Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: megamanlan on August 29, 2012, 06:54:00 PM
-
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.
-
Wrong again. Even if it were to just say "Saul," it'd still only work with the O.T. Saul. The ruling is set by The Garden Tomb not granting Ignore powers to a converted Gold Salome, even though it just says "Salome," meaning that abilities that name people operate on "do what I mean, not what I say."
-
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...
-
That's not nessessarily correct. It's something that is highly contested
Yes it is, no it isn't. I'd love to hear the example, though.
-
Pol is correct. Similar to Salome and TGT, Rachel cannot recur Joseph the Carpenter.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
-
Under that definition, you cant have King David be able to banded into battle by Abby because it's not David.
The rules do say that the card overrules what its meant to do. If Proud Pharisee was meant to play only NT Enhancements for example (not saying this is true or not) it doesn't matter unless it says that or is errata'd to say that.
I just remembered it, The Rabesaris Attacks.
It says cannot be negated by an Assyrian but it was meant to be cannot be negated if used by an Assyrian. It is has to be played as Cannot be negated by an Assyrian though.
-
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.
-
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.
-
In fact, it's better if you don't speak at all, Peregrin Took.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cactusgamedesign.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FBrothers%2527%2520Envy%2520%28Pa%29.gif&hash=d4778ba6bc4b2a81212ff173101625ad21f27125)
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.
-
Am I the only one that thinks Joseph from Brother's Envy looks like Ferris Bueller? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia3.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-srv%2Fphoto%2Fgallery%2F090806%2FGAL-09Aug06-2425%2Fmedia%2FPHO-09Aug06-173034.jpg&hash=1ff82fa5a7633361aec951c17b48524f6b24952d)
-
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.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cactusgamedesign.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FBrothers%2527%2520Envy%2520%28Pa%29.gif&hash=d4778ba6bc4b2a81212ff173101625ad21f27125)
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.
-
megamanlan....please tell me that you are not arguing just to argue or to keep from being wrong.
I ask because...
1) Prof A gave very detailed (and good) answers to all of your questions, assertions, and speculations.
2) No one (including yourself) seriously plays with Joseph the Carpenter so it is hard for me to take that part of your argument seriously.
I would rather this "debate" end because the OP's question was answered correctly and this continued debate would likely confuse newer people and cause long standing members to become frustrated with you.
Thanks. :)
-
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.
-
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.
If this is the case, then I propose that you start a new thread, and I will move the related posts to that thread. So that any new player that happens upon this thread will not be confused by this side debate.
-
Okay. I can post a new thread when I can about it.
-
This was started on another thread and I was asked to make a new thread about it. I would ask that everyone wait until Soul Seeker move the discussion there onto this one.
In simple I am suggesting that cards should be used as they are written (or as errata'd, etc.) over how they were intended to do.
Advantages of this:
1. Cards (like Rachel) become more versatile and can be used in more themes.
2. If play testers want to ensure that cards do what they want, they will have to be sure to be more specific which in turn will help newer players understand how the card is meant to be used.
3. Newer players (mainly that play other Trading card games) will see other similarities to other games which they play, which can help to draw them in.
4. It will make the games more fun and interesting.
Disadvantages:
1. It allows to not keep cards to their proper Biblical themes (A thing the game hasn't been able to do that well since the game has expanded and gotten better)
2. More work for the card creators (but as I said in advantages, this will be more benefital to new players)
I'm not sure of any other Disads but if there are any that are brought to my attention besides these.
NOTE: Errata's would NOT be affected by this. This is only affecting cards like Brother's Envy being able to affect NT Joseph and not just OT Joseph.
Also please wait topmost until the other posts have been moved to this thread as well thanks.
I will try to keep the Advantages/Disadvantages updated as best I can.
-
Horrible idea. This will over complicate the game for new players. No one will think Rachel can get Joseph The Carpenter.
-
I don't like this idea at all. It forces us to errata more cards just to ensure they don't contribute to broken combos. This suggestion will over-complicate the game and in general be detrimental to everything the Elders have tried to accomplish over the last four years or so.
-
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.
-
In simple I am suggesting that cards should be used as they are written (or as errata'd, etc.) over how they were intended to do.
I support the opposite. #SplitAltar2012
-
Split Altar was errata'd and wouldn't be affected.
-
Split Altar was errata'd and wouldn't be affected.
Split Altar (P)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: • Special Ability: Shuffle all Artifacts of each opponent into owners’ deck. You may play the next Enhancement. Cannot be negated. • Play As: Shuffle [return] all Artifacts of each opponent into owners’ deck. You may play an Enhancement. Cannot be negated.
No it wasn't.
-
Seems silly. The card says Joseph, not Joseph of Arimathea or Joseph the Carpenter. We are playing the card the way it's written. The only exceptions are when the card is a same unique character, such as King David, in which case people can target King David as David.
-
With westy and the majority on this one
-
Split Altar was errata'd and wouldn't be affected.
Split Altar (P)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: • Special Ability: Shuffle all Artifacts of each opponent into owners’ deck. You may play the next Enhancement. Cannot be negated. • Play As: Shuffle [return] all Artifacts of each opponent into owners’ deck. You may play an Enhancement. Cannot be negated.
No it wasn't.
Then how's it supposed to be played?
Seems silly. The card says Joseph, not Joseph of Arimathea or Joseph the Carpenter. We are playing the card the way it's written. The only exceptions are when the card is a same unique character, such as King David, in which case people can target King David as David.
Actually, this isn't exactly true. There is a rule out there that says if a card has a name out there: (ie David) it affects all cards with that in the name, (like King David) but if it specifically mentions a specific name, (like OT Joseph) it can only affect that one. (like Begging for Grain isn't negated if either NT Joseph is in play). But there is an obscure rule that you have to follow what the creator intended the card to do instead of following what the card says or was errata'd to say.
-
Actually the rule is that the card refers to a specific person with the name.
TGT refers to the Salome that went to The Garden Tomb, not the one related to Herod.
Rachel refers to the Joseph that was her son, not the one that bought the tomb for Jesus.
Abigail refers to the only David in the Bible who also happens to have a card called King David.
The main issue is that we have different cards that have the same name and the only way we have to refer to a character is their name.
There is a way to change this, but it would be a lot of work with identifiers, and would basically mean adding a bunch of them to a bunch of cards, although very little would change from a game play stance, several internal workings of the rules would shift.
-
We have always played (and should continue to play) that who the person was in the Bible is what determines the use of the card's SA. Really, the only inconsistency is with King David and the use of Promised Land. That ruling was based loosely on Abram vs. Abraham. However, Abraham is a distinct part of the card, much like Saul/Paul, and should therefore be the only exception.
I think we simply need to revisit the King David ruling. Any mention of David or King David should apply to all David cards, for consistency.
-
Then how's it supposed to be played?
It was designed to shuffle in the entire artifact pile, but face down cards are not "in-play," and thus are not touched by Split Altar. However, they decided to leave it as is, rather than errata the ability to work as intended.
-
The point here is to give more crediability and simplify some of the rules here (especially convoluted, confusing at best and useless to the game) not to mention the lack of this rule would provide some more uses for cards that aren't used.
Besides rescinding this rule wouldn't bring any harm to the game. No one has clearly stated why this shouldn't be besides the fact that they wish to keep Biblical accuracy (which already seems practically abandoned by a lot of themes in support of making the game work better)
Then how's it supposed to be played?
It was designed to shuffle in the entire artifact pile, but face down cards are not "in-play," and thus are not touched by Split Altar. However, they decided to leave it as is, rather than errata the ability to work as intended.
So it should not work as intended and my suggestion supports that.
-
Then how's it supposed to be played?
It was designed to shuffle in the entire artifact pile, but face down cards are not "in-play," and thus are not touched by Split Altar. However, they decided to leave it as is, rather than errata the ability to work as intended.
So it should not work as intended and my suggestion supports that.
It doesn't work as intended, and we're not happy with that because it could have been useful for awhile...
-
If the Elders/Rob wanted it to work as they originally intended, they would have errata'd it, and not left it as is.
-
If the Elders/Rob wanted it to work as they originally intended, they would have errata'd it, and not left it as is.
They did, then they changed it back to prevent topics like this one.
-
They never errata'd it. It was played wrong for a time, and when somebody pointed it out they pretty much just said "You're right, and that's the way it'll be." Erratas are reserved for cards that are OP or just plain don't work, not because of intentions.
-
Errata's are to make sure that an effect does what it's meant to do, or (for cards like AnB) to make cards less powerful for over powered cards only. (ie AnB, Golgotha, etc.)
-
Errata's are to make sure that an effect does what it's meant to do, or (for cards like AnB) to make cards less powerful for over powered cards only. (ie AnB, Golgotha, etc.)
No, the official stance on erratas is to fix cards that straight up don't work as worded:
The Rabshakeh Attacks (Ki)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Pale Green • Ability: 5 / 0 • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard all but one Hero in battle. Cannot be negated by an Assyrian. • Errata: Discard all but one Hero in battle. Cannot be negated if used by an Assyrian.
Or to fix cards that are overpowered, such as ANB or Mayhem.
Split Altar was determined to be neither of these. It did not do what it was supposed to, but it still worked as worded.
-
FWIW, that one would in theory work as worded. I would be against it's errata.
-
This is exactly what I'm saying, play cards how they read on the card (and expand the rule that if part of a name is mentioned without limitation, then all versions of that card (or other characters with the same name) should be affected by that card)
It makes the game more familiar with other game players (albeit by a tiny bit) and help draw them in a bit more, plus its a rule that's really not needed. I mean who knows if the Salome that went to the tomb was actually Herod Antipas' daughter as well and was converted to christianity after hearing Christ at some point? No one knows if they could be the same person or if they weren't except for God.
-
This is exactly what I'm saying, play cards how they read on the card (and expand the rule that if part of a name is mentioned without limitation, then all versions of that card (or other characters with the same name) should be affected by that card)
It makes the game more familiar with other game players (albeit by a tiny bit) and help draw them in a bit more, plus its a rule that's really not needed. I mean who knows if the Salome that went to the tomb was actually Herod Antipas' daughter as well and was converted to christianity after hearing Christ at some point? No one knows if they could be the same person or if they weren't except for God.
No, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that cards can't refer to specific cards, but instead refer to a pantheon of similar cards. Well, not a pantheon, but it's a cool word, so 3 is a pantheon for now.
Bad argument. The burden of proof lies on arguing that she was indeed at the tomb. No proof, no TGT hero.
-
Small interjection: I have now semi-successively merged topics (goofed the names up in the merge). The background to this discussion is in the first section. Then Megamanlan's OP to this thread is about 3/4 down the page...and now your current discussion has the full background to Megamanlan's thoughts. I hope it is not too confusing after the merge.....
Carry on. :police:
-
I was wondering if an Elder could respond to my suggestion (quoted below). Or has that ruling already been overturned?
We have always played (and should continue to play) that who the person was in the Bible is what determines the use of the card's SA. Really, the only inconsistency is with King David and the use of Promised Land. That ruling was based loosely on Abram vs. Abraham. However, Abraham is a distinct part of the card, much like Saul/Paul, and should therefore be the only exception.
I think we simply need to revisit the King David ruling. Any mention of David or King David should apply to all David cards, for consistency.
Basically, I think David (red or green) should be allowed to use Promised Land without limit. I believe that this is the only exception to the current overarching rule of going by the person rather than the card title. Abram/Abraham is already a unique card that has its own definition of how to know if it is one or the other. However we could also rule that Abram gets to use Promised Land without limit, to be consistent with the overarching rule. Otherwise we perpetuate threads, like this one, where people cry out "Inconsistent!"
I'm just not so sure that making an exception to the overarching rule just for one card (Promised Land) is worth it.
-
This is exactly what I'm saying, play cards how they read on the card (and expand the rule that if part of a name is mentioned without limitation, then all versions of that card (or other characters with the same name) should be affected by that card)
It makes the game more familiar with other game players (albeit by a tiny bit) and help draw them in a bit more, plus its a rule that's really not needed. I mean who knows if the Salome that went to the tomb was actually Herod Antipas' daughter as well and was converted to christianity after hearing Christ at some point? No one knows if they could be the same person or if they weren't except for God.
No, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that cards can't refer to specific cards, but instead refer to a pantheon of similar cards. Well, not a pantheon, but it's a cool word, so 3 is a pantheon for now.
Bad argument. The burden of proof lies on arguing that she was indeed at the tomb. No proof, no TGT hero.
That's not what I'm saying, I am saying that cards that state a single name (like Joseph) it refers to all Characters that have that name, (Joseph, Joseph the Carpenter, and Joseph of Aramethea) but if it specifically states a card (like OT Joseph) then it is for that specific card. But more generally it's also saying that like with Split Altar, it was supposed to shuffle all Artifact Piles but it only shuffles all active Artifacts by the actual card. So this rule says that you always go by what the card actually says not on what it was intended to do.
But this is also expanding the rule that says that if part of a name is used (ie David) then cards that have that name in the title (King David) are included as proper targets for a card that mentions that part of the name (David). But a card that specifically mentions a card (ie. can be used by King David) it doesn't allow it to be used by a character with a similar name (David) and get the same effect.
I think that also answers your question YMT.
-
...so what you're saying is that cards can't refer to specific cards by their title, and instead have to add identifiers. Still seems silly.
-
They can note by proper titles: like a card that states Saul can target Saul/Paul (if he is Saul) and King Saul. But if it mentions King Saul then it can only affect King Saul not Saul/Paul.
-
I think that also answers your question YMT.
No it doesn't, because you are not an Elder. Also, I completely disagree with your proposal, and I hope it never becomes the ruling.
-
The official ruling in regards to your question, YMT, is that if a card refers to King David, it can only target the King David card. The same is true of King Manasseh (I.e. the new King Amon won't work with the old Prophets Manasseh in the dc pile). I wouldn't be opposed to a change, but I don't really see any inconsistency either.
As for the proposal, there is not nor will there likely be any discussion for changing the rule as it is. While suggestions to improve the game are always welcomed, I don't see any reason why this change should be made, and I don't know of any elders who do.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
-
The official ruling in regards to your question, YMT, is that if a card refers to King David, it can only target the King David card. The same is true of King Manasseh (I.e. the new King Amon won't work with the old Prophets Manasseh in the dc pile). I wouldn't be opposed to a change, but I don't really see any inconsistency either.
The inconsistency is with the overarching rule that who the person is supercedes the card title. This is evident with the Salome/TGT issue, as well as why Saul/Paul (as Saul) cannot block Saul/Paul (as Paul). Card title is ruled as secondary to the person's actual Bibilical identity. And yet, we rule King David differently. We go by card title first, person second. Why?
-
It's not a question of first/second, it's that descriptors matter and personhood matters. Anything referring to Esau would work for both Esau and Esau the Hunter, but anything referring to Esau the Hunter specifically would only work for that particular one of Esau.
If there were to be a series of David prints into David the Psalmist, David the Giantslayer, King David and David the Seer (or something of the like), it'd be good to be able to target and refer to individual ones. I know that's somewhat hypothetical, but King David already exists, and sometimes things that he only did once he was already King refer to him at the exclusion of other David versions.
-
I understand that, but I think it is confusing to new players, especially those that know the Bible. I see no reason to have inconsistent rulings. If we are claiming that the person's identity is what matters for Salome, then that should be true for all versions of David.
-
Apples and oranges. TGT does not use any titles in its SA, just names (it's not John the Revelator, Pope Peter I, etc.) with the exception of MMoJ whose title is just used to distinguish her from the many other Marys in the NT. Identity matters for naming people, and titles matter for naming specific cards. TGT names people, King Amon names a specific card.
-
Also YMT, the point I was explaining that I mentioned answered your question is the current ruling.
The rule is that if a card notes a specific title (King David) it is only for that specific Card nothing else.
-
who knows if the Salome that went to the tomb was actually Herod Antipas' daughter as well and was converted to christianity after hearing Christ at some point?
I'd just like to say that I've never really thought about this before, but now that I think about it I really hope this is true. It would be really nice if she DID end up becoming a Christian rather than just ending her life in the same place spiritually that she was in at her most famous moment.
As for the proposal, there is not nor will there likely be any discussion for changing the rule as it is. While suggestions to improve the game are always welcomed, I don't see any reason why this change should be made, and I don't know of any elders who do.
+1
-
For what it's worth, I would support a change in that particular rule from "cards referring to David include King David, while cards referring to King David do not include David" to simply "all versions of David can be used by all cards referencing David" (this would extend to any other similar characters). While it's not an overly complicated piece to explain to new players, it's just one more thing to memorize, and it doesn't serve much purpose as far as I can tell.
-
I would actually argue that it might confuse more people with that suggestion then just updating the card to be correct.
-
For what it's worth, I would support a change in that particular rule from "cards referring to David include King David, while cards referring to King David do not include David" to simply "all versions of David can be used by all cards referencing David" (this would extend to any other similar characters). While it's not an overly complicated piece to explain to new players, it's just one more thing to memorize, and it doesn't serve much purpose as far as I can tell.
I guess that is what I am getting at. How many cards would actually be affected by this change?
It's not a question of first/second, it's that descriptors matter and personhood matters.
Where is "descriptor" defined, exactly? ;)
It's only apples and orange to you. For a new player, they are likely to assume that Esau the Hunter is a different person than Esau, just like John the Baptist is a different person than John. I think it was silly to add such "descriptors." I think we should avoid any future ones and stick to the overarching rule for "card titles" in that personhood is the only thing that matters for targetting.