Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yea, I misread that. But she is still protecting specific cards in a specific place. Once a card leaves that place it is no longer protected.

Also the rule is that if it mentions a name (like David) it means all versions of the card (King David, David (Red), etc.) but if it specifically says 'King David' then it doesn't include David (Red) only King David. That's why Samuel states King Saul so he cant splash with Pharisees to make them any worse then they already are.

That's not nessessarily correct. It's something that is highly contested which is why we have cards that are very specific like Begging for Grain and Samuel. I seem to strictly remember a lot of cards having the meaning of the card disregarded because that's not what the card actually says.

The card I was thinking of slipped my mind at the moment but I'll let you know once I remember it...

Pol is correct. Similar to Salome and TGT, Rachel cannot recur Joseph the Carpenter.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

No. King David is the same person as David. That has nothing to do with the fact that Salome (gold) is not the same as Salome (white) or that Joseph is not the same as Joseph the Carpenter.

The Rabshakeh Attacks has errata to say that it is CBN if used by an Assyrian.


Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

My point exactly: The card was eraata'd to be correct but until then it had to be played the other way. There are other differences between Salome (gold) and Salome (White) that make it that TGT can only work for one (mainly that one actually has a slightly different spelling of the name I'm almost positive of it) and that almost all cards noting to OT Joseph and not NT Joseph clearly note OT Joseph (which Rachel is needing)

The rule is that card effects overrule the rules and you go by what it says over what people wanted it to say.

That was not your point at all, because your point made in a previous post was 100% incorrect.

My point exactly: The card was eraata'd to be correct but until then it had to be played the other way. There are other differences between Salome (gold) and Salome (White) that make it that TGT can only work for one (mainly that one actually has a slightly different spelling of the name I'm almost positive of it) and that almost all cards noting to OT Joseph and not NT Joseph clearly note OT Joseph (which Rachel is needing)

The rule is that card effects overrule the rules and you go by what it says over what people wanted it to say.

I don't think The Rabshakeh Attacks was ever played "the other way" since at the time it was printed, there was almost no possible way for an Assyrian to negate it (the only way I can think of would be a converted Assyrian playing a negate enhancement). So that part of the ability either needed to be fixed, or it wouldn't really matter at all. There has been debate about the merits of that errata, whether or not it should be there, but as for now it is.

Your other points are confusing: Salome (White) and Salome (Gold) are spelled exactly the same on the cards. In the Bible, Salome (Gold) is never named directly, but is only called the daughter of Herodias; her name comes from an extra-Biblical Josephus source where the name is translated with the same spelling.

AFAIK, the only cards that mention Joseph in their special abilities are:

Begging for Grain (Specifies O.T. Joseph)
Brothers Envy (Doesn't specify O.T. Joseph)
The gods of Egypt (Specifies O.T. Joseph)
Rachel (Doesn't specify O.T. Joseph)
Judah (Doesn't Specify O.T. Joseph)

So that's only 2 out of 5 that specify O.T, and even one that doesn't is in the same set as the 2 that do. 

The real rule is that if a card names a singular person that has more than one representation in Redemption, then referring to the name by itself refers to all representations (i.e. David refers to David or King David, Manasseh refers to Manasseh or King Manasseh, Esau refers to Esau or Esau the Hunter, etc.). However, referring to a specific representation that's not the name by itself does not refer to other representations (i.e. King David does not refer to David, King Manasseh doesn't refer to Manasseh, etc.) That rule has been established for years.

The other rule pertaining to this thread is that when a card refers to a name that is shared by multiple people, you need to know the context to know which person it is referring to. Obviously, Rachel, Judah, and Brothers' Envy have nothing to do with Joseph the Carpenter. Saul Repents has nothing to do with King Saul. And TGT has nothing to do with the daughter of Herodias. We know that by Biblical context, and thus that is the intent.

You are correct that what cards actually say often overrule the intent of the abilities, but that has nothing to do with these cases. The intent of Abigail was to be able to band to either David or King David, and she was given that ability with the above rules in mind. The intent of Rachel was that she would not be able to search for Joseph the Carpenter, and she was given her ability with the above rules in mind. So in both those examples, the cards work exactly as intended, with no errata needed.

I believe that Brother's Envy actually notes OT Joseph... But the idea that makes games more fun is when you have multiple characters having the same name that can use cards not originally meant for them. (ie using Ratchel to exchange for NT Joseph or an Enhancement that wasn't meant for OT Joseph to play being used because it says 'if used by Joseph' etc.)

I have seen this in every other game I've played, and the one I'm creating I'm doing that as well, but I don't see where it is an actual issue to go as it says on the card over the intent. It just means that maybe a card may get an errata but I hardly think it will harm the game any. In fact it will make for more interesting game-play and have it that the play testers may want to be sure that cards are correctly targetting what they want it to target.

Maybe that idea would make the game more fun to you, but it would decrease from one of the goals of Redemption: to be able to be familiar with Bible stories and the characters and events that pertain to them. There are lots of ideas that would make Redemption more fun for me, but that doesn't mean they will ever be rules. I'm not sure what other games you play that have similar situations, but the issue with it is that it is better when cards do what they say they do, thus having a rule that clarifies how they accomplish that is better. Would it be better to have a rule that says that context is important, or to have special abilties being extra-long because they have to say "Mary. Not Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, Mary Mother of James, or even Mary of Peter, Paul and Mary. Just Mary," etc. The playtesters design cards with the established rule in mind. We didn't use O.T. Joseph on Rachel because there is an established rule that context is important: the mother of Joseph in Genesis had less than 0% effect on the life of Joseph of the Gospels.

Quote from: megamanlan on August 31, 2012, 05:30:59 PM

I believe that Brother's Envy actually notes OT Joseph... But the idea that makes games more fun is when you have multiple characters having the same name that can use cards not originally meant for them. (ie using Ratchel to exchange for NT Joseph or an Enhancement that wasn't meant for OT Joseph to play being used because it says 'if used by Joseph' etc.)

I have seen this in every other game I've played, and the one I'm creating I'm doing that as well, but I don't see where it is an actual issue to go as it says on the card over the intent. It just means that maybe a card may get an errata but I hardly think it will harm the game any. In fact it will make for more interesting game-play and have it that the play testers may want to be sure that cards are correctly targetting what they want it to target.

Maybe that idea would make the game more fun to you, but it would decrease from one of the goals of Redemption: to be able to be familiar with Bible stories and the characters and events that pertain to them. There are lots of ideas that would make Redemption more fun for me, but that doesn't mean they will ever be rules. I'm not sure what other games you play that have similar situations, but the issue with it is that it is better when cards do what they say they do, thus having a rule that clarifies how they accomplish that is better. Would it be better to have a rule that says that context is important, or to have special abilties being extra-long because they have to say "Mary. Not Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, Mary Mother of James, or even Mary of Peter, Paul and Mary. Just Mary," etc. The playtesters design cards with the established rule in mind. We didn't use O.T. Joseph on Rachel because there is an established rule that context is important: the mother of Joseph in Genesis had less than 0% effect on the life of Joseph of the Gospels.

I would actually disagree that they have nothing to do with each other. NT Joseph likely wouldn't be alive (or at least in Isreal) if OT Joseph didnt go to Egypt (or if he wasn't born) and if NT Joseph didn't exist, Mary wouldn't of gotten to Bethleham which would have shown the God that OT Joseph believed in to be a liar or worse Herod would have killed Jesus before he escaped to Egypt with his family which means that God's redemptive plan would have failed and OT Joseph would inevitably be lost to Hell.

I understand learning the Bible stories, but that doesn't mean we should make it open for more confusion just to keep something that can easily be done other ways.

I'm just trying to understand a frustrating and incoherent rule. The game already doesn't fit a lot of stories together, Daniel for example: you can't use Nebuchadnezzar in a Daniel Deck with Daniel Heroes.

If the game was towards that, it hasn't worked to well.

I'm trying to give arguement for why the current rule doesn't make sense and gets newer players confused.

Okay. I can post a new thread when I can about it.

Horrible idea. This will over complicate the game for new players. No one will think Rachel can get Joseph The Carpenter.

First off, I had requested that no one post until after the discussion was moved. And second, what combos would become worse? The only one I can think of is TGT but then that would have to use Salome (another card in the Deck) and a Convert card like Holy Grail (that's a +2 in a Deck that can't afford to do that)

And Rachel searching for NT Joseph is like AuTO searching anyone except Gideon.

Split Altar was errata'd and wouldn't be affected.