Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Alex_Olijar on March 26, 2011, 05:12:46 PM
-
I would like to propose that Herods should be classified as Romans because:
1. Herods ruled Roman territory
2. Herods were placed in power by Romans
3. Herods protected Roman interests
4. Herods were charged with spreading Roman culture to Israel
-
Sounds good. The only objection I can think of: Were they of Roman descent?
-
Sounds good. The only objection I can think of: Were they of Roman descent?
Have we clarified that is a necessity for being in a culture? Or is assimilation enough? The Amalekite's Slave is Egyptian and Amalekite, so why can't Herods be Roman and Jewish(Edomite)?
-
Good question. But most of the culture themes are OT, where assimilation was much different.
-
Good question. But most of the culture themes are OT, where assimilation was much different.
I once tried to argue that Daniel and homies were Babylonians, and culture was never relaly defined there, so here is try 2. And to be fair, this try is more realistic.
-
I think David should be a philistine.
-
I'd agree that this one's much more realistic. Although they shot down my claim that Disciples were Royalty... oh well...
-
I think David should be a philistine.
Disagree. That's one of the bounds of it. David had office in Philistia (similar to Dan and friends in Babylon) but David worked against Philistia's interests (by attacking other tribes not Israel) rather than aiding them (as Dan and friend did, unless if violated God's interests).
-
I think David should be a philistine. It would help COMBO COMBO COMBO COMBO ?????!!!! Gameplay first, right? ;D
-
I think David should be a philistine. It would help COMBO COMBO COMBO COMBO ?????!!!! Gameplay first, right? ;D
Every Warrior class male hero should be a Philistine, and we should do away with Errata's.
-
I think David should be a philistine. It would help COMBO COMBO COMBO COMBO ?????!!!! Gameplay first, right? ;D
fair point.
-
Let me live in my own world. Warrior in Training is an angel, David is a philistine, Kevin Shride is a magician, and Darius' Decree is a persian.
-
If Saul gets to be a Roman, I think it foolish that the Herods are not.
-
If Saul gets to be a Roman, I think it foolish that the Herods are not.
Another solid point.
Side point: Herods and access to RDJ would be awesome.
-
I think they should be Romans also. Just to be consistent with Saul/Paul.
-
Elders?
-
I think they're deliberately avoiding this thread.
-
If Saul gets to be a Roman, I think it foolish that the Herods are not.
Agreed. Herod the Great's father, Antipater, was made a Roman citizen by Julius Caesar. Since Saul/Paul gained his Roman citizenship from his father, it stands to reason that the members of the house of Herod can be considered Romans.
-
I think they're deliberately avoiding this thread.
Not necessarily. But decisions like this need to be fully researched before any action is taken. I know I wanted to do a bit of investigating before I commented at all, and I'm guessing that any other elders that saw it had a similar idea. Remember that we do have lives outside of Redemption... ;)
Anyway, this article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/romanisation_article_01.shtml) includes the line: "The Herodian kings were granted Roman citizenship in return for their loyalty". Assuming that this Dr. Neil Faulkner knows what he's talking about, I see no reason why the Herods would not be considered Romans on the same basis as Paul. If anyone else can find any evidence that corroborates this information, that would be even more convincing.
And I would absolutely love to be able to use Romans Destroy Jerusalem in my Red Warriors/ Herods deck.
I will bring this up on the Elder side of the boards, and hopefully we'll have an answer shortly. From a gameplay standpoint, I can only think of 3 cards that it affects: Washing Hands, Romans Destroy Jerusalem, and Mocking Soldier, since the rest of the cards that refer to Romans refer specifically to Emperors. Washing Hands will never be used by Herods (unless you draft a Herod, HT, and Washing Hands in BD I suppose), but even if it were, it's certainly not OP'd. Mocking Soldier might be a decent addition to a Herods deck if you want to splash in a Plot/Gib Trick/etc, but will still probably see limited use. So really only RDJ will be greatly affected, and it would help Herods immensely vs. their biggest nemesis: N.T Females. If a Herods defense gets attacked by the four garden girls, all they need to do is block and play RDJ: goodbye to not only the four women, but also to the Fortress that makes the band CBN.
All that said, I fully support this change. Good find Alex!
EDIT: This Brittanica article (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/263437/Herod) seems to make the case pretty clear.
-
yeah my problem with this is rdj blows up your own herod's temple too
-
yeah my problem with this is rdj blows up your own herod's temple too
Nobody is going to make you use RDJ :P
-
Can we consider this offical now since two elders have commented?
-
yeah i know gabe just commenting
-
Can we consider this offical now since two elders have commented?
Yes, Bryon and Prof Underwood have also agreed on the other side of the board. Unless other objections come up from Rob or other Elders, which seems unlikely given the wealth of sources we found supporting the claim, I would rule that Herods are considered Romans.
-
Awesome.
-
Are salome or herodius considered Roman?
-
Are salome or herodius considered Roman?
That's actually a good question. They were both descended from Herod the Great, which is how the other Herods obtained their citizenship, however, women were not citizens in the same sense as men in the Roman Empire: they couldn't vote or hold political office. I haven't been able to find whether women born outside of Rome could have citizenship conferred upon them, or if female citizenship could be inherited from a person who had been granted citizenship. I would probably say no for now, until more is determined.
-
I know this is a poor reference, but the story of Medea, she moved with her husband to another country and did not have citizenship. I know this kind of went for all females back in the day. If you were not born there, you were not a citizen.
-
women were not citizens in the same sense as men in the Roman Empire: they couldn't vote or hold political office.
Although you are correct that a woman could not be considered a citizen of Rome, the right to vote/hold political office are probably not the most useful criteria. There were different levels of Roman citizenship with voting and holding office reserved to the most privileged citizens. It is not clear that the inhabitants of Tarsus (and hence Paul) were given the right to vote or hold political office when the (male) inhabitants were granted citizenship.
-
If Saul gets to be a Roman, I think it foolish that the Herods are not.
I disagree. The Herods were Idumean (edomites) and worked hard to convince the Jews that they were good Jews as well. They would have worked for Rome, yes, becuase the political climate dictated that they do that or lose their heads, but they would not have considered themselves romans at all. To do so would have doomed them.
I think before we say that herods are romans we have to define exactly who is a roman? Is it a roman citizen? is it someone involved with roman government?
I think civilizations should be limited to one civilization. Paul is either a hebrew or a roman or a syrian or.....whatever. You cannot be part of two different civilizations. just like citizenships you are normally limited to one citizenship.
Now you can have other identifiers like pharisee, musician, magician, royalty etc. but I strongly believe that civilizations should be limited to only one.
-
If Saul gets to be a Roman, I think it foolish that the Herods are not.
I disagree. The Herods were Idumean (edomites) and worked hard to convince the Jews that they were good Jews as well. They would have worked for Rome, yes, becuase the political climate dictated that they do that or lose their heads, but they would not have considered themselves romans at all. To do so publically would have doomed them.
Fixed.
-
If the Herods were in fact given Roman citizenship, then I honestly don't see how you can get around them being Roman.
-
Because having Roman citizenship was different than citizenship today. In that time it gave you certain legal rightts and privleges and was basically reserved for either native born italians or the super rich non-italians, but those super rich non-italians were still known by their native civilization. They were still Greek/Hebrew/Idumean....they just also had the privlege of apealing to caesar.
pauls own testimony says he views himself as a Hebrew, not a roman. Just because he was a roman citizen didnt make him italian. Having a roman citizenship was more like having a AAA card to those who werent born italian.
-
The Amalekite's Slave is Egyptian and Amalekite...
This came up in a discussion I had with another player recently. For the record, The Amalekite's Slave is only Egyptian. I know having Amalekite in the name makes it confusing. Being owned and mistreated by an Amalekite for a period of his life does not make him an Amalekite.
-
And then he got an idea.
A terrible,awful idea...
>:D
-
Can we consider this offical now since two elders have commented?
Yes, Bryon and Prof Underwood have also agreed on the other side of the board. Unless other objections come up from Rob or other Elders, which seems unlikely given the wealth of sources we found supporting the claim, I would rule that Herods are considered Romans.
This is still official right?
-
Yes, Herod's are officially considered Romans for Redemption purposes.
-
Thank you I now have to go build a defense :)
-
Can you draw a card with Denarius if you have say Herod the Great in territory?
Denarius (Di)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: On activation, each player with more than 6 cards in hand must discard a card from hand. If you have a Roman governor or emperor in play, draw 1. • Play As: On activation, each player with more than 6 cards in hand must discard a card from hand. If you have a Roman governor or Roman emperor in play, draw 1. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Mark 12:15-17 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()
-
Can you draw a card with Denarius if you have say Herod the Great in territory?
No, a Herod was not a governor nor an emperor.
-
Biography
Herod was born around 74 BCE in the south (Idumea was the most southern region).[14][15] He was the second son of Antipater the Idumaean, a high-ranked official under Ethnarch Hyrcanus II, and Cypros, a Nabatean. Herod was a practicing Jew as the Edomites and many Nabateans had been converted to Judaism by the Hasmoneans.[16] A loyal supporter of Hyrcanus II, Antipater appointed Herod governor of Galilee at 25, and his elder brother, Phasael, governor of Jerusalem. He enjoyed the backing of Rome but his excessive brutality was condemned by the Sanhedrin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
-
bump
-
Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for Redemption rulings.
-
http://www.notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Herod-the-Great.html
Herod's rise to power
Judea was ruled by high priests of the Hasmonean dynasty, descendants of the leaders who had freed the country from Seleucid rule. The Seleucid dynasty (312–64 B.C.E. ) began with Seleucus I, who created an empire from part of the area of southwest Asia that had been controlled by Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.E. ). Herod's grandfather and father held prominent political offices in Judea and established close relations with the Romans, the unquestioned world power during that time.
In 47 B.C.E. , when Roman Emperor Julius Caesar (100—44 B.C.E. ) momentarily settled Palestinian affairs, he seems to have entrusted Herod's father, Antipater, with the effective civil government. Antipater named his eldest son, Phasael, governor of Jerusalem and his second son, Herod, governor of Galilee, where he won favor with the Romans by his success in dealing with hostile military groups.
In 46 B.C.E. Herod was appointed governor of Coele-Syria and Samaria by Caesar's representative. But with the death of Caesar and the arrival of the new emperor, Cassius (d. 42 B.C.E. ), Herod quickly dismissed his loyalty to Caesar and won Cassius's favor. He also married Mariamne, a Hasmonean princess and granddaughter of the high priest Hyrcanus II.
A Parthian invasion in 40 B.C.E. brought another change: Antigonus, a rival Hasmonean, became king of Judea, and Herod had to flee. He left his family in the fortress of Masada and went to Rome. There, Roman leaders Antony (c. 81–30 B.C.E. ) and Octavian (64 B.C.E. —14 C. E.), the future Augustus, accepted him, and the Senate named him king of Judea
Read more: Herod the Great Biography - life, family, death, wife, son, information, born, marriage, time http://www.notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Herod-the-Great.html#ixzz1Mcgqtfln
For More Information
Grant, Michael. Herod the Great. New York: American Heritage Press, 1971.
Green, Robert. Herod the Great. New York: Franklin Watts, 1996.
Perowne, Stewart. The Life and Times of Herod the Great. New York: Abingdon Press, 1959.
Roller, Duane W. The Building Program of Herod the Great. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Sandmel, Samuel. Herod: Profile of a Tyrant. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, 1967.
Read more: Herod the Great Biography - life, family, death, wife, son, information, born, marriage, time http://www.notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Herod-the-Great.html#ixzz1MchlYJJi
-
#1 source for all rulings is the Bible. If you find it there it's likely to be ruled in your favor provided your not trying stretch the interpretation of scripture.
If there is not definitive evidence in the Bible then the elders will consider reputable outside sources. As an example of what this looks like, to determine that Herod's were Roman we looked about about 5 sources that all confirmed one another.
You're on the right track with your last reference. Find a few more like that and there's a good chance you'll convince the elders to discuss this.
-
Wait, wasn't it already decided that Herods are indeed Roman earlier in this thread?
While the Bible may be the ultimate source in Redemption, outside sources are frequently used to determine identifiers when the Bible doesn't say otherwise. If you were to parade sources around saying that Philip of Macedonia was the High Priest in Judea when Jesus was crucified, it wouldn't matter because the Bible says otherwise. But when there are a wealth of sources indicating the citizenship of at least some of the Herods, and the Bible doesn't say they're not, that should be valid.
-
The question now isn't whether or not Herods were Roman, it's a question of was Herod the Great a governor.
-
Ah, ok.
-
and from what Ive posted it would seem that I could continue on if you wish...
-
Please do I am interested inseeing where this goes.
-
Can we consider this offical now since two elders have commented?
Yes, Bryon and Prof Underwood have also agreed on the other side of the board. Unless other objections come up from Rob or other Elders, which seems unlikely given the wealth of sources we found supporting the claim, I would rule that Herods are considered Romans.
I have huge problems with this. First of all Romans should be reserved for those who were firmly in the roman civilization and citizenship is not a part of it.
My problem comes with playing Romans destroy Jerusalem on a herod. Herods did not want Jerusalem destroyed and so this card combo would be a huge anachronism. Herods were not romans, they were Idumeans and wanted more than anything to be Jews and tried to put up the facade of being a good jew. Being a roman citizen had its perks but it did not change their nationality/civilization.
I think being roman should be reserved to people within the Military/government of Rome. This would solve problems of these historical anacroniztic cards
-
My problem comes with playing Romans destroy Jerusalem on a herod. Herods did not want Jerusalem destroyed and so this card combo would be a huge anachronism.
I doubt Judas wanted to kill any of the other Disciples, but hey, that happens in Redemption. I could give example after example, but that would get redundant quickly. While I understand where you're coming from with all your points, this one is really flimsy at best.
-
My problem comes with playing Romans destroy Jerusalem on a herod. Herods did not want Jerusalem destroyed and so this card combo would be a huge anachronism.
I doubt Judas wanted to kill any of the other Disciples, but hey, that happens in Redemption. I could give example after example, but that would get redundant quickly. While I understand where you're coming from with all your points, this one is really flimsy at best.
Also, Falling Away says hi.
-
You can call it flimsy if you want to but it still eats at the heart of the problem. THe problem is this question "What (other than the elders saying so) makes a civilizatrion a civilization? could there be different types or levels of civilizations?
I could be a Latino ethnically and an American Politically. The HErods were Idumeans Ethnically and Romans Politically. This type or dualality would lead to some important distinctions because one will be more important than another. In essence, one is more foundational and meaningful than another. The poltitcal designation may be useful from time to time, but it would only be a tool that you can use or discard (such as a roman citizenship) but you cannot undo your ethnic birth, you either ARE latino or you are not, you either are polish, or you are not. Both of htese could still be roman citizens if these ethnicities were alive during the roman era.
But a polish person who was a roman citizen would strongly disagree with Rome invading Poland. Just like many Latino americans would complain if we invaded mexico.
I think there is an important distinction that is being missed in this and that there is room for a more nuanced view
-
You can complain about it all you want, but the fact is that the Herods were roman citizens who governed Judea in the name of Rome.
Haman is considered Persian even though he was Amalekite.
-
You are trying to argue that Herods shouldn't be Roman because they put the Edomite heritage they had first?
Come back when you have an historical argument. They obviously put the Roman issues first. They worked to appear more Jewish to Jews rather than Roman or Edomite. They were Romans first because that's where they got everything from. I understand that we create anachronism, but isn't that what Redemption does?
-
I would personally prefer to go with a more open view. People can belong to multiple groups at the same time or throughout their lives. Since Redemption doesn't really make a distinction for different periods in a person's life but just looks at whether they were at some point (David, King David) then it doesn't matter if they belonged for all of their life but just if they legitimately did at some point.
I would argue that at one point in his life, Moses would have definitely been considered Egyptian. Just because he didn't stay that way shouldn't matter because of previous point. Ruth doesn't start out as a Isrealite but she becomes one. I've been reading through Samuel and several of David's warriors were from different ethnic backgrounds. I think Ittai is foreign but he becomes a general of David's army and would sacrifice everything including his life to defend David and Isreal. I bet the enemies of Isreal would consider him an Isrealite. At different points the Herod's allegiance and actions might have been primarily Roman and others Jewish.
You can look at numerous immigrants to our country. At one point Mel Gibson was Australian but he is definitely American now. He could be both at the same time but the background of a person could fade to the point they no longer consider themselves Australian or whatever. Looking at his life as a whole, you would definitely have to say both.
-
I agree with that sentiment. I have always campaigned Moses as an Egpytian.
-
My problem comes with playing Romans destroy Jerusalem on a herod. Herods did not want Jerusalem destroyed and so this card combo would be a huge anachronism.
I RA with David and have nothing to play on him, opponent blocks with Goliath and has his armor or spear. Goliath wins.
This completely goes against the Biblical story as well, we should do something about this.
-
I learned something about this in Jewish History class this semester, and my Jewish professor would condone that Herods were Roman. Back then, when considering what made someone Jewish, the Jewish line came through the mother's side i.e. if your mom was a jew than you are. Herod the Great's mother was not a Jew, and his father was only a Jewish convert, so to their standards Herod was not a Jew, he was Roman.
-
I learned something about this in Jewish History class this semester, and my Jewish professor would condone that Herods were Roman. Back then, when considering what made someone Jewish, the Jewish line came through the mother's side i.e. if your mom was a jew than you are. Herod the Great's mother was not a Jew, and his father was only a Jewish convert, so to their standards Herod was not a Jew, he was Roman.
True which is why I clearly said he was Idumean and not jewish, I said he had to keep a jewish facade because he governed the Jews and the fact that he was a roman citizen HURT his ability to govern the jews.
I still think there should be a difference between someone who was italian (IE roman) and someone who was a roman CITIZEN and of a different civilization. Rome is a unique example where one civilization conquered many others yet those people did not become romans even if they became roman citizens.
I see a difference between the political aspects of being a roman citizen and the cultural aspects of being a roman.
The cultural aspects of rome can easily be corrupted and are evil, (polytheism, value of human life, the focus on dominating others, hedonism, gluttony, worship of the emperor etc.) but political aspects of being roman can be used for good and evil. Pauls appeal to caesar, etc.)
I just think there is room to have both and have different enhancements respond to roman citizenship or civilization or both.
-
Also, I can currently play Romans Destroy Jerusalem on Saul... I don't think he was involved in the destruction of Jerusalem.
-
I would personally prefer to go with a more open view. People can belong to a distinction for different periods in a person's life but just looks at whether they were at some point (David, King David) then it doesn't matter if they belonged for all of their life but just if they legitimately did at some point.
I would argue that at one point in his life, Moses would have definitely been considered Egyptian. Just because he didn't stay that way shouldn't matter because of previous point. Ruth doesn't start out as a Isrealite but she becomes one.
I agree with that sentiment. I have always campaigned Moses as an Egpytian.
Which is why I also argue that Herod the Great was a Roman Govenor.
While I understand where you're coming from with all your points, this one is really flimsy at best.
Im sure theres a better way of saying this...
-
I also disagree that Herod the great would be a roman governor. Governors are not Kings. Kings may rule a territory for another country (ie Rome) but governors are more directly connected to the ruling empire, Kings are ethnic rulers with ties to the local population. removing a governor is an easy thing, removing a king can be much more difficult
-
Also, I can currently play Romans Destroy Jerusalem on Saul... I don't think he was involved in the destruction of Jerusalem.
Actually, none of the Romans currently in the game were involved in the destruction of Jerusalem. Not until we get an Emperor Titus.
-
You are trying to argue that Herods shouldn't be Roman because they put the Edomite heritage they had first?
Come back when you have an historical argument.
These are historical arguments. I have said multiple times that the Herods were Idumean, and that while they had to pander to rome to keep their jobs, they were also gravely concerned with looking too roman because that could cause a rebellion where he would lose control of his kingdom.
Be very careful about accusing a history teacher of not having a "historical" argument.
They obviously put the Roman issues first.
no they did not. rebuilding the temple was a thumb in the eye of the divine emperor. it was an appeal to the jewish people alone
They worked to appear more Jewish to Jews rather than Roman or Edomite.
This is my argument so you can't use it :P
They were Romans first because that's where they got everything from.
They got their power from rome but they got their legitimacy from their jewish connections. The fact that Rome was calling all the shots and had final athourity was simply because rome was more powerful than anyone else. The Herods did not want to be roman, being roman eroded their ability to rule but it also gave them the power to consolidate their rule.
I understand that we create anachronism, but isn't that what Redemption does?
True we play OT enhancements on NT heroes and vice versa, but for the most part those are actions that aligned with their character. playing RDJ on a herod would never happen and they would not make that choice.
While the current crop of romans may not have been involved in destroying jerusalem, those who were atatched to the military and/or politics of Rome would have made the choice to destroy jerusalem if it was in Romes best intrest
-
I don't really think desire alone has anything to do with civilization or governmental affiliation. If I didn't want to be an American citizen, that wouldn't change the fact that I am one. The Herods may not have wanted to be Romans, but they still were.
-
I don't really think desire alone has anything to do with civilization or governmental affiliation. If I didn't want to be an American citizen, that wouldn't change the fact that I am one. The Herods may not have wanted to be Romans, but they still were.
Yes you can. You can easily renounce your political citizenship. The cultural make up of who you are is much harder to get rid of. We all think,act, breathe like Americans because that is who we have been socialized to be like. It is what we emulate because it is all around us. Someone who is Latino can become an American citizen but they may not claim to be an "American" because they may not identify with all the ideals that we value as Americans
-
The Herods absolutely wanted to be Roman. Given the choice of Roman or Jew, thye would choose Roman everytime becuase the Romans gave them power. The Jews never accepted them regardless of how Jewish they are. Being Roman was far more important than being Jewish. However, that does not change the fact that Herods were Roman and Jewish and Idumean.
-
I don't really think desire alone has anything to do with civilization or governmental affiliation. If I didn't want to be an American citizen, that wouldn't change the fact that I am one. The Herods may not have wanted to be Romans, but they still were.
Yes you can. You can easily renounce your political citizenship.
Please re-read what I said. I specifically said "desire alone." Yes, taking action on a desire can change my citizenship, but just wanting to be, say, a Canadian citizen won't, in and of itself, change anything. Just as wanting to be Jewish doesn't make the Herods not Romans.
-
I don't really think desire alone has anything to do with civilization or governmental affiliation. If I didn't want to be an American citizen, that wouldn't change the fact that I am one. The Herods may not have wanted to be Romans, but they still were.
Yes you can. You can easily renounce your political citizenship.
Please re-read what I said. I specifically said "desire alone." Yes, taking action on a desire can change my citizenship, but just wanting to be, say, a Canadian citizen won't, in and of itself, change anything. Just as wanting to be Jewish doesn't make the Herods not Romans.
I think a better question is why anyone would want to be Canadian.
Anywho, I've seen this argument go on for pages, and I think I have a good idea of the main bullet points that both sides are presenting, and I have to side with the original ruling that Herods can be considered Roman. I believe that, for Redemption purposes, Roman citizenship should meet the qualifications for "Roman". crustpope, I do completely understand why you don't like that ruling, but but I disagree with your opinion. Regardless of what Herods might or might not have considered themselves (and frankly, it's completely foolish to speculate on what they'd have chosen to be. It's very well possible that they'd have renounced all ties to Rome if it meant they could keep their power; it's equally possible that they would have considered themselves Roman if they were publicly able to, simply because Rome gave them their authority), the fact of the matter is that they were Roman citizens.
-
Good point, and for game play I am sure it will make it alot easier. I was just hoping my argument could gain some traction so that someday someone doesn't use Saul (of saul/paul) to play RdJ on me. I think I might just cry at the absolute historical incompatibility of that very action.
-
Good point, and for game play I am sure it will make it alot easier. I was just hoping my argument could gain some traction so that someday someone doesn't use Saul (of saul/paul) to play RdJ on me. I think I might just cry at the absolute historical incompatibility of that very action.
If it makes you feel better, I've lately had an issue with the possibility that Redemption treats very serious matters rather frivolously. Not necessarily the historical accuracy of it (though the idea of Uzzah using Haman's Plot to kill Peter, Eve, and Moses is a bit absurd), but I feel like we treat very serious issues trivially sometimes. Haman's Plot is actually a great example of that. We're talking about the possibility of the complete genocide of the Jews, a very serious matter, and our interest in it extends only as far as ripping a $5 card. Likewise, Crown of Thorns, something that caused unspeakable suffering to our Lord and Savior, is only significant as far as it's compatibility with Thad goes, along with possibility sniping Gomer, Emperors, and Uzzah. It's not some big issue that I feel really convicted over, and I love the game and what it's done, but it's something that's been on my mind lately.
-
If you want to get really down to it-you could create a card that when played[multi skull] "Turn your Herod(s) into Romans". This way you could choose whether or not,you want Herod(s) the way they are or make them Romans. Just my idea.
-
and I think I have a good idea of the main bullet points that both sides are presenting
So how do you feel about Herod the Great considered a Roman governor Chronic?
-
and I think I have a good idea of the main bullet points that both sides are presenting
So how do you feel about Herod the Great considered a Roman govenor Chronic?
I can't tell if I'm being made fun of or not. =(
I think Herod the Great should be considered a Roman governor, though it's reasonable for the Elders to request more proof before making a decision about it. I think requesting three or four sources is a bit ridiculous though.
-
Its so hard to relay true intent on such a medium sometimes...I wasnt making fun.
-
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 14 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
How long has this warning been here for? I've never necro-posted here, but is it a new feature?
At any rate, I want to bump this up because we never actually got an answer on the "Herod the Great being considered a Governor" thing, and I'd like to know it one way or the other.
-
The Herod's were territorial Kings, not Governors. Just look to the verse at the bottom of Herod Philip II: Luke 3:1. It references Herod being tetrarch (king) of Galilee and Pilate as being the Governor of Judea. They are clearly on two different levels as Pilate was held above the Herods.
Of course, this still doesn't resolve Herod the Great...