|
8 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2005 - 10:57AM
#111
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2001
|
Any ruling made on the Kobolds alone, will be carried to the others through rules interpretation unless the other pieces I mentioned have specific rulings made. In any case were a lack of clarification exists judges will default to a previously clarified rule that fits as close as possible to the unclarified case. My goal in pointing this out was only to assist with whatever ruling was made "official".[/quote]
Like I said in an earlier post in this thread, we're already working on a rule that thoroughly covers all of the cases. Judges will not need to base any rulings on precedent.
|
|
|
|
8 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2005 - 11:01AM
#112
|
|
|
A very good point.
By these rules,
The CoE's warband building (drow recruitment) is now completely void.
None of the Drow are considered such.
Course, this probably doesn't really matter, as noone ever recruits drow anyway, but hey - now the possibility is cleanly removed.[/quote]
No, becuase the CoE's card specifically says to refer to the D&D roleplaying side to see if the piece is a drow. Says so right on the card :P
|
|
|
|
8 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2005 - 7:10PM
#113
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2005
|
LOL 
If errata does get posted for this, I expect to see at least three or four tournament reports over the next month or two where people in this thread use Kobold Sorcerers plus either Kobold Skirmishers or Kobold Warriors in a sanctioned tournament.
With the number of words you made me type in this thread, you guys owe me that! :P[/quote]
Do you have any idea when a response might come back ? I'm planning to enter a Kobold Sorcerer warband in the next sanctionned event in Montreal (which is sunday)...
|
|
|
|
8 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2005 - 3:28AM
#114
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2003
|
No, becuase the CoE's card specifically says to refer to the D&D roleplaying side to see if the piece is a drow. Says so right on the card
Though of course the types listed on the d&d quick reference side of the card aren't any different, so you'll have to look at the special abilities/qualities line which lists 'drow traits'? Like anything else involving the CoE, that's a bit awkward.
cheers
|
|
|
|
8 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2005 - 3:47AM
#115
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
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! 
There's a difference; Graycloaks and the Ravenous Vampire refer to something which isn't a creature type.
Does that mean that if there's a Wolf Tribe Barbarian worth 5 points somewhere in a hypothetical future set, he'll be a valid minion for GR and RV?
How does that make sense, now? :P
The PRP, COTD, and DS you've cited all have "Type: Humanoid (Human)", not Type: Dragon. Dragon is a Type.
Kobold isn't a type, but a race of Reptilian Humanoids.
Of course, one could errata the Kobold Sorcerer's CE to be something like "Small Humanoids (Reptilian) with “Kobold” in their name". It would be non-ambiguous -- even if there are other Small Reptilian Humanoids in a future set (like Poison Dusk Lizardfolks from MM3), they won't, in all probability, have "Kobold" in their name.
|
|
|
|
8 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2005 - 8:51AM
#116
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicobolas
Guess they see no profits in doing after sale service. Think they are only interested in doing something about it if it doesn't cost them money...and if they happen to earn some from it=(
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron1
So the simplest fix would be to include as many of the "problem" figures in the next incarnation of the D&D basic set, so they can legally have their cards updated while still making money. You'd have to buy the next basic set to be able to use any of the figures who were "fixed".
Why? See what I said above.[/quote]
Admittedly, I was rushed and I wasn't as clear as I wanted it be. (I am adding the relevant discussion in the above quotes, so hopefully the formatting works out after it gets posted). Even now that I'm not, this still might not make sense...
It seems like the kobolds were only found to be worth making errata for when it was dicovered that the two versions of the cards were different. So I was trying to find a way for WOTC to both a) create new cards to fix the "problem" minis, and b) have WOTC make money on the fix, rather than just potentially losing money, like they would, for instance, in some type of scheme to replace cards by having you mail in your old cards.
Besides, who wouldn't purchase a Basic Set if you could get a LSD, Drider Sorcerer, Greycloak Ranger, and Inspiring Marshall. Even if they were substantially different from the original versions of these minis (say, changing factions, recosting, or adding/removing abilities), I think that Basic Set would be a hit.
|
|
|
|
8 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2005 - 10:06AM
#117
|
|
|
Well, maybe it's just me, but I think the easiest way to fix this with the least amount of errata is to fo the following:
Kobld Sorcerer: Kobold Skirmisher & kobold warrior are considered kobolds for the commander effect.
Champion of Elistree: Drow archer, drow fighter, drow rogue, & drow warrior are considered drow for commnder effect.
The above does not in any way need to go back and change a butt-load of previous cards, and it simply clarifies what should have been said already.
|
|
|
|
8 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2005 - 2:58PM
#118
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2001
|
Under the upcoming rule, I see no need to change any cards.
|
|
|
|
8 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2005 - 3:36PM
#119
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
8 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2005 - 8:45PM
#120
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
This ruling is wacky. I know it what is says on the cards. But for the love of god we know what kobolds are. I guess kobolds are kobolds, only if that what's listed under their creature type. I just think this ruling is unfortunate =( I think there could have been a different solution but you've heard me harp too long on it. 
|
|
|
