Cactus Game Design Message Boards

We're not talking about professors who don't want Wikipedia used to find sources or something like that.  Rather, the game is designed in such a way that the sources we look at are going to be biblical or primary sources, like Josephus.  The 5 sources on Wikipedia are either scholarly, non-fiction, or encyclopedia excerpts from the past decade, so they themselves do not count as proper source material in Redemption.  They might point us to particular source documents, sure, but to say that we should rely on the fact that there are 5 very recent quoted sources in Wikipedia (also without examining their content or merits) ignores the point that none of those sources are acceptable for Redemption rules purposes, and so we will not be announcing any rulings with them as the foundation.

If the Herods are going to be ruled Edomites, it will be through biblical or primary source documents; as I already mentioned, the Josephus references already provided will obviously be considered.

Based on our research there is sufficient evidence to count Herod the Great (AP, DI) as an Edomite for Redemption purposes. This is effective immediately and will be added to the next REG update.

We have not found evidence that other Herods should be counted as Edmonites.

Why is his entire family not edomite thru relation?

Unless a character is a patriarch of a Nation (Herod the Great is not) their descendants are not inherently the same culture or civilization for game play purposes. We must draw a line somewhere and we've chosen to draw that at the first generation that isn't part of a country/culture.

This is the same reason that Jacobs sons are not Syrians while Leah and Rachel are.

That's the kind of meta-information I like to see. Will that be added to the REG along with a definition of Temple and Priestly artifact?

"A permanent item of furnishing or architecture in the temple."

The only thing that would jump camps would be The Silver Trumpets, which seems much more similar to the priestly artifacts than the temple artifacts anyway.

Initially the Priestly Artifacts definition was made to have cards reference artifacts not referenced in another way. It could change but the original intent was to give these "forgotten" artifacts some more synergy.

Why isn't Joseph's Silver Cup a priestly artifact?

Why not Unholy Writ?

30 Pieces of Silver?  

Well, the priests of the time were running a treasury and collection boxes for the upkeep/expansion of the temple so this actually could be legit...

Boom. Can we please get a clear definition for both?

What isn't clear about this?

Priestly Artifacts include Artifacts used by priests on a regular basis as part of their duties in the Tabernacle or Temple that are not designated as Tabernacle or Temple Artifacts.

I don't actually see any way that the cards you, Justin or I mentioned could qualify.

30 Pieces of Silver were taken from the temple treasury by the temple attendants to pay for temple business. That's how. Furthermore, what possible reason could there be fore being against defining a class of cards?

I'm pro-defining. If there's a problem with the current definition I need to understand it before I can help fix it.

I don't see how the coins were used to perform the priestly duties. What part of a priests duties is outlined in scripture to involve coins?

He just posted the quote from the REG that includes parameters for what defines a priestly artifact. "Artifacts used by priests on a regular basis as part of their duties ... not tabernacle or temple artifacts". How are there no parameters?