Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Praeceps on April 19, 2012, 10:45:58 PM
-
Okay, here's my support:
Gen 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Gen 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it
So, Abram is Chaldean, the bible says so.
Isa 13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jer 50:1 The word that the LORD spake against Babylon against the land of the Chaldeans by Jeremiah the prophet.
And there is also the fact that the card Chaldeans carries the Babylonian identifier.
-
Well, chaldeans were directly connected to the babylonian king, so as one may imagine...
-
I think this might be one of those things where Babylonian is an evil identifier of some sort like The Magi aren't Magicians because they are heroes, and Magician is an "evil" identifier.
-
I think this might be one of those things where Babylonian is an evil identifier of some sort like The Magi aren't Magicians because they are heroes, and Magician is an "evil" identifier.
But Rachel, Leah, and the sons of Jacob are considered Syrians, so there is still a precedent.
-
I think this might be one of those things where Babylonian is an evil identifier of some sort like The Magi aren't Magicians because they are heroes, and Magician is an "evil" identifier.
That's racist.
-
hahaha :laugh:
-
Just occurred to me, but this applies to Lot as well.
-
My guess is that this is an issue of timing.
The Babylonian identifier is probably limited to "related to the Babylonian empire" and Abraham lived in Ur before the Babylonian empire existed. Back in that time, Ur was probably part of the Sumerian empire. And Sumerian is not an identifier currently in Redemption.
I would assume though that by the time Laban, Rachael, and Leah came along that the Syrian empire had already started to develop, which would also explain why they get that identifier.
This would make sense with the timing in scripture, when the Armean/Syrian empire is one of the earliest that the Israelites dealt with (followed by the Assyrians, then the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Romans).
-
U Forgot Egyptians and Greeks.
I don't think it would matter, but I'd suggest giving Babylonian identifiers to Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego.
-
My guess is that this is an issue of timing.
The Babylonian identifier is probably limited to "related to the Babylonian empire" and Abraham lived in Ur before the Babylonian empire existed. Back in that time, Ur was probably part of the Sumerian empire. And Sumerian is not an identifier currently in Redemption.
I would assume though that by the time Laban, Rachael, and Leah came along that the Syrian empire had already started to develop, which would also explain why they get that identifier.
This would make sense with the timing in scripture, when the Armean/Syrian empire is one of the earliest that the Israelites dealt with (followed by the Assyrians, then the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Romans).
I'd argue that the Babylonian empire started in 1894 BC or there abouts, and thus was in the lifetimes of Isaac and Jacob and Sons, but sadly Abraham had died by then, so I'll give you the point.
I don't think it would matter, but I'd suggest giving Babylonian identifiers to Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego.
The problem there is that they weren't Babylonian, they were prisoners of the Babylonian King, two different things.
-
Ittai is a Philistine and he is a Hero.
-
My question is what would be gained by Abraham gaining the Babylonian identifier?
-
My question is what would be gained by Abraham gaining the Babylonian identifier?
Iron Pan fun in a Genesis deck? An actual reason to use Abram/Abraham? lol
-
My question is what would be gained by Abraham gaining the Babylonian identifier?
Iron Pan fun in a Genesis deck? An actual reason to use Abram/Abraham? lol
So he would still need to make a successful RA to be Abraham and Iron Pan stops some of Genesis's best abilities
-
Why does something have to have a big, positive impact on the game in order for someone to want an oversight corrected?
-
It wouldn't be a big deal if they made Abram/Abraham more playable. His only ability could be done by the FBTN soul.
-
My question is what would be gained by Abraham gaining the Babylonian identifier?
Iron Pan fun in a Genesis deck? An actual reason to use Abram/Abraham? lol
So he would still need to make a successful RA to be Abraham and Iron Pan stops some of Genesis's best abilities
The issue is accuracy, not necessarily gameplay issues.
For the record, I disagree with Abraham being Babylonian for the same reason I disagree with the Tower of Babel having any Babylonian connotations.
-
My question is what would be gained by Abraham gaining the Babylonian identifier?
Iron Pan fun in a Genesis deck? An actual reason to use Abram/Abraham? lol
So he would still need to make a successful RA to be Abraham and Iron Pan stops some of Genesis's best abilities
The issue is accuracy, not necessarily gameplay issues.
For the record, I disagree with Abraham being Babylonian for the same reason I disagree with the Tower of Babel having any Babylonian connotations.
Actually, there has been archeological and historical evidence to show the the ruler that built Babel, Nimrod, is actually an ancestor of the people who became known as the Babylonians. But I still don't agree that Abe should exactly have a Babylonian Identifier, Remember, the Chaldeans were actually in the land before the Babylonians, and were a separate nation that the Babylonians took over when they created their empire.
Although, I'd be okay with Abe getting a Cannanite Identifier, if he doesn't already have one.
-
Actually, there has been archeological and historical evidence to show the the ruler that built Babel, Nimrod, is actually an ancestor of the people who became known as the Babylonians. But I still don't agree that Abe should exactly have a Babylonian Identifier, Remember, the Chaldeans were actually in the land before the Babylonians, and were a separate nation that the Babylonians took over when they created their empire.
Although, I'd be okay with Abe getting a Cannanite Identifier, if he doesn't already have one.
I'm well aware of why some people would like anything regarding the Tower of Babel to be considered Babylonian, however, I still disagree with the reasoning, the main one being that Babylon, in a historical sense, is still a different entity. The ancestral past of Babylon may be rooted in the Tower of Babel, but that doesn't make the Tower of Babel itself Babylonian.
-
Yea, I wouldn't agree for game purposes to do that. But I'm just pointing out that the historical evidence does support that. And in a strict sense, if Nimrod was made, he would most likely be a Babylonian because he is their ancestor.
-
Being an ancestor is different than actually being a part of that culture. I would vehemently argue against Nimrod being Babylonian.
-
It's the same as Abe being an Isrealite, or Ben-Amni being an Ammonite or Moab being a Moabite.
-
The Babylonian Empire is widely considered to have been founded around 1792 BC, while the earliest date for the great flood is around 2348 BC. I mention the flood for two reasons: First, it was just prior to the flood that God opted to limit the life of men to 120 years, which becomes relevant, because Nimrod was the grandson of Ham, one of Noah's sons. This means that Nimrod's death would have occurred no later than 1988 BC (this is a really rough figure using the broadest of estimations), just under 200 years before the founding of the Babylonian Empire (which was itself constructed from the Akkadian Empire). The reason I note all this is because I want to point out that it is quite a bit different than Abraham being an Israelite. This is a moot point because a quick check of the REG and Visualizer indicate (correctly, in my opinion) that he is not one for gameplay purposes. At any rate, if a Nimrod card ever is printed, I have my argument for why it should be Babylonian to copy/paste.
-
I'd have to check my info again, but Babylon had 3 empires (the second being the most famous) but there are still good Arguements that Babel is actually the place where Babylon was later built. But I don't feel that it's really a nessesary to argue about this because it's not relevant to the game.
-
The Babylonian Empire is widely considered to have been founded around 1792 BC, while the earliest date for the great flood is around 2348 BC. I mention the flood for two reasons: First, it was just prior to the flood that God opted to limit the life of men to 120 years, which becomes relevant, because Nimrod was the grandson of Ham, one of Noah's sons. This means that Nimrod's death would have occurred no later than 1988 BC (this is a really rough figure using the broadest of estimations), just under 200 years before the founding of the Babylonian Empire (which was itself constructed from the Akkadian Empire). The reason I note all this is because I want to point out that it is quite a bit different than Abraham being an Israelite. This is a moot point because a quick check of the REG and Visualizer indicate (correctly, in my opinion) that he is not one for gameplay purposes. At any rate, if a Nimrod card ever is printed, I have my argument for why it should be Babylonian to copy/paste.
Firstly, you are right in saying that by the time the Babylonian kingdom began, Nimrod was dead.
Secondly, the first Babylonian Dynasty extended from 1894 to about 1595. While Hammurabi, who I believe is the person you're thinking about, fits the 1750 mark, he was the sixth king of the first Dynasty.
Thirdly, the extended Lifespans lasted well past the flood:
Gen 23:1 And Sarah was an hundred and seven and twenty years old: these were the years of the life of Sarah.
Gen 25:7 And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years.
Gen 35:28 And the days of Isaac were an hundred and fourscore years.
Gen 47:28 And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years.
-
I'm just saying that Nimrod was their ancestor anyway, just like Abraham was. Neither of them saw the civilizations that came from them. But then why would Abe have an Isrealite Identifier and Nimrod not have a Babylonian Identifier?
-
He doesn't. He has a Patriarch Identifier.
-
Officially, that's because there is not Isrealite Identifier.
-
Firstly, you are right in saying that by the time the Babylonian kingdom began, Nimrod was dead.
Secondly, the first Babylonian Dynasty extended from 1894 to about 1595. While Hammurabi, who I believe is the person you're thinking about, fits the 1750 mark, he was the sixth king of the first Dynasty.
Thirdly, the extended Lifespans lasted well past the flood:
Gen 23:1 And Sarah was an hundred and seven and twenty years old: these were the years of the life of Sarah.
Gen 25:7 And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years.
Gen 35:28 And the days of Isaac were an hundred and fourscore years.
Gen 47:28 And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years.
My mistake. I was taking my figures off Wikipedia, and misinterpreted part of it, which led me to my assumption of the year the empire was formed. Regarding the extended lifespans, I was just pointing out that no longer would people be living for 400+ years; obviously there are plenty of examples of people living past 120 post that announcement, however, it's still a pretty good point to tag an average lifespan during those mid-Genesis years.
Officially, that's because there is not Isrealite Identifier.
Exactly. Abraham has no Israelite identifier. What is your argument again?
-
One pro about him gaining a Babylonian identifier is you could use a Iron Pan + Goshen + Brass Serpant Combo without taking them out of the Fortress. I know alot will find this not useful cause there are plenty of was to get the key Genesis people back without healers or Chariots. But then Joe's ability to get Goshen would be helpful also
-
One pro about him gaining a Babylonian identifier is you could use a Iron Pan + Goshen + Brass Serpant Combo without taking them out of the Fortress. I know alot will find this not useful cause there are plenty of was to get the key Genesis people back without healers or Chariots. But then Joe's ability to get Goshen would be helpful also
Again, for issues like this, accuracy is the priority, not gameplay.
-
I know that accuracy is important in determining if a character should recieve a certain identifier. I was just pointing out a useful combo if he was able to recieve the Babylonian identifier.
-
We're still questioning if it would be accurate. Just because he's a Chaldean doesn't mean he's a Babylonian. Chaldeans were 'admitted' into the Babylonian Empire and were sortof engulfed by them. Chaldeans were not originally Babylonians though.
-
I'd like Nimrod to by Pale Green/Crimon, even if he doesn't have both or either identifier, in honor of having been the early founder of both Babylon and Assyria.
-
I'd like Nimrod to by Pale Green/Crimon, even if he doesn't have both or either identifier, in honor of having been the early founder of both Babylon and Assyria.
I'd support this, even though I don't support him having the identifiers. A bit of a tribute to the whole character.
-
I'd like Nimrod to by Pale Green/Crimon, even if he doesn't have both or either identifier, in honor of having been the early founder of both Babylon and Assyria.
+1
-
I wouldn't mind that either.