Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: megamanlan on April 05, 2012, 09:45:43 PM
-
Can someone tell me if Pharaoh's Baker & Cupbearer are Generic?
And what about the Dreaming Pharaoh?
-
None of them are, because they all refer to specific people.
-
I'm not sure on Baker and Cupbearer because a Pharaoh (or just about anyone) can have tons of Bakers and Cupbearers. As to the Dreaming Pharaoh, I already thought he was unique, I just wanted to be sure though, because that would be fun for T2.
-
I'm not sure on Baker and Cupbearer because a Pharaoh (or just about anyone) can have tons of Bakers and Cupbearers. As to the Dreaming Pharaoh, I already thought he was unique, I just wanted to be sure though, because that would be fun for T2.
They're referring to the specific people Joseph interpreted dreams for in Genesis. They're unique.
-
CA is correct.
-
I know what it's referencing too. I guess it would have been much easier for them to just put Unique in their Identifier. That would have helped a lot more, because Bakers and Cupbearers are groups especially if they were for a high official like a Pharaoh. (it actually mentions other Bakers/Cupbearers that were doing their job later in Genesis) But I guess it would just help people like me then.
Also is Warden unique then too?
-
If it doesn't say generic, it's unique. What's hard about that?
-
I know what it's referencing too. I guess it would have been much easier for them to just put Unique in their Identifier. That would have helped a lot more, because Bakers and Cupbearers are groups especially if they were for a high official like a Pharaoh. (it actually mentions other Bakers/Cupbearers that were doing their job later in Genesis) But I guess it would just help people like me then.
Also is Warden unique then too?
Yup because it again refers to a specific group.
Generic vs. Unique works like this: [quote:REG]Generic Characters represent groups or non-specific characters in the Bible or Church History.[/quote]
If, baker or cup-bearer or warden did not have the identifying adjective in front of them they would be generic. Since however they are preceded by adjectives describing who they were in history they are generic.
That's why pharisees is generic, but entrapping pharisees is unique. Because it refers to a specific person is history.
There are a few exceptions to this general rule, proud pharisee is one of them, or at least he is at fist glance. It would seem he is unique since it refers to a specific pharisee with an adjective describing him. However, since proud pharisee was not an actual person and just a character in a parable he does not meet the full requirement of being a specific person in 'history.'
I hope this help.
Blessings,
Wings
-
Rule of thumb: If it has "The" in the title, it's unique. If it refers to a specific real person, it's unique. If it has a Generic identifier, it's Generic.
-
Okay, I just wish that they would put Unique Identifer on some more Generic looking cards. Also, The Entrapping Pharisees should be Generic in my sight, because all the Pharisees (except Nicodemus, Gamiel, and Joseph of Aromothea) were trying to Entrap Jesus.
-
Okay, I just wish that they would put Unique Identifer on some more Generic looking cards. Also, The Entrapping Pharisees should be Generic in my sight, because all the Pharisees (except Nicodemus, Gamiel, and Joseph of Aromothea) were trying to Entrap Jesus.
Except The Entrapping Pharisees card is referring to very specific pharisees in a very specific story. It is not referring to all Pharisees the way the Pharisees card (which is generic does.
-
Okay, I just wish that they would put Unique Identifer on some more Generic looking cards. Also, The Entrapping Pharisees should be Generic in my sight, because all the Pharisees (except Nicodemus, Gamiel, and Joseph of Aromothea) were trying to Entrap Jesus.
The card designers also specifically made Entrapping Pharisees unique because they discovered in playtesting that a Pharisee band that brought 5 (that was the limit back then) TEPs into battle was OP.
-
I definately can see that. I'd just like it if they'd have Unique on cards that have very good potential to be Generic like those cards.
-
I definately can see that. I'd just like it if they'd have Unique on cards that have very good potential to be Generic like those cards.
As I said before, if it doesn't specifically say "Generic" on it then it's unique. They don't need to put unique on all the unique cards when they already do the opposite with the non-unique ones.
-
Well, one of the triplets was having trouble with that before too. I think it was Chaldeans (P) that doesn't have the same Identifiers as Chaldeans (UR) according to REG and I thought it was the generic Identifier. Although that was last Christmas when Kirk held his tournaments.
-
Well, one of the triplets was having trouble with that before too. I think it was Chaldeans (P) that doesn't have the same Identifiers as Chaldeans (UR) according to REG and I thought it was the generic Identifier. Although that was last Christmas when Kirk held his tournaments.
You're right that the promo and prophets versions list different identifiers in the REG. However, anytime that is true, and it's referring to the same people, all the identifiers apply to all versions of the card. Chaldeans is a generic card.
-
In terms of having multiples in play, you're not going to break any rules by assuming something is unique if it doesn't have the "Generic" identifier, so it makes perfect sense to me that Generics are the ones they give identifiers to. The odd missing one (such as Chaldeans) just goes to show the card creators aren't perfect (which nobody should expect them to be).
-
Promos seem to have a higher rate of errors than other cards (Split Altar worded wrong, Chaldeans missing an identifier, Goliath being from Sammuel, etc.).
-
I understand that. I'm just saying I'd like it of they'd put a Unique Identifier on cards that could be taken as Generic for people like me who love to over think things.
Also, are Egyptian Wise Men Magicians? My understanding is that the Magicians and the Wise Men were called together, and I heard on a history program that Wise men were usually soothsayers and magicians too, so I am wondering if that's true in Redemption.
-
It doesn't seem very reasonable to want the playtesters to do extra work just to make something even clearer than it already is....
-
I'm saying it's not clear to everyone.
-
Rule of thumb: If it has "The" in the title, it's unique. If it refers to a specific real person, it's unique. If it has a Generic identifier, it's Generic.
Correct. In fact, we often add "The" to card titles during playtesting to make it very clear to players that the card is ruled unique.
-
Okay. =)
I'm saying more towards Baker/Cupbearer and they're easy possibility to be Generic.
-
I'm saying more towards Baker/Cupbearer and they're easy possibility to be Generic.
Not really. They reference very specific people in a very specific event in the Bible. Reading the verse on the card is a great help to figuring out generic/unique status.
-
Okay, that might help me too.
-
Also, are Egyptian Wise Men Magicians? My understanding is that the Magicians and the Wise Men were called together, and I heard on a history program that Wise men were usually soothsayers and magicians too, so I am wondering if that's true in Redemption.
No. While there is a good argument for both sides, usually wise men (here, and also in Daniel) are mentioned separately from magicians, so there is not enough evidence to say that the wise men themselves were magicians.
-
Okay, I'm just using historical evidence that notes them to be doing the same things as magicians like Divination and other false religious practices.
But I'm fine w/ it either way.