« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: King Shishak  (Read 1433 times)

Offline Asahel24601

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
  • So many new weapons, so little deck space
    • -
    • North Central Region
King Shishak
« on: April 21, 2012, 09:46:13 PM »
0
Is he considered a Pharaoh?

King Shishak (Ki)

Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Gold • Ability: 8 / 7 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: Jerusalem Tower has no effect this turn. If block is successful, discard the top card from any draw pile. • Play As: Negate Jerusalem Tower this turn. If block is successful, discard the top card from any deck. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, King (Egypt), Royalty, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: I Kings 14:25 • Availability: Kings booster packs (Uncommon)
Logged

Offline Praeceps

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: King Shishak
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2012, 10:26:43 PM »
0
Quote from: Asahel24601 on April 21, 2012, 09:46:13 PM
Is he considered a Pharaoh?

King Shishak (Ki)

Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Gold • Ability: 8 / 7 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: Jerusalem Tower has no effect this turn. If block is successful, discard the top card from any draw pile. • Play As: Negate Jerusalem Tower this turn. If block is successful, discard the top card from any deck. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, King (Egypt), Royalty, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: I Kings 14:25 • Availability: Kings booster packs (Uncommon)

Yes, as a king of Egypt, he is a Pharaoh.

My question, I thought "has no effect" was ignore language; is the play as wrong?
Logged
Just one more thing...

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: King Shishak
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2012, 10:54:08 PM »
0
Quote from: Praeceps on April 21, 2012, 10:26:43 PM
Yes, as a king of Egypt, he is a Pharaoh.

My question, I thought "has no effect" was ignore language; is the play as wrong?

I can find nothing for or against the assertion that King of Egypt = Pharaoh, but I'm sure someone will come along to dispute it...

You can't ignore a fortress to protect something else (it does not say that "JT has no effect on decks", for example).  It would have to negate the fortress to have the effect described.  Old wording.
Logged

Offline jbeers285

  • Trade Count: (+34)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
  • bravo
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: King Shishak
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2012, 11:01:56 PM »
0
I believe the difference is that Pharoah's were considered gods in their life and death while kings were simply human rulers
Logged
JMM is a modern day prophet

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: King Shishak
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2012, 11:02:57 PM »
0
From the REG glossary:

Quote
Egyptian King or Pharaoh
Several Redemption® cards specifically reference  an “Egyptian king or Pharaoh.”

The following Redemption® are considered Egyptian Kings or Pharaohs:

King Shishak (Ki), King So (Ki), Pharaoh (AL), Pharaoh (AU), Pharaoh (DL), Pharaoh (DU), Pharaoh (H), Pharaoh (L), Pharaoh (UL), Pharaoh Hophra (Pi), Pharaoh Neco (Ki), and The Dreaming Pharaoh (FF2)
Logged
My wife is a hottie.

Offline jbeers285

  • Trade Count: (+34)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
  • bravo
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: King Shishak
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2012, 11:08:57 PM »
0
good to know  8)
Logged
JMM is a modern day prophet

Offline Praeceps

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: King Shishak
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2012, 12:07:34 AM »
0
Quote from: Redoubter on April 21, 2012, 10:54:08 PM
Quote from: Praeceps on April 21, 2012, 10:26:43 PM
Yes, as a king of Egypt, he is a Pharaoh.

My question, I thought "has no effect" was ignore language; is the play as wrong?

I can find nothing for or against the assertion that King of Egypt = Pharaoh, but I'm sure someone will come along to dispute it...

You can't ignore a fortress to protect something else (it does not say that "JT has no effect on decks", for example).  It would have to negate the fortress to have the effect described.  Old wording.

Household Idols (Ap)

Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Heroes may not band. Good banding cards have no effect. • Play As: Prevent band abilities of Heroes. Ignore good banding cards. • Identifiers: NT, Depicts an Idol, False Religious Practice • Verse: I Corinthians 12:2 • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Ultra Rare)

So how is "has no effect" an ignore on one card but a negate on another card? It's the same phrase in both instances.
Logged
Just one more thing...

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: King Shishak
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2012, 08:55:03 AM »
0
Quote from: Praeceps on April 22, 2012, 12:07:34 AM
So how is "has no effect" an ignore on one card but a negate on another card? It's the same phrase in both instances.

Let me begin by saying that we understand why you think they should be worded the same. Your argument is logical.

Ignore is a specific SA in Redemption that has two effects: 1.) stops ignored characters from entering battle, and 2.) stops ignored cards from targetting the ignoree (if that is even a word).

In the case of Household Idols, characters can be ignored as in #1 because any hero who has a banding ability can now not enter battle. But a banding ability itself does not target Household Idols, so the banding would not be ignored, thus a non-character banding card could still be played in battle. That is why the first sentence in HHI's "play as" says to "Prevent band abilities."

For King Shishak, ignore's #1 does not apply since Jerusalem Tower is not a character trying to enter battle. But, #2 also does not apply, because JT does not target King Shishak, it targets the opponent. Therefore, ignore would not do anything to JT. The intent of King Shishakk was to "turn off" JT's ability, which is what negate does.

**As a side note, I have generalized the terminology in the definition of ignore for easier understanding.**
Logged
My wife is a hottie.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
 
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal