Author Topic: The zero card hand (Read 24470 times)

The Schaef · « **Reply #50 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:08:52 AM »

Quote from: browarod on January 17, 2011, 08:54:50 AM

Yes. By your logic, everything = nothing. As such, you now (and still) have everything left in your hand. Thus, since you still have something (everything) in your hand, the "discard your hand" cost cannot have been met.

That is not my logic. I have discarded every card in my hand. I have no cards left in my hand. My hand has been discarded. THAT is my logic. Please stop putting words in my mouth, you're 0 for 3 so far.

Quote

The examples would be those posted in this thread. A free negate of both Sinning Hand and Primary Objective (and, yes, I have lost games to this ruling, so don't try to downplay it with "well, that would rarely happen"), a 6th free card from Mayhem (overpowered in more ways than just the current discussion, but still an adequate example), need I go on?

Yeah, you pretty much do need to go on. Sinning Hand only gives you the opportunity to negate, so in situations where, for one example, it cannot be negated, there's no use in discarding your cards anyway. "Instead" abilities are significantly more powerful than Sinning Hand because you don't have a costed negate, you get to replace the effect with a new one.

You need to explain how your opponent using one of the choices on the card to stop your free Lost Soul would lose you a game. It did not give the other player any points. He could just as easily have stopped your card by discarding one card as zero. And if PO is the deciding factor in whether you win or lose your games, you might want to consider revising your deck. Your explanation about Mayhem makes no sense at all; it can just as easily be played on a player with 16 cards in hand as zero, so it doesn't explain how discarding an empty hand unbalances the game. In fact, when you stated previously that "The player most likely to have 0 or 1 cards in hand is a speed player with a large amount of characters in their deck", you seem to have neglected the fact that Mayhem is a Dominant, and so you have the opportunity to play the card when he has a hand full of cards just drawn; you don't have to wait for your turn when his cards are all out of hand.

Quote

However, you actually DID apply the "do as much as you can" thought to costs in this post.

That post was answering a question about Primary Objective. Primary Objective is not a cost/benefit card, it gives the opponent a choice between two effects. Would you care to revise your accusation?

Red · « **Reply #51 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:17:49 AM »

I have a problem with this ruleing as well but I will try to remain civil and avoid any harsh words so here I go. Captured ark in Scheaf's example would complete it's cost due to the fact it was completing it's SA in a way due to shuffling at least one artifact, and then for the next example Shuffling adds cards to the deck it does not require cards to be in the orignal deck if no cards remain, shuffling creates a new deck with the cards it shuffled in.

PO cannot complete it's SA due to fact it rquires cards in hand similar to Jepatath rquiring cards in deck. Make it where you can discard zero cards in hand means I should be able to jepatath when I have zero cards in deck.

Red.

The Schaef · « **Reply #52 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:23:47 AM »

Your first response contradicts the assertion that abilities should be all-or-nothing. The as-much-as-you-can rule is intuitive and good for gameplay, and your response proves that point. Also, Captured Ark is not a card with a "cost".

For the second example, in changing the rule, you now have two different rules for empty locations, where sometimes you can apply the effect with zero cards, and sometimes you cannot apply the effect with zero cards. This reduces consistency and adds complexity.

Red · « **Reply #53 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:30:16 AM »

"This reduces consistency and adds complexity."

That isn't a good thing.

The Schaef · « **Reply #54 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:41:18 AM »

I agree. That's why the rule is going to stay the same as it is now: you can add to a hand of zero cards, and you can discard a hand of zero cards.

Red · « **Reply #55 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:50:11 AM »

So I can Jephthah my deck with zero cards now?

browarod · « **Reply #56 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:54:27 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 09:08:52 AM

That is not my logic. I have discarded every card in my hand. I have no cards left in my hand. My hand has been discarded. THAT is my logic. Please stop putting words in my mouth, you're 0 for 3 so far.

You have not discarded every card in your hand because you have discarded nothing. There was no discard action because there is nothing to discard. If I acquire something that is priced at $0.00, I cannot say I completed a pay transaction because nothing was paid. Also, you said that "everything is nothing", so by definition nothing must also be everything. You cannot have one without the other. How exactly is this not your logic? It's simply the reverse of what you said. Lastly, keeping "score" doesn't really mean anything, and I'd rather you focus on the topic at hand rather than your apparent need to one up (or in this case 3 up) everyone else (or is it just me?). I'm trying to be civil and respectful with my counterpoints, I only ask for the same in return.

Quote from: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 09:08:52 AM

Yeah, you pretty much do need to go on. Sinning Hand only gives you the opportunity to negate, so in situations where, for one example, it cannot be negated, there's no use in discarding your cards anyway. "Instead" abilities are significantly more powerful than Sinning Hand because you don't have a costed negate, you get to replace the effect with a new one.

At this moment, and without searching the REG, I cannot think of a single case where you could play Sinning Hand as CBN. I don't know of any characters that can play orange brigade enhancements that inherently give their own enhancements CBN status, and I don't know of any evil versions of Faith in Our High Priest. Care to enlighten me so that I can understand your counter-example?

Quote from: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 09:08:52 AM

You need to explain how your opponent using one of the choices on the card to stop your free Lost Soul would lose you a game. It did not give the other player any points. He could just as easily have stopped your card by discarding one card as zero. And if PO is the deciding factor in whether you win or lose your games, you might want to consider revising your deck. Your explanation about Mayhem makes no sense at all; it can just as easily be played on a player with 16 cards in hand as zero, so it doesn't explain how discarding an empty hand unbalances the game. In fact, when you stated previously that "The player most likely to have 0 or 1 cards in hand is a speed player with a large amount of characters in their deck", you seem to have neglected the fact that Mayhem is a Dominant, and so you have the opportunity to play the card when he has a hand full of cards just drawn; you don't have to wait for your turn when his cards are all out of hand.

Of course Mayhem is a dominant, I'm certainly not blind (I also saw your stab at my deck-making skills and find it a low blow, completely unnecessary, and rather degrading). If I had Mayhem when they had drawn up to 16, I would obviously play it then. However, since we're talking about "just as easily"'s, I can just as easily end up drawing it after they reduce their hand to lower than 6 as I am to have it when they're at 16. You seem to be neglecting the fact that the cost to prevent the rescue in PO is there to make the opponent question how badly they want to successfully block (i.e., are they willing to discard their whole hand?). If I know I can discard 0 to satisfy it, I don't really have anything to worry about, do I? Also, I never said I lost games due to PO, I think you need to read what I said. That would probably aid the conversation.

Quote from: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 09:08:52 AM

That post was answering a question about Primary Objective. Primary Objective is not a cost/benefit card, it gives the opponent a choice between two effects. Would you care to revise your accusation?

How is it not a cost? I play PO and discard my hand to rescue the chosen Lost Soul. My opponent may discard their hand to prevent that rescue and continue the battle. Certainly sounds like a pair of cost:effect abilities to me. It wasn't an accusation, it was a clarification. You've played the victim in the past, and I don't want my arguments to be ignored simply because you claim I skewed your words when I haven't.

The Schaef · « **Reply #57 on:** January 17, 2011, 10:16:12 AM »

Quote from: Red on January 17, 2011, 09:50:11 AM

So I can Jephthah my deck with zero cards now?

Does Jephthah discard your deck, or does it specify the top card?

Quote from: browarod on January 17, 2011, 09:54:27 AM

You have not discarded every card in your hand because you have discarded nothing.

That was every card in my hand.

Quote

If I acquire something that is priced at $0.00, I cannot say I completed a pay transaction because nothing was paid.

So you're not allowed to take the item? After all, if you paid zero dollars, you should be disallowed from receiving anything, by your logic.

Quote

Lastly, keeping "score" doesn't really mean anything, and I'd rather you focus on the topic at hand rather than your apparent need to one up (or in this case 3 up) everyone else (or is it just me?). I'm trying to be civil and respectful with my counterpoints, I only ask for the same in return.

I'm not keeping score, I'm asking you to stop making arguments around things that I am not saying and did not say. Responding to the things I actually said is precisely how I would define focusing on the topic at hand.

Quote from: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 09:08:52 AM

At this moment, and without searching the REG, I cannot think of a single case where you could play Sinning Hand as CBN. I don't know of any characters that can play orange brigade enhancements that inherently give their own enhancements CBN status, and I don't know of any evil versions of Faith in Our High Priest. Care to enlighten me so that I can understand your counter-example?

Built On Sand. Asherah Pole against an OT Hero. Sinning Hand as written would not work against these cards. If it said "Opponent may discard half his hand INSTEAD" then it would still work.

Quote

If I had Mayhem when they had drawn up to 16, I would obviously play it then. However, since we're talking about "just as easily"'s, I can just as easily end up drawing it after they reduce their hand to lower than 6 as I am to have it when they're at 16.

Then the ability to discard a hand of zero is not the issue; the chance of having a specific card at a specific time is the issue, and is perfectly normal for a game consisting of randomized decks of any substantial number of cards. And let's be clear: no one is "taking a stab at your deck-making skills". The point is that it's not possible or even reasonable to make every card so that it will be "fair" in every circumstance no matter how well or how poorly people build their decks. If a person is gambling their chance to win or lose on a low-percentage card that is relatively easy to counter, then the problem is not with having zero cards in hand as opposed to just one, the problem is in the strategy, and developers cannot take responsibility for end-use.

Quote

You seem to be neglecting the fact that the cost to prevent the rescue in PO is there to make the opponent question how badly they want to successfully block

There is a choice. There is not a cost.

Quote

Also, I never said I lost games due to PO, I think you need to read what I said. That would probably aid the conversation.

Okay. "A free negate of both Sinning Hand and Primary Objective (and, yes, I have lost games to this ruling, so don't try to downplay it with 'well, that would rarely happen')" You mentioned PO by name and you said you lost games to this ruling. I'm not going to read that sentence and assume you lost due to Jephthah because you did not mention Jephthah, you DID mention PO.

Quote from: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 09:08:52 AM

How is it not a cost?

Because you don't have a formula of "Do X to use Y effect". You have "Do X or Do Y".

Quote

It wasn't an accusation, it was a clarification. You've played the victim in the past, and I don't want my arguments to be ignored simply because you claim I skewed your words when I haven't.

You claimed I applied "do all you can" to a cost/benefit ability. I have not and I have never. You used THIS EXAMPLE as evidence that I did. Your evidence is wrong. If you don't want your arguments ignored, stop accusing me of things I did not say.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #58 on:** January 17, 2011, 10:17:51 AM »

Quote from: Red on January 17, 2011, 09:50:11 AM

So I can Jephthah my deck with zero cards now?

No, because he specifies "top card." If your deck is empty, there's no top card to discard.

If he said "discard your deck" then he would work.

browarod · « **Reply #59 on:** January 17, 2011, 10:53:38 AM »

Quote

So you're not allowed to take the item? After all, if you paid zero dollars, you should be disallowed from receiving anything, by your logic.

My logic is simply that you didn't pay for the item. If I was told to go and pay for an item, I cannot legitimately say I did if I received the item for free, because I did not pay. I received the item, yes, but no cost was paid. In the case of Redemption, and PO in particular, a cost is necessary and must be paid. I stand by the belief that discarding 0 cards is not paying a cost, regardless of how vague the cost descriptor is, and should not be sufficient to receive the benefit.

Quote

That was every card in my hand.

Yep, and every card you had in your hand is still in your hand, so no cost was paid, therefore no benefit should be given.

Quote

I'm not keeping score, I'm asking you to stop making arguments around things that I am not saying and did not say. Responding to the things I actually said is precisely how I would define focusing on the topic at hand.

I have been attempting to do just that, however when you go back and change your perspective it tends to complicate my ability to provide accurate and adequate counterpoints.

Quote

Built On Sand. Asherah Pole against an OT Hero. Sinning Hand as written would not work against these cards. If it said "Opponent may discard half his hand INSTEAD" then it would still work.

Fine, it is possible. However, that doesn't mean the ruling in question does not also apply. A New Beginning could be completely useless if its user plays an opponent with a FBTN defense, yet the playtesters still found sufficient reason to errata it.

Quote

Then the ability to discard a hand of zero is not the issue; the chance of having a specific card at a specific time is the issue, and is perfectly normal for a game consisting of randomized decks of any substantial number of cards. And let's be clear: no one is "taking a stab at your deck-making skills". The point is that it's not possible or even reasonable to make every card so that it will be "fair" in every circumstance no matter how well or how poorly people build their decks. If a person is gambling their chance to win or lose on a low-percentage card that is relatively easy to counter, then the problem is not with having zero cards in hand as opposed to just one, the problem is in the strategy, and developers cannot take responsibility for end-use.

Mayhem was an example of how paying a cost of nothing could be overpowered and slightly bad for the game. That does not mean it isn't also an example of other things. Irrelevance doesn't prove points.

Quote

Okay. "A free negate of both Sinning Hand and Primary Objective (and, yes, I have lost games to this ruling, so don't try to downplay it with 'well, that would rarely happen')" You mentioned PO by name and you said you lost games to this ruling. I'm not going to read that sentence and assume you lost due to Jephthah because you did not mention Jephthah, you DID mention PO.

You're conveniently forgetting the one other card I mentioned that makes it perfectly reasonable for me to have lost one or more games due to this ruling.

Quote

Because you don't have a formula of "Do X to use Y effect". You have "Do X or Do Y".

In all honesty, it SHOULD be a cost if only so it DOESN'T fall under the "do as much as you can" clause. It seems like a cost, it's not really fair if it isn't a cost, and it would solve half the issues brought up by this thread if it were a cost. Is there a reason (other than the old wording) as to why it isn't a cost?

Quote

You claimed I applied "do all you can" to a cost/benefit ability. I have not and I have never. You used THIS EXAMPLE as evidence that I did. Your evidence is wrong. If you don't want your arguments ignored, stop accusing me of things I did not say.

I was posting and formulating under the assumption that the "choice" to prevent the rescue on PO was just as much a cost/effect as the choice to negate SH. You made no effort to counter this assumption until 1 or 2 posts ago. As such, my points and their reasoning are perfectly valid under said assumption. You can't change a basic assumption that has been accepted by both sides up until this point and then use that to unravel my arguments.

The Schaef · « **Reply #60 on:** January 17, 2011, 11:21:07 AM »

Quote from: browarod on January 17, 2011, 10:53:38 AM

My logic is simply that you didn't pay for the item. If I was told to go and pay for an item, I cannot legitimately say I did if I received the item for free, because I did not pay.

There is a general agreement between the shopper and the store that you can have an item by paying the cost listed on the tag.
The tag says "zero".
You are allowed to pick up the item and walk out because you fulfilled your portion of the obligation, by paying the cost listed on the tag.
Anything other than this exact occurrence breaks the idea that the cost/benefit agreement exists. It is not the agreement's fault that sometimes the cost can be zero.

Quote

every card you had in your hand is still in your hand

There are no cards left in my hand. So this statement is false.

Quote

I have been attempting to do just that, however when you go back and change your perspective it tends to complicate my ability to provide accurate and adequate counterpoints.

I am not changing my perspective. I am telling you exactly what I said, in response to the incorrect things you have been attributing to me.

Quote

A New Beginning could be completely useless if its user plays an opponent with a FBTN defense, yet the playtesters still found sufficient reason to errata it.

If you want errata assigned to one of these cards, please make a suggestion. It was not my impression that this discussion was about assigning errata, however.

Quote

Mayhem was an example of how paying a cost of nothing could be overpowered and slightly bad for the game. That does not mean it isn't also an example of other things. Irrelevance doesn't prove points.

The cost is variable. It could be zero, it could be eighty cards (net change minus fifty). Yes, paying less of a cost is more powerful than paying more of a cost. That is a function of the card itself, and is no more significant in the difference between zero and one than the difference between one and two. The zero-card discard is not the problem.

Quote

You're conveniently forgetting the one other card I mentioned that makes it perfectly reasonable for me to have lost one or more games due to this ruling.

If you meant Sinning Hand, there was no reason to mention PO when stating you lost games due to this. I did not make up PO out of thin air, nor did I force you to include it in your statement. None of that is my fault. Nor is it my fault that you are winning or losing entire games based entirely on whether or not a person has to discard a single card from their hand.

Quote

In all honesty, it SHOULD be a cost if only so it DOESN'T fall under the "do as much as you can" clause.

Well, we're not going to change the rules about determining cost across the entire scope of the game just so we can also change a seldom-seen rule about discarding an empty hand (while still somehow allowing to add to an empty hand).

Quote

I was posting and formulating under the assumption that the "choice" to prevent the rescue on PO was just as much a cost/effect as the choice to negate SH... You made no effort to counter this assumption until 1 or 2 posts ago... You can't change a basic assumption that has been accepted by both sides up until this point and then use that to unravel my arguments.

This formulation was not stated by you until the fourth page, and from the very first time you said ANYTHING about PO having a cost, I have said EVERY SINGLE TIME that it is not a cost. There is NO PLACE in this ENTIRE THREAD where I have said PO had a cost. I have SPECIFICALLY DENIED at ALL TIMES that "do what you can" applies to cost. So no, this is NOT "a basic assumption that has been accepted by both sides". It is an erroneous assumption made by you, and which you have tried to ascribe to me even though I have told you multiple times it's not correct (the opposite of accepting an assumption), and which now you even want to change the rules for cost so that PO DOES count as a cost. But how do you make that conclusion with certainty? What if surrendering the Lost Soul is the cost for not discarding my hand? How do you determine which of the other "X or Y" abilities is the cost for not doing the other?

I have been direct and honest about this discussion from the outset and I have specifically denied ever assigning "do all you can" to cost, and I have specifically denied ever saying PO had a cost. I don't appreciate accusations that I am dishonestly changing the nature of my responses just to win an argument, in response to trying to HELP people understand this issue and why the ruling will stand.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #61 on:** January 17, 2011, 11:43:46 AM »

Quote from: browarod on January 17, 2011, 10:53:38 AM

My logic is simply that you didn't pay for the item. If I was told to go and pay for an item, I cannot legitimately say I did if I received the item for free, because I did not pay. I received the item, yes, but no cost was paid. In the case of Redemption, and PO in particular, a cost is necessary and must be paid. I stand by the belief that discarding 0 cards is not paying a cost, regardless of how vague the cost descriptor is, and should not be sufficient to receive the benefit.

So what if instead of dollars, the seller notices you don't have any money, but asks you for a kind word of encouragement as payment for the item. You tell him he is a wonderful guy with great abs. He smiles, and lets you take your item. You have paid for your item according to the terms set forth by the seller. Such as with PO, which says to discard your hand. You don't have a hand, but you say something to the effect of, "I'll discard all 0 cards in my hand." That's all the "payment" you need in this case.

Quote

Yep, and every card you had in your hand is still in your hand, so no cost was paid, therefore no benefit should be given.

Not necessarily. The cost was simply adjusted by the circumstances, from an actual discard, to an acknowledgement that anything in hand would be discarded but can't be in this case.

Quote

I have been attempting to do just that, however when you go back and change your perspective it tends to complicate my ability to provide accurate and adequate counterpoints.

I don't see where Schaef has ever changed his perspective throughout this thread. He has been nothing but consistent with his correct viewpoint. If you claim he has changed something about his stance, I am certain he would appreciate knowing where and how.

Quote

Fine, it is possible. However, that doesn't mean the ruling in question does not also apply. A New Beginning could be completely useless if its user plays an opponent with a FBTN defense, yet the playtesters still found sufficient reason to errata it.

Most of the abusive ANB combos relied on pre-block/CtB plays to work. Those combos are why it has been errata'd. But since that really has nothing to do with the current debate, I digress.

Quote

Mayhem was an example of how paying a cost of nothing could be overpowered and slightly bad for the game. That does not mean it isn't also an example of other things. Irrelevance doesn't prove points.

I really don't see a huge difference in reducing your hand to one and drawing six and reducing your hand to zero and drawing six. I sincerely doubt that anyone can pin any losses precisely on the point of "if only my opponent would have had to shuffle one card instead of zero before playing Mayhem, I would have won." If you have a deck type that allows you to commonly reduce your hand to zero before playing Mayhem (very few enhancements) then you run the risk of playing someone who could take advantage of that. That's what's great about Redemption: there are a variety of deck types that do better with certain combos but do worse vs. others. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Quote

You're conveniently forgetting the one other card I mentioned that makes it perfectly reasonable for me to have lost one or more games due to this ruling.

I assume you mean Mayhem, in which case I have a hard time believing that one card would have made a difference in those one or more games. If it did, that's bad luck, but statistically speaking, it makes a difference in very few games.

Quote

In all honesty, it SHOULD be a cost if only so it DOESN'T fall under the "do as much as you can" clause. It seems like a cost, it's not really fair if it isn't a cost, and it would solve half the issues brought up by this thread if it were a cost. Is there a reason (other than the old wording) as to why it isn't a cost?

What issues would it solve if it were worded more like a cost? Also, I'm not sure how it could be worded better as a cost and still work the same way. Lastly, how is it unfair that your opponent, who has zero hand which usually gives him very few options as far as blocking successfully anyway (especially vs. Silver), doesn't have to give up a Redeemed Soul. I am having a heck of a time figuring out why in the world you would play PO with a full hand during an attack against an opponent with zero hand. It seems to me there should always be a better option for you.

EDIT: Instaposted by Schaef.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #62 on:** January 17, 2011, 11:48:23 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 11:21:07 AM

Quote
every card you had in your hand is still in your hand

There are no cards left in my hand. So this statement is false.

And there where also no cards left in your hand before PO. That is the point he is trying to make. You are intelligent; I am sure you understood his point. Why are you essentially just spouting the ruling back? We are aware that the ruling states that I discarded my hand. Browarod is making the strong point that even if the game considers you to have discarded your hand, in some sense you have not discarded your hand, because your hand is in the same state as before you "discarded" it. You also have refused to address any real world analogy such as my comparison to candy in a pantry or Browarod's pay transaction. The underlying point I was trying to make with such an example is that the rest of existance (that I know of) intitively knows that I did not pay anything or give anything if they're was nothing. Redemption does not. That's why this ruling is counter-intuitive.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #63 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:03:13 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 11:48:23 AM

Quote from: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 11:21:07 AM
Quote
every card you had in your hand is still in your hand

There are no cards left in my hand. So this statement is false.

And there where also no cards left in your hand before PO. That is the point he is trying to make. You are intelligent; I am sure you understood his point. Why are you essentially just spouting the ruling back? We are aware that the ruling states that I discarded my hand. Browarod is making the strong point that even if the game considers you to have discarded your hand, in some sense you have not discarded your hand, because your hand is in the same state as before you "discarded" it. You also have refused to address any real world analogy such as my comparison to candy in a pantry or Browarod's pay transaction. The underlying point I was trying to make with such an example is that the rest of existance (that I know of) intitively knows that I did not pay anything or give anything if they're was nothing. Redemption does not. That's why this ruling is counter-intuitive.

It is true that in some sense you have not discarded anything, but you have discarded everything you were required to, which was nothing. I see a better real world analogy like this:

Someone comes up to you and somehow forcefully requires you to do one of two things: Throw away all the candy in your pantry, or give him $1,000. You know you have no candy in your pantry, yet, he just said to throw all of it away. There is no stipulation that any certain amount of candy be thrown away, just that all of it must be gone. So you choose option 1.

The Schaef · « **Reply #64 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:06:36 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 11:48:23 AM

And there where also no cards left in your hand before PO. That is the point he is trying to make.

Doesn't change the fact that every card that met the qualification was discarded.

Quote

Why are you essentially just spouting the ruling back?

Because that is the correct interpretation. The game is not asking you for a "changed state". It is asking you to discard from your hand until you have nothing left. Having nothing left is the state it's asking you for.

Quote

You also have refused to address any real world analogy such as my comparison to candy in a pantry or Browarod's pay transaction.

Well, this accusation is completely wrong because I specifically used broward's transaction to demonstrate that it is entirely possible and logical to get something for nothing, under the general terms of an agreement. It is not the agreement's fault that the cost happens to be zero.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #65 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:07:27 PM »

You don't address what the forcer would do after that. Would he let you go? No, he would either take 1000 dollars or do something to you because he doesn't think you'd pay the cost. I don't think anyone in the world (outside of Redemption) would say that you are able to pay anything if you have nothing. It simply doesn't make straight forward sense.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #66 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:07:48 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 12:43:36 AM

The thread has gone this long because multiple people think the ruling is wrong.

I think you read my post wrong.

-C_S

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #67 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:08:57 PM »

Quote from: COUNTER_SNIPER on January 17, 2011, 12:07:48 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 12:43:36 AM
The thread has gone this long because multiple people think the ruling is wrong.

I think you read my post wrong.

-C_S

I assumed you were implicitly saying that the ruling had been made so there is no need to keep this thread alive.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #68 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:15:27 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 12:07:27 PM

You don't address what the forcer would do after that.

Neither does PO, which is the point of this thread.

Quote

Would he let you go? No, he would either take 1000 dollars or do something to you because he doesn't think you'd pay the cost.

How do you know what he would do? It's my analogy.

Quote

I don't think anyone in the world (outside of Redemption) would say that you are able to pay anything if you have nothing. It simply doesn't make straight forward sense.

Sure you can. People do it all the time. People on food stamp programs have no money available to buy food. So they give what they do have (food stamps) to get food. In the case of PO, you don't have cards in hand, so you just give an acknowledgement that you are choosing to discard your hand to pay the so-called "cost". You did pay something (your acknowledgment) as you were required to do in that circumstance.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #69 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:20:12 PM »

Someone is paying for the food stamps, just not you. No one is paying for Primary Objective.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #70 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:34:13 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 12:08:57 PM

Quote from: COUNTER_SNIPER on January 17, 2011, 12:07:48 PM
Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 12:43:36 AM
The thread has gone this long because multiple people think the ruling is wrong.

I think you read my post wrong.

-C_S

I assumed you were implicitly saying that the ruling had been made so there is no need to keep this thread alive.

I was using a play on words, you know, break up a tense moment with a little comedic relief.

-C_S

The Schaef · « **Reply #71 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:40:13 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 12:20:12 PM

Someone is paying for the food stamps, just not you. No one is paying for Primary Objective.

Why not? I'm doing exactly what the card says to do: discarding all the cards in my hand. There are none left.

The Guardian · « **Reply #72 on:** January 17, 2011, 01:57:57 PM »

Quote

do we really want to allow them to rescue Souls for no action at all on their part?

Browarod,

This part of your post from page 3 makes me wonder if you are under the incorrect impression that we are talking about the player who is playing Primary Objective, not the player who is blocking.

The player who is playing PO must discard at least 7 cards (per the ability on the card). If 7 cards are not discarded, the ability does not work.

It is the blocking player who can discard a 0 card hand to not allow the rescue of a Lost Soul.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #73 on:** January 17, 2011, 02:04:57 PM »

How could a Discard have taken place if nothing was Discarded?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #74 on:** January 17, 2011, 02:06:14 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 17, 2011, 02:04:57 PM

How could a Discard have taken place if nothing was Discarded?

And that about sums up every post I have been making. There is no analogy (however correct) that can explain away how something was discarded without anything changing location.

News:

Author Topic: The zero card hand (Read 24470 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

browarod

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef