Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I was playing a game with Gabe today when he told me that I couldn't have Seraphim and SwaLC in play at the same time. He was saying they were the same unique character. But Seraphim is generic and has a different verse. So can I have them in play at the same time?



Seraph with a Live Coal (FF2)

Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 6 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may discard an evil card in your territory to search deck or discard pile for an Isaiah 6 Enhancement. May band to Isaiah. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT Male Angel • Verse: Isaiah 6:6 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers Extended booster packs (None)

Seraphim (to Blue) (Wa)

Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 5 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: May band to any Blue Brigade Hero. • Identifiers: Generic OT Male Angel • Verse: Isaiah 6:2 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Common)

I also dispute this ruling. Seraph with a Live Coal is a very different name than Seraphim. They have different verses (just because Philetus was meant to be 5/6 and Gabriel was meant to have a different ability doesn't mean they're played as if they do), one is generic and one is unique, the name is pretty significantly different, and they have different special abilities. Pretty much the only thing they have in common is the picture.

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/seraphseraphim-confusion/

Personally I think that they should be generic and you should be able to have them both in your deck but that's just me.

The reference has never had anything to do with whether 2 cards are considered the same.  Neither has the special ability.  Please don't try to insert those into this discussion.  While you are at it, you can also leave out strength/toughness, flipping of art, zooming of art, border color, and thickness of card stock.  None of those matter for determining whether 2 cards are considered the same.  There is only one rule that applies to these two cards:

Same Art + Same Title = same card.

Singular/Plural has been "same title" since 1995/1996, when Locust/Locusts from the Pit released.
More/Less specificity in the title has been "same title" since Priests, when Angel at Tomb and Angel at THE Tomb released.

This is nothing new.

For consistency, though, should the angel carrying the live coal be unique in both versions?

More/Less specificity in the title has been "same title" since Priests, when Angel at Tomb and Angel at THE Tomb released.

So prepositional phrases are "specificity" now? Grammatically speaking, a sentence with a prepositional phrase and one without are very different sentences.

For consistency, though, should the angel carrying the live coal be unique in both versions?

If they're the same card, they should have the same identifiers. That much seems obvious....

Other elders have already explained that names are considered the same

No, actually, they haven't. They've said that they're the same, but they haven't explained anything. Bryon harps the word "specificity" and the Angel at (the) Tomb example. There are (at least) 2 problems with this:

1) "Specificity", as far as I know, has never been a consideration in titles being the same (plurality yes, "specificity" no) prior to now. Is there a Redemption definition of "specificity"? Where in the rulebook does the word "specificity" appear in regards to comparing titles for same card-ness?

2) The verse on the angels at (the) tomb very clearly demonstrates that it is, and always has been, one unique angel. It is the angel that rolled away the stone at Jesus' tomb. I don't think anyone's denying that it is a unique and specific angel. This is not the case with Isaiah 6:6. The verse actually talks about two very separate groups of angels: "the seraphim" and the one "having a live coal in his hand". One is a group (generic) and the other is a separate, specifically mentioned one from that group (unique). If you have a group of people and one of them is wearing a red shirt, saying "Hey groupies" is NOT the same as saying "Hey groupie with the red shirt," so I really don't see why you're treating them as such. Seraphim is generic, which only serves to prove my point. The Warriors card is referring to the group of "Seraphim" in name and identifiers whereas the new card is referring to the specifically mentioned "Seraph with a Live Coal" 'in his hand'. They are separate entities (one is a group, the other a single entity) so it doesn't seem logical or proper to errata the older one just to (presumably) balance the newer one. Because that's the only reason I can see for this whole hullabaloo of "specificity" and "herp derp, 'Seraphim' is magically the same title as 'Seraph with a Live Coal.'" If I'm wrong about the reason, feel free to correct me.

In all my years of both card games and grammar in general, I have never had anyone else try to tell me that "Geese" and "Goose with the funny tail" are the same thing.

You may not like the ruling but you aren't going to change it. Your points have been addressed in this thread or the previous one. Maybe not to your satisfaction but they've been addressed. You're best to just move on...

This is like saying that Pharisees is the same as The Entrapping Pharisee (same name+same brigade). The Entrapping Pharisee is more specific and has a different plurality. Are Pharisees unique and the same card as The Proud Pharisee now? Is there any fault in my logic? Also, this hasn't been brought up before, so don't tell me it's resolved. This is new evidence.

Read point #2 of the Priest insert above...

Same name+same art, but one is generic. Smokey the Seraph and Seraphim are different.

The verse doesn't matter. Forget the verse. Drop it. It doesn't matter, it's just for cool reference to learn about the Bible, it has NO bearing on the Redemption rules of uniqueness.

Actually, he has said that the verse doesn't matter for determining if 2 cards are the same or not for deck-building, but it's inherently important (and the only way to know) when determining whether a specific character is unique or generic (which is what I was doing as a counter point in that post: if one is unique and one generic then they can't logically be the same card). Nice try, though.
 
 

You may not like the ruling but you aren't going to change it. Your points have been addressed in this thread or the previous one. Maybe not to your satisfaction but they've been addressed. You're best to just move on...

Again, Bryon has responded that verses don't matter when determining if 2 different cards are treated as the same for deck-building, which has nothing to do with what I said in my "wall of text".

And again I ask what grammatical rules, or even Redemption rulebook rules (since none have yet been posted), say that "Geese" and "Goose with the funny tail" should be treated as the same? Bryon mentioned "specificity" in his post but provided no logical backing or rulebook quotes to support that it has ever been part of the reasoning for "same card-ness". You posted the rules from the Priests insert (which is when Bryon said "specificity" began being used) which says nothing about "specificity" in card titles. I really don't see how anything I've said has been "addressed" since nothing you guys have posted even relates to my points at all. You, like lightningninja, seem to have completely missed the whole point of point 2) in my "wall of text" thread. I was trying to show that Seraphim is generic, because it's a group, and Seraph/waLC is unique, because he's called out as separate, in order to prove that since one is unique and one generic they can't possibly be the same card. Maybe you could, you know, respond to that...

tl;dr (for those of you that dislike "walls of text"): All I'm looking for is why "specificity" (especially when considering that one is generic and one unique, and that it's an entire prepositional phrase (as opposed to just "the")) is suddenly the magic word for why "Geese" and "Goose with the funny tail" are somehow the same thing. I've never before heard that term used in any circumstances in Redemption, so I'm wondering where it came from (especially if Bryon is correct that it's been around since Priests). I'm trying to understand the ruling, so please help me do so.

Specificity examples for browarod:

Angel at Tomb is the same card as Angel at THE Tomb.  If you get specific about WHICH tomb, it doesn't change the fact that they are the same card for deck building.

Bear and THE Bear are the same card for deck building.  Same as Manasseh/King Manasseh, Ahab/King Ahab, etc.

We have thousands of cards in Redemption.  Can you give me one example of two different characters in the same brigade that have the same art?