Council of Elrond

The creature type of Cave-drake is "dragon".

My proposal is this term be replaced by the keyword "drake".

Reasoning: The only other dragons in ME are the unique ones bearing names. I cannot see any reason why cave-drake should make an exception. The objection that ICE had plenty of time to make an erratum and never did so does not justify the current status in terms of game mechanics.

While I agree, I think this one is a lower priority.

Well, this one is obvious for thematic reasons.

Then again most of the very nice cards that can only be played on dragons see very little play because the unique dragons are very limited in their playability. As long as Cave-drake keeps it's dragon-status there are better chances to build a viable hazard strategy around those hazard-events.

Then why not convert all drakes into dragons?

I have often scratched my head and wondered why Cave-Drake was a Dragon type rather than a Drake. Clearly, this is simply because the Drake creature type wasn't invented until The Dragons expansion and when ICE created The Wizards, they must not have yet known that the Drake creature type would exist.

The proposed erratum makes perfect sense thematically. Cave-Drakes resemble Drakes in every way, rather than Dragons. That said, the point Shapeshifter makes is valid. I typically resist the idea of changes which make some cards less playable than they already are (unless the cards are overplayed or abusive).

This is a great submission and one I feel that will require some deep consideration.

If Cave-drake receives errata to make it a Drake hazard creature type, rather than a Dragon, it might be nice to have a dream card that causes all Drakes to also have the Dragon creature type. That would help address Shapeshifter's concern about the playability of the Dragon-specific enhancers.

I don't think there's need for that much concern; Dragon's Desolation, Fever of Unrest, and Frenzy of Madness all increase Dragon playability options.

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 5:28 pm I don't think there's need for that much concern; Dragon's Desolation, Fever of Unrest, and Frenzy of Madness all increase Dragon playability options.

Right, but the more cards required to play a Dragon hazard, the more difficult it is. As an example, if your goal is to employ Memories Stolen in your hazard strategy (with suggested errata) now you must have all of these:

- Memories Stolen in hand
- A unique Dragon creature in hand
- Dragon's Desolation in hand (with company traveling that meets its requirements)
- A Hazard Limit remaining of at least 3

Alternatively (with no errata), you only need:

- Memories Stolen
- Cave Drake (with company traveling that meets its requirements)
- A Hazard Limit remaining of at least 2

It is a big difference. Adding a 3rd required card to the combo as well as an additional Hazard Limit is a huge jump.

Kjeld wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 5:05 pm If Cave-drake receives errata to make it a Drake hazard creature type, rather than a Dragon, it might be nice to have a dream card that causes all Drakes to also have the Dragon creature type. That would help address Shapeshifter's concern about the playability of the Dragon-specific enhancers.

This seems like a nice suggestion to me.

However, I would caution against altering the standard rules of the game due to considering anything Dream Card specific. There are plenty of players who do not have/use Dream Cards (and may never), and DC are a separate format from standard play. Each rule erratum or clarification should stand on its own merit within the confines of the standard game.

I think taxonomy is always up for debate, but I want to point out some other parallels:

A butterfly is a matured caterpillar.
A killer whale is a dolphin.
A koala bear is a marsupial.
An electric eel is a fish.
A red panda is a fox.
A star fish is a... not a fish.
A honey badger is in its own subfamily, not a type of badger.

All that said, I'm willing to believe that the first Elven explorers coming upon Cave Drakes might have had other things on their mind than adequately identifying whether they were drakes or dragons, and happened to goof it up, but luckily this was caught by later scholars to be able to accurately type them for our card game.

The game makers had plenty of opportunity with the MELE reprint of Cave Drake to amend it following METD, so the argument of lack of foresight doesn't hold for me.

Theo wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 5:22 am A star fish is a... not a fish.

Lol.

Theo wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 5:22 am The game makers had plenty of opportunity with the MELE reprint of Cave Drake to amend it following METD, so the argument of lack of foresight doesn't hold for me.

A fair point. While I am extremely grateful to ICE for the wonderful game they created, I am extremely cautious about assuming their intentions when it comes to issues of logic and planning.

I just feel that if they knew that drakes were going to be a creature type in the next expansion, they should have named it "Cave-Dragon" instead of "Cave-Drake" if they really wanted it to be a dragon. The "Cave-Drake" name with Dragon creature type just messes with my OCD I suppose.

Even so, I think this a great submission but is also very unclear to me. I can see the argument for both sides.

Cave-drake being a Dragon is a peculiar anomaly, or rather anachronism. We had the same discussion in the DC community and did decide to change it in the DC rules to Drake. But the context is different, as playing Dragon-hazards there is easier/more frequent.

As this A) does not really solve a problem, and B) decreases the already scarce use of Dragon hazards, I would not be in favour of this change. Theme is important, but it's not greatly un-thematic to play Dragon's Blood on a Cave-drake.

besides, there's also an upside, making a successful roll for Flatter a Foe or Token of Goodwill against Cave-drake is now easier

It's interesting, as I thought this problem was solved decades ago with the release of The Lidless Eye... In the Spanish version, Cave Drake was changed to Drake instead of Dragon... I always thought this came from the original English cards, but it seems some translator made his own justice... Behold:


By the way, I know it's not so important, but... shouldn't the Lidless Eye card mention in the text the thingie?

No; mentioning it in the text is not necessary. It's actually redundant, but a helpful reminder nonetheless. That's interesting that the Spanish version already did this, though.

Bandobras Took wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 2:49 am No; mentioning it in the text is not necessary. It's actually redundant, but a helpful reminder nonetheless.

Ya, my guess is that by the Lidless Eye release, they expected people to be more familiar with the rules and not need the symbols regurgitated in the text.

Mordakai wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 3:11 pmbut it seems some translator made his own justice...

That is crazy! Not sure if it was vigilante justice or just a mistake, but either way....quite a shocker.