Rules concerning hoards and dragon automatic attacks

Ask any question regarding the game's (official) rules

Moderators: Jambo, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Eyelid
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 pm
Location: Pays de Loire (France)

Rules concerning hoards and dragon automatic attacks

Post by Eyelid » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:13 pm

Happy holidays to the community!

I was just hoping someone could clarify what seems to me like a contradiction in terms regarding hoards and dragon automatic attacks.

On the one hand we have the following amendment to the Dragons rules as mentioned in the CRF:
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."
And on the other hand, in the same CRF, under "Dragons", one finds the following clarification:
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.
How can the hoard be there and not be there... ? Can anyone point out what I seem to have missed? Can someone provide a short example of play where these situations would not be mutually exclusive?

Thank you for your time.
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Ford Prefect
"If you believe in Eternity, then life is irrelevant". House M.D.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:17 am
Location: Walbrzych/Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:36 pm

Intention behind first rule is removing (thematically) ridiculous situation, where company that has defeated Dragon At Home cannot play hoard at site during the same turn, because hoard disappears automatically when Dragon is defeated.

You are right. What is corrected by first rule, it is again "uncorrected" by second.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Eyelid
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 pm
Location: Pays de Loire (France)

Post by Eyelid » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:35 pm

Thanks Konrad.

So then, what is the correct ruling? I remember reading somewhere that the second clarification was ruled by Craig O'brien back in the day and that it had caused quite a ruckus.

It seems logical to me that if you defeat a dragon automatic-attack the hoard doesn't simply "disappear", if it was there before it should still be there after the dragon was defeated.

Which ruling stands then?
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Ford Prefect
"If you believe in Eternity, then life is irrelevant". House M.D.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:17 am
Location: Walbrzych/Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:04 am

In MY OPINION, second rule should be readed as:
"If a manifestation of a unique Dragon is defeated, then the automatic-attack at the associated site is removed".

Then both rules would be complementary to each other, not contradicting.

Anyway OFFICIAL OPINION may by only from NetRep Team.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Eyelid
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 pm
Location: Pays de Loire (France)

Post by Eyelid » Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:37 pm

Thanks Konrad. That would make more sense.
Cheers!
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Ford Prefect
"If you believe in Eternity, then life is irrelevant". House M.D.

Wacho
Moderator
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:56 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by Wacho » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:42 am

The first quote is the governing rule.  The second quote is a clarification telling you that the hoard will go away.  However, the first quote is an actual errata that modifies the original rule, correcting the situation.

It helps to remember when reading the CRF the difference between errata and clarifications.  Clarifications are not rule changes, they simply explanations of how to read the rules.  Errata actually change the rules.

User avatar
Konrad Klar
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:17 am
Location: Walbrzych/Poland
Contact:

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:04 am

In this case second quote is actually obfuscation, not clarification.  :)
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Eyelid
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 pm
Location: Pays de Loire (France)

Post by Eyelid » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:11 pm

--> David,

So if I understand correctly, considering that the governing ruling says "Each site which had a Dragon automatic-attack at the beginning of the turn contains a hoard", if I defeat a manifestation of a unique Dragon during that same turn, would that mean that there's still a hoard for that same turn (according to the ruling) but then if I visit the site during a later turn (assuming it managed to stay in play) the hoard would no longer be there as then we would be in a situation where the automatic attack was not present at the beginning of the turn?

If this is not the correct interpretation, then how can the ruling and the clarification be consistent with each other?

Thanks for your help.
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Ford Prefect
"If you believe in Eternity, then life is irrelevant". House M.D.

Wacho
Moderator
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:56 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by Wacho » Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:49 am

That is the correct interpretation.

My guess is the clarification came before the errata.  The rulebook states that sites with a dragon auto-attack have a hoard.  People playing wondered what happened when that auto attack was removed, was there still a hoard?  So ICE issued the clarification.  Then it was realized that this would remove the hoard on the same turn that the at-home manifestation was defeated.  Since that was clearly illogical they made an errata.  But the CRF was updated in stages and most things not directly contradicted were retained upon revision.  After the errata there really isn't any need to keep the clarification, but it remains for historical reasons.  Again, this is just my guess as to what happened but I think it is a good one.

User avatar
Eyelid
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 pm
Location: Pays de Loire (France)

Post by Eyelid » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:17 am

--> David, thanks a lot for your input. Your own clarification is the clincher!
Thanks again for taking the time to reply.
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Ford Prefect
"If you believe in Eternity, then life is irrelevant". House M.D.

Post Reply