Cactus Game Design Message Boards

So says Schaef, Captain of the "Temple" Guard. 

The Ark was an example; the Temples hold a certain class of Artifacts which Temple of Dagon et al cannot hold.  What I am trying to tell you is that "Temple" has a specific meaning in Redemption

Dagon's Temple did hold the Ark for a time, I believe. I agree that Temple has a specific meaning in redemption, I just think that it's a place of worship. There are "Temples" to Dagon, Ashtaroth, and Baal, as well as Yahweh.

"Artifact" is also capitalized in the SA. Should I take that to have a special meaning as well? Can I only discard Ark of the Covenant, since that's where God dwelled?

I think TKPRR nailed it. False god, bad stuff, real temple.

P.S. That was a good one, YMT.

I think that is the first time anyone typed out my full initials...

Has anyone ever bothered with the whole name? Maybe in my next post I can just copy and paste in somewhere.

'temple' means any and all temples at this point, period. we cannot draw a connection between 'temple' and 'temple artifact' just because 'temple artifact' has been defined before in redemption; 'temple' has NOT yet been defined for redemption purposes. therefore, at this point in time unless ruled or defined otherwise, as long as anyone can prove a card as being a 'temple' of some sort, then desecrate the temple can discard it.

'temple' means any and all temples at this point, period.

For what reason?

we cannot draw a connection between 'temple' and 'temple artifact' just because 'temple artifact' has been defined before in redemption;

That is EXACTLY why we can draw a connection between them.

therefore, at this point in time unless ruled or defined otherwise, as long as anyone can prove a card as being a 'temple' of some sort, then desecrate the temple can discard it.

How exactly do you prove that it is "a temple of some sort"?   What are your criteria for something being proven "a temple"?

Or better yet, let's just skip the rabbit trail and cut straight to the chase: why are your arbitrary standards perfectly fine but my arbitrary standards are too ridiculous for consideration?

Since "artifact" is completely unaligned, you can discard any artifact, good or bad.

There is no such thing as a "good or bad" Artifact, based on the defined card type.  That is arbitrary.

To assume the same should apply to the "Temple" is logical and the most likely interpretation.

Since Temple is not a "card type", there is no correlation between the two.  There is no distinction of alignment with Artifacts simply because Artifacts do not HAVE an alignment.  You cannot apply that same logic to cards that HAVE alignment.

Considering all the departures from strictly literal English that Redemption takes in creating its definitions, this is a very strange time to suddenly demand it on what is essentially a minor issue.  Moreover, there are specific Temples (capital T) that have a specific purpose in God's specific plan as used by God's specific chosen people.  I think that to say hosts of a Christian card game have absolutely no way of figuring that out using common sense, especially considering that those Temples are different in nearly every way from other cards that have the word "temple" in the title, I think you are giving people a LOT less credit for intellect than I would dare.

The definition of "Temple" simply needs to be put into the REG. As far as I can see there's only a few options, either...

1) We go by temples unto Yahweh. Only 3 cards meet that criterion. (Solomon's Temple, Zerubbabel's Temple and Herod's Temple)

2) We go by a Fortress that can hold Temple Artifacts. Only 3 cards meet that criterion. (Solomon's Temple, Zerubbabel's Temple and The Tabernacle)

3) We go by a Fortress that was a Temple and can hold Temple Artifacts. Only 2 cards meet that criterion due to the precedent set by Z. Temple's identifier (Solomon's Temple and Zerubabbel's Temple)

4) We go by a Card that can be validly defined as a temple {as in an actual static building of worship, whether to the true god or to false demon-gods}. I believe only 5 cards meet that criterion. (Solomon's Temple, Zerubbabel's Temple, Herod's Temple, Temple of Dagon and Temple of Nisroch)

According to the context of the card, the only one that makes sense to me is #4, but I know that I'm just a player so my opinion is rather void. Anyways, it'd be nice to get one of these into the REG.

Quote

I think that to say hosts of a Christian card game have absolutely no way of figuring that out using common sense, especially considering that those Temples are different in nearly every way from other cards that have the word "temple" in the title, I think you are giving people a LOT less credit for intellect than I would dare.

COME ON!  Enough.


Archangel....  I agree with your definitions.  I also think #4 is the only one that makes sense.

*nod nod* the most logical. theres nothing on the card that even implies it has to be a good temple. just because its capitalized we're all somehow supposed to believe that only means good temples? please. its a pronoun when used in conjunction with the name of that temple. any gamer looking in will clearly be led to believe that 'temple' merely means any and all structures in the bible that served as temples, be it good or evil.

rite, i was saying just because the t is capitalized doesnt mean we have to assume it means a 'good temple'.

So how come Z's Temple says "Temple" and everyone nods their head in perfect agreement and understanding, but Desecrate says "Temple" and people just start including all kinds of other weird cards willy-nilly?

Zerrubbabel's Temple's SA says "good Temple" while Desecrate's SA just says Temple.

A better question would be why, with Desecrate the Temple, you can discard Altar of Dagon but not Temple of Dagon. That question is particularly confusing in light of all the Biblical history that you mentioned that supposedly made the term "Temple" so obvious.

I've gotten a lot of flak for paying attention to the capitalization of Temple suggesting a proper term based on Jewish history and the Artifacts we use. 

Oops! That was my fault. I misunderstood why you were emphasizing that. I thought it was a response to daClock. I will delete my statement from an earlier post. I really need to take some Biblical History courses. My O.T. Survey class at Liberty was more of a "Run through the Bible" course. 

No gameplay mechanic argument was presented to support discarding Sites or Enhancements, and eventually I came across one by linking equivalent card type and function. 

I was suggesting earlier that Temple of Nisroch would be set-aside and therefore out of play, however I guess you meant if it was played in battle. So the question is whether sites and enhancements should be included as well. Personally I think that the term "temple" implies a fortress in Redemption, but I wouldn't care if Temple of Nisroch and Herod's Temple are included since it is not likely that either scenario would ever come to fruition.

I've frequently wondered aloud why what's good for the goose can't be good for the gander, and received no answer other than further implications that I'm not using my brain.

I don't think anyone has implied that you are not using your brain. Some of us were not seeing the same distinction that you were. That is all.

Oops! That was my fault. I misunderstood why you were emphasizing that. I thought it was a response to daClock.

Well, the response to my pointing the capital T as idiotic has been kind of universal, not something I attribiuted to Ben or you specifically.  I just don't understand being told that one

I was suggesting earlier that Temple of Nisroch would be set-aside and therefore out of play, however I guess you meant if it was played in battle.

Also, it's an Enhancement, so therefore it can be placed in Storehouse, and therefore in an opponent's territory for targeting.  But again, I wanted to get away from the "how do you do that legally" because it was unrelated to "where do you draw the line at defining a Temple".

I don't think anyone has implied that you are not using your brain...I meant that something that is "obvious" was not obvious to me.

Mostly, I was referring to:
a). people acting like they didn't know what I was talking about when I described what I saw as the difference between a "temple" (which I left in lowercase and put in quotes to denote a generic form) and "Temple" (capitalized and put in quotes to emphasize the distinction I was making), saying things like how the card title had a capital T in it and such.
b). the idea that it was a conclusion that was so impossible to draw that no one could possibly come to that conclusion upon looking at the card.  I looked at the card and that was the conclusion I drew, even though I am now willing to revise it to a definition that's a little broader and a lot simpler.  The point being that there seemed to be two extremes at work here: your impression that I was saying there's no way you could look at it and NOT know it was a capital-t-temple-of-god, which was not really what I was saying; and my impression that you were saying there's no way you could look at it and KNOW it was a capital-t-temple-of-god.  Looking back at your posts, it still looks to me like you were saying that.