Author Topic: REG Issue? Is King of Tyrus a King? (Read 14656 times)

browarod · « **Reply #50 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:12:45 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 07:05:25 PM

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.

You don't always have the luxury of coming up with names to then attach brigades and subsequently identifiers to. I have plenty of experience with creating trading cards (albeit for fun and/or personal use, never for a company) and very frequently I start with an idea (such as a capture effect, a NT Priest, specific identifiers, etc.), proceed to finding a verse and picture that fit, and finally assign a name and brigade appropriate to the picture and the concept I started with. Oftentimes, the name is simply something short and/or to the point that describes what it is or what it does.

Master KChief · « **Reply #51 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:20:13 PM »

so tell me this then: why IS priests of christs classified as a priest?

browarod · « **Reply #52 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:22:18 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 07:20:13 PM

so tell me this then: why IS priests of christs classified as a priest?

I'm not a playtester or the creator so I can't tell you for sure. My point is that assuming it's due to the name is unsubstantiated.

Master KChief · « **Reply #53 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:26:58 PM »

i dont think thats assuming much at all.

offer divinely appointed sacrifices to God? no.
execute the different procedures, rituals, and ceremonies relating to the worship of God? no.
have priest in the name? yes.

the name alone is the only connection with priests of christs being even remotely related to teal or priests at all.

The Schaef · « **Reply #54 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:34:43 PM »

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

soldier of god is wc, yet never having participated in an actual physical biblical battle.

Yes, thank you, I think I'm the one who told you that already. Multiple times.

Quote

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 get it from when you say things like "broken the standards and fundamentals of redemption" and (sarcastically) "i figured games have rules/standards/principles for a reason". If you treat minor things like major things, I'm going to question your use of hyperbole.

Quote

i suppose by that logic jesus isn't a king either.

Not in the strict literal sense, no. In the metaphorical sense, yes. But since we don't have a Jesus card, I guess you'll have to wait to make that argument to inconsistency. There won't be room in this set because we're not taking out the Osama bin Laden card to make room for it.

Quote

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

Oh, look, more hyperbole based on minor issues. Each new time you post something like this, I take you less and less seriously.

So now that you have claimed three (additional) times since my last post that PoC is considered a Priest based on the name, are you going to take back your earlier defensive "I never said that" response? Or are you going to continue to push that theory in direct contradiction to what I already explained to you multiple times?

browarod · « **Reply #55 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:36:17 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 07:26:58 PM

offer divinely appointed sacrifices to God? no.

That one can't apply by very nature of PoC being NT and thus after the Cross.

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 07:26:58 PM

execute the different procedures, rituals, and ceremonies relating to the worship of God?

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Certainly seems to me that the PoC will have lots to do with procedures, etc., since they'll be reigning with God.

Master KChief · « **Reply #56 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:44:17 PM »

what gets more and more funny to me everytime i read this thread is that poc is as much a spiritual metaphor as kot is...yet the same strain of logic of kot being shoed in with earthly kings as well (even though priests have thus far always pertained to earthly priests) is not to be applied. hypocritical much?

The Schaef · « **Reply #57 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:51:04 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 07:44:17 PM

what gets more and more funny to me everytime i read this thread is that poc is as much a spiritual metaphor as kot is

Correct.

Quote

hypocritical much?

Incorrect, and you would know that if you would stop trying to one-up me long enough to just listen.

Master KChief · « **Reply #58 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:52:45 PM »

you have not provided a single argument as to why poc is a priest other than it being in the title and verse.

The Schaef · « **Reply #59 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:54:53 PM »

Yes, I did. You know I did because you took the effort to mock me for it and use it as an excuse to talk about how we screw everything up.

adamfincher · « **Reply #60 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:56:03 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 07:52:45 PM

you have not provided a single argument as to why poc is a priest other than it being in the title and verse.

it is also teal brigade. wyn.

Master KChief · « **Reply #61 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:00:57 PM »

oh yes, the 'special exception' clause. i suppose it would be ok to make a goliath reprint nt because it would then be a 'special exception'. do you not see the inconsistencies created by such 'special exceptions' from a game that has operated under a specific set of rules and fundamentals for years? i dont expect an answer, as this is besides the point and a whole 'nother can of worms for another day.

back on topic, perhaps you would like to share with the rest of why poc is a special exception?

The Schaef · « **Reply #62 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:04:22 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 08:00:57 PM

oh yes, the 'special exception' clause. i suppose it would be ok to make a goliath reprint nt because it would then be a 'special exception'.

Quote

do you not see the inconsistencies created by such 'special exceptions' from a game that has operated under a specific set of rules and fundamentals for years?

No. Exceptions are part of a set of rules, just like silence is a part of music. If you want strict rules and no exceptions, then Lost Souls get discarded with Sites, and battle-winning abilities can never be interrupted because the character is already out of play.

Quote

back on topic, perhaps you would like to share with the rest of why poc is a special exception?

I already answered this question. You know I already answered this question, because we've already had a discussion about you selectively omitting it from your response.

browarod · « **Reply #63 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:06:55 PM »

The fact that PoC is a special exception, no matter the reason for it, is not reason enough for KoT to be one as well.

It's like saying "I deserve an A because you gave that guy an A and we're both named Scott."

Master KChief · « **Reply #64 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:08:22 PM »

by design, ok, i got that (even though i honestly did not omit it on purpose, i really dont see how that makes it any different). but you still havent told me why poc was designed as a special exception. what was the motivation behind making it a special exception?

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #65 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:09:10 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 08:08:22 PM

by design, ok, i got that (even though i honestly did not omit it on purpose, i really dont see how that makes it any different). but you still havent told me why poc was designed as a special exception. what was the motivation behind making it a special exception?

The fact that they wanted a priest that was NT and didn't perfectly fit the OT definition of a priest.

The Schaef · « **Reply #66 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:11:05 PM »

Because that was a card that Rob and/or Bryon wanted to design as a cool promo card. Something representative of us. Not a priest in the clinical sense, but we will put the name "Priests" on top, make it teal, and give it the Priest identifier.

I mean, that's pretty much the main reason you make a special anything, because you want to do something special, even though it does not conform exactly to the framework.

Master KChief · « **Reply #67 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:12:28 PM »

Quote from: browarod on August 25, 2009, 08:06:55 PM

The fact that PoC is a special exception, no matter the reason for it, is not reason enough for KoT to be one as well.

sure it is, its called precedence and consistency. poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #68 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:14:36 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 25, 2009, 08:12:28 PM

Quote from: browarod on August 25, 2009, 08:06:55 PM
The fact that PoC is a special exception, no matter the reason for it, is not reason enough for KoT to be one as well.

sure it is, its called precedence and consistency. poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.

I see no reason why kot must be. You can keep precedence and consistency by labeling KoT a king, but it doesn't break the previous if you don't. That's a reverse in logic.

Master KChief · « **Reply #69 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:16:28 PM »

so, im wondering if kot is ruled to not be a king...would blemished sacrifices repel poc? or does it repel only earthly priests?

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #70 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:18:48 PM »

blemished sacrifices (please post abilities) will repel PoC regardless. Whether PoC is a priest is decided. Ruling whether KoT is a king is independent of PoC.

Blemished Sacrifices

Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Black • Ability: 2 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Evil Character repels all good Priests. Negate all special abilities on Enhancements used by good Priests this turn. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Malachi 1:8 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Common)

The Schaef · « **Reply #71 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:23:05 PM »

Quote

poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.

Because, like everything else in this thread, you've been approaching it backwards. PoC was designed as a priest and everything else about the card flowed from that. Perhaps you've heard of the exception that proves the rule: well, the two PROMOTIONAL CARDS that have been offered as evidence are exactly that. What MAKES them special is that they depart from the norm. KoT was NOT designed with the idea of, hey, let's create a demon "king" and label him as a king as a special one-off from what we normally consider a king.

The very fact that you're using exceptional cases to argue for KoT only strengthens the notion that the status quo is for kings to be humans who rule over kingdoms in monarchies. Just like people are trying to argue that royal families are human, therefore kings don't need to be royal family... because?... kings don't need to be human... because?... we want KoT to be a king. No other reason.

If I'm given the choice between having a simple definition and sticking to that (which your posts seem to claim is what you want), or by creating a more complex definition which then additionally creates an inconsistency with another identifier in order to exclude the card from one group that we're trying to shoehorn into another (and frankly, if we're going to add it to one, I don't see the point in trying to lock it out of the other), and then have to explain to people how to apply the metaphor to the definition, all so we can include ONE CARD... it's no mystery to me which is the simpler, cleaner solution.

Additionally, your Blemished Sacrifices jab is not amusing. Not to mention the secondary question is nonsensical (/pokes self in arm to establish earthly existence).

browarod · « **Reply #72 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:25:49 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 25, 2009, 08:23:05 PM

Because, like everything else in this thread, you've been approaching it backwards. PoC was designed as a priest and everything else about the card flowed from that.

I totally told him that, but he didn't believe me...

egilkinc · « **Reply #73 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:38:27 PM »

hey,
I'm tired of sifting through "discussions" like this. Someone please go through this thread, find the first reference to the meta-argument (debating about the debate itself), report that, and close this thread up.
Thanx,
Gil

Master KChief · « **Reply #74 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:40:11 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 25, 2009, 08:23:05 PM

Quote
poc and kot are metaphorical. poc has been labeled with an earthly group. i see no reason why kot cannot be.

Because, like everything else in this thread, you've been approaching it backwards. PoC was designed as a priest and everything else about the card flowed from that. Perhaps you've heard of the exception that proves the rule: well, the two PROMOTIONAL CARDS that have been offered as evidence are exactly that. What MAKES them special is that they depart from the norm. KoT was NOT designed with the idea of, hey, let's create a demon "king" and label him as a king as a special one-off from what we normally consider a king.

the fact poc was designed initially as a priest is becoming less and less relevant. just because cactus did not design kot as a special exception does not mean it cannot still be one. the fact remains poc and kot still embody metaphorical references. 'priests' currently includes earthly and metaphorical priests. kot not being a king just because 'he was not designed that way' (which is still unclear) is not a good answer.

The very fact that you're using exceptional cases to argue for KoT only strengthens the notion that the status quo is for kings to be humans who rule over kingdoms in monarchies. Just like people are trying to argue that royal families are human, therefore kings don't need to be royal family... because?... kings don't need to be human... because?... we want KoT to be a king. No other reason.

...so why can metaphorical kings not be classified as kings?

If I'm given the choice between having a simple definition and sticking to that (which your posts seem to claim is what you want), or by creating a more complex definition which then additionally creates an inconsistency with another identifier in order to exclude the card from one group that we're trying to shoehorn into another (and frankly, if we're going to add it to one, I don't see the point in trying to lock it out of the other), and then have to explain to people how to apply the metaphor to the definition, all so we can include ONE CARD... it's no mystery to me which is the simpler, cleaner solution.

a simple definition would be to have an all-encompassing definition of 'king' that blankets both earthly and metaphorical references, much in the same vein as what priests are.

Additionally, your Blemished Sacrifices jab is not amusing. Not to mention the secondary question is nonsensical (/pokes self in arm to establish earthly existence).

im not here to amuse you, i care less of the entertainment value (or lack thereof) i seemingly provide to you. if it means anything to you, your blatant mockery and disparaging attitude have little amusement to me either.

News:

Author Topic: REG Issue? Is King of Tyrus a King? (Read 14656 times)

browarod

browarod

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

The Schaef

browarod