Author Topic: Large Tree (Read 18846 times)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #25 on:** August 02, 2009, 09:42:59 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 02, 2009, 09:40:06 PM

But that's not the current definition.

QFT

The Schaef · « **Reply #26 on:** August 02, 2009, 10:14:28 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 02, 2009, 09:34:47 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #27 on:** August 02, 2009, 10:16:50 PM »

I'm accepting what he says just fine, however, Pol and I are pointing out that it's extremely illogical in our opinion.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #28 on:** August 02, 2009, 10:22:50 PM »

To those who don't agree with the "title but not position," I will reiterate...

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 01, 2009, 08:36:48 AM

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #29 on:** August 02, 2009, 10:24:32 PM »

If the current definition of a king currently in Redemption existed for the realword definition, yes.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #30 on:** August 02, 2009, 10:32:41 PM »

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".

Colin Michael · « **Reply #31 on:** August 02, 2009, 10:35:52 PM »

I think Large Tree should take out Absalom.

redemption99 · « **Reply #32 on:** August 02, 2009, 10:55:09 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on August 02, 2009, 10:35:52 PM

I think Large Tree should take out Absalom.

heh

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #33 on:** August 02, 2009, 11:17:53 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on August 02, 2009, 10:35:52 PM

I think Large Tree should take out Absalom.

That is hilarious

The Guardian · « **Reply #34 on:** August 02, 2009, 11:26:34 PM »

Indeed--the most hilarious thing Colin has posted in the last week...maybe month...year?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #35 on:** August 03, 2009, 08:34:04 AM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #36 on:** August 03, 2009, 10:12:39 AM »

The "King of Tyrus" appears to be another name for Satan. Ezekiel 28:12-19

According to Luke 4:5-6 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".

happyjosiah · « **Reply #37 on:** August 03, 2009, 10:26:22 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 03, 2009, 08:34:04 AM

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?

Hedgehogman · « **Reply #38 on:** August 03, 2009, 11:37:58 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 03, 2009, 10:12:39 AM

The "King of Tyrus" appears to be another name for Satan. Ezekiel 28:12-19

According to Luke 4:5-6 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)

The Schaef · « **Reply #39 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:58:54 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 02, 2009, 10:16:50 PM

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?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #40 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:09:21 PM »

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.

Hedgehogman · « **Reply #41 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:13:09 PM »

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.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #42 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:13:51 PM »

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.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #43 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:19:09 PM »

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #44 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:26:53 PM »

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.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #45 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:31:34 PM »

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #46 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:36:34 PM »

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 03, 2009, 02:31:34 PM

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?

Quote

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.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #47 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:45:10 PM »

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #48 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:48:52 PM »

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 03, 2009, 02:45:10 PM

I never said anything about it being an illogical ruling.

Did I say you? This is exactly what I mean.

Quote

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?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #49 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:52:46 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 03, 2009, 02:26:53 PM

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.

News:

Author Topic: Large Tree (Read 18846 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef