Dragons

[Theo]

What is subjective is what role the context of the original rules should play.

You may believe that The Dragons rules established that the attack created by At-home manifestations also counts as a manifestation, and thus the CRF would "need" an explicit "errata" flag to change this. But this claim is reliant on interpreting the intent of The Dragons rules. The bottom line: there is no literal rule anywhere stating that the automatic attack created by an At-home manifestation itself counts as a manifestation. There is a literal rule saying that a broader category of such an attack does NOT count as a manifestation.

[CDavis7M]

It is explicitly there even if not "literally" there in words. The CRF does not refer to At Home dragons and does not change this rule.



The CRF does change other rules in The Dragons rules and it looks like this:

Dragons Rules, Characters Facing Multiple Strikes: Change "are then considered to be canceled" to "are thenn considered to be successful."
Dragon Rules, Hoards: Change "Each site with a Dragon automatic-attack (i.e., each Dragon's Lair) contains a hoard" to "Each site which had a Dragon automatic-attack at the beginning of the turn contains a hoard."

The CRF statement on Dragons that we are discussing is not a change to The Dragons rules.

[Konrad Klar]

Now I see that attack from Dragon manifestation is not itself the manifestation of the Dragon.
So:

Dragon automatic-attacks are not considered manifestations of any unique Dragon.

is both true and meaningless.

My proposal is now:

"Dragon automatic-attacks are only considered attacks from manifestations of a unique Dragon when they are created by one (e.g. the dragon's At Home event).

If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the normal automatic-attack at the associated site is removed, but that site will retain its hoard status until end of turn.

If you defeat the attack from a Dragon manifestation, you get kill marshalling points
from the manifestation as if you had defeated a creature."

I have decided to replace:
"and that site will therefore lose its hoard status at the beginning of the next turn."
with
"but that site will retain its hoard status until end of turn"
(the turn in which the manifestation of the Dragon has been defeated may be last turn of the game; there may not be "next turn" and some effects active at Council may rely on hoard status).

Most recent changes in bold.

[CDavis7M]

I still don't think these changes are needed. But putting aside that for a moment - why would the CoE ever make clarifying changes to clarifying statement at all? That doesn't make sense.

Changes to clarification statements are confusing. The clarification statements in the "CRF - Rulings by Term" section are out of context (as I pointed out above, this CRF statement is actually clear in the context of the corresponding question). And the clarification presented here does not include a statement of why changes to the original clarification were needed and what effect the changes have, leaving the later reader to wonder what purpose the change serves.

If the original clarification is only confusing to 2 or 3 people, I don't see any issue with leaving alone. If it is confusing to more people then maybe there is cause to REMOVE the clarification.

If the RULES themselves are confusing, then the RULES should be changed. I cannot think of any situation at this point in time where clarifying a clarifying statement makes more sense than removing a confusing clarification statement and changing the rules themselves.

If the CoE were to propose changes along the lines you have suggested, they should be made as changes to the rules in the Complete Errata Listing section of the CRF and the proposal should include a footnote explaining what was originally lacking and what the effect of the new text is on other rules and cards.

The Dragons Rules, DRAGON LAIRS section: Add "something here..." to this section. (And here is the explanation) This change is needed because 2 or 3 people thought that automatic attacks from At Home Dragons were not actually manifestations of dragons. This change clarifies that automatic attacks from At Home Dragons actually are manifestations... even though they always were... which applies to "these other cards, rules, and rulings listed here".

The Dragons Rules, MANIFESTATIONS OF DRAGONS section: Change "this statement" to "that statement". "Footnote explanation goes here"

This way, the CoE voted changes can be read in context. Plus, the rules themselves could actually be updated and readers could see the footnote with the explanation.

Let's at least set ourselves up for success.

[Theo]

It is explicitly there even if not "literally" there in words.

I disagree. Your highlighted section only suggests that there is representational meaning; it does not speak to explicit rules.

An equivalently absurd statement might be to highlight something like (just a quick one I spotted):

“Dangerous forces” in Middle-earth: The Lidless Eye are represented by hazards that the players use against one another.

and try to claim that because automatic-attacks aren't hazards they should not be dangerous, a.k.a. should all be detainment.

This would be the path of pain, not of wisdom.