Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Minister Polarius on July 31, 2009, 03:07:21 AM
-
I'm assuming King of Tyrus is a King, right?
-
http://redemptionreg.com/REG/gloss_king.htm (http://redemptionreg.com/REG/gloss_king.htm)
Not presently.
-
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.
-
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.
-
hence principalities and powers denouncing lineage or some order of power
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
I asked today when I opened the card, and was told he is not.
-
What reason was given that he isn't?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
...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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
From where I stand, grabbing everything that say "king" and trying to shoehorn it in is the semantic play here.
-
I support Huisinga.
-
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.
-
I think he should be reprinted under the title "King" of Tyrus.
-
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.
-
But that's not the current definition.
-
This is just stupid and pretentious.
-
But that's not the current definition.
QFT
-
First, he's the only example of a Demon King, everyone else is a prince or something like that
That basically demonstrates how far afield it is to compare him to actual kings, especially when he's referenced only as a prophetic figure.
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.
When Gabe makes the effort to explain to you why this character is not accepted, it seems that he has in fact taken up the burden of proof and addressed it. Your claims that this is being shoved off in the other direction do not fit the facts.
-
I'm accepting what he says just fine, however, Pol and I are pointing out that it's extremely illogical in our opinion.
-
To those who don't agree with the "title but not position," I will reiterate...
If I started making everyone call me King Bubble, would you consider me a king?
I would think the answer is, no, no one would actually think of me as a king. Title's are cheap; they mean very little.
-
If the current definition of a king currently in Redemption existed for the realword definition, yes.
-
I agree that it makes sense for Redemption to have its own definition for "royal family" and for "King of Tyrus" to not be included. However, Redemption has labeled "King of Tyrus" a "king" by putting it in the name. For us to then say that he doesn't fit the Redemption definition of "king" doesn't even have internal consistency.
"King of Tyrus" should be considered a "king".
-
I think Large Tree should take out Absalom.
-
I think Large Tree should take out Absalom.
+1 heh
-
I think Large Tree should take out Absalom.
That is hilarious :)
-
Indeed--the most hilarious thing Colin has posted in the last week...maybe month...year?
-
As I stated before, I really don't care which way it goes. But I do believe that if it is going to be ruled as Schaef et al. claim, then 'King' needs to be defined in the REG as 'ruler of a physical kingdom'. Else I would favor Pol's position.
-
The "King of Tyrus" appears to be another name for Satan. Ezekiel 28:12-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028:12-19)
According to Luke 4:5-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%204:5-6;&version=31;) Satan has been given authority over all the kingdoms of the world. Therefore, he is at least temporarily a ruler of physical kingdoms as well. So even that definition would not exclude King of Tyrus from being a "king".
-
As I stated before, I really don't care which way it goes. But I do believe that if it is going to be ruled as Schaef et al. claim, then 'King' needs to be defined in the REG as 'ruler of a physical kingdom'. Else I would favor Pol's position.
This. Define King in the rules or KoT will be considered one by just about everyone upon a simple reading of the card. Did no one think "earthly king" would have been a better wording here considering the "royal family" debacle of a couple years ago?
-
The "King of Tyrus" appears to be another name for Satan. Ezekiel 28:12-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2028:12-19)
According to Luke 4:5-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%204:5-6;&version=31;) Satan has been given authority over all the kingdoms of the world. Therefore, he is at least temporarily a ruler of physical kingdoms as well. So even that definition would not exclude King of Tyrus from being a "king".
QFT. Since Redemption has defined the King of Tyrus to basically be Satan for gameplay purposes (regardless of the fact that it's a debatable issue in Scripture), we know that Satan does indeed rule over physical kingdoms, so the Prof nailed it. Saying KoT isn't a king isn't even consistent by your own definition. (Schaef, et al)
-
I'm accepting what he says just fine, however, Pol and I are pointing out that it's extremely illogical in our opinion.
So it's more logical to you that Nat King Cole is considered a king, than a demon with a name assigned from prophetic imagery is not considered a king?
-
Nat King Cole is a name. King of Tyrus is a name derived from the fact he is an image of Satan who is a king.
-
King of Tyrus is a title given to a being, human or demon, who ruled/rules a physical kingdom called Tyrus. What part of that doesn't make sense? Sure sounds like a king to me.
-
Schaef, regardless of how this is ruled or is intended to be played, you must admit it is not very intuitive. Please either add a deinfintion of "king" to the REG/Rulebook or give the card a play as.
-
Well, Schaef won't personally be able to do either of those things, as Mike B. is the keeper of the REG. The definition for king that will either include or exclude KoT might be coming in the next REG. Perhaps Pol should rename the thread "REG issue? Large Tree" so that Mike can see that something needs to be fixed.
-
Nor do I have to admit anything, as it should be obvious from this thread I don't find anything "intuitive" in equating a prophetic image of Satan with actual historical "king" kings.
I should also point out to Pol the amount of wordsmithing that is going on in order to suggest that KoT was an authoratative ruling figure over an earthly kingdom. The kind of wordsmithing he said made the game worse rather than better. I wonder if that would change his perspective on this issue at all.
-
That's a bit stubborn, don't you think? The vast majority of people who posted in this thread were confused by it. In fact, even the people that take your side at least agree it is a question worth asking, i.e., not totally clear. There's no question you are CORRECT since it has been ruled that way, but to INISIST that it requires no clarification when you are the only one who thinks so is just arrogant. People see things different ways. You've been blessed with the gift of seeing things exactly the way they are ruled. Great. Throw the rest of us, who aren't as brilliant as you, a freakin' bone.
-
That's a bit stubborn, don't you think?
It's stubborn to state my opinion? Am I supposed to just bend my will to a majority vote and think whatever the mob thinks?
There's no question you are CORRECT since it has been ruled that way, but to INISIST that it requires no clarification when you are the only one who thinks so is just arrogant.
You said I HAD to admit that it was not intuitive. I think it's intuitive. What's arrogant about having an opinion? If you truly think that people see things different ways, maybe you could put away the sarcasm for a bit and just read what I wrote instead of inserting all this other stuff where I supposedly think everyone else is stupid for not agreeing with me? I'm not the one who is referring to things as being EXTREEEEEEMELY illogical.
-
I never said anything about it being an illogical ruling. I just requested that since it is confusing, it would be nice to have a REG entry or errata. I don't understand how you can disagree with that. To say that it is not confusing in a thread full of confused people is just ridiculous.
-
I never said anything about it being an illogical ruling.
Did I say you? This is exactly what I mean.
I don't understand how you can disagree with that.
That wasn't the point you said I HAD to admit to, so that's a non-issue.
It's not possible to you that maybe with people trying to think up reasons to shoehorn KoT into a "king" ruling, and people making broad accusations about things that people like me did not say, that maybe there are some contributing factors to the confusion taking place in this thread?
-
Nor do I have to admit anything, as it should be obvious from this thread I don't find anything "intuitive" in equating a prophetic image of Satan with actual historical "king" kings.
Well, no one finds that intuitive (as far as I can tell), but the problem is that king is nowhere defined as 'actual, historical, "king" kings'. It's easy enough to convince people that the King of Tyrus was not a human king (just look at the picture/read the verse). But when there is no definition for what a king is in Redemption, it can easily lead to confusion as to whether or not he is a king (since it is in his title).
Just as there had to be a note in the REG that Prince of this World et al. are not members of a royal family, I also think this would merit a similar note/definition.
Of course, I don't really think I'm arguing with you, Schaef. I haven't seen any proof that you'd be against an REG clarification, which is all I'm asking for. Perhaps you just don't see it as necessary? I guess I don't completely comprehend your position.
-
The point I said you had to concede was that it is not intutive.
Here's a simple yes or no question:
Is this confusing?
If yes (which is my opinion), could we please have errata or a REG entry?
If no (which is your opinion), how do you explain all these confused people?
Your explanation seems to be that you think they are all just being rules lawyers and looking for loopholes to make their decks better. (Correct me if I'm wrong here).
Putting aside that particular piece of paranoia for the moment, at least this would be the first time you've admitted "hey, there are confused people in this thread" which is all I wanted in the first place. Given that, is it really so unreasonable a request that we get a ruling to clarify this? If not, why not? (And "cause it doesn't confuse ME" is not a valid answer).
-
Well, no one finds that intuitive (as far as I can tell), but the problem is that king is nowhere defined as 'actual, historical, "king" kings'.
Well, it seems like common sense to me what a king is. We've lived with kings on the planet for thousands of years. Add that to the fact that this is the only reference in question at present, and it's based on a prophetic image which is clearly symbolic, I personally don't think there should be much confusion about whether the King of Tyrus is any more an actual king than the King of Rock-and-Roll or the King of Queens.
Of course, I don't really think I'm arguing with you, Schaef. I haven't seen any proof that you'd be against an REG clarification, which is all I'm asking for. Perhaps you just don't see it as necessary? I guess I don't completely comprehend your position.
My position is that everyone seems in a rush to make things more complicated than they are, regardless of which side of the issue they fall on. If there's a REG clarification or not makes no real difference to me.
Is it also possible in your mind that there could be people confused about something and I could still think that something is intuitive? This is not an either/or situation to me.
at least this would be the first time you've admitted "hey, there are confused people in this thread" which is all I wanted in the first place.
I never said there were no confused people. So what exactly did you think you were arguing against?
-
I personally don't think there should be much confusion about whether the King of Tyrus is any more an actual king than the King of Rock-and-Roll or the King of Queens.
That was funny (seriously, it was), but it's a straw man argument. No one is arguing KoT represents an "actual king" because the Large Tree doesn't SAY "actual king."
I never said there were no confused people. So what exactly did you think you were arguing against?
For once, we agree. We are talking past each other. My whole point all along has been "this is confusig, REG entry please." You have now said you don't care if a REG entry gets added. That's all I want. Why argue for pages with me about whether or not it is confusing if you have no problem with a REG entry?
I thought you were being arrogant, and I was incorrect. For that I apologize. I do think you were just being argumentative though. Example time:
You and I want to order pizza together.
I think meat lover's pizza is best, but I decide it would be better to get the veggie pizza and save a few calories.
You think that veggie pizza is the best flavor ever.
So I say, let's order the pizza. You instead set about trying to convince me that veggie is so much better than meat lover's.
Let's just order the dang pizza!
In other words, can you stop arguing with me about whether or not it is intuitive when all we want is something added to the REG. You have no problem with that, so let it go.
-
That was funny (seriously, it was), but it's a straw man argument. No one is arguing KoT represents an "actual king" because the Large Tree doesn't SAY "actual king."
This only proves my point that people argue to include King of Tyrus by extending the definition of "king" beyond what actually constitutes a "king". Therefore, you have proved my argument is valid.
Why argue for pages with me about whether or not it is confusing if you have no problem with a REG entry?
Why demand that I admit to something I don't believe is correct?
-
Schaef, your examples thus far have been silly. Of course the "King of Bubble Land" or "King of Rock and Roll" aren't real kings, because those aren't real kingdoms. Tyre is a real kingdom. You're also being exceptionally narrow in your interpretation of what the card is. In your mind, it's (let me get the quote) "based on a prophetic image which is clearly symbolic." Actually, there is debate about that and the good Professor has already shown that if (as seems to be the case from the mention of him being in the garden of Eden) the King of Tyrus is Satan, then he is even an actual king (to fit your shoehorn definition) with actual authority over an actual physical realm.
Even playing to your definitions King of Tyrus comes out a "real king," unless you insist that "king" actually means "earthly king" which is nowhere defined and is not actually what the card says.
-
because those aren't real kingdoms.
So the kingdom HAS to be real, but the king does not. Interesting.
You're also being exceptionally narrow in your interpretation of what the card is.
I'm not being exceptionally narrow in anything. I'm just saying that a king is a king. My "exceptionally narrow" view excludes exactly one card based on a prophecy. oh noes.
then he is even an actual king (to fit your shoehorn definition) with actual authority over an actual physical realm.
I thought you hated semantics in rulings. Apparently you are plenty happy with semantics that suit your agenda.
-
Schaef,
My only agenda here is consistency and ease of explaining the rules to my students. If I have a card that says it works with "kings" and I have another card called "King of Tyrus", then my students are going to assume that they work with each other. It's really that simple to me.
If you see it differently, that's ok. But don't accuse me of wordsmithing, or having a hidden agenda, or whatever.
-
If I have a card that says it works with "kings" and I have another card called "King of Tyrus", then my students are going to assume that they work with each other. It's really that simple to me.
Would your students also expect my other examples to be valid? Does it really require nothing more to you than the word "king" in the title somewhere? I would only consider that a "simple" and "obvious" conclusion if I also expected people to conclude the earth had "four corners" and "edges" because that's the literal text of the passage.
If you see it differently, that's ok. But don't accuse me of wordsmithing, or having a hidden agenda, or whatever.
And you are saying this in response to a post in which I quoted Polarius and addressed him directly?
-
Is Jesus a king?
-
And you are saying this in response to a post in which I quoted Polarius and addressed him directly?
I admit it kind of seemed to me too like in some of your posts you were accusing ANYONE who didn't see it your way of this.
-
I should also point out to Pol the amount of wordsmithing that is going on in order to suggest that KoT was an authoratative ruling figure over an earthly kingdom.
Here you made a broad statement that could have easily been directed at me.
It's not possible to you that maybe with people trying to think up reasons to shoehorn KoT into a "king" ruling, and people making broad accusations about things that people like me did not say, that maybe there are some contributing factors to the confusion taking place in this thread?
Here you made another broad statement that could have easily been directed at me.
This only proves my point that people argue to include King of Tyrus by extending the definition of "king" beyond what actually constitutes a "king".
Here you made another broad statement that could have easily been directed at me.
If it'll break the game for King of Tyrus to count as a "king" then fine make up a new "Redemption definition" for the word "king" and post it in the glossary. And stop being argumentative and simply admit that it is somewhat confusing to players to have a card with a title of "king" that doesn't count as a "king". It's really not that hard :)
-
Schaef, if you had just joined the boards today and all the posts you made were in this thread, I don't think anyone would be surprised if you had a mod warning for your behavior here. You really need to take it down a couple notches. You've managed to offend (intentionally or not) many people in this thread and haven't contributed anything that could be considered helpful. Your tone smacks of being an argumentative know-it-all. You don't seem to desire to help people understand the ruling, just attack them if they don't. Your real joy seems to come from "winning the discussion." This is ridiculous behavior from anyone, and a terrible example from a moderator, someone who is supposed to keep threads like this from getting out of hand. Take a step back for a second before the next post you make and really consider your motivation. Are you trying to help us? Or are you trying to win an argument?
-
Does it really require nothing more to you than the word "king" in the title somewhere?
Well, it seems that the only justification for Priests of Christ being given the identifier "Priest" is the fact that they have it in the title, and that they are called priests of God and Christ in the verse. Since King of Tyrus was called the "King" of Tyrus in his verse, and King is in the name, I don't see the difference.
FWIW, if there was a Redemption card called Michael Jackson, King of Pop (whether he'd be a hero or an EC I suppose is a matter of debate) then I would also argue that he is a king unless the rules stated differently. Silly? Maybe. But there is an argument that can be had that he was a king, so unless king is defined, King of Tyrus is a king in my opinion.
-
Well, I guess if we HAVE to have this discussion publicly, I should note that none of your quoted sections say anything about you, or anyone other than Pol, having an agenda. At all. And NO ONE is accused of having a "hidden" agenda. You are just making that up now.
Additionally, I have no problem saying that you are using semantic arguments in this discussion. Or is it really your belief that there is zero distinction between "King of Tyrus" and King David, or Nebuchadnezzar (who now that I think about it, should not count since his card does not say "king", and we don't want to cause confusion)?
Nobody seems to have a problem acknowledging that Elvis was not a king, without confusion. So no, I don't see the logic in assuming everything that happens to have that word automatically fits the bill.
Incidentally, calls for this ruling for the sake of consistency run up against the issue of having a king who is not considered royalty. hmmm.
-
What was Elvis king over? Satan is King of the world, or if we want to go literal, King of Tyrus/Tyre, which is a place.
I don't see how this is illogical at all.
-
Well, I guess if we HAVE to have this discussion publicly, I should note that none of your quoted sections say anything about you, or anyone other than Pol, having an agenda. At all.
One of your quotes above, even refers to PEOPLE. People means more than one person. Unless I'm just arguing semantics and being a rules lawyer again. You clearly meant more than just Pol.
As a side note, I don't want to lose the (somewhat) rhetorical question someone posted "Is Jesus a King?" Not because you really need to answer that, but just because it shows it's not as cut and dried as you want to make it (since dozens of people can't seem to convince you otherwise.)
-
The problem of defining a king in redemption as a human ruler of an independent state (which is what we would have to define it as to exclude KoT) then a theoretical "God" card couldn't be considered a king.
1 Timothy 6:15
God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
-
What was Elvis king over? Satan is King of the world, or if we want to go literal, King of Tyrus/Tyre, which is a place.
I don't see how this is illogical at all.
So if Satan tells us to do something, we are REQUIRED to do it, because he is our king and has authority over us?
One of your quotes above, even refers to PEOPLE. People means more than one person. Unless I'm just arguing semantics and being a rules lawyer again. You clearly meant more than just Pol.
If you were being a "rules lawyer", you probably would have taken notice that none of those quotes other than the one directed at Pol says anything about an agenda, and none of them say anything about anyone having a "hidden" agenda. Which is PRECISELY what I said in the paragraph you QUOTED.
(since dozens of people can't seem to convince you otherwise.)
Dozens? Multiples of twelve? I'm counting five or six, but maybe you know something I don't.
-
What was Elvis king over? Satan is King of the world, or if we want to go literal, King of Tyrus/Tyre, which is a place.
I don't see how this is illogical at all.
So if Satan tells us to do something, we are REQUIRED to do it, because he is our king and has authority over us?
Are we of this world?
-
/touches his arm...
-
Satan is no longer OUR king but he is king over the unsaved. Do we have to go through basic doctrines now?
-
Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.
-
What was Elvis king over? Satan is King of the world, or if we want to go literal, King of Tyrus/Tyre, which is a place.
I don't see how this is illogical at all.
So if Satan tells us to do something, we are REQUIRED to do it, because he is our king and has authority over us?
Since when does "king" mean "king over me." The king of england can tell me to do something and I don't have to listen. I am a citizen of and am currently in America. Christians are not members of Satan's kingdom.
One of your quotes above, even refers to PEOPLE. People means more than one person. Unless I'm just arguing semantics and being a rules lawyer again. You clearly meant more than just Pol.
If you were being a "rules lawyer", you probably would have taken notice that none of those quotes other than the one directed at Pol says anything about an agenda, and none of them say anything about anyone having a "hidden" agenda. Which is PRECISELY what I said in the paragraph you QUOTED.
Putting aside the hidden agenda thing, you did indicate in that quote that you thought people who did not see it your way must have ulterior motives, such as wanting to fit something into their deck. You made it clear that you think PEOPLE who don't see it your way are trying to shoehorn it into their deck. I thought this. ProfUnderwood thought this. Even if we just misunderstood, the correct response is "oh sorry, what I meant was..." not "i never said that."
(since dozens of people can't seem to convince you otherwise.)
Dozens? Multiples of twelve? I'm counting five or six, but maybe you know something I don't.
Let's just say, everyone who has posted so far except you.
I really wish you would respond to the important aspects of things I post instead of nitpicking. You have not responded to me (or anyone else) who has said "hey, it kinda seems like you are just trying to win an argument and not be helpful." I would love to have you look me in my proverbial eye (internet and all) and tell me your posts here have really been to try to help us understand and not at all because you just love to be an argumentative know-it-all.
-
Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.
-
I think this thread has become the "king of pain" (police) :police:
-
Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.
No, Lucifer is referring to Nebuchadnezzar.
-
Satan is no longer OUR king but he is king over the unsaved. Do we have to go through basic doctrines now?
I don't know; do we? That seems like a lot of work to make a demon equivalent to a king.
Since when does "king" mean "king over me." The king of england can tell me to do something and I don't have to listen.
So when you're not in England, you are not subject to the laws of England? I would be interested to see what happens when you go over there and drive on the right side of the road. Since you don't have to do anything they say in their own country.
Putting aside the hidden agenda thing, you did indicate in that quote that you thought people who did not see it your way must have ulterior motives, such as wanting to fit something into their deck.
What I said, and this would be a lot easier if you just focus on what I said instead of inventing things you think I "indicate", is that I think people are using semantic arguments to equate two non-equal things. That is becaues I think people are using semantic arguments to equate two non-equal things. I don't know what's so difficult about that.
Even if we just misunderstood, the correct response is "oh sorry, what I meant was..." not "i never said that."
You seem more eager to pile more accusations on top of me than to apologize for any misunderstandings that exist here. As long as you are going to continue approaching me in an accusatory fashion, I am going to continue saying that I am not doing the things you are falsely accusing me of.
Let's just say, everyone who has posted so far except you.
Probably because most of the other hundreds of members either didn't read this thread, or like me, they don't care. The difference is, no one has accused them of arrogance or decided to read all kinds of "indications" into their words just because they didn't feel like being forced to say something they did not believe.
I really wish you would respond to the important aspects of things I post instead of nitpicking.
That's an interesting statement considering the last several pages of my posts have been defending myself against people nitpicking practically every word I've posted.
What exactly do you consider the "important aspects of things you post"? Because from where I sit, the things you post seem to consist entirely of accusations against me just for having the gall to state my opinion.
"hey, it kinda seems like you are just trying to win an argument and not be helpful."
Well, since no one has said that to me, I didn't feel the need to respond to a phantom argument.
I would love to have you look me in my proverbial eye (internet and all) and tell me your posts here have really been to try to help us understand and not at all because you just love to be an argumentative know-it-all.
I'll do one better than that. I'll look you in the proverbial eye and tell you that my posts have been really trying to help you understand that all I did was state my opinion on this, and ever since then, been fielding accusations of being arrogant, illogical, accusing everyone who doesn't agree with me of hidden agendas, arguing just because I like to argue (which if you could see my face right now, you'd never dare level that accusation at me again), and so on.
Now, compared to that, I have asked people in response to their posts "well, if this is true, then does that mean you would rule this as well?" Can you tell me how asking these questions to explore people's logic is such awful behavior, and the accusations I have had to defend against are better somehow? And what have I said that is offensive to anyone, other than things you think I have "indicated" in my posts?
-
Emphasis mine.
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.
Consensus = Rob + Play testers?
If yes then, we can drop the argument since it has already been decided?
-
I've got no choice but to take your word for it. I think your heart really is in the right place. I certainly don't want you to get all bent out of shape over a card game. I'm certainly not.
The point is, all accusations aside, to me (and others), you have come across poorly. I don't think you mean to. So let me see if I can help.
People will respond better if you say things in a different way.
When someone, like me, says "can we get something added to the REG?" you could say "sure, that's fine by me" right away instead of "it doesn't need it"
When someone says "it seems like he should be considered a king, it says king in the title" say "well, the card was intended to mean earthly king. I can see how that would be confusing though."
When someone says "i think you are just being argumentative" say "wow, I'm sorry about that. It was not my intention at all."
Are you getting the picture? Being nice does not have to compromise your point. Everyone who sees it differently is not dumber than you. I can only speak for myself here, but there's not a thing you have said to me in this thread that hasn't come across as condescending. Based on what I know of you personally, I would hope this is not the case. But it comes across that way. Even if that is a problem of my perception and you aren't doing anything wrong, the loving response (as well as the one that will eliminate a 5 page flame war) is to be the bigger man and apologize anyway.
I realize saying that carries some risk of hypocrisy. So I want to apologize for any uncivilty I showed you. I am sorry.
-
Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.
No, Lucifer is referring to Nebuchadnezzar.
;D I'm waiting for a thread where you won't bring up something about Lucifer being someone. I thought you said Lucifer is God... so God's Neb? ;)
-
Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.
No, Lucifer is referring to Nebuchadnezzar.
;D I'm waiting for a thread where you won't bring up something about Lucifer being someone. I thought you said Lucifer is God... so God's Neb? ;)
He's actually correct, but thats a whole other argument.
-
Haha, it's just funny. I'm pretty sure then that it's Prince of Tyrus referring to Neb? I think it's one of those demons...
-
Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.
No, Lucifer is referring to Nebuchadnezzar.
;D I'm waiting for a thread where you won't bring up something about Lucifer being someone. I thought you said Lucifer is God... so God's Neb? ;)
No, I'm not going to take the time to explain in detail things that you didn't take the time to pay attention to the first time.
-
Wait.... I thought King of Tyrus WAS referring to Nebuchadnezzer. I know he's not actually a demon... and that made a few people mad.
No, Lucifer is referring to Nebuchadnezzar.
;D I'm waiting for a thread where you won't bring up something about Lucifer being someone. I thought you said Lucifer is God... so God's Neb? ;)
He's actually correct, but thats a whole other argument.
Lucifer was a Latin word used in Roman times for Jesus.
-
People will respond better if you say things in a different way.
I am responding to what is being given to me. Observe.
When someone, like me, says "can we get something added to the REG?" you could say "sure, that's fine by me" right away instead of "it doesn't need it"
The one time this was asked of me, you saw my response. It was indifferent to the outcome and not at all confrontational. What "someone like you" said, was "you have to admit X" when I'm not going to admit anything I don't believe is true. And that's exactly what I said. That's all.
When someone says "it seems like he should be considered a king, it says king in the title" say "well, the card was intended to mean earthly king. I can see how that would be confusing though."
I don't see the problem in calling someone's logic into question as a means of moving a discussion forward. That's how you arrive at conclusions, you test the methods and see if they hold up under scrutiny. I would expect no less of people testing my logic to see if it's airtight or needs to be adjusted.
Everyone who sees it differently is not dumber than you. I can only speak for myself here, but there's not a thing you have said to me in this thread that hasn't come across as condescending.
Well, then I guess you'll have to forgive me, because I'm just about at the end of my patience for having to defend myself every time I come onto the boards. All I did was come here and try to defend Gabe against unfair treatment, and then give my opinion when asked for it. And somehow that's turned into a giant study on the quality of my character and basically about everything else except just the simple things that I said.
I don't have a lot of time to monitor the boards these days; despite the old meme that I'm a hammer around here, the majority of police work is done by the moderation staff assigned by Rob or myself. Several members have that power specifically because, in addition to their qualifications to handle the job well, they have the means to edit and/or delete my posts if they don't like something that I said. I'm just as prone to outbursts as anybody and I am not above the standards that I am trying to enforce. But I work a full-time job, I'm taking five accelerated college courses in a four-month period, I have two infant sons at home and I just finished packing and moving all of our stuff with almost no help outside the family.
So when I manage to get back over here and every post addressing me is an accusation, and half of them are things that I never even said or did, I'm sorry, but it's not going to be all sunshine and rainbows. If that's on me, then that's on me, I'll own that. But for the life of me, I can't see what could possible be worth all this nonsense.
-
I don't have a lot of time to monitor the boards these days...I work a full-time job, I'm taking five accelerated college courses in a four-month period, I have two infant sons at home and I just finished packing and moving all of our stuff with almost no help outside the family.
I was wondering why I hadn't seen you on the boards as much as usual lately. Now I know you've just been slacking around, not doing anything :)
-
I was actually testing the new feature I installed where I could delete threads without even logging in, so that I can blame all the other mods and act innocent.
-
I was actually testing the new feature I installed where I could delete threads without even logging in, so that I can blame all the other mods and act innocent.
:laugh:
-
I was actually testing the new feature I installed where I could delete threads without even logging in, so that I can blame all the other mods and act innocent.
Who are you kidding? We all know that you've been using that feature for years already :)
-
Well, I emailed Rob forever ago and I still haven't heard back. I know that King of Tyrus isn't currently listed under "evil kings" in the REG, but I hope the PTB is at least talking about it. There is no can of worms because he's the only Demonic king, and very compelling reasons for why he's just as real a king as any of the human kings have been given. If Large Tree said "human king" there would be no problem, but it doesn't. I'm just asking for consideration.
-
No fake spoilage allowed
+1
-
Perhaps I have the wrong card, but the Large Tree in the REG doesn't say anything about Kings at all....
EDIT: Whoops! I missed the new Large Tree in TxP :P
-
Disease, by definition, is based on the card having "disease" somewhere on it (name/SA). King isn't.
-
Dude, that's the point. There is no definition of "king" in Redemption. I'm hoping really hard that the PTB doesn't decide on a definition that mandates only humans can be kings.
-
I'm just hoping they decide on a definition...
-
At nationals, I initially thought that Ehud's Dagger should be able to kill KoT, but I was not certain. However, Gabe and Kevin? and Tim Maly? and maybe someone else all outvoted me, and I understood their point without any confusion:
Kings are humans. Demons are not kings, queens, princes, or princesses, even if the name seems to indicate that.
I was OK with that, but I do understand the appeal of the other way as well.
Ultimately, this may fall to Rob to decide.
Are Ehud's Dagger and Large Tree the only cards that make a difference at this point?
-
None that Breathed discards one king from each opponent's territory or set aside
Eaten by Worms decreases and Evil King by 0/4 each turn until discarded
Interesting how both of those cards have been out since kings and it wasn't even discussed til now.
-
Good catches. Any others?
-
I just edited my post
-
None that Breathed discards one king from each opponent's territory or set aside
Eaten by Worms decreases and Evil King by 0/4 each turn until discarded
Interesting how both of those cards have been out since kings and it wasn't even discussed til now.
That's because no one used those cards before...since they're crap...and still are. ::)
-
@Bryon, There's a gold enhancement that discards a good king. I want to say something like... _____ arises? I can't think of the first word... Is it resin arises?
-
Hadad
-
@Bryon, There's a gold enhancement that discards a good king. I want to say something like... _____ arises? I can't think of the first word... Is it resin arises?
Resin Arises is Grey Brigade, lol.
-
Not sure that "lol" is merited there. Both Hadad Arises (gold, returns good king to top of deck) and Rezon Arises (gray, band to EC) are rarely-used evil enhancements from Kings with similar names. I had to look them up myself.
-
Hadad arises... nice. It does say to discard a king, though. ;)
-
Almost: "Return a good King in play to top of owner's draw pile...." The King of Tyrus classification has no bearing on this.
-
maybe if king of tyrus is converted to the side of good? :)
purple also has royal protection that gives a good king protection from harm.
-
King of Tyrus can not be converted he is a Demon.
-
Or is he? *waggles eyebrows suggestively*
-
The definition of "King" and whether or not KoT fits that definition is being discussed by the playtest group.
-
King of Tyrus can not be converted he is a Demon.
there are ways... rdt, what are those ways again?