Cactus Game Design Message Boards

In the REG, Visualizer, and REG updates threads (I cannot search Rulings ATM, that seems to be down on the site), Saul and David are not listed as Kings of Judah.  They obviously were.

King Saul was anointed King of all Israel before the thrones of Judah and Israel were divided, and David was also explicitly anointed King of Judah before being King of all Israel and Judah.

Can this be updated, as it actually matters for certain cards?

I agree with Alex.

They obviously weren't. You can't be King of something that didn't exist. Argument could be made for David but I personally them as weak, because again, Judah did not exist yet.

The country of Judah did not exist, but David and Saul were kings over the Tribe of Judah.  Also I say that David at least should be a king of Judah since he was made king over Judah before he was king over all of Israel.

The country of Judah did not exist, but David and Saul were kings over the Tribe of Judah.  Also I say that David at least should be a king of Judah since he was made king over Judah before he was king over all of Israel.

The country of Judah did not exist because it had not split from Israel yet.  Various kings of England were still kings of other parts of the English Isles even if those places hadn't revolted and left the United Kingdom at the time of their rule.  Same thing applies in this case.

Judah did not exist as a separate country because it was a tribe of Israel.  Saul was king of all of the tribes of Israel, not just 11.

You would have to provide proof that Redemption defines King of Judah as anything but the country of Judah, of which there is no current proof (also I can't access to REG for some reason).

Nope, I would not.  It would have to be defined by the Elders because it is not currently defined. 

You'd be the one to have provide proof by that it defines the country , because it is not specified (checked the REG for you, does not say).

That would be like saying that George III was a ruler of the United States because they were colonies of England before they revolted and split away. George III didn't rule the United States, he ruled over the 13 Colonies which became the United States. They are two separate political entities. Just because Saul ruled over the Nation of Israel which happened to include the tribe of Judah doesn't make him the king of Judah. The Kingdom of Judah and the Tribe of Judah are two different things, otherwise we could have Kings of Benjamin, Dan, Issachar, etc...

For the same reason David can't be listed as a King of Judah, because the Kingdom of Judah didn't exist yet. He was crowned King in Hebron over the Tribe of Judah who refused to submit to the authority of Saul's son. David folded the Tribe of Judah back into the Kingdom of Israel upon the Death of Saul's son. My proof? Solomon was crowned king of Israel, not Israel and Judah.

To the first paragraph, your example is very flawed.  King George III was king of the British Americas.  If we had split with a new throne but stayed a monarchy, he still would have been a King of British America.  That he's not king of the US is a very different scenario, and, again, flawed logic.

The whole point of him being anointed king is that he was king of "Benjamin, Dan, Issachar, etc... ".  They don't have any game-play influence, however, and can be disregarded for Redemption purposes.  Saul was crowned king of all the tribes, not just 11.

On your second paragraph, that's like trying to say that various monarchs in British history who were crowned by different areas of the Isles in defiance of the rest were not monarchs of their regions.  This is actually where the split of Judah from Israel occurred, so it is absolutely against scripture to say there was no Judah.  They revolted and crowned David.  He was King of Judah.



Again, either the Elders will have to rule this or you'll have to prove that they intended "country of Judah after they revolted and crowned David" and not "tribe of Judah" or "country of Judah", because it is not clarified any more tightly than "Judah".

"King of Judah" in Redemption has always meant "King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah" beginning with Rehoboam. David and Saul have never been ruled as Kings of Judah, and that is intentional.

Chris, I understand that it has not been challenged but it is not defined is my point.

"King of Judah" in Redemption has always meant "King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah" beginning with Rehoboam. David and Saul have never been ruled as Kings of Judah, and that is intentional.

So we ignore II Samuel 5 where David is first crowned King of Judah, and that he ruled as King of Judah for seven and a half years because of gameplay purposes?  Where did this come from, and why is this a case where scripture would be ignored?

Like I said before, I can at least vaguely see an argument against Saul, even though I vehemently disagree.  David, however, was crowned as King of Judah, and his covenant with God had his descendents ever on its throne while God was obeyed.  I can see no reason whatsoever for David to be denied as King of Judah.

As a side note, I've been researching online and have found no source that did not refer to both as "King of Unified Israel and Judah" or "King of Israel and King of Judah" in some way.

"King of Judah" in Redemption has always meant "King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah" beginning with Rehoboam. David and Saul have never been ruled as Kings of Judah, and that is intentional.

P.S.  I'm not ignoring II Sam 5, I just see that as talking about David being King of the tribe of Judah.  I appreciate Redoubter's emphasis on Biblical accuracy.  It's just in this case that there is a nuance of definitions that has previously been decided to be significant enough to make this ruling.

To Prof Alstad:  Search is down, otherwise I would have tried to find those threads first.

P.S.  I'm not ignoring II Sam 5, I just see that as talking about David being King of the tribe of Judah.  I appreciate Redoubter's emphasis on Biblical accuracy.  It's just in this case that there is a nuance of definitions that has previously been decided to be significant enough to make this ruling.

I still don't understand why, if Judah separated itself from the Kingdom of Israel for 7 and a half years and had David as their king, that they would not be a country at that point by this definition, and a separate Kingdom altogether.  That's a long time for someone to be King without having a Kingdom.  And no one was anointed King of Judah by God without Judah being a Kingdom.

If this is the ruling of the Elders, I will enforce it as always when a judge, but I again restate my vehement opposition to this definition as it is contrary to scripture.

It is not contrary to scripture. The "southern kingdom of Judah" and David's reign over the tribe of Judah are two completely separate things, and the ruling reflects that.

Did Judah have no lands while he was their King?  And how was he anointed King without a Kingdom?  Judah did control the southern lands, it was a Kingdom, and the scriptures even say that "he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years." (direct quote from II Samuel 5)

If Judah was not separate why separate it in what he was King over.  If it was not separate, how did "he reigned over Judah seven years and six months". (direct quote from II Samuel 5)

All scriptural and scholarly evidence has David as a King of Judah, and I will always be against this ruling, even if I enforce it in-game because it has been ruled.

Just to note for all of you: the Country of Judah had two tribes in it: Judah and Benjamin.

I'm mixed on it, so I'll just watch and see the other arguments.

For point 1, I've already addressed that and showed that it is biblically established that David was a King of Judah for seven years.  It actually supports my argument that they were a separate country that two tribes went under "Judah".

On the second, there is no ruling question.  I am very upset that the gameplay effect of this identifier supersedes biblical purity, but the Elders have already given the ruling.

To simply dismiss our arguments is nothing short of insulting.

There are things that I would hold to be true and important in biblical accuracy.  That David was a King of Judah and the Davidic Covenant that came of that is actually very important to the fulfilling of prophecies through the end of Judah and beyond to Jesus' lineage.  And I have every right to be upset about this ruling, disagreement or no.

To dismiss my statement that the tribes of Benjamin and Judah declared David their King over the Kingdom of Judah, when I back this up with scripture, could be said to be equally insulting.  But I'm not insulted, I'm disappointed.  Mostly because I've seen no scriptural evidence to support the ruling, only debate over what is a nation, a tribe, a country, etc., and it seems to be implied that gameplay reasons dictate this ruling.