Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Professoralstad on August 04, 2009, 10:40:52 AM
-
This is taken from the Large Tree thread, but I made a separate thread so that the arguments could be outlined clearly and succintly, so hopefully Mike B. can determine whether this is an REG issue, or Rob can give a ruling.
Here's the issue:
Large Tree says: "Place on your evil King to search deck for a Site. While this card remains, the King gains 1/1 per turn and cannot be ignored."
The question is: Can you place this on King of Tyrus? Or if not, should the REG be clarified to define "King" as human King?
Arguments presented for:
-He is called the King of Tyrus in the verse.
-According to a prevailing viewpoint, he is Satan, who has control over the kingdoms of this world (I'm not so sure I buy this one as much, since that would mean that Prince of this World, Red Dragon, etc. could be kings too, which may be a stretch)
-Another card, Priests of Christ, is given the identifier Priest, arguably only based on the name and the fact that they are called priests in Revelation. They don't seem to have any other Redemption-defined qualifications for being priests
-Cards like him, Prince of this World, etc. were clarified in the REG as not part of a royal family; their Kingship or Princehood have not yet been clarified
Arguments presented against:
-He is not human, and as such does not fit the description of any other King in Redemption
-Calling a card "King" =/= a card being a King
-According to a certain viewpoint, he was only a part of Ezekiel's vision and not really real, thus not qualified to be a King (correct me if I'm wrong on this point Schaef, that seemed to be an argument you were making).
If there's any substantive arguments that I've missed, please post them, otherwise please let TPTB decide. I just wanted to spell out the arguments to make it easier for those who would make a decision. If this thread starts to turn into another extensive debate, I will lock it. Please leave that to the thread that's already 6 pages long.
-
I like this idea and I dont think it is unecessarially broken. I logical argument can be made for someone being a king( having athourity and power) and not being considered royalty ( a member of a royal family). FBTN has so many counters to it these days that even a 50/52 KoT doesn't really scare people anymore.
-
I am bumping this thread in hopes that the arguments presented herein will result in a decision on this issue. I figured it wasn't a bad idea, since the Large Tree thread has been recently resurrected.
-
hey,
I believe that a King in title should qualify as a King. It should not be dependant on ruling a nation/people group. This would be consistent with other classifications like the Nationalities, Spiritual Gifts, and (presumably) Magicians.
In connection with this, I think "Royalty" should be connected to a "Royal Family" and be limited to human rulers.
L8er,
Gil
-
Gil makes an excellent point. If a demon can be considered a "Babylonian" or an "Assyrian", then there is no logical reason why said demon could not also be considered a "king".
-
I think it would be inconsistent to start making distinctions between kings and royalty, such that someone can be a king but not royalty.
-
hey,
I agree that this might be inconsistent, but to my knowledge, "Royalty" hasn't been defined yet. I'm suspecting that "Royalty" is kind of a summary of "member of a Royal Family" (which came before "Royalty"), and that's why I asked earlier if they were the same thing. That's the reason I'd sway towards limiting it to human rulers, but I'm certainly open either way.
Thanx,
Gil
-
I think it makes sense for the King of Tyrus to be a "king", but not part of a "royal family" since demons don't have families.
-
+1
Being a King only constitutes ruling a Kingdom of some sort. One does not need to be from a royal family to do so. If we were classifying humans, even, someone who overthrows a government and calls themselves "king" is not necessarily from a royal family.
-
I think it makes sense for the King of Tyrus to be a "king", but not part of a "royal family" since demons don't have families.
They also don't have kingdoms, since they are not part of a monarchial government.
-
But aren't they given rule over a principality? Doesn't that constitute a kingdom?
-
Does it? What are the legal boundaries of the land they rule? Who are their subjects? What is their system of government? What laws govern the kingdom and how are those laws formed?
I think the reference to spiritual powers as "kings" is being taken too literally in defining this role in the game.
-
So then should Priests of Christ have he "Priest" identifier?
-
how else are they Teal?
-
Paul's teal, and he's not a priest.
-
Special exception IMO.
-
Paul's only teal because when he was created teal did not exist and it is too hard to explain to new players, yes you can be ALL colors but Teal....because Paul wasn't a priest...
-
how else are they Teal?
Well, they were made that way. And presumably for no other reason than that they were called "Priests" in the Bible, despite the fact that not everyone who takes part in the first resurrection is from the Levitical line, performs Priestly duties, etc. The card is genderless, because not everyone who was a Priest of Christ is male. From the REG:
Priest
A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar, and who acts as mediator between men and God. Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple. Other functions are blessing the people, determining the will of God, and instructing the people in the law of God. The office of priest is hereditary.
I'd say that Priests of Christ miss that mark on several points. Yet, they still get a "Priest" identifier.
Yes, the only reason King of Tyrus should be a king is that he is called one in the Bible. And that evidently is good enough for other cards, so why not him?
-
I consider Priests of Christ to be a special exception, much like Soldier of God is a warrior-class character despite not being an actual warrior. I do not take these to be the template for making all metaphorical references equal to the literal reference.
-
hey,
I believe that a King in title should qualify as a King. It should not be dependant on ruling a nation/people group. This would be consistent with other classifications like the Nationalities, Spiritual Gifts, and (presumably) Magicians.
In connection with this, I think "Royalty" should be connected to a "Royal Family" and be limited to human rulers.
L8er,
Gil
-
I consider Priests of Christ to be a special exception, much like Soldier of God is a warrior-class character despite not being an actual warrior. I do not take these to be the template for making all metaphorical references equal to the literal reference.
Well I do, because situations based on precedence are quite common, and I think it would be inconsistent to rule this case differently. I can't think of any other cards aside from the aforementioned that are given/not given identifiers based on their metaphorical standing in scripture. And unless there's a whole host of them that could break the game with those identifiers, I don't see why this one case should be different.
Besides, giving him the identifier King would not only increase his usability with Large Tree, but increase his vulnerability with Ehud/Ehud's Dagger. So I'd say it's a fair trade-off.
-
Really? Have you not seen all the positioning and haggling recently to get as many characters as possible crammed into the definition of a magician? The same thing happens whenever people want to try to squeeze someone into their own strategy: musicians, prophets, guys fighting in earthly battles, etc etc. You act like this is the first time anyone tried anything even remotely like this, but the fact of the matter is, it happens all the time. All the more reason to keep definitions as simple and clinical as possible, and avoid all this negotiating to get even just one more guy included.
-
I'd like to point out that it did work for Saint Patrick. ;)
-
You act like this is the first time anyone tried anything even remotely like this, but the fact of the matter is, it happens all the time.
most of the arguments towards this discussion stemmed from precedence, suggesting already this certainly isn't the first time something like this has been done. some people in this thread may have some super-secret hidden agenda they're trying to fulfill by making large tree work on king of tyrus, but i also believe some are genuinely concerned about consistency. the logical direction to rule this would be to adhere to precedence and consistency, ie a king by name. if kot cannot be identified by title alone, then i say we move to remove the identifiers off all cards identified by title alone (poc, pwd, etc.).
I'd like to point out that it did work for Saint Patrick
what happened with saint patty?
-
I'm assuming the Saint Patty thing refers to him now being a prophet... right?
-
I'm assuming the Saint Patty thing refers to him now being a prophet... right?
Correct. Saint Pat was ruled a prophet.
-
ugh. i just lost the game. again.
-
:maul:
-
Really? Have you not seen all the positioning and haggling recently to get as many characters as possible crammed into the definition of a magician? The same thing happens whenever people want to try to squeeze someone into their own strategy: musicians, prophets, guys fighting in earthly battles, etc etc. You act like this is the first time anyone tried anything even remotely like this, but the fact of the matter is, it happens all the time. All the more reason to keep definitions as simple and clinical as possible, and avoid all this negotiating to get even just one more guy included.
The problem is, just like with Magician, King has not yet been defined for Redemption purposes. If it was defined as a "human ruler of a physical Kingdom" then that would be fine; not preferred, but fine. Not everything in Redemption is the way I'd like it to be, I understand that. Also, a lot of times it works to "squeeze" someone into a category. King David is a Musician because he played music, Joshua is now a Prophet because he prophesied, I could go on. I don't see it as too much of a stretch to say King of Tyrus is a King, because he's called a King.
Also, I don't see where I indicated that I was unaware of all the other times this has happened, and I find the insinuation somewhat insulting. I was merely pointing out that I don't think any other card's identifiers are based on metaphors, except for Priests of Christ and Soldier of God. The ones that are argued about are based on something like what they said, what they did, etc. and they are judged on how those arguments mesh with the game and the definitions in it.
-
some people in this thread may have some super-secret hidden agenda they're trying to fulfill by making large tree work on king of tyrus, but i also believe some are genuinely concerned about consistency.
I'm not talking about motive, I'm talking about the idea that somehow no one has ever suggested adding something to a roster by stretching the identifier to fit. It's simply not the case, it happens with nearly every identifier we've created where such a thing is possible. I'm not just coming in and suddenly calling this argument unreasonable in the midst of a thousand reasonable arguments.
I do NOT think there is consistency in saying someone should be identified with a king when there is basically nothing outside the title of the card that would make them an actual king. I do NOT think there is consistency in wanting to limit "royal family" to humans but not "kings". I do NOT think there is consistency in saying you can be a king but not a member of a royal family. Being a king BY DEFAULT makes you a member of a royal family. People are acknowledging the common sense in defining one but not taking that and applying it to the other. They just look at the title of the card and want to have that trump all other logic. I can't agree with that.
The problem is, just like with Magician, King has not yet been defined for Redemption purposes.
Probably because people have understood it for the last seven years without having to have it micro-managed.
Also, a lot of times it works to "squeeze" someone into a category. King David is a Musician because he played music, Joshua is now a Prophet because he prophesied, I could go on.
Those are not a "squeeze", however. Those are because the people match the appropriate definition for that title. Trying to call Daniel a magician, or Miriam a musician, is trying to get characters in based on a technicality. King of Tyrus has nothing going for him other than the title of the card, which in my mind is the very definition of trying to get him in on a technicality. Every technicality allowed blurs defined lines and makes things more difficult to rule or define.
Also, I don't see where I indicated that I was unaware of all the other times this has happened, and I find the insinuation somewhat insulting. I was merely pointing out that I don't think any other card's identifiers are based on metaphors, except for Priests of Christ and Soldier of God. The ones that are argued about are based on something like what they said, what they did, etc. and they are judged on how those arguments mesh with the game and the definitions in it.
[/quote]
-
I do NOT think there is consistency in saying someone should be identified with a king when there is basically nothing outside the title of the card that would make them an actual king. I do NOT think there is consistency in wanting to limit "royal family" to humans but not "kings". I do NOT think there is consistency in saying you can be a king but not a member of a royal family. Being a king BY DEFAULT makes you a member of a royal family. People are acknowledging the common sense in defining one but not taking that and applying it to the other. They just look at the title of the card and want to have that trump all other logic. I can't agree with that
so, by your logic, would it also be safe to assume you do not agree with priests of christs labeled a priest and plagued with diseases labeled a disease?
-
I already described PoC as a special exception by design, please refer back to that post.
I don't see why Plagued with Diseases would not count. How are diseases, plural, not a disease? In addition to which, it behaves like a disease in terms of what its ability does.
-
then i see no reason king of tyrus cannot also be a 'special exception'. poc is a priest by title alone and not by biblical function like every single other priest in the game. if you're pointing to design, then its a design flaw.
-
then i see no reason king of tyrus cannot also be a 'special exception'.
'... by design'? Selective quoting?
-
...ok? my point still means the same thing, yet i saved myself two words? although responding to you has made that grow exponentially larger...
-
The definition of "King" and whether or not KoT fits that definition is being discussed by the playtest group.
-
my point still means the same thing, yet i saved myself two words?
Saved yourself two words and all the context.
If I say (for example) that priests are Melchizedek and characters from the Levitical line of the priesthood, and then Rob says, "I'm going to make a card called Priests of Christ, and it will be a NT Priest", that is a special exception by design. It doesn't fit the strict definition but was designed to be a priest anyway.
So tell me again how this doesn't change your point? Was it your position that King of Tyrus was designed to be a demon classified as a king in lieu of the traditional definition?
-
A "classical tradition" that's mostly in your head and obviously not widely held, if this thread is any evidence.
-
Monarchies are in my head? That's odd.
Maybe I'll go to a first-grade class and ask them to draw a picture of a king, see how many demons I get, and how many guys wearing a crown I'll get.
-
his point is you are framing the definition of 'king' as you choose. there has not been a 'classical' definition of king in redemption thus far, and that is all that matters at this point.
furthermore, if 'special exceptions' can exist for one card, then its entirely plausible for another. the 'special exception' is poc is a priest by card name alone; the same can obviously be applied to kot as well.
-
his point is you are framing the definition of 'king' as you choose. there has not been a 'classical' definition of king in redemption thus far, and that is all that matters at this point.
Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your idea of what "matters".
the 'special exception' is poc is a priest by card name alone; the same can obviously be applied to kot as well.
Why? (and by the way, "by name alone" implies it was not a Priest by design but we went back and applied the label based on the name. That is obviously false.)
-
his point is you are framing the definition of 'king' as you choose. there has not been a 'classical' definition of king in redemption thus far, and that is all that matters at this point.
Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your idea of what "matters".
the definition of a king pertaining to redemption standards matters far more to the redemption community than what you personally may think a king is.
the 'special exception' is poc is a priest by card name alone; the same can obviously be applied to kot as well.
Why? (and by the way, "by name alone" implies it was not a Priest by design but we went back and applied the label based on the name. That is obviously false.)
i never said this is what happened. there are many different ways a nt priest could have been approached and designed and yet still only be a priest by name. does that make it right? probably not. is it a design flaw? probably so.
-
the definition of a king pertaining to redemption standards matters far more to the redemption community than what you personally may think a king is.
... because I'm the only one that would think a king would be... well, a king... just made that up out of the blue, because of course demons are kings, everyone knows that.
i never said this is what happened.
When you say "it's a priest based on name alone", yeah, that's pretty much what you're saying.
is it a design flaw? probably so.
In what way is it a design flaw to have one fun card that breaks from the norm every so often? The say-so rule for declaring cards unique is WAY more arbitrary than this, and nobody seems to think the game is coming down around our ears for it.
-
the definition of a king pertaining to redemption standards matters far more to the redemption community than what you personally may think a king is.
... because I'm the only one that would think a king would be... well, a king... just made that up out of the blue, because of course demons are kings, everyone knows that.
and there are many people on these boards that believe a card with 'king' in its title would be...well, a king. even so, i dont really care anymore less what you think a king may be than the next person; i just want a solid definition of 'king' to get this issue sorted out.
i never said this is what happened.
When you say "it's a priest based on name alone", yeah, that's pretty much what you're saying.
no, its not.
is it a design flaw? probably so.
In what way is it a design flaw to have one fun card that breaks from the norm every so often? The say-so rule for declaring cards unique is WAY more arbitrary than this, and nobody seems to think the game is coming down around our ears for it.
i dont know, i figured games have rules/standards/principles for a reason? i guess this isn't true for redemption. i suppose the next time i see an orange osama bin laden card printed and labeled demon, i wont be so alarmed.
-
i dont know, i figured games have rules/standards/principles for a reason?
Games also have exceptions from time to time, it's not the end of the world. The fact that PoC is the only card you can come up with that fits the bill for this, and it's a national promo to boot, really defies this picture you're painting of people just making whatever silly cards and rules they want willy-nilly.
I understand that different people want different things; what I don't understand is why I have to defend myself from being the "unreasonable" one here just for suggesting maybe it oughta be what pretty much the entire planet has considered a king for as long as people have been around.
i suppose the next time i see an orange osama bin laden card printed and labeled demon, i wont be so alarmed.
Well, that's good, cause Lord knows you sure have seen a lot of KARAZY cards come out that make no sense to you whatsoever. Good to know you're drinking the Kool-Aid now.
-
i dont know, i figured games have rules/standards/principles for a reason?
Games also have exceptions from time to time, it's not the end of the world. The fact that PoC is the only card you can come up with that fits the bill for this, and it's a national promo to boot, really defies this picture you're painting of people just making whatever silly cards and rules they want willy-nilly.
soldier of god is wc, yet never having participated in an actual physical biblical battle. it matters not if poc is the only card that fits the bill or is a national promo; its a card that has nonetheless broken the standards and fundamentals of redemption.
i also never said redemption has made cards 'willy-nilly' in this fashion; sometimes i really start to wonder where you get this stuff.
I understand that different people want different things; what I don't understand is why I have to defend myself from being the "unreasonable" one here just for suggesting maybe it oughta be what pretty much the entire planet has considered a king for as long as people have been around.
i suppose by that logic jesus isn't a king either. the point is, the card has been preceded by another card that is identified by title alone...and this card has 'king' in its name for crying out loud. sounds like a king to most people here, regardless of what your first graders may crayola-draw for you.[/i]
i suppose the next time i see an orange osama bin laden card printed and labeled demon, i wont be so alarmed.
Well, that's good, cause Lord knows you sure have seen a lot of KARAZY cards come out that make no sense to you whatsoever. Good to know you're drinking the Kool-Aid now.
with redemption already have broken common fundamentals and consistencies, again, it wouldnt surprise me. i eagerly await my waco fortress with baited breathe.
-
the point is, the card has been preceded by another card that is identified by title alone...and this card has 'king' in its name for crying out loud. sounds like a king to most people here, regardless of what your first graders may crayola-draw for you.
I think Schaef is trying to say that Priests of Christ weren't made Teal and a Priest because the name was "Priests of Christ." During the planning and/or playtesting of the card it was decided that it would be Teal, a Priest, and called Priests of Christ, not necessarily one because of another. This is different than KoT because KoT is already out, was not considered a king during planning/playtesting, and may or may not actually fit the definition of a king.
In my opinion, this whole argument could be solved if a definition was added to the REG stating exactly what a king is (whatever the definition actually is ruled as), in addition to listing them, so that it's there in writing for people to reference.
-
the point is, the card has been preceded by another card that is identified by title alone...and this card has 'king' in its name for crying out loud. sounds like a king to most people here, regardless of what your first graders may crayola-draw for you.
I think Schaef is trying to say that Priests of Christ weren't made Teal and a Priest because the name was "Priests of Christ." During the planning and/or playtesting of the card it was decided that it would be Teal, a Priest, and called Priests of Christ, not necessarily one because of another. This is different than KoT because KoT is already out, was not considered a king during planning/playtesting, and may or may not actually fit the definition of a king.
why is it teal? because its a priest. why is it a priest? because 'priest' is in the card name and verse. somehow, that doesnt correlate to you reasoning that poc is a priest by name alone?
-
why is it teal? because its a priest. why is it a priest? because 'priest' is in the card name and verse. somehow, that doesnt correlate to you reasoning that poc is a priest by name alone?
Why is it so hard to think that maybe the card was Teal, thus it had to be a Priest, and lastly they decided to name it Priests of Christ?
Your logic progression assumes that the name came first, and that hasn't been proven as the case.
-
why is it teal? because its a priest. why is it a priest? because 'priest' is in the card name and verse. somehow, that doesnt correlate to you reasoning that poc is a priest by name alone?
Why is it so hard to think that maybe the card was Teal, thus it had to be a Priest, and lastly they decided to name it Priests of Christ?
because that seems like an illogical method of creating cards?
R&D1: hey, we need an nt priest.
R&D2: well, they do mention priests of christ in revelation...
R&D1: zomg, lets use that, it has priests in the name, thats good enough.
surely not a design flaw.
-
because that seems like an illogical method of creating cards?
R&D1: hey, we need an nt priest.
R&D2: well, they do mention priests of christ in revelation...
R&D1: zomg, lets use that, it has priests in the name, thats good enough.
surely not a design flaw.
You don't always have the luxury of coming up with names to then attach brigades and subsequently identifiers to. I have plenty of experience with creating trading cards (albeit for fun and/or personal use, never for a company) and very frequently I start with an idea (such as a capture effect, a NT Priest, specific identifiers, etc.), proceed to finding a verse and picture that fit, and finally assign a name and brigade appropriate to the picture and the concept I started with. Oftentimes, the name is simply something short and/or to the point that describes what it is or what it does.
-
so tell me this then: why IS priests of christs classified as a priest?
-
so tell me this then: why IS priests of christs classified as a priest?
I'm not a playtester or the creator so I can't tell you for sure. My point is that assuming it's due to the name is unsubstantiated.
-
i dont think thats assuming much at all.
offer divinely appointed sacrifices to God? no.
execute the different procedures, rituals, and ceremonies relating to the worship of God? no.
have priest in the name? yes.
the name alone is the only connection with priests of christs being even remotely related to teal or priests at all.
-
soldier of god is wc, yet never having participated in an actual physical biblical battle.
Yes, thank you, I think I'm the one who told you that already. Multiple times.
i also never said redemption has made cards 'willy-nilly' in this fashion; sometimes i really start to wonder where you get this stuff.
I get it from when you say things like "broken the standards and fundamentals of redemption" and (sarcastically) "i figured games have rules/standards/principles for a reason". If you treat minor things like major things, I'm going to question your use of hyperbole.
i suppose by that logic jesus isn't a king either.
Not in the strict literal sense, no. In the metaphorical sense, yes. But since we don't have a Jesus card, I guess you'll have to wait to make that argument to inconsistency. There won't be room in this set because we're not taking out the Osama bin Laden card to make room for it.
with redemption already have broken common fundamentals and consistencies, again, it wouldnt surprise me. i eagerly await my waco fortress with baited breathe.
Oh, look, more hyperbole based on minor issues. Each new time you post something like this, I take you less and less seriously.
So now that you have claimed three (additional) times since my last post that PoC is considered a Priest based on the name, are you going to take back your earlier defensive "I never said that" response? Or are you going to continue to push that theory in direct contradiction to what I already explained to you multiple times?
-
offer divinely appointed sacrifices to God? no.
That one can't apply by very nature of PoC being NT and thus after the Cross.
execute the different procedures, rituals, and ceremonies relating to the worship of God?
Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Certainly seems to me that the PoC will have lots to do with procedures, etc., since they'll be reigning with God.
-
what gets more and more funny to me everytime i read this thread is that poc is as much a spiritual metaphor as kot is...yet the same strain of logic of kot being shoed in with earthly kings as well (even though priests have thus far always pertained to earthly priests) is not to be applied. hypocritical much?
-
what gets more and more funny to me everytime i read this thread is that poc is as much a spiritual metaphor as kot is
Correct.
hypocritical much?
Incorrect, and you would know that if you would stop trying to one-up me long enough to just listen.
-
you have not provided a single argument as to why poc is a priest other than it being in the title and verse.
-
Yes, I did. You know I did because you took the effort to mock me for it and use it as an excuse to talk about how we screw everything up.
-
you have not provided a single argument as to why poc is a priest other than it being in the title and verse.
it is also teal brigade. wyn.
-
oh yes, the 'special exception' clause. i suppose it would be ok to make a goliath reprint nt because it would then be a 'special exception'. do you not see the inconsistencies created by such 'special exceptions' from a game that has operated under a specific set of rules and fundamentals for years? i dont expect an answer, as this is besides the point and a whole 'nother can of worms for another day.
back on topic, perhaps you would like to share with the rest of why poc is a special exception?
-
oh yes, the 'special exception' clause. i suppose it would be ok to make a goliath reprint nt because it would then be a 'special exception'.
::)
do you not see the inconsistencies created by such 'special exceptions' from a game that has operated under a specific set of rules and fundamentals for years?
No. Exceptions are part of a set of rules, just like silence is a part of music. If you want strict rules and no exceptions, then Lost Souls get discarded with Sites, and battle-winning abilities can never be interrupted because the character is already out of play.
back on topic, perhaps you would like to share with the rest of why poc is a special exception?
I already answered this question. You know I already answered this question, because we've already had a discussion about you selectively omitting it from your response.
-
The fact that PoC is a special exception, no matter the reason for it, is not reason enough for KoT to be one as well.
It's like saying "I deserve an A because you gave that guy an A and we're both named Scott."
-
by design, ok, i got that (even though i honestly did not omit it on purpose, i really dont see how that makes it any different). but you still havent told me why poc was designed as a special exception. what was the motivation behind making it a special exception?
-
by design, ok, i got that (even though i honestly did not omit it on purpose, i really dont see how that makes it any different). but you still havent told me why poc was designed as a special exception. what was the motivation behind making it a special exception?
The fact that they wanted a priest that was NT and didn't perfectly fit the OT definition of a priest.
-
Because that was a card that Rob and/or Bryon wanted to design as a cool promo card. Something representative of us. Not a priest in the clinical sense, but we will put the name "Priests" on top, make it teal, and give it the Priest identifier.
I mean, that's pretty much the main reason you make a special anything, because you want to do something special, even though it does not conform exactly to the framework.
-
The fact that PoC is a special exception, no matter the reason for it, is not reason enough for KoT to be one as well.
sure it is, its called precedence and consistency. poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.
-
The fact that PoC is a special exception, no matter the reason for it, is not reason enough for KoT to be one as well.
sure it is, its called precedence and consistency. poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.
I see no reason why kot must be. You can keep precedence and consistency by labeling KoT a king, but it doesn't break the previous if you don't. That's a reverse in logic.
-
so, im wondering if kot is ruled to not be a king...would blemished sacrifices repel poc? or does it repel only earthly priests?
-
blemished sacrifices (please post abilities) will repel PoC regardless. Whether PoC is a priest is decided. Ruling whether KoT is a king is independent of PoC.
Blemished Sacrifices
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Black • Ability: 2 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Evil Character repels all good Priests. Negate all special abilities on Enhancements used by good Priests this turn. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Malachi 1:8 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Common)
-
poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.
Because, like everything else in this thread, you've been approaching it backwards. PoC was designed as a priest and everything else about the card flowed from that. Perhaps you've heard of the exception that proves the rule: well, the two PROMOTIONAL CARDS that have been offered as evidence are exactly that. What MAKES them special is that they depart from the norm. KoT was NOT designed with the idea of, hey, let's create a demon "king" and label him as a king as a special one-off from what we normally consider a king.
The very fact that you're using exceptional cases to argue for KoT only strengthens the notion that the status quo is for kings to be humans who rule over kingdoms in monarchies. Just like people are trying to argue that royal families are human, therefore kings don't need to be royal family... because?... kings don't need to be human... because?... we want KoT to be a king. No other reason.
If I'm given the choice between having a simple definition and sticking to that (which your posts seem to claim is what you want), or by creating a more complex definition which then additionally creates an inconsistency with another identifier in order to exclude the card from one group that we're trying to shoehorn into another (and frankly, if we're going to add it to one, I don't see the point in trying to lock it out of the other), and then have to explain to people how to apply the metaphor to the definition, all so we can include ONE CARD... it's no mystery to me which is the simpler, cleaner solution.
Additionally, your Blemished Sacrifices jab is not amusing. Not to mention the secondary question is nonsensical (/pokes self in arm to establish earthly existence).
-
Because, like everything else in this thread, you've been approaching it backwards. PoC was designed as a priest and everything else about the card flowed from that.
I totally told him that, but he didn't believe me...
-
hey,
I'm tired of sifting through "discussions" like this. Someone please go through this thread, find the first reference to the meta-argument (debating about the debate itself), report that, and close this thread up.
Thanx,
Gil
-
poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.
Because, like everything else in this thread, you've been approaching it backwards. PoC was designed as a priest and everything else about the card flowed from that. Perhaps you've heard of the exception that proves the rule: well, the two PROMOTIONAL CARDS that have been offered as evidence are exactly that. What MAKES them special is that they depart from the norm. KoT was NOT designed with the idea of, hey, let's create a demon "king" and label him as a king as a special one-off from what we normally consider a king.
the fact poc was designed initially as a priest is becoming less and less relevant. just because cactus did not design kot as a special exception does not mean it cannot still be one. the fact remains poc and kot still embody metaphorical references. 'priests' currently includes earthly and metaphorical priests. kot not being a king just because 'he was not designed that way' (which is still unclear) is not a good answer.
The very fact that you're using exceptional cases to argue for KoT only strengthens the notion that the status quo is for kings to be humans who rule over kingdoms in monarchies. Just like people are trying to argue that royal families are human, therefore kings don't need to be royal family... because?... kings don't need to be human... because?... we want KoT to be a king. No other reason.
...so why can metaphorical kings not be classified as kings?
If I'm given the choice between having a simple definition and sticking to that (which your posts seem to claim is what you want), or by creating a more complex definition which then additionally creates an inconsistency with another identifier in order to exclude the card from one group that we're trying to shoehorn into another (and frankly, if we're going to add it to one, I don't see the point in trying to lock it out of the other), and then have to explain to people how to apply the metaphor to the definition, all so we can include ONE CARD... it's no mystery to me which is the simpler, cleaner solution.
a simple definition would be to have an all-encompassing definition of 'king' that blankets both earthly and metaphorical references, much in the same vein as what priests are.
Additionally, your Blemished Sacrifices jab is not amusing. Not to mention the secondary question is nonsensical (/pokes self in arm to establish earthly existence).
im not here to amuse you, i care less of the entertainment value (or lack thereof) i seemingly provide to you. if it means anything to you, your blatant mockery and disparaging attitude have little amusement to me either.
-
poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.
Exactly how are humans "metaphorical?" The Priest class are humans, Priests of Christ are human, I see nothing metaphorical about it. As I mentioned earlier in the Scripture reference on PoC, it certainly seems to me that they will be doing priestly stuff.
the fact poc was designed initially as a priest is becoming less and less relevant. just because cactus did not design kot as a special exception does not mean it cannot still be one. the fact remains poc and kot still embody metaphorical references. 'priests' currently includes earthly and metaphorical priests. kot not being a king just because 'he was not designed that way' (which is still unclear) is not a good answer.
Actually, it's entirely relevant. They designed the card to be a Priest, so they made sure it fit the Priest defining qualities. Nowhere in the REG do I see that Priests have to be OT. In fact, it does say: "A priest is one who...acts as mediator between men and God" which perfectly describes what the PoC will do when Revelation actually comes to pass.
...so why can metaphorical kings not be classified as kings?
Because he doesn't actually rule anything? I think that was explained earlier...
a simple definition would be to have an all-encompassing definition of 'king' that blankets both earthly and metaphorical references, much in the same vein as what priests are.
Again, I see nothing metaphorical about PoC being classified as a Priest.
-
the fact poc was designed initially as a priest is becoming less and less relevant.
It is the ONLY relevant piece of data in this discussion, as PoC pertains to it at all.
just because cactus did not design kot as a special exception does not mean it cannot still be one.
Uh, yeah, that's pretty much exactly what it means.
kot not being a king just because 'he was not designed that way' (which is still unclear) is not a good answer.
You're welcome to not like my explanation, but there is no denying that your claim I never gave you a reason is flat wrong.
so why can metaphorical kings not be classified as kings?
Because they're not kings.
a simple definition would be to have an all-encompassing definition of 'king' that blankets both earthly and metaphorical references, much in the same vein as what priests are.
Except to my knowledge, they're not. That's why it's called an exception. You're simultaneously arguing to have a definition that includes KoT, and to have KoT added as an exception to the definition. I can't make heads or tails of your real direction here because it contradicts itself at so many points.
if it means anything to you, your blatant mockery and disparaging attitude have little amusement to me either.
Do you expect me to apologize for disparaging your sarcasm and hostile attitude, your failure to listen and your false claims about my behavior? I gave you an opportunity to approach this in a fair and civil manner, you chose not to take it. Even now, I am working to resolve the matter at hand, despite the fact that I see no such effort on your part whatsoever.
-
poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.
Exactly how are humans "metaphorical?" The Priest class are humans, Priests of Christ are human, I see nothing metaphorical about it. As I mentioned earlier in the Scripture reference on PoC, it certainly seems to me that they will be doing priestly stuff.
the passage says nothing of poc doing 'priestly stuff'. the passage is completely metaphorical. the priest class is human, yes. is priests of christ? resurrection, second death, reign for a thousand years...does that sound human to you?
the fact poc was designed initially as a priest is becoming less and less relevant. just because cactus did not design kot as a special exception does not mean it cannot still be one. the fact remains poc and kot still embody metaphorical references. 'priests' currently includes earthly and metaphorical priests. kot not being a king just because 'he was not designed that way' (which is still unclear) is not a good answer.
Actually, it's entirely relevant. They designed the card to be a Priest, so they made sure it fit the Priest defining qualities. Nowhere in the REG do I see that Priests have to be OT. In fact, it does say: "A priest is one who...acts as mediator between men and God" which perfectly describes what the PoC will do when Revelation actually comes to pass.
and people accuse me of selective quoting. convenient how you skpped 'A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar' and 'Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple.' entirely. does a nt priest have to offer a sacrifice? didn't think so. priests of christs misses the reg definition by a mile.[/i]
...so why can metaphorical kings not be classified as kings?
Because he doesn't actually rule anything? I think that was explained earlier...
just because he didnt rule anything earthly means he cant be a king? isnt that a bit narrow-minded? what was he a king of exactly then? why is king in his title?[/i]
a simple definition would be to have an all-encompassing definition of 'king' that blankets both earthly and metaphorical references, much in the same vein as what priests are.
Again, I see nothing metaphorical about PoC being classified as a Priest.
does 'priests of christ' suggest we will be actual priests, as demonstrated in the REG definition? no. its merely a figure of speech to represent something else.
-
the passage says nothing of poc doing 'priestly stuff'. the passage is completely metaphorical. the priest class is human, yes. is priests of christ? resurrection, second death, reign for a thousand years...does that sound human to you?
If not humans, then what are they? They're not God, angels, beasts, or demons, so what's left?
and people accuse me of selective quoting. convenient how you skpped 'A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar' and 'Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple.' entirely. does a nt priest have to offer a sacrifice? didn't think so. priests of christs misses the reg definition by a mile.
I didn't skip them because I'm trying to ignore it, I skipped it because it no longer applies. Since the Cross, sacrifices are no longer necessary, so it wouldn't make sense for a NT Priest to do them. Yet, that doesn't mean in and of itself that you can't have a NT Priest.
just because he didnt rule anything earthly means he cant be a king? isnt that a bit narrow-minded? what was he a king of exactly then? why is king in his title?
Because that's how God told the author to write it? Idk.
-
For what it's worth, I don't believe KOT is a king. Unless Tyrus is a kingdom... but even then I'd need an explanation.
@Schaef, I agree with you 100%.
-
the passage says nothing of poc doing 'priestly stuff'. the passage is completely metaphorical. the priest class is human, yes. is priests of christ? resurrection, second death, reign for a thousand years...does that sound human to you?
If not humans, then what are they? They're not God, angels, beasts, or demons, so what's left?
'human' is earthly. spiritual beings would be more appropriate.
and people accuse me of selective quoting. convenient how you skpped 'A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar' and 'Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple.' entirely. does a nt priest have to offer a sacrifice? didn't think so. priests of christs misses the reg definition by a mile.
I didn't skip them because I'm trying to ignore it, I skipped it because it no longer applies. Since the Cross, sacrifices are no longer necessary, so it wouldn't make sense for a NT Priest to do them. Yet, that doesn't mean in and of itself that you can't have a NT Priest.
according to the defintion supplied by the REG, the authoritive source, priests of christs does not adhere to most, if not all, of the definition. as schaef said, priests of christ is only a priest by special exception of design...not by definition.
just because he didnt rule anything earthly means he cant be a king? isnt that a bit narrow-minded? what was he a king of exactly then? why is king in his title?
Because that's how God told the author to write it? Idk.
if you dont know, then what gives you the authority to say he didnt rule over anything?
oh, and it might be worth noting tyre actually IS a place.[/i]
lightning: tyre actually is a place.
-
'human' is earthly. spiritual beings would be more appropriate.
And who's to say that humans aren't spiritual beings? Being stuck in fleshy bodies isn't necessarily the definition of human, it could just be how God decided for us to be for this stage of our existence.
according to the defintion supplied by the REG, the authoritive source, priests of christs does not adhere to most, if not all, of the definition. as schaef said, priests of christ is only a priest by special exception of design...not by definition.
And I'm trying to provide a possible thought process for why they made it a special exception. If you want the real thought process, ask one of the people that made it.
if you dont know, then what gives you the authority to say he didnt rule over anything?
I don't know he didn't, you don't know he did. It's a flawed argument for either of us.
oh, and it might be worth noting tyre actually IS a place.
I never said it wasn't. You were the first to say that he didn't rule anything "earthly".
Honestly, I don't really see how this is worth anymore debating. The decision has been made, and there isn't much we can do about it if the playtesters are firm in their choice. Plus, it's not like the game is that different whether or not KoT is considered a "king."
*shrug*
-
For what it's worth, I don't believe KOT is a king. Unless Tyrus is a kingdom... but even then I'd need an explanation.
Tyrus is often thought to be referring to Tyre, which was an earthly place.
The decision has been made...
According to this post (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17072.msg277218#msg277218) it hasn't.
-
The decision has been made...
According to this post (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17072.msg277218#msg277218) it hasn't.
You're right, I forgot about that. Either way, though, the basic arguments have been made over and over and there isn't really a purpose to debating it anymore. At least, not until the playtest group comes back with a decision and their reasoning for it.
-
Hey,
Do you expect me to apologize for disparaging your sarcasm and hostile attitude, your failure to listen and your false claims about my behavior?
Yes. It doesn't matter what he's doing in this discussion. If you're being disparaging, and you recognize it, you should apologize.
In my opinion, this whole argument could be solved if a definition was added to the REG stating exactly what a king is (whatever the definition actually is ruled as), in addition to listing them, so that it's there in writing for people to reference.
I agree. I (along with several other members of TPTB) are working on this. We'll let you know when we have a definition. I shouldn't be more than a week.
I'm tired of sifting through "discussions" like this. Someone please ... close this thread up.
Done.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly