Author Topic: REG Issue? Is King of Tyrus a King? (Read 14647 times)

Professoralstad · « **on:** August 04, 2009, 10:40:52 AM »

This is taken from the Large Tree thread, but I made a separate thread so that the arguments could be outlined clearly and succintly, so hopefully Mike B. can determine whether this is an REG issue, or Rob can give a ruling.

Here's the issue:

Large Tree says: "Place on your evil King to search deck for a Site. While this card remains, the King gains 1/1 per turn and cannot be ignored."

The question is: Can you place this on King of Tyrus? Or if not, should the REG be clarified to define "King" as human King?

Arguments presented for:

-He is called the King of Tyrus in the verse.
-According to a prevailing viewpoint, he is Satan, who has control over the kingdoms of this world (I'm not so sure I buy this one as much, since that would mean that Prince of this World, Red Dragon, etc. could be kings too, which may be a stretch)
-Another card, Priests of Christ, is given the identifier Priest, arguably only based on the name and the fact that they are called priests in Revelation. They don't seem to have any other Redemption-defined qualifications for being priests
-Cards like him, Prince of this World, etc. were clarified in the REG as not part of a royal family; their Kingship or Princehood have not yet been clarified

Arguments presented against:

-He is not human, and as such does not fit the description of any other King in Redemption
-Calling a card "King" =/= a card being a King
-According to a certain viewpoint, he was only a part of Ezekiel's vision and not really real, thus not qualified to be a King (correct me if I'm wrong on this point Schaef, that seemed to be an argument you were making).

If there's any substantive arguments that I've missed, please post them, otherwise please let TPTB decide. I just wanted to spell out the arguments to make it easier for those who would make a decision. If this thread starts to turn into another extensive debate, I will lock it. Please leave that to the thread that's already 6 pages long.

crustpope · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2009, 12:59:36 PM »

I like this idea and I dont think it is unecessarially broken. I logical argument can be made for someone being a king( having athourity and power) and not being considered royalty ( a member of a royal family). FBTN has so many counters to it these days that even a 50/52 KoT doesn't really scare people anymore.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #2 on:** August 25, 2009, 01:20:26 AM »

I am bumping this thread in hopes that the arguments presented herein will result in a decision on this issue. I figured it wasn't a bad idea, since the Large Tree thread has been recently resurrected.

egilkinc · « **Reply #3 on:** August 25, 2009, 06:24:02 AM »

hey,
I believe that a King in title should qualify as a King. It should not be dependant on ruling a nation/people group. This would be consistent with other classifications like the Nationalities, Spiritual Gifts, and (presumably) Magicians.
In connection with this, I think "Royalty" should be connected to a "Royal Family" and be limited to human rulers.
L8er,
Gil

Hedgehogman · « **Reply #4 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:54:43 AM »

Gil makes an excellent point. If a demon can be considered a "Babylonian" or an "Assyrian", then there is no logical reason why said demon could not also be considered a "king".

The Schaef · « **Reply #5 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:26:38 AM »

I think it would be inconsistent to start making distinctions between kings and royalty, such that someone can be a king but not royalty.

egilkinc · « **Reply #6 on:** August 25, 2009, 09:36:02 AM »

hey,
I agree that this might be inconsistent, but to my knowledge, "Royalty" hasn't been defined yet. I'm suspecting that "Royalty" is kind of a summary of "member of a Royal Family" (which came before "Royalty"), and that's why I asked earlier if they were the same thing. That's the reason I'd sway towards limiting it to human rulers, but I'm certainly open either way.
Thanx,
Gil

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #7 on:** August 25, 2009, 09:51:38 AM »

I think it makes sense for the King of Tyrus to be a "king", but not part of a "royal family" since demons don't have families.

TheMarti · « **Reply #8 on:** August 25, 2009, 10:01:57 AM »

Being a King only constitutes ruling a Kingdom of some sort. One does not need to be from a royal family to do so. If we were classifying humans, even, someone who overthrows a government and calls themselves "king" is not necessarily from a royal family.

The Schaef · « **Reply #9 on:** August 25, 2009, 10:09:20 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 25, 2009, 09:51:38 AM

I think it makes sense for the King of Tyrus to be a "king", but not part of a "royal family" since demons don't have families.

They also don't have kingdoms, since they are not part of a monarchial government.

TheMarti · « **Reply #10 on:** August 25, 2009, 10:11:01 AM »

But aren't they given rule over a principality? Doesn't that constitute a kingdom?

The Schaef · « **Reply #11 on:** August 25, 2009, 10:34:13 AM »

Does it? What are the legal boundaries of the land they rule? Who are their subjects? What is their system of government? What laws govern the kingdom and how are those laws formed?

I think the reference to spiritual powers as "kings" is being taken too literally in defining this role in the game.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #12 on:** August 25, 2009, 11:26:31 AM »

So then should Priests of Christ have he "Priest" identifier?

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #13 on:** August 25, 2009, 11:31:35 AM »

how else are they Teal?

TimMierz · « **Reply #14 on:** August 25, 2009, 11:32:50 AM »

Paul's teal, and he's not a priest.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #15 on:** August 25, 2009, 11:33:46 AM »

Special exception IMO.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #16 on:** August 25, 2009, 11:38:54 AM »

Paul's only teal because when he was created teal did not exist and it is too hard to explain to new players, yes you can be ALL colors but Teal....because Paul wasn't a priest...

Professoralstad · « **Reply #17 on:** August 25, 2009, 11:44:58 AM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on August 25, 2009, 11:31:35 AM

how else are they Teal?

Well, they were made that way. And presumably for no other reason than that they were called "Priests" in the Bible, despite the fact that not everyone who takes part in the first resurrection is from the Levitical line, performs Priestly duties, etc. The card is genderless, because not everyone who was a Priest of Christ is male. From the REG:

Quote

Priest

A priest is one who is duly authorized to minister in sacred things, particularly to offer sacrifices at the altar, and who acts as mediator between men and God. Priests are in charge of sacrifice and offering at worship places, particularly the tabernacle and Temple. Other functions are blessing the people, determining the will of God, and instructing the people in the law of God. The office of priest is hereditary.

I'd say that Priests of Christ miss that mark on several points. Yet, they still get a "Priest" identifier.

Yes, the only reason King of Tyrus should be a king is that he is called one in the Bible. And that evidently is good enough for other cards, so why not him?

The Schaef · « **Reply #18 on:** August 25, 2009, 11:50:34 AM »

I consider Priests of Christ to be a special exception, much like Soldier of God is a warrior-class character despite not being an actual warrior. I do not take these to be the template for making all metaphorical references equal to the literal reference.

Master KChief · « **Reply #19 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:00:36 PM »

Quote from: egilkinc on August 25, 2009, 06:24:02 AM

hey,
I believe that a King in title should qualify as a King. It should not be dependant on ruling a nation/people group. This would be consistent with other classifications like the Nationalities, Spiritual Gifts, and (presumably) Magicians.
In connection with this, I think "Royalty" should be connected to a "Royal Family" and be limited to human rulers.
L8er,
Gil

Professoralstad · « **Reply #20 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:01:50 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 25, 2009, 11:50:34 AM

I consider Priests of Christ to be a special exception, much like Soldier of God is a warrior-class character despite not being an actual warrior. I do not take these to be the template for making all metaphorical references equal to the literal reference.

Well I do, because situations based on precedence are quite common, and I think it would be inconsistent to rule this case differently. I can't think of any other cards aside from the aforementioned that are given/not given identifiers based on their metaphorical standing in scripture. And unless there's a whole host of them that could break the game with those identifiers, I don't see why this one case should be different.

Besides, giving him the identifier King would not only increase his usability with Large Tree, but increase his vulnerability with Ehud/Ehud's Dagger. So I'd say it's a fair trade-off.

The Schaef · « **Reply #21 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:09:43 PM »

Really? Have you not seen all the positioning and haggling recently to get as many characters as possible crammed into the definition of a magician? The same thing happens whenever people want to try to squeeze someone into their own strategy: musicians, prophets, guys fighting in earthly battles, etc etc. You act like this is the first time anyone tried anything even remotely like this, but the fact of the matter is, it happens all the time. All the more reason to keep definitions as simple and clinical as possible, and avoid all this negotiating to get even just one more guy included.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #22 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:18:16 PM »

I'd like to point out that it did work for Saint Patrick.

Master KChief · « **Reply #23 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:23:13 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 25, 2009, 12:09:43 PM

You act like this is the first time anyone tried anything even remotely like this, but the fact of the matter is, it happens all the time.

most of the arguments towards this discussion stemmed from precedence, suggesting already this certainly isn't the first time something like this has been done. some people in this thread may have some super-secret hidden agenda they're trying to fulfill by making large tree work on king of tyrus, but i also believe some are genuinely concerned about consistency. the logical direction to rule this would be to adhere to precedence and consistency, ie a king by name. if kot cannot be identified by title alone, then i say we move to remove the identifiers off all cards identified by title alone (poc, pwd, etc.).

Quote

I'd like to point out that it did work for Saint Patrick

what happened with saint patty?

TheMarti · « **Reply #24 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:24:30 PM »

I'm assuming the Saint Patty thing refers to him now being a prophet... right?

News:

Author Topic: REG Issue? Is King of Tyrus a King? (Read 14647 times)

The Schaef

TheMarti

The Schaef

TheMarti

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

TheMarti