticons are the only thing that got your attention, you deserve the stormcloud though =P :raincloud

Anyway, I think I'll go back into my non-posting cave for a while

Astinex]Originally posted at on the bottom of page 3 of this thread.
Won't work that easily I'm afriad, nothing else has it but they don't ALL have it the same way.

Well, error there. The Titan isn't actually a Living Construct, and doesn't have any subtypes at all, Warforged, Living, or otherwise. And considering that the LoB is LE, and the Titan's already dual LG/LE, it wouldn't need the Warband Building to be added anyway.

So specifying Living Construct would cover all the current actual warforged, since it can be extended to both Construct (Living) and Construct (Living Construct). No issue wrote: