Author Topic: REG Issue? Is King of Tyrus a King? (Read 14654 times)

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #25 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:27:46 PM »

Quote from: The Marti on August 25, 2009, 12:24:30 PM

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

Correct. Saint Pat was ruled a prophet.

Master KChief · « **Reply #26 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:29:03 PM »

ugh. i just lost the game. again.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #27 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:29:31 PM »

Professoralstad · « **Reply #28 on:** August 25, 2009, 12:33:27 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef 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.

The problem is, just like with Magician, King has not yet been defined for Redemption purposes. If it was defined as a "human ruler of a physical Kingdom" then that would be fine; not preferred, but fine. Not everything in Redemption is the way I'd like it to be, I understand that. Also, a lot of times it works to "squeeze" someone into a category. King David is a Musician because he played music, Joshua is now a Prophet because he prophesied, I could go on. I don't see it as too much of a stretch to say King of Tyrus is a King, because he's called a King.

Also, I don't see where I indicated that I was unaware of all the other times this has happened, and I find the insinuation somewhat insulting. I was merely pointing out that I don't think any other card's identifiers are based on metaphors, except for Priests of Christ and Soldier of God. The ones that are argued about are based on something like what they said, what they did, etc. and they are judged on how those arguments mesh with the game and the definitions in it.

The Schaef · « **Reply #29 on:** August 25, 2009, 01:04:05 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 12:23:13 PM

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.

I'm not talking about motive, I'm talking about the idea that somehow no one has ever suggested adding something to a roster by stretching the identifier to fit. It's simply not the case, it happens with nearly every identifier we've created where such a thing is possible. I'm not just coming in and suddenly calling this argument unreasonable in the midst of a thousand reasonable arguments.

I do NOT think there is consistency in saying someone should be identified with a king when there is basically nothing outside the title of the card that would make them an actual king. I do NOT think there is consistency in wanting to limit "royal family" to humans but not "kings". I do NOT think there is consistency in saying you can be a king but not a member of a royal family. Being a king BY DEFAULT makes you a member of a royal family. People are acknowledging the common sense in defining one but not taking that and applying it to the other. They just look at the title of the card and want to have that trump all other logic. I can't agree with that.

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 25, 2009, 12:33:27 PM

The problem is, just like with Magician, King has not yet been defined for Redemption purposes.

Probably because people have understood it for the last seven years without having to have it micro-managed.

Quote

Also, a lot of times it works to "squeeze" someone into a category. King David is a Musician because he played music, Joshua is now a Prophet because he prophesied, I could go on.

Those are not a "squeeze", however. Those are because the people match the appropriate definition for that title. Trying to call Daniel a magician, or Miriam a musician, is trying to get characters in based on a technicality. King of Tyrus has nothing going for him other than the title of the card, which in my mind is the very definition of trying to get him in on a technicality. Every technicality allowed blurs defined lines and makes things more difficult to rule or define.

Also, I don't see where I indicated that I was unaware of all the other times this has happened, and I find the insinuation somewhat insulting. I was merely pointing out that I don't think any other card's identifiers are based on metaphors, except for Priests of Christ and Soldier of God. The ones that are argued about are based on something like what they said, what they did, etc. and they are judged on how those arguments mesh with the game and the definitions in it.
[/quote]

Master KChief · « **Reply #30 on:** August 25, 2009, 03:22:35 PM »

Quote

I do NOT think there is consistency in saying someone should be identified with a king when there is basically nothing outside the title of the card that would make them an actual king. I do NOT think there is consistency in wanting to limit "royal family" to humans but not "kings". I do NOT think there is consistency in saying you can be a king but not a member of a royal family. Being a king BY DEFAULT makes you a member of a royal family. People are acknowledging the common sense in defining one but not taking that and applying it to the other. They just look at the title of the card and want to have that trump all other logic. I can't agree with that

so, by your logic, would it also be safe to assume you do not agree with priests of christs labeled a priest and plagued with diseases labeled a disease?

The Schaef · « **Reply #31 on:** August 25, 2009, 03:50:14 PM »

I already described PoC as a special exception by design, please refer back to that post.

I don't see why Plagued with Diseases would not count. How are diseases, plural, not a disease? In addition to which, it behaves like a disease in terms of what its ability does.

Master KChief · « **Reply #32 on:** August 25, 2009, 03:57:18 PM »

then i see no reason king of tyrus cannot also be a 'special exception'. poc is a priest by title alone and not by biblical function like every single other priest in the game. if you're pointing to design, then its a design flaw.

The Schaef · « **Reply #33 on:** August 25, 2009, 04:03:08 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 03:57:18 PM

then i see no reason king of tyrus cannot also be a 'special exception'.

'... by design'? Selective quoting?

Master KChief · « **Reply #34 on:** August 25, 2009, 04:08:20 PM »

...ok? my point still means the same thing, yet i saved myself two words? although responding to you has made that grow exponentially larger...

The Guardian · « **Reply #35 on:** August 25, 2009, 04:16:58 PM »

The definition of "King" and whether or not KoT fits that definition is being discussed by the playtest group.

The Schaef · « **Reply #36 on:** August 25, 2009, 04:20:41 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 04:08:20 PM

my point still means the same thing, yet i saved myself two words?

Saved yourself two words and all the context.

If I say (for example) that priests are Melchizedek and characters from the Levitical line of the priesthood, and then Rob says, "I'm going to make a card called Priests of Christ, and it will be a NT Priest", that is a special exception by design. It doesn't fit the strict definition but was designed to be a priest anyway.

So tell me again how this doesn't change your point? Was it your position that King of Tyrus was designed to be a demon classified as a king in lieu of the traditional definition?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #37 on:** August 25, 2009, 04:26:25 PM »

A "classical tradition" that's mostly in your head and obviously not widely held, if this thread is any evidence.

The Schaef · « **Reply #38 on:** August 25, 2009, 04:57:37 PM »

Monarchies are in my head? That's odd.

Maybe I'll go to a first-grade class and ask them to draw a picture of a king, see how many demons I get, and how many guys wearing a crown I'll get.

Master KChief · « **Reply #39 on:** August 25, 2009, 05:29:44 PM »

his point is you are framing the definition of 'king' as you choose. there has not been a 'classical' definition of king in redemption thus far, and that is all that matters at this point.

furthermore, if 'special exceptions' can exist for one card, then its entirely plausible for another. the 'special exception' is poc is a priest by card name alone; the same can obviously be applied to kot as well.

The Schaef · « **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2009, 05:34:17 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 05:29:44 PM

his point is you are framing the definition of 'king' as you choose. there has not been a 'classical' definition of king in redemption thus far, and that is all that matters at this point.

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your idea of what "matters".

Quote

the 'special exception' is poc is a priest by card name alone; the same can obviously be applied to kot as well.

Why? (and by the way, "by name alone" implies it was not a Priest by design but we went back and applied the label based on the name. That is obviously false.)

Master KChief · « **Reply #41 on:** August 25, 2009, 05:42:12 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 25, 2009, 05:34:17 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 05:29:44 PM
his point is you are framing the definition of 'king' as you choose. there has not been a 'classical' definition of king in redemption thus far, and that is all that matters at this point.

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your idea of what "matters".

the definition of a king pertaining to redemption standards matters far more to the redemption community than what you personally may think a king is.

Quote
the 'special exception' is poc is a priest by card name alone; the same can obviously be applied to kot as well.

Why? (and by the way, "by name alone" implies it was not a Priest by design but we went back and applied the label based on the name. That is obviously false.)

i never said this is what happened. there are many different ways a nt priest could have been approached and designed and yet still only be a priest by name. does that make it right? probably not. is it a design flaw? probably so.

The Schaef · « **Reply #42 on:** August 25, 2009, 05:50:51 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 05:42:12 PM

the definition of a king pertaining to redemption standards matters far more to the redemption community than what you personally may think a king is.

... because I'm the only one that would think a king would be... well, a king... just made that up out of the blue, because of course demons are kings, everyone knows that.

Quote

i never said this is what happened.

When you say "it's a priest based on name alone", yeah, that's pretty much what you're saying.

Quote

is it a design flaw? probably so.

In what way is it a design flaw to have one fun card that breaks from the norm every so often? The say-so rule for declaring cards unique is WAY more arbitrary than this, and nobody seems to think the game is coming down around our ears for it.

Master KChief · « **Reply #43 on:** August 25, 2009, 06:02:27 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 25, 2009, 05:50:51 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 05:42:12 PM
the definition of a king pertaining to redemption standards matters far more to the redemption community than what you personally may think a king is.

... because I'm the only one that would think a king would be... well, a king... just made that up out of the blue, because of course demons are kings, everyone knows that.

and there are many people on these boards that believe a card with 'king' in its title would be...well, a king. even so, i dont really care anymore less what you think a king may be than the next person; i just want a solid definition of 'king' to get this issue sorted out.
Quote
i never said this is what happened.

When you say "it's a priest based on name alone", yeah, that's pretty much what you're saying.

no, its not.

Quote
is it a design flaw? probably so.

In what way is it a design flaw to have one fun card that breaks from the norm every so often? The say-so rule for declaring cards unique is WAY more arbitrary than this, and nobody seems to think the game is coming down around our ears for it.

i dont know, i figured games have rules/standards/principles for a reason? i guess this isn't true for redemption. i suppose the next time i see an orange osama bin laden card printed and labeled demon, i wont be so alarmed.

The Schaef · « **Reply #44 on:** August 25, 2009, 06:14:50 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 06:02:27 PM

i dont know, i figured games have rules/standards/principles for a reason?

Games also have exceptions from time to time, it's not the end of the world. The fact that PoC is the only card you can come up with that fits the bill for this, and it's a national promo to boot, really defies this picture you're painting of people just making whatever silly cards and rules they want willy-nilly.

I understand that different people want different things; what I don't understand is why I have to defend myself from being the "unreasonable" one here just for suggesting maybe it oughta be what pretty much the entire planet has considered a king for as long as people have been around.

Quote

i suppose the next time i see an orange osama bin laden card printed and labeled demon, i wont be so alarmed.

Well, that's good, cause Lord knows you sure have seen a lot of KARAZY cards come out that make no sense to you whatsoever. Good to know you're drinking the Kool-Aid now.

Master KChief · « **Reply #45 on:** August 25, 2009, 06:34:32 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 25, 2009, 06:14:50 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 06:02:27 PM
i dont know, i figured games have rules/standards/principles for a reason?

Games also have exceptions from time to time, it's not the end of the world. The fact that PoC is the only card you can come up with that fits the bill for this, and it's a national promo to boot, really defies this picture you're painting of people just making whatever silly cards and rules they want willy-nilly.

soldier of god is wc, yet never having participated in an actual physical biblical battle. it matters not if poc is the only card that fits the bill or is a national promo; its a card that has nonetheless broken the standards and fundamentals of redemption.

i also never said redemption has made cards 'willy-nilly' in this fashion; sometimes i really start to wonder where you get this stuff.

I understand that different people want different things; what I don't understand is why I have to defend myself from being the "unreasonable" one here just for suggesting maybe it oughta be what pretty much the entire planet has considered a king for as long as people have been around.

i suppose by that logic jesus isn't a king either. the point is, the card has been preceded by another card that is identified by title alone...and this card has 'king' in its name for crying out loud. sounds like a king to most people here, regardless of what your first graders may crayola-draw for you.[/i]

Quote
i suppose the next time i see an orange osama bin laden card printed and labeled demon, i wont be so alarmed.

Well, that's good, cause Lord knows you sure have seen a lot of KARAZY cards come out that make no sense to you whatsoever. Good to know you're drinking the Kool-Aid now.

with redemption already have broken common fundamentals and consistencies, again, it wouldnt surprise me. i eagerly await my waco fortress with baited breathe.

browarod · « **Reply #46 on:** August 25, 2009, 06:47:00 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 06:34:32 PM

the point is, the card has been preceded by another card that is identified by title alone...and this card has 'king' in its name for crying out loud. sounds like a king to most people here, regardless of what your first graders may crayola-draw for you.

I think Schaef is trying to say that Priests of Christ weren't made Teal and a Priest because the name was "Priests of Christ." During the planning and/or playtesting of the card it was decided that it would be Teal, a Priest, and called Priests of Christ, not necessarily one because of another. This is different than KoT because KoT is already out, was not considered a king during planning/playtesting, and may or may not actually fit the definition of a king.

In my opinion, this whole argument could be solved if a definition was added to the REG stating exactly what a king is (whatever the definition actually is ruled as), in addition to listing them, so that it's there in writing for people to reference.

Master KChief · « **Reply #47 on:** August 25, 2009, 06:55:05 PM »

Quote from: browarod on August 25, 2009, 06:47:00 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 06:34:32 PM
the point is, the card has been preceded by another card that is identified by title alone...and this card has 'king' in its name for crying out loud. sounds like a king to most people here, regardless of what your first graders may crayola-draw for you.
I think Schaef is trying to say that Priests of Christ weren't made Teal and a Priest because the name was "Priests of Christ." During the planning and/or playtesting of the card it was decided that it would be Teal, a Priest, and called Priests of Christ, not necessarily one because of another. This is different than KoT because KoT is already out, was not considered a king during planning/playtesting, and may or may not actually fit the definition of a king.

why is it teal? because its a priest. why is it a priest? because 'priest' is in the card name and verse. somehow, that doesnt correlate to you reasoning that poc is a priest by name alone?

browarod · « **Reply #48 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:00:15 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 06:55:05 PM

why is it teal? because its a priest. why is it a priest? because 'priest' is in the card name and verse. somehow, that doesnt correlate to you reasoning that poc is a priest by name alone?

Why is it so hard to think that maybe the card was Teal, thus it had to be a Priest, and lastly they decided to name it Priests of Christ?

Your logic progression assumes that the name came first, and that hasn't been proven as the case.

Master KChief · « **Reply #49 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:05:25 PM »

Quote from: browarod on August 25, 2009, 07:00:15 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 06:55:05 PM
why is it teal? because its a priest. why is it a priest? because 'priest' is in the card name and verse. somehow, that doesnt correlate to you reasoning that poc is a priest by name alone?
Why is it so hard to think that maybe the card was Teal, thus it had to be a Priest, and lastly they decided to name it Priests of Christ?

because that seems like an illogical method of creating cards?

R&D1: hey, we need an nt priest.
R&D2: well, they do mention priests of christ in revelation...
R&D1: zomg, lets use that, it has priests in the name, thats good enough.

surely not a design flaw.

News:

Author Topic: REG Issue? Is King of Tyrus a King? (Read 14654 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

browarod

browarod