Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 01, 2011, 07:43:10 PM
-
Okay, I completely forgot how this was ruled in the past, and the REG just confused me even more. Which of these can be in the same deck together?
Seraphim (to Green) (Wa)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 5 / 5 • Class: None • Special Ability: May band to any Green Brigade Hero. • Identifiers: Generic OT Male Angel • Verse: Isaiah 6:6 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Common)
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)
Seraph (RA)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 5 / 5 • Class: None • Special Ability: May band to a green brigade Prophet. Cannot be negated by an evil card. • Identifiers: OT Male Angel • Verse: Isaiah 6:2 • Availability: Rock of Ages booster packs (None)
Note the references and generic/unique differences... who is who here? why is one unique and one generic even with the same reference?
-
I think a Blue and either one of the Green can go into a deck.
-
All three can go in the same deck.
They have different names, abilities, numbers (?) and art
-
80% certain that Seraph and Seraphim (Band Green) can NOT go in the same deck.
100% that Seraphim (Band Green) and Seraphim (Band Blue) CAN go in the same deck.
about 65% certain that Seraph and Seraphim (Band Blue) CAN go in the same deck.
100% certain that [EDITED BY R.O.S.E.S] and Seraphim (Band Blue) can NOT go in the same deck.
-
80% certain that Seraph and Seraphim (Band Green) can NOT go in the same deck.
Why not? I can have King David and David in the same deck. I can have Ezekiel and The Watchman in the same deck (although I am not sure why I would want to). Why are Seraph and Seraphim different?
-
I'd agree that they should be able to go in the same deck. Different name and generic, meets no requirements for uniqueness restrictions.
-
Yeah, that's cool beans, I was under the impression that Seraph said 'Same unique character as Seraphim' or something of the sort.... Bad recall on my part, sorry.
-
Bumping this now that I can actually ask the question in full:
How many seraphs / seraphims can I have in my Isaiah decks?
-
the white card that comes with the Kings(?) says
1) Character cards with the same title and the same art are considered duplicates for deck building
2) Character cards with the same title and the same brigade are considered duplicate characters unless they are a generic character and have differant art
-
the white card that comes with the Kings(?) says
1) Character cards with the same title and the same art are considered duplicates for deck building
2) Character cards with the same title and the same brigade are considered duplicate characters unless they are a generic character and have differant art
AFAIK, this is still correct. Thus, I believe you can have Seraphim (band to blue), Seraphim (band to green), Seraph, and Seraph with a Live Coal all in the same deck. Only two have the same title, but they have different art and are generic.
However, only one version of Cherubim is allowed, since they have the same title, brigade, and art.
-
Unfortuantly, He is the first silver-on-silver band, and I won't be able to use him as such...
(I don't do/hate doing T2)
*Edit* This new Seraphim has the same (but flipped) art as the warriors Seraphim, does that mean anything?
*Edit Again* Oh, yeah, he has a differant name, never mind.
-
Alright, just linking the images for clarification:
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSeraph%2520%28RA%29.gif&hash=4a7a2b5d09df386b8023d0b803215a7656a00106)(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSeraph%2520with%2520a%2520Live%2520Coal%2520%28FF2%29.gif&hash=9d0efab41cd2ee22547b6912476d351fa89795fe)
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSeraphim%2520%28to%2520Blue%29%2520%28Wa%29.gif&hash=36aa1f06aef4bd81788f69464f731f22e0c2ecbf)(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSeraphim%2520%28to%2520Green%29%2520%28Wa%29.gif&hash=ddd74a93e36425e74d9955cd03be19a42cbe717b)
All 4 can be in the same deck? I just wanna make sure my deck is legal. :P
-
Alright, just linking the images for clarification:
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSeraph%2520%28RA%29.gif&hash=4a7a2b5d09df386b8023d0b803215a7656a00106)(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSeraph%2520with%2520a%2520Live%2520Coal%2520%28FF2%29.gif&hash=9d0efab41cd2ee22547b6912476d351fa89795fe)
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSeraphim%2520%28to%2520Blue%29%2520%28Wa%29.gif&hash=36aa1f06aef4bd81788f69464f731f22e0c2ecbf)(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSeraphim%2520%28to%2520Green%29%2520%28Wa%29.gif&hash=ddd74a93e36425e74d9955cd03be19a42cbe717b)
All 4 can be in the same deck? I just wanna make sure my deck is legal. :P
lolwat?
I thought Seraph was silver.
-
And all 4 are generic, aren't they?
-
Seraphim is a plural term, whereas Seraph is singular. Personally I don't consider them (Seraph plus Seraphim/Green) different titles any more than The Bear is different from Bear or Angel at the Tomb is different from Angel at Tomb. I do think Seraph with a Live Coal is sufficiently different (from Seraphim/Blue), however, and that it solves the problem the old cards had, about distinguishing between two very different cards with identical names.
But don't take that as the full weight of law unless a consensus forms behind my statement.
-
Seraphim is a plural term, whereas Seraph is singular. Personally I don't consider them (Seraph plus Seraphim/Green) different titles any more than The Bear is different from Bear or Angel at the Tomb is different from Angel at Tomb. I do think Seraph with a Live Coal is sufficiently different (from Seraphim/Blue), however, and that it solves the problem the old cards had, about distinguishing between two very different cards with identical names.
But don't take that as the full weight of law unless a consensus forms behind my statement.
Actually, I agree with Schaef, I think the two Seraphim that band to green/prophets would be the same card, because Seraph and Seraphim really are essentially the same title.
-
Why don't you just make them all legal?
They have different abilities and (biblically speaking) there were a lot of seraphs so you can rule they're referring to different angels :P
-
The Bear and Bear are different from Seraph and Seriphim because The Bear/Bear speaks of one unique character (Morg/Morgan) as Seraph/Seraphim speak of one generic angel compared to a multitude of generic angels. Very different in my book.
-
I don't see it that way at all. Locust from the Pit is the same card despite being generic. And the Seraphim card only depicts a single angel in the art. Nearly everything else about the two cards is the same: the brigade, the art, the scripture. The singular Seraph is simply more grammatically correct.
-
I don't see it that way at all. Locust from the Pit is the same card despite being generic. And the Seraphim card only depicts a single angel in the art. Nearly everything else about the two cards is the same: the brigade, the art, the scripture. The singular Seraph is simply more grammatically correct.
Actually, the the pairs that have the same art have different verses.
-
That's weird, I never realized they had flipped the verses. In any event, matching Scripture is not on the list of things to match cards; it's just another common thread among (most but apparently not all) reprints.
-
Locusts from the Pit is the same card as
Locust from the Pit.
Plural doesn't count as a different card if the art is the same.
As for the more specific name (Seraph with Live Coal), I always assumed that the cards would be the same (just like Angel at Tomb and Angel at THE Tomb). I see the point raised by others about the name looking even more different, but I don't know if we need to allow those to be same. I thought Isaiah was plenty strong without the extra Seraph.
-
It shouldnt be about whether it makes another card stronger or not...
I understand where you guys are coming from, however Seriphim and Seraph isnt close enough in my book to justify it being the same card due to the name.
-
Because of grammatical consistency?
-
I personally don't think foreign grammar applies.
-
I thought Isaiah was plenty strong without the extra Seraph.
I'm back. I'll never be happy about the crimes against ANB, but I'm back.
Maybe.
I'm 80% certain.
But also 15% doubtful.
What if I swear to never leave the game again, have lots of tournaments, and give loads of free cards to RLKs? Then could we have the ANB erratas removed?
;D
-
Stamp, so you really just wanted to see green get a boost, eh not just ANB? I think your will is wavering. ;)
-
Because of grammatical consistency?
Schaef, Your gaming knowledge and hands on application abounds; however I dont see how you can consider these two cards the same. YES, the have the same artwork, and brigade; but different name and scripture verse.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fredemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSeraphim%2520%28to%2520Green%29%2520%28Wa%29.gif&hash=726cfbbfc0fe3dcfd8308c313de6b8c1e6eb3037) (https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fredemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSeraph%2520%28RA%29.gif&hash=21ed6c3eaff93d99f18189862bf4c4cd649b18a1)
For Gaming purposes there needs to be some errata given to say these two cards are the same.
-
The art isn't the same. The centering and background along with color is different on seraph.
-
Schaef, Your gaming knowledge and hands on application abounds; however I dont see how you can consider these two cards the same. YES, the have the same artwork, and brigade; but different name and scripture verse.
Scripture is not listed as a criterion for tagging two cards as being the same, else the OT and NT Michael would both be allowed together.
And I have asked you why a minor grammatical difference makes these two inexorably different to you, when Locust/Locusts from the Pit, Bear/The Bear, and Angel at Tomb/... The Tomb are all the same cards, respectively.
-
Hey I personally think other than in tombs case they should be different cards.
-
The art isn't the same. The centering and background along with color is different on seraph.
by that logic the fact that the art is flipped on many of the the RoA(E) and FOOF(E) card combined with the brigade changes would mean they would be different card
(e.g. : Drawn sword
New (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Drawn%20Sword%20-%20evil%20(FF2).gif)
Old (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Drawn%20Sword%20(Pr).gif) )
And I have asked you why a minor grammatical difference makes these two inexorably different
a short addition to the REG could be made if needed. somthing to the effect of " card titles which differ only by the words A, An, or The(e.g. Angel at tomb/Angel at the tomb etc.) or by Singularity or Pluralty (e.g. Seraph.Seraphim, Locust/Locusts etc.) or are ruled by a Elder to be such are the same cards for deck building purposes"
But i think seraph/seraphim should be separate cards
-
I really don't understand why. It's an obvious reprint, and all that was done was to give it a new ability and fix (not change, FIX) the name to properly reflect the artwork. It's not like we're talking about Fourth Living Creature here.
-
I dont think it should be considered the same card if it has a new ability.
-
I dont think it should be considered the same card if it has a new ability.
So Warriors Gabe and Kings Gabe are not the same card?
-
I personally don't think foreign grammar applies.
So that's why you had two Son of Gods in your deck! :o
--------------
New question:
Can I have Seraphim and Serapher in the same deck?
-
Can I have Seraphim and Seraphur in the same deck?
Added redemption puns make everything better.
-
Only if you use Journey to Sweeden.
-
Only if you use Journey to Sweeden.
New Seraph art?
The Muppets: Pöpcørn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7UmUX68KtE#ws)
-
sorry im getting confused, which ones are all allowed in the same deck?
side note= for those that dont know there is another isaiah angel out there other than these 4: angel of His presence
-
I dont think it should be considered the same card if it has a new ability.
So Warriors Gabe and Kings Gabe are not the same card?
Same art...
-
I dont think it should be considered the same card if it has a new ability.
So Warriors Gabe and Kings Gabe are not the same card?
Same art...
Same copyright...
-
If the ART is the same, and the TITLES are the same, then the cards are the same.
Note about ART: zooming and flipping and color value don't qualify as different art.
Note about TITLE: singular/plural/added specificity still count as same title <- this has been true since 1995 when Locust/Locusts were printed.
Can anyone find even one case where that is ruled differently?
The reference exchange on the Seraphim cards were to fix the error on the Warriors cards. The Warriors versions had each others' references.
Locusts from the Pit is the same card as
Locust from the Pit.
Plural doesn't count as a different card if the art is the same.
This is absolutely true. This will not change. Duplicates (with special abilities) will not be allowed in Type 1 decks of less than 50 cards.
As for the more specific name (Seraph with Live Coal), I always assumed that the cards would be the same (just like Angel at Tomb and Angel at THE Tomb).
I am still convinced that this is true, but am curious what the other elders think about this.
-
Going by this thread and rulings in the past. With Seraph and Seraphim being the same character for deck building rules. Shouldn't Seraph be listed as generic since Seraphim (band to green) is?
-
So, can we get a final confirmation on this? If possible, can we get a quick list of which seraphs can all be in the same deck?
-
Going by this thread and rulings in the past. With Seraph and Seraphim being the same character for deck building rules. Shouldn't Seraph be listed as generic since Seraphim (band to green) is?
I believe so.
So, can we get a final confirmation on this? If possible, can we get a quick list of which seraphs can all be in the same deck?
I agree with Bryon that only one of the standing seraphs (band to green, band to prophet) and one of the flying seraphs (band to blue, with a live coal) should be allowed in the same deck. So you can choose one of each artwork, but not both of either artwork.
-
I agree with Bryon that only one of the standing seraphs (band to green, band to prophet) and one of the flying seraphs (band to blue, with a live coal) should be allowed in the same deck. So you can choose one of each artwork, but not both of either artwork.
So, just to confirm, I can have Seraph (band to green prophet) AND Seraph with a Live Coal AND Cherubim (RA2) in the same deck?
-
I agree with Bryon that only one of the standing seraphs (band to green, band to prophet) and one of the flying seraphs (band to blue, with a live coal) should be allowed in the same deck. So you can choose one of each artwork, but not both of either artwork.
So, just to confirm, I can have Seraph (band to green prophet) AND Seraph with a Live Coal AND Cherubim (RA2) in the same deck?
Those are all for sure, yes.
-
I think you should be able to have Mr. Coal and the blue bander in the same deck. I mean, are Joseph and Joseph the Carpenter considered the same character? ::)
-
I think you should be able to have Mr. Coal and the blue bander in the same deck. I mean, are Joseph and Joseph the Carpenter considered the same character? ::)
No, but they don't have the same picture or reference (I know that the blue bander has a different reference on the card, but that was clearly an error).
-
I think you should be able to have Mr. Coal and the blue bander in the same deck. I mean, are Joseph and Joseph the Carpenter considered the same character? ::)
No, but they don't have the same picture or reference (I know that the blue bander has a different reference on the card, but that was clearly an error).
Does that mean blue's value just went up, since he's an error card now? I'll sell you mine for twice its TLG value!
-
I think you should be able to have Mr. Coal and the blue bander in the same deck. I mean, are Joseph and Joseph the Carpenter considered the same character? ::)
No, but they don't have the same picture or reference (I know that the blue bander has a different reference on the card, but that was clearly an error).
Does that mean blue's value just went up, since he's an error card now? I'll sell you mine for twice its TLG value!
I'll trade you my Alexander the Coopersmith for your Seraphim. Both of them are errors. The problem is there are none in existence that are correct.
-
I think you should be able to have Mr. Coal and the blue bander in the same deck. I mean, are Joseph and Joseph the Carpenter considered the same character? ::)
No, but they don't have the same picture or reference (I know that the blue bander has a different reference on the card, but that was clearly an error).
If this is being ruled as an exception to the current deck building rules due to the fact that the verse printing was "in error", then can Seeker of the Lost be ruled the Luke Hero she was /supposed/ to be when printed? :D
-
More importantly, is AoCP now a Matthew enhancement?
-
The fact that these Seraphs are the same has nothing to do with the reference. I have no idea why the reference is even being discussed, as it has never been part of the discussion as to whether two cards are considered the same.
All that matters is Title, Art, and Brigade.
Titles are the same regardless of plural and added specificity.
Art is the same regardless of flipping the image or zooming.
If the title and art match, they are the same card.
-
I have no idea why the reference is even being discussed, as it has never been part of the discussion as to whether two cards are considered the same.
I think people are just mixing the rules with Name-on-Name bonus (i.e. Huge Egyptian and Egyptian Spear).
-
If the title and art match, they are the same card.
Or the title and brigade, right? e.g. Michael and Michael?
-
Same Art + Same Title = same card. This is true for ALL characters and enhancements. See King of Tyrus (Gold vs. Orange). See also Gibeonite Trickery (brown vs. black).
Same Title + Same Brigade = same card. This is true for enhancements and UNIQUE characters. See Gabriel (Warriors vs Disciples). See also Ointment (Warriors? vs. Deck C?)
Same Generic Title + Different art = different card. This is true for Generic characters only. See Pharisees, Pharisees, Pharisees.
Different art + Different Brigade = different card. This is true for characters and enhancements. See Bow and Arrow (good gold) and Bow and Arrow (gray). See also David (red) and David (green). See also Fortify Site (gray) and Fortify Site (black).
-
I have no idea why the reference is even being discussed, as it has never been part of the discussion as to whether two cards are considered the same.
I think people are just mixing the rules with Name-on-Name bonus (i.e. Huge Egyptian and Egyptian Spear).
Ah. That is probably it.
If the title and art match, they are the same card.
Or the title and brigade, right? e.g. Michael and Michael?
Right, but that is for unique characters only. Multiple Pharisees with DIFFERENT ART are OK, because they are generic. Multiple Gabriels or Michaels are not, even with different art.
-
Seraphim (blue) and Seraphim (green) are both generic, while the two reprints are unique. Does this effect deck building at all?
-
I had brought up the unique generic difference in my first post as well.