Author Topic: Large Tree (Read 16631 times)

Minister Polarius · « **on:** July 31, 2009, 03:07:21 AM »

I'm assuming King of Tyrus is a King, right?

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #1 on:** July 31, 2009, 03:16:02 AM »

http://redemptionreg.com/REG/gloss_king.htm

Not presently.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2009, 03:24:39 AM »

He's got "King" right in his name and I will be severely disappointed if that list is not amended. I get why he and the Princes are not members of a royal family, but I can't see justifying them not being princes or kings.

Master KChief · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2009, 03:53:30 AM »

i agree. even though demons are not members of royal family, they are still 'kings' and 'princes' in name. i think large tree should be able to work on him.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2009, 01:27:25 PM »

hence principalities and powers denouncing lineage or some order of power

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2009, 06:07:32 PM »

I seem to remember him being classified as a king, but not as a member of a royal family... large tree should be able to work. As a side note, he can still block King David

*EDIT* Hmm... I checked the Reg entry for "king"

"King
Joel, Son of Samuel special ability states that if an opponent “does not have a good king in play, he must discard a card from hand.” This can be a king from any nation and include:
• (Good): David or King David, King Amaziah, King Asa, King Azariah (Uzziah), King Hezekiah, King Hiram, King Jehoshaphat (Kings) or King Jehoshaphat (Priests), King Joash (Kings) or King Joash (Priests), King Josiah, King Jotham, King Lemuel, King Saul (Purple), King Solomon, and Melchizedek
• (Evil): Ahab, Ahaziah, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Bera, King of Sodom, King Abijah, King Ahaz, King Ahaziah, King Amon, King Asnappar, King Basha, King Ben-Hadad I, King Cushan-Rishathaim, King Elah, King Evil-merodach, King Hazael, King Hoshea, King Jehoahaz (Israel), King Jehoahaz (Judah), King Jehoash, King Jehoiakim, King Jehoiakin, King Jehoram, King Jehu, King Jeroboam I, King Jeroboam II, King Joram, King Menahem, King Merodach-baladan, King Nadab, King Omri, King Pekah, King Pekahiah, King Rehoboam, King Rezin, King Sargon II, King Saul, King Sennacherib, King Shallum, King Shalmaneser V, King Shishak, King So, King Tiglath-Pileser III, King Zechariah, King Zedekiah, King Zimri, Manasseh, Pharaoh, Pharaoh Hophra, and Pharaoh Neco"

Professoralstad · « **Reply #6 on:** July 31, 2009, 06:15:12 PM »

Right. So right now he is not classified as a King in the REG. But I agree that he should be, just not from a Royal Family. Since King in Redemption is nowhere defined as "human King" I don't see why KoT can't qualify.

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2009, 06:16:15 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on July 31, 2009, 06:15:12 PM

Right. So right now he is not classified as a King in the REG. But I agree that he should be, just not from a Royal Family. Since King in Redemption is nowhere defined as "human King" I don't see why KoT can't qualify.

Concur. I believe it used to be like that.

sk · « **Reply #8 on:** August 01, 2009, 02:46:15 AM »

I asked today when I opened the card, and was told he is not.

Korunks · « **Reply #9 on:** August 01, 2009, 07:37:49 AM »

What reason was given that he isn't?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #10 on:** August 01, 2009, 08:36:48 AM »

Well, in order to be a king you have to actually rule something don't you? I don't believe demons fit that qualification; the title of king in King of Tyrus (or prince in Prince of this World) isn't really...official, is it? If I started making everyone call me King Bubble, would you consider me a king?

Paladin · « **Reply #11 on:** August 01, 2009, 09:33:47 AM »

Im pretty sure that it is just a term. Like Melchesidec, not sure if its spelled right. In Genises, it says that he was known as the prince of peace but its just a term. Christ wanted him to be and example to us so pretty much Christ is the prince of peace. Sorry if that confused you, it sounded alot clearer when my dad said it.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #12 on:** August 01, 2009, 11:09:06 AM »

Quote from: Paladin on August 01, 2009, 09:33:47 AM

Im pretty sure that it is just a term. Like Melchesidec, not sure if its spelled right. In Genises, it says that he was known as the prince of peace but its just a term. Christ wanted him to be and example to us so pretty much Christ is the prince of peace. Sorry if that confused you, it sounded alot clearer when my dad said it.

The problem with that logic is that Melchizedek is in fact a king (King of Salem) in Redemption. And there was a reason he was called the King of Tyre/us, so whatever that reason is, it should merit him being considered a king. However, the REG could define 'king' as one who ruled a physical kingdom, in which case the demonic king and princes, wouldn't qualify. So I think that either way, the REG should be changed to include them, and/or to define the term.

Gabe · « **Reply #13 on:** August 02, 2009, 05:04:32 PM »

Bryon and I talked about this at Nationals. The consensus is that King of Tyrus is a king by title but not by position so cards like Ehud's Dagger (RoA) and Large Tree will not work on KoT.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #14 on:** August 02, 2009, 07:38:42 PM »

Bad show. I thought we were trying to move toward more logical rulings. How are you supposed to explain to people that the King of Tyrus is not a king?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #15 on:** August 02, 2009, 07:47:00 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on August 02, 2009, 05:04:32 PM

...King of Tyrus is a king by title but not by position so cards like Ehud's Dagger (RoA) and Large Tree will not work on KoT.

I think it's highly logical. Cards that affect cards with "King" in the title would affect KoT, but cards that affect Kings would not.

The Schaef · « **Reply #16 on:** August 02, 2009, 09:21:38 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 02, 2009, 07:38:42 PM

Bad show. I thought we were trying to move toward more logical rulings. How are you supposed to explain to people that the King of Tyrus is not a king?

He just did.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #17 on:** August 02, 2009, 09:27:26 PM »

This is taking semantics much too far. Not a member of a family I can deal with. Not a king? What on earth is a king in title but not in position? 1. The bible talks about principalities so why is he not a king in position (whatever that means)? 2. The bible outright calls him a king! 3. I am going to be emailing Rob directly about this because I'd hate to see Redemption go this far down the word games rabbit hole.

The Schaef · « **Reply #18 on:** August 02, 2009, 09:29:35 PM »

From where I stand, grabbing everything that say "king" and trying to shoehorn it in is the semantic play here.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #19 on:** August 02, 2009, 09:29:59 PM »

I support Huisinga.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #20 on:** August 02, 2009, 09:34:47 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 02, 2009, 09:29:35 PM

From where I stand, grabbing everything that say "king" and trying to shoehorn it in is the semantic play here.

You stand in a ridiculous place, then. First, he's the only example of a Demon King, everyone else is a prince or something like that, so you're correct in that I'm "grabbing everything," but foolish in that "everything" is one card. Second, when it's got king in the name, I fail to see how the burden of proof lies on people who are trying to show that he is a king and not the other way around. Finally, this is one of those times where I'm only going to take it direct from Rob. If he feels that the King of Tyrus is not a king, that's it, but until then I'm not taking this malarkey.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #21 on:** August 02, 2009, 09:38:51 PM »

I think he should be reprinted under the title "King" of Tyrus.

The Guardian · « **Reply #22 on:** August 02, 2009, 09:39:18 PM »

Quote

How are you supposed to explain to people that the King of Tyrus is not a king?

By telling them that the definition of a "King" in Redemption is a human ruler of a physical kingdom.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #23 on:** August 02, 2009, 09:40:06 PM »

But that's not the current definition.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #24 on:** August 02, 2009, 09:41:49 PM »

This is just stupid and pretentious.

News:

Author Topic: Large Tree (Read 16631 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef