Dragonwrought kobold

[Gruftzwerg]

That last bit there? This is the entire point.

We have very clear definitions of what true dragons are.

Yeah thx due to Draconomicon page 4 and not MM..

We have a manual of style established in the first Monster Manual for how stat blocks for true dragons are presented that is applied with universal consistency across every single 3.0/3.5 product. Whenever one of these entries contains even slight ambiguity on whether or not it might count as a true dragon, it contains text that explicitly says, "Yes it is."

universal consitency != RAW
That is extrapolated information and not actual rules. Nice that we talked about it..
By RAW (Draconomicon P4), DWK disqualify themselves as lesser dragons and even qualify as True Dragon. You need to imply text what is not there on the page to come to other conclusions = RAI

...Except for dragonwrought kobolds...
They meet none of the established criteria:
Fluff
-Their physiology is completely different (they are humanoid in size and shape, and lack the wings, the elongated necks, and so on)
-Their biology is different (endothermic vs. exothermic, internal organs, and so on)

As said, all these are just extrapolated things and no actual rules by RAW tied to being a true dragon. (Fluff is RAI, not RAW.) That is defined on Draconomicon p4. (btw, if you didn't notice, I am repeating myself until you will finally read P4 of Drac. and can separate between reading it RAW and RAI. I'll be gladly of help if you should have problems with any of the text part.)
And btw, since DWK are specified as "Small dragon", I guess that trumps any of the things you are demanding (by RAI).

Crunch
-They do not advance through racial hit dice, they advance by character class

Well, again... Draconomicon p4 doesn't demand "Advancement" by RAW. Cause Draconomicon p144 "Other True Dragons" enforces the DM to make tables for any True Dragon that lacks an Advancement-table. So "Advancement" can't be a requirement for being a true dragon by simple logic. The same simple logic even confirms that on Drac. p4 "advance" doesn't refer to "Advancement". Otherwise it would be a rule dysfunction.
But you are ignoring that it would cause a dysfunction for the sake of trying to disprove DWK true dragon status.

The only thing they have in common is their creature typing, and their life-cycle developmental stages use the same names. That's it.

And by RAW just having "Age Categories" of any kind is enough. And btw, I guess we can assume that no other creatures (other than DWK and true dragons) have "Age Categories" cause nobody else could provide any so far (due to the request a few pages ago). So it seems only DWK and other true dragons have age categories, which further proved the interpretation that DWK count as true dragons by RAW valid.

What truly boggles my mind about these assertions is that the exact same rules "dysfunctions" that are so frequently quoted as proof that dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons also equally apply to half-dragon kobolds.

But for some reason they must not be.
I wonder why that is, as well?



Do you really not see the difference between failing to include a true dragon on an exhaustive list from an entirely different printed source, and failing to include one from the same source?

They fail to appear on two separate lists.
The authors also fail on multiple opportunities to explicitly state they are true dragons.

By your own logic, this should, at best, create a rules dysfunction that leaves it ambiguous if they are or aren't.

As I showed you earlier, the dysfunction only appears if you see it the RAI way and start to extrapolate infos and try to view it as some kind of general rule (RAI).
But RAW doesn't cause/have these problems. The problems comes from RAI if you take advance as Advancement and such things.

If you would/could once read page 4 of Draconomicon the RAW way, you would understand. But somehow you can't stop yourself from bringing intentions into play and references that aren't provided by the (RAW) text on the page itself.
Pls try it at least. Reading just the text as it is given, without switching words into keywords. It's really simple imho...