[FreakShiny]

Originally Posted by Nate

It can also be terribly hurtful.

Always a cynic...

Oh... btw... the fact that I own over 2000 Magic: The Gathering cards and play frequently doesn't mean anything... nope... absolutely nothing at all.

And, to stay on topic, from what I have seen of Redemption, it actually looks like a pretty cool card game. The only bad thing about card games is that it is incredibly easy to sink a lot of $$$ into them. I lucked out and got a whole slew of M:TG cards from a friend for CHEAP but I know people who have easily spent over $1000 over the years just on M:TG cards! A bit excessive but whatever!

[zekthedeadcow]

I still have my old MtG cards... homelands and earlier mostly... my friends and I will still break 'em out everyonce in a while...I usually played with a white/artifact deck and would win by going over 40 HP...which is an often ignored rule and probably recinded by now... even have the little wizard HP counter thing...

Also play AD&D sometimes though I don't like the system... tried the Starwars D20 but it's too similar to AD&D Starwars D6 was fun and I found an X-COM one based on oldskool D&D... my absolute favorite was the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle/After The Bomb series... it's what I started on but I don't have any of the books. I also have the gamescience 100 sided die ... I don't know which is worse... there being a 100 sided die or my willingness to pay $10 for one...

Then theres the MUDs ... was coding my own SMAUG one for a bit but lost interest...

...maybe I need a life...

[Mattlock]

Originally Posted by Sunkist

Haha... I personally am not particularly fond of those kinds of games, but I'm glad that there is a Christian one for people who like that sort of thing.

Yes, see the Christian version of magicard. Its not a ministry tool, buddy, its a marketing ploy so the company can make money. I have no problem with them making money, but please, don't use Gods word to do so.

[Mr.Zachcore]

why do they say "christian version of Magic" ? That is pretty dumb. That is like those stupid comparison charts they have for bands.

[FreakShiny]

Originally Posted by skilletswitch

Yes, see the Christian version of magicard. Its not a ministry tool, buddy, its a marketing ploy so the company can make money. I have no problem with them making money, but please, don't use Gods word to do so.

Hmmm... guess Pastors shouldn't be paid then. I guess those great guys at Big Idea who make Veggie Tales should shut down then, too. Oh... and all of those companies that print and sell copies of The Bible? Yup... they should just stop, too.

All of those people, after all, make money using God's word. How dare they! The Bible even says, "Thou shalt not make money spreading the gospel," doesn't it?

Realistically, there is a difference between exploiting the Word of God and sharing it through a business. The people who make the Redemption CCG are doing nothing but providing a Christian alternative to something that many Christians find offensive. There is nothing wrong with providing a good, wholesome product for Christians to edify them and make money at it. Just like there is nothing wrong with Pastors being paid a salary.

[Jonular]

Why many Christians find Magic: The Gathering cards offensive is way beyond me.

Moving to the card game forum.

~Jon

[WintryFrenchie]

Originally Posted by Nate

Is there a holographic Samson card, with him carrying an ass's jawbone?? How about one with a full-color picture of David carrying two hundred Philistine foreskins??? Oh wait... even better... Joseph running naked from Potiphar's wife.

I'm not as funny as I used to be.... but I think I'm a touch more cynical.

Or what about when God opened the mouth of the ass to speak to Balam? (holographic, of course). That could be like, +5 to your shock value....

Do they have an evil card dedicated to Og, king of Bashan? That would be like... the bomb... he could have a + cow attack/moo-ing damage!

Originally Posted by Nate

Is there a holographic Samson card, with him carrying an ass's jawbone??

Technically, it would be ass'..... not ass's....

[Legolas]

Originally Posted by WintryFrenchie

Or what about when God opened the mouth of the ass to speak to Balam? (holographic, of course). That could be like, +5 to your shock value....

Do they have an evil card dedicated to Og, king of Bashan? That would be like... the bomb... he could have a + cow attack/moo-ing damage!



Technically, it would be ass'..... not ass's....

Actually, both are acceptable.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Legolas

Actually, both are acceptable.

Actually, I've heard that the official rule (don't ask me who makes these official rules "official") is that the apostrophe by itself is only correct when used after "Jesus" or "Socrates" (I don't know why it's just those two, but that's what I've heard) and that the additional "s" should be used after everything else.

I'll see if I can find something that supports that.

In His love,
Nate

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Nate

I'll see if I can find something that supports that.

From what I am finding, here are the rules:

1) Always use an apostrophe followed by an "s" when showing possession for a singular noun, except when the added "s" makes pronunciation difficult. (examples: " kid's ", " Bob's ", " dog's ", etc; but " Jesus' ", " Socrates' ", etc because the pronunciation is difficult)

2) Use an apostrophe alone when showing possession for a regular plural noun (one that ends in "s"). (examples: " kids' ", " dogs' ", " asses' ", etc)

3) Use an apostrophe followed by an "s" when showing possession for an irregular plural noun. (examples: " children's ", " geese's ", " mice's ", etc)

If that's al right, then my original usage was correct.

In His love,
Nate

[WintryFrenchie]

They didn't say that Socrates or Jesus were the only times when the apostrophe rule would apply. Those were just examples of what to do when a word ends with an "s" naturally (in my opinion adding an apostope-s to any word ending in "s" would make pronounciation difficult). Just look at what you typed:

Originally Posted by Nate

Use an apastrophe alone when showing possession for a regular plural noun (one that ends in "s"). (examples: "kids'", "dogs', "asses', etc)

Obviously plural nouns aren't the only nouns ending in "s", but I believe the parenthesis in bold apply to any noun ending with an "s".

Point:

Originally Posted by Nate

Always use an apostrophe followed by an "s" when showing possession for a singular noun, except when the added "s" makes pronounciation difficult.

I believe saying, "ass's" would be difficult- but that just may be me.
I had always been taught that any word ending in an "s" just got an apostrophe, omiting the "s". So, if indeed you're right, then good for your.

If I'm right, however, then... na na na na naaaa!!!! *sticks tounge out*

[FreakShiny]

Hey, guys... we're talking about how evil CCG's are, here. Try to stay on this important topic.