Author Topic: The zero card hand (Read 24552 times)

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #125 on:** January 20, 2011, 06:24:16 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on January 20, 2011, 06:15:44 PM

I am not discarding anything from my hand, because my hand is zero. But I am at the same time satisfying PO because x=number of cards in my hand. It says to discard zero cards, I discarded zero cards by not discarding any cards or placing anything in the discard pile.

Please point me to the usage of an X variable on Primary Objective? If PO was worded "Discard X cards, where X = number of cards in your hand" then i would completely agree. However, it does not.

And yes I'm arguing from the opposite perspective I was a few posts back with Abom. That REG quote made me realize you cannot use an empty hand by game rule.

STAMP · « **Reply #126 on:** January 20, 2011, 06:42:21 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on January 20, 2011, 06:15:44 PM

Quote from: STAMP on January 20, 2011, 06:12:58 PM
Quote from: RTSmaniac on January 20, 2011, 05:33:21 PM
u mean they cant have a hand ever again stamp?

Not until a game rule or special ability re-establishes your hand.

Seriously. If something's being discarded to satisfy a condition for a special ability, and it's not cards but rather the location, then it's the location that is being discarded. And if you no longer have a location to put cards that go in hand, then you no longer have a hand.

You are not discarding the location. You are discarding your cards, which in this case is zero.

Quote from: STAMP on January 20, 2011, 05:29:13 PM

Lambo, they're nuts. That's the scientific explanation.

As a result, I replied with my own nutso proposal: if you discard your entire hand, as if it's the entirety of the location, then a player can no longer have a hand.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #127 on:** January 20, 2011, 06:52:06 PM »

Please, put this into your calculator for me: 0/0

If the numerator equals the number of cards in your hand, and the denominator equals how many cards you discarded from your hand, then you get the same result as the calculator, thus PO's SA is

Spoiler (hover to show)

mathematically.

-C_S

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #128 on:** January 20, 2011, 07:17:29 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on January 20, 2011, 06:24:16 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on January 20, 2011, 06:15:44 PM
I am not discarding anything from my hand, because my hand is zero. But I am at the same time satisfying PO because x=number of cards in my hand. It says to discard zero cards, I discarded zero cards by not discarding any cards or placing anything in the discard pile.

Please point me to the usage of an X variable on Primary Objective? If PO was worded "Discard X cards, where X = number of cards in your hand" then i would completely agree. However, it does not.

Quote from: The Guardian on January 16, 2011, 02:59:03 PM

Herod's Temple calls for "X" where X=number of your Redeemed Souls. Primary Objective calls for "X" where X=number of cards in your hand.

@ Stamp, so if I have 8 cards in my hand and I choice to discard all of them I can no longer have a hand?

In any matter a "hand" is a right given by the rules. I don't see why clearing my hand means that I can never have on again. Maybe I am just not understanding you, i have teh hairy feet.

browarod · « **Reply #129 on:** January 20, 2011, 07:22:52 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on January 20, 2011, 06:15:44 PM

You are not discarding the location.

Quote from: The Schaef on January 16, 2011, 10:23:32 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 10:08:22 PM
You can not discard the location of your hand if you have zero cards in hand.

Sure you can.

You guys should get your stories straight.

The Schaef · « **Reply #130 on:** January 20, 2011, 07:36:43 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on January 20, 2011, 05:13:50 PM

Then why does discarding zero count for discarding your hand? You did not physically place ANYTHING into the discard pile, so therefore the act of discarding did not occur.

The number of cards in your hand is not PO's fault. You met the requirement. You have no cards left in your hand.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on January 20, 2011, 05:50:50 PM

Primary Objective is.

It says you need to discard to do the optional ability. If your hand is empty, you cannot discard anything from your hand, and therefore cannot meet the requirement for the optional ability.

Primary Objective is not. It is telling you to discard your hand or give up a Lost Soul. You are choosing that option and completing the ability as much as you are able.

Quote

If the numerator equals the number of cards in your hand, and the denominator equals how many cards you discarded from your hand, then you get the same result as the calculator, thus PO's SA is

... not a division problem, but a subtraction problem. 0 - 0 = 0, no error occurs.

Quote from: browarod on January 20, 2011, 07:22:52 PM

You guys should get your stories straight.

Our stories are straight. You can discard the totality of the contents at a location, but the location always exists. This does not contradict anything that any of us have said, and if you want this conversation to remain reasonable, you'll acknowledge that plain fact and move on.

browarod · « **Reply #131 on:** January 20, 2011, 08:18:12 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 07:36:43 PM

This does not contradict anything that any of us have said, and if you want this conversation to remain reasonable, you'll acknowledge that plain fact and move on.

Regardless of what has or has not been misconstrued, misinterpreted, or misrepresented, you haven't even tried refuting the official game rule points (from the REG) that Lambo posted in this post on page 8.

The Schaef · « **Reply #132 on:** January 20, 2011, 09:32:54 PM »

Hobbit already refuted it; what do I gain by repeating what's already been said?

The Guardian · « **Reply #133 on:** January 20, 2011, 10:23:15 PM »

Quote

Special Ability: If making a rescue attempt, discard hand (minimum 7 cards) and select a lost soul in opponent's Land of Bondage. Opponent must discard hand or holder rescues that lost soul. Battle continues as a battle challenge.

Quote

My hand is exhausted. By GAME RULE I cannot discard anything, and therefore I cannot meet the requirement.

It is true you cannot discard anything, but you still met the requirement of discarding your "hand" because in this scenario your "hand" was 0 cards.

Perhaps part of the problem is that "hand" has not been defined.

browarod · « **Reply #134 on:** January 20, 2011, 10:27:40 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on January 20, 2011, 06:15:44 PM

Situation

billy- How many cards do you have in your hand ralph?
Bob- 8, I put down 2 characters and one artifact, I didn't discard any cards (= discarded zero cards)

By your logic bob could not have discarded zero cards because he didn't discard any. But, you see, the two terms are congruent. Simply use substitution.

Really? You really want to go there? Okay, but I warned you. If we ever play a game against each other, expect it to look something like this: During your preparation phase, you did not play any cards, so that counts as playing an ability that discards 0 cards so that means I can switch a card in hand with an appropriate character in my discard pile with Marketplace. Oh, and I can do that indefinitely as long as I have an appropriate target in my discard pile since every action you don't take is an action of discarding 0 cards. In between swapping for evil characters, I can put my Hormah and its Lost Soul beneath my deck because each of those actions of nothing also counts as an action of discarding 0 of my human evil characters. Then perhaps I will discard every demon in your territory one at a time with The Master's Table because an action of nothing is an action of converting 0 evil characters. Lastly, I think I'll discard some evil cards from my deck to search out all my generic Philistines with Philistine Outpost because every action of nothing is an action of 0 heroes attacking.

Sounds good to me.

Quote from: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 09:32:54 PM

Hobbit already refuted it; what do I gain by repeating what's already been said?

He did? Where? I see that he has conjured an "X=something" that isn't actually on the card, made a highly controversial "substitution" about discarding 0 cards (which I'm very surprised you allowed to pass, let alone specifically endorsed), and used your questionable logic (that I've tried to prove but you've just ignored) that discarding 0 cards is somehow discarding your hand but not not discarding your hand. I think I'll tackle them one at a time.

When I said that the discarding of your hand was a cost, you pulled the "it doesn't say that on the card" line of logic, so now I do the same for Hobbit's (and Guardian's) assertion that there is any kind of "X=something" relationship in that part of the ability. It doesn't say that on the card so the point is invalid. You yourself said that it tells you to discard "the totality of of the contents at [that] location", so why are we giving it an X that isn't there?

In regards to his "substitution", if any action of nothing counts as an action of 0 somethings, then it breaks a lot of things. See my specific comment to him above for details.

And finally, in regards to his "but you discarded everything in your hand" comment that you have used as well, I go back to my earlier point that at the very most you are both discarding your entire hand and not discarding your entire hand at the same time. Without a discard action to confirm if you in fact discarded all contents of your hand (since the status quo of the hand location has not changed), it's impossible to determine which of the two is actually occurring. By Schrodinger's Cat we must then assume that both are happening simultaneously. As such, you both meet and don't meet the requirement for PO. I don't know about you, but trying to make a ruling for when a condition is simultaneously met and not met seems like a sticky situation to me.

The Schaef · « **Reply #135 on:** January 20, 2011, 10:40:38 PM »

Quote

He did? Where?

"No one is arguing that you discarded a card if you have discarded a hand of zero. "

Also, "we" are not giving anything an "x". That particular argument may be incorrect but none of the actual logic of the ruling relies on the incorrect assumption of one non-ruling player that is unrelated to the point.

Quote

In regards to his "substitution", if any action of nothing counts as an action of 0 somethings, then it breaks a lot of things. See my specific comment to him above for details.

I did. It's nonsensical. You use examples relying on no compulsion at all to try and refute a point whereby you ARE compelled to discard.

Also, Schrodinger's Cat doesn't apply when we have a single result to check, and it is met: I have no cards remaining in my hand after applying the discard effect to all valid targets.

browarod · « **Reply #136 on:** January 20, 2011, 11:37:42 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 10:40:38 PM

"No one is arguing that you discarded a card if you have discarded a hand of zero. "

Then how could you have met a condition that requires discarding?

Quote from: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 10:40:38 PM

I did. It's nonsensical. You use examples relying on no compulsion at all to try and refute a point whereby you ARE compelled to discard.

In his example, Hobbit said that since the player with 8 cards in hand didn't discard anything, it means he discarded 0 cards. I simply extrapolated that to other examples. If anything is nonsensical, it's his supposition.

Quote from: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 10:40:38 PM

Also, Schrodinger's Cat doesn't apply when we have a single result to check, and it is met: I have no cards remaining in my hand after applying the discard effect to all valid targets.

You also have every card remaining in your hand, hence the Cat paradox.

The Guardian · « **Reply #137 on:** January 20, 2011, 11:51:20 PM »

Quote

Then how could you have met a condition that requires discarding?

The condition is not "discarding cards," it's "discarding one's hand."

Marketplace says "discard ability" so that example doesn't help much nor do any of the others.

The Schaef · « **Reply #138 on:** January 21, 2011, 12:15:21 AM »

Quote from: browarod on January 20, 2011, 11:37:42 PM

Then how could you have met a condition that requires discarding?

We already covered this.

Quote from: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 10:40:38 PM

In his example, Hobbit said that since the player with 8 cards in hand didn't discard anything, it means he discarded 0 cards. I simply extrapolated that to other examples. If anything is nonsensical, it's his supposition.

Your examples are not congruent with the current situation, as I told you already. So yes, it's nonsensical.

Quote from: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 10:40:38 PM

You also have every card remaining in your hand, hence the Cat paradox.

That doesn't matter, because the number, not being greater than zero, achieves the necessary result. The paradox does not apply.

browarod · « **Reply #139 on:** January 21, 2011, 12:39:56 AM »

I give up. It's not worth arguing anymore.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #140 on:** January 21, 2011, 12:42:30 AM »

spendid try. theyre going to explain it however they want it to be. efforts commended.

browarod · « **Reply #141 on:** January 21, 2011, 12:49:19 AM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on January 21, 2011, 12:42:30 AM

spendid try. theyre going to explain it however they want it to be. efforts commended.

Thanks.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #142 on:** January 21, 2011, 12:51:54 AM »

You can take solace in being the logically correct answer.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #143 on:** January 21, 2011, 12:59:32 AM »

You never answered my question.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on January 20, 2011, 05:13:50 PM

Please tell me, what cards are being removed from their current location are are being placed face up on the discard pile? If nothing is doing that, nothing is discarded.

If an ability tells you to discard something as a cost, then something must be discarded. To have discarded from your hand, you need to have less cards in your hand AFTER the action.

0-0 = 0. The number of cards in your hand remains the same, because nothing was discarded.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #144 on:** January 21, 2011, 01:01:09 AM »

"Logic" aside, I don't think it's fair that the person playing primary objective is required to discard their hand when, if their opponent has no cards in hand, their opponent doesn't have to do anything at all to prevent the lost soul from being rescued. After all, there is no "May" in the SA for the rescuer; it happens regardless when PO is played. Just means you probably won't have any enhancements to block a RA by your opponent on the next turn.

-C_S

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #145 on:** January 21, 2011, 01:06:50 AM »

Schaef's answer:

A=cards in hand.
A-A=0 is the requirement of the card, since you're taking all of the cards in your hand (A) and discarding (or subtracting) them all. Therefore, A-A=0, even though A=0. You still used subtraction, even though you didn't subtract anything (since you couldn't subtract anything).

I still think A-Bomb should be ruled the same way.

The Guardian · « **Reply #146 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:44:44 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2011, 12:51:54 AM

You can take solace in being the logically correct answer.

I think I will too.

The Schaef · « **Reply #147 on:** January 21, 2011, 07:41:26 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on January 21, 2011, 12:59:32 AM

To have discarded from your hand, you need to have less cards in your hand AFTER the action.

To have discarded your hand, you need to have ZERO cards in your hand AFTER the action.

... which, you do.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #148 on:** January 21, 2011, 08:51:26 AM »

I ask again...

What is being placed face up into the discard pile?

The Schaef · « **Reply #149 on:** January 21, 2011, 09:09:11 AM »

And I answer again, the full contents of the player's hand, as specifically noted in the special ability..

News:

Author Topic: The zero card hand (Read 24552 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

TheHobbit13

browarod

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

browarod

browarod

Lamborghini_diablo

Warrior_Monk

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef