Dragons

[Konrad Klar]

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

If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the automatic- attack at the
associated site is removed, and that site therefore loses its hoard status.

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

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."

First sentence of "CRF, Rulings by Term, Dragons" literally means that an automatic-attacks added by Dragon at Home are not manifestation of any unique Dragon, so defeating them is not a defeating of manifestation of given unique Dragon.
Second sentence of "CRF, Rulings by Term, Dragons" is in conflict with "CRF, Errata (Rules)".

I propose the following changes to "CRF, Rulings by Term, Dragons":

Unless stated otherwise a normal Dragon automatic-attacks are not considered manifestations of any unique Dragon.

If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the normal automatic- attack at the
associated site is removed, and that site therefore loses its hoard status since beginning of the next turn after the turn in which a manifestation of a unique Dragon has been defeated.

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

[Theo]

Unless stated otherwise a normal Dragon automatic-attacks are not considered manifestations of any unique Dragon.

In my opinion the original rule really was a clarification (that did not need to be made). In that mindset, I would prefer a phrasing that spoke more directly to the confusion that you picked up on, such as:
"Dragon automatic-attacks are only considered manifestations of a unique Dragon when they are created by one (i.e. the dragon's At Home event)."

Otherwise, the At Home events don't actually state that the automatic attack they create is itself a manifestation.

If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the normal automatic- attack at the
associated site is removed, and that site therefore loses its hoard status since beginning of the next turn after the turn in which a manifestation of a unique Dragon has been defeated.

If the second bold addition was meant to reinforce the CRF change, the last part of it is redundant with the sentence clause. What about:
"If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the normal automatic-attack at the associated site is removed, and that site will therefore lose its hoard status at the beginning of the next turn."

[Konrad Klar]

In my opinion the original rule really was a clarification (that did not need to be made).

I agree.

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

Otherwise, the At Home events don't actually state that the automatic attack they create is itself a manifestation.

Right. I accept your proposal.

"If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the normal automatic-attack at the associated site is removed, and that site will therefore lose its hoard status at the beginning of the next turn."

Accepted.

[CDavis7M]

Is the original post trying to argue that an automatic attack effect created by a unique dragon manifestation is not actually an attack from a unique dragon manifestation because it does NOT override the CRF entry: "Dragon automatic-attacks are not considered manifestations of any unique Dragon."?

If so, I disagree. This CRF entry is labeled "Rulings By Term - Dragons" and should be considered as an annotation to the other relevant rules from The Dragons rules, like the section "MANIFESTATIONS OF DRAGONS."

While these 2 rules may seem to be in conflict, this is due to a narrow reading of the rules divorced from the entirety of the rules. Considering all rules and the CRF together, there is no conflict.

This lack of full perspective seems to cause most of the issues submitted.

[Theo]

Is the original post trying to argue that an automatic attack effect created by a unique dragon manifestation is not actually an attack from a unique dragon manifestation because it does NOT override the CRF entry: "Dragon automatic-attacks are not considered manifestations of any unique Dragon."?

No. Rather that the rule for removing the automatic-attacks is framed in terms of defeating "a manifestation of a unique Dragon," and not "an attack created by a manifestation of a unique Dragon." With the other two quoted CRF entries, defeating an attack from an At-home manifestation would cause the player to get the kill MP from the card but would not count as defeating a manifestation of the Dragon for other purposes.

The Balrog rules actually already sufficiently cover this case (to the extent that it isn't contested because it erroneously mention "At Hunt" dragons... whatever those are), but it wouldn't hurt to clarify the CRF.

Defeating a Permanent-event
Certain hazard permanent-events indicate that they give “kill” marshalling points (e.g., Dragon “At Hunt” and “At Home” cards, the “Spawn” hazards from Middle-Earth: The Balrog, etc.). Each of these cards has an attack associated with it. If such an attack is defeated, treat the associated card as a defeated creature.

[CDavis7M]

Hmm... I don't see it.

The Dragons rules seem pretty clear that an automatic attack created by an At Home is indeed a manifestation. The rules may not come right out and say it, but the automatic attacks are discussed in the Dragon Manifestation section along with the other creature and Ahunt attacks. There is no indication that they should be treated differently. It seems implied by the structure that the attacks from the 3 types of manifestations are indeed manifestations for purposes of being defeated.



Does anyone actually play by rules such that defeating an At Home dragon does not remove the automatic attack? Had anyone heard of such a ruling being upheld at a tournament?

[Theo]

The Dragons rules seem pretty clear that an automatic attack created by an At Home is indeed a manifestation.

CRF rules override printed rulebooks from having a later distribution. If there was no temporal succession, no original rules could ever be changed.

[CDavis7M]

Theo, I don't disagree with your statement but it is irrelevant to my post.

Not all CRF overrides printed rules. Most of the time the CRF merely clarifies existing rules. In cases where the CRF overrides rules or creates new rules, it includes an indicator of such, like "Card Erratum:", "Rules Erratum," of "Annotation."

The CRF we are discussing does not contain any indication that it overrides the rules.

The CRF statement "Dragon automatic-attacks are not considered manifestations of any unique Dragon" does not necessarily override the Rules Insert section on "Manifestations of Dragons - At Home." Reading these two together, an At Home and its automatic attacks are clearly dragon manifestations. The CRF is clearly talking about normal site automatic attacks.

From: "Ross Conner" <cco...@cyberlink.bc.ca>
>I seem to remember a ruling that Ichabod made saying that even if you
>killed a dragon (say Intangast) then Gold Hill would still have a dragon
>Auto attack. I may be worng though. Could someone who keeps all their
>messages check or perhaps Ichabod could tell us again......
If I ever made such a ruling, it was incorrect. Killing a dragon removes
the automatic-attack at its home site. However, dragon automatic-attacks
are not manifestations of the unique Dragons.

I don't disagree with the proposed errata. I just feel that is an abuse of the ARV process. The ARV is meant to clarify actual issues. It is not a venue for practicing rules lawyering, which is what the original post is doing. This thread is literally asking for dozens of people to spend several minutes pondering this nonsense. And then it is asking hundreds of people to read the CoE errata and consider whether there actually was an issue that needed to be fixed or not. And this post wouldn't be so bad if it was all alone, but it has another 60 bogus posts along with it.

There is NO issue here. No one is seeking clarification on this.

[Konrad Klar]

@CDavis7M
If erratas would be applied to original manual then the problem of overwhelming number of erratas would be solved.
Reader of the manual with most recent patch applied, would have access to most recent state of rules.

If it is too ambitious project, then at least CRF file should be considered as a target of such patching.

There is NO issue here. No one is seeking clarification on this.

Some issues are "auto-corrected" by readers. By years no one complained (at least not publicly) about Freeze the Flesh. As though the card could work according its original text.
But if we agree for game where each detail can be used against opponent or for player's own benefits, we cannot rely on auto-correction, because details are often first victims of auto-correction.

[CDavis7M]

A brief history as it relates to this CRF entry:

• Dragon automatic attacks are printed on sites in METW.
• Unique dragons are released in METW and have corresponding sites for playability.
• Unique dragons are released in The Dragons and by killing them you can also remove the dragon automatic attack at a site.
• The Dragons rules include a helpful guide to show you where all of the dragons live.
• Certain people play Rules Lawyer instead of just playing MECCG and try to argue that the automatic attack on the site is actually a unique dragon manifestation. However, there is no rule to support this assertion.
• A ruling and corresponding CRF are issued to clarify against the assertion.
  ... wait 20 years...
• No one is playing MECCG but you can still play Rules Lawyer, and so people try to argue that the automatic attack of the unique dragon manifestation is actually not a unique dragon manifestation.

Some situations warrant errata by ARV. This threshold is at least reached when there is actual discussion of varying interpretations.

If there is no difference in interpretation, and no issues in playing, then issuing Erratum to fix a non-issue actually creates MORE uncertainty and makes it HARDER for people to understand the votes, take the time to vote, and read through the issued errata.

This proposed errata has significant drawbacks (time, confusion, etc) and such minimal benefits (potentially boosting the ego the handful of Rules Lawyers).

[Konrad Klar]

This proposed errata has significant drawbacks (time, confusion, etc) and such minimal benefits (potentially boosting the ego the handful of Rules Lawyers).

Some areas of formal systems (like mathematics, programming languages) are developed, even if there is no known practical applications for them.
Some vulnerabilities in programs are being fixed even if there is no known proof of concept of exploiting them.
You may consider such practices as acts of abusing.

[Theo]

Agreed.

Furthermore,

If there is no difference in interpretation, and no issues in playing, then issuing Erratum to fix a non-issue actually creates MORE uncertainty and makes it HARDER for people to understand the votes, take the time to vote, and read through the issued errata.

There is a significant difference in this proposal. Under the current rules-as-written, the attack itself is still not a manifestation of a unique dragon. The Balrog just insures that the manifestation is defeated if the attack is defeated and that the player receive the kill MP. But there are several hazards that can only be played on attacks by unique manifestations (e.g. Dragon's Breath) which are currently not usable on the automatic attacks created by At-home dragons because of the CRF wording.

You may be of the opinion that this isn't the intent of the CRF; in that case you should vote for this proposal. But disagreeing with the deductive implications of the current wording only reinforces the need for proposals like this.

[CDavis7M]

Under the current rules-as-written, the attack itself is still not a manifestation of a unique dragon... You may be of the opinion that this isn't the intent of the CRF; in that case you should vote for this proposal. But disagreeing with the deductive implications of the current wording only reinforces the need for proposals like this.

I think it's just you and Konrad and maybe 1 or 2 others who actually think this. No one else picks apart the CRF and rules like this. This interpretation can't see the forest for the trees. The CRF should be read in the context of other rules and it is clear in that context. There is no reason to make everyone sit here and read this post, and make a vote, and then make even more players have to read and sift through this clarification just because of a handful of rules lawyers. Especially when their interpretation is bogus in the context of the rules.

Yes, that CRF statement regarding dragon automatic attacks, if taken out of context, would mean the attack itself is still not a manifestation of a unique dragon. But when a person reads the CRF in the context of The Dragon rules, as they would since this particular CRF entry is an addendum to rules on Dragons, then the CRF statement clearly does not mean that the attack itself is still not a manifestation of a unique dragon. If this CRF statement were intended to override The Dragons rules on At Home manifestations, instead of merely being a clarification, then it would be preceded by the term "Erratum" like all of the other errata.

I'm just trying to stand up for common sense folk who don't have the patience to fight the rules lawyers. It's not just this 1 submission. There are literally 50+ bogus submissions.

[Theo]

But when a person reads...

I think you meant "When I read..."

You are essentially espousing subjective interpretation over literal. That is not a basis for universal understanding. Nobody else can know what another person thinks is thematically in line.

If you don't care about the literal meaning then there is no burden for you to participate in the vote.

[CDavis7M]

Just to be clear - I'm not arguing for subjective interpretation over literal. And I am not against literal meaning.

I've been arguing for the CRF statement to be contextualized from the rules as a whole, instead of interpreting the CRF divorced from its context as the original post does. Literal meaning can still be applied within context. There is no reason why it can't.

Maybe if people bother to read the rest of the rules before declaring a bogus interpretation then we wouldn't be here wasting our time.

Big surprise that the ARV scheduled for June 2019 has been delayed.