Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 02:46:57 PM
Title: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 02:46:57 PM
Primary Objective Brigade: Silver • Ability: 3/0 • Class: None • 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.
I was recently told that Primary Objective's ability can be satisfied by my opponent if they have a hand of 0 cards. I would like a to submit a petition that this should not be the case. My understanding is that was a hasty ruling following the development of RDT's potential one turn combo deck using PO. This deck was never played and only ever had a theoretical decklist. Why was this ruling made then?
I personally think this ruling is illogical and against Redemption standards. Looking at the card, I see an instead ability. My opponent discards his/her hand to instead the rescue of the soul. If that is the case, how can a 0 card hand satisfy the instead? Does a 0 card deck suddenly become capable of being used to instead a discard with Herod's Temple?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian on January 16, 2011, 02:50:10 PM
You can't discard the top X cards of a 0 card deck.
You can discard your hand even if your hand has 0 cards.
I don't necessarily disagree with you about the hand issue, but it's definitely not the same as Herod's Temple.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 02:51:30 PM
How is PO not an instead ability?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian on January 16, 2011, 02:59:03 PM
It is essentially, but there's still a difference in how they are worded.
If PO said "Opponent may discard X cards from hand instead" then they could not do it with a 0 card hand (unless X=0 obviously).
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 03:02:34 PM
Fair enough. However, I would then submit how is it possible to discard a hand with 0 cards in it? Primary Objective has been ruled to target a location and thus be able to be satisfied by a hand of 0 because you always have a hand, but that doesn't make sense. If I target your pantry's food for discard, but there was no food in your pantry, how could I discard any food?
Ridiculous example, but I think the premise remains the same. You can not discard something from nothing, and therefore a 0 card hand should not be able to satisfy Primary Objective.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 16, 2011, 03:02:59 PM
They didn't discard their hand though. They didn't have a hand to discard. So, if I don't have a hand after playing Mayhem, it's essentially a draw six card?
They didn't discard their hand though. They didn't have a hand to discard. So, if I don't have a hand after playing Mayhem, it's essentially a draw six card?
You always have a hand, even if it has 0 cards. That is the ruling that has been made.
As for the Mayhem example, that's exactly what happens...it's been done.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 03:11:11 PM
I am aware I always have a hand and that this is the ruling, but I am questioning the logic of the ruling.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: TheHobbit13 on January 16, 2011, 03:17:33 PM
Fair enough. However, I would then submit how is it possible to discard a hand with 0 cards in it? Primary Objective has been ruled to target a location and thus be able to be satisfied by a hand of 0 because you always have a hand, but that doesn't make sense. If I target your pantry's food for discard, but there was no food in your pantry, how could I discard any food?
Ridiculous example, but I think the premise remains the same. You can not discard something from nothing, and therefore a 0 card hand should not be able to satisfy Primary Objective.
If X= number of cards in their hand, and I have zero cards in my hand I have to discard zero cards. Since I have no cards to discard in my hand I cannot discard any cards. Poof I just discarded zero cards. You cannot discard something from nothing but you aren't, the zero in this sense means you are not discarding anything and therefore satisfies the condition ofg PO.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 03:20:41 PM
You can not discard something you do not have. You are discarding your hand, yes, but your hand is made up of parts, and if you have none of those parts, how can you claim to discard the whole?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 16, 2011, 03:30:25 PM
They didn't discard their hand though. They didn't have a hand to discard. So, if I don't have a hand after playing Mayhem, it's essentially a draw six card?
As for the Mayhem example, that's exactly what happens...it's been done.
I know. I did it once or twice yesterday. ;D
However, I agree with Olijar that you can't discard something you don't have.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: CJSports on January 16, 2011, 03:48:31 PM
Can we get an elder ruling on this because this is not going to be resolved like this because their are probably tons of examples that go with and against this.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on January 16, 2011, 03:58:03 PM
It is 100% factual disinformation that Jannisary is wrong.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 16, 2011, 04:09:22 PM
Can we get an elder ruling on this because this is not going to be resolved like this because their are probably tons of examples that go with and against this.
The Guardian is an elder...he made a ruling...but we already knew the ruling...we just want a change...
You can not discard something you do not have. You are discarding your hand, yes, but your hand is made up of parts, and if you have none of those parts, how can you claim to discard the whole?
You are not discarding your hand, in some sense.
x=# cards in hand=0
I have to discard 0 cards. By not discarding any cards from my hand I have in fact discarded 0 cards. Don't think of it as placing zero cards (as in a quantity) in the discard pile, think of it as if you are not putting any cards in the discard pile.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 04:56:30 PM
Quote
You are not discarding your hand, in some sense.
I understand that I am not discarding my hand even though I am. That's exactly the kind of contradiction I don't want in the game.
Ruling this how I want it would change only a few rulings (that I can currently think of):
1. Allow multiple Primary Objectives to be played each turn successfully if the opponent has no hand. 2. Disallow Mayhem from being used if it is the only card in your hand. 3. Prevent a player from discarding to negate Sinning Hand unless s/he has 2 or more cards in hand.
I don't think either of those scenarios would negatively affect the game. If anything, the second one would positively impact the game by limiting Mayhem to be a net +5 draw rather than a +6.
I would like to re-iterate that at the time of the ruling, the deck which forced the ruling had never been played, barely had a complete decklist, and was entirely theoretical. Does such a deck really require that Redemption make a nonsensical ruling (in a logical, straight forward sense) to nerf it?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on January 16, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
Oh, it had a complete decklist - I won't argue the other two points, But it for sure had a list, and even though it was theoretical, it was basically the predecessor to the SitC deck in that you attempted to deck, then stacked it with Hozai.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 06:15:28 PM
Your bring up another point. The deck was deemed broken, yet the main thing that made it that way was super drawing and deck stacking - NOT Primary Objective. So why are we making Primary Objective suffer? This card is virtually unusable with its current ruling. The 16 cards in hand rule should have fixed the deck stacking problem - Primary Objective shouldn't need to live under the ruling any longer.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 16, 2011, 06:47:15 PM
This ruling ruins or breaks so many cards it isn't even funny. Primary Objective, Sinning Hand, Mayhem....
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 06:48:05 PM
This ruling ruins or breaks so many cards it isn't even funny. Primary Objective, Sinning Hand, Mayhem....
The current ruling or the ruling I am campaigning for? Sinning hand is another good example of a card I forgot about. I will add it to my list.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 16, 2011, 07:43:39 PM
The defender satisfies the condition as much as he is able. His choices are to discard all the cards in his hand or surrender the Lost Soul. By discarding a hand of zero cards, he has discarded all the cards he is able to discard. The defender should not be forced to surrender points, esp. if deprived of his hand against his will, e.g. T2 Camp/Discouragement decks.
This is similar to the ruling in which a draw pile exists even when reduced to zero cards, or else Chariot would not be able to shuffle Heroes into a non-existent draw pile. There are no plans to change this ruling.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 07:56:59 PM
The defender satisfies the condition as much as he is able. His choices are to discard all the cards in his hand or surrender the Lost Soul. By discarding a hand of zero cards, he has discarded all the cards he is able to discard. The defender should not be forced to surrender points, esp. if deprived of his hand against his will, e.g. T2 Camp/Discouragement decks.
I understand your position. However, that position is (largely) predicated on upholding fun and fellowship. Since you specifically mention T2, I don't see why fun and fellowship should be as big of a concern as making sensical rulings, especially in the realm of T2. Many, if not most/all, players of T2 play T2 because it offers a place that arguably requires more skill, strategic planning, and generally harder strategies to handle. They are generally not as concerned with fun and fellowship (directly, obviously they still want to expirience it, but for many it is not the primary concern, or if it is, the concern is in having fun through winning). Considering that the primary area of change with a new ruling would occur in T2, I don't see why fun and fellowship should be the main thrust of the ruling logic.
To take fun and fellowship out of the equation for this ruling, consider Mayhem (Each player must shuffle hand into deck to draw six.) If I have 0 cards in my hand, how can I meet the condition? I have shuffled nothing into my deck, so why should I be allowed to draw 6? That makes no sense. Please try to explain that to a new player. Oh, I have a hand, even though I don't, so I get to draw. I just want to take the nonsensical logic out of the game as much as possible.
Quote
This is similar to the ruling in which a draw pile exists even when reduced to zero cards, or else Chariot would not be able to shuffle Heroes into a non-existent draw pile. There are no plans to change this ruling.
Hands and Draw Pile are differing places that do not need to follow the same rules. Also, I am not trying to argue that having no cards in hand = having no hand. I am arguing that having no cards of hand prevents you from meeting the conditions on the specified cards, specifically Primary Objective in this example.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: STAMP on January 16, 2011, 08:02:45 PM
Reason #38 why I retired.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 08:04:44 PM
Since reasons 1-36 were "How can a demon be redeemed?", you still have 36 reasons to come back and play again now. :)
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 16, 2011, 09:24:10 PM
I understand your position. However, that position is (largely) predicated on upholding fun and fellowship.
1). It's not a position. It's the rule.
2). It is not largely predicated on that, it was one sentence out of an entire post explaining the rule. It was not the reason for the rule.
Quote
If I have 0 cards in my hand, how can I meet the condition? I have shuffled nothing into my deck, so why should I be allowed to draw 6?
You shuffled all the cards you had in your hand. You fulfilled the ability as much as you were able.
Quote
Hands and Draw Pile are differing places that do not need to follow the same rules.
If we had different rules for these two things, I guarantee you beyond any shadow of a doubt that we would absolutely be having a rules argument about inconsistency in applying the zero card rule. GUARANTEE. Very likely by the same people now arguing that this rule doesn't make sense.
Quote
Also, I am not trying to argue that having no cards in hand = having no hand. I am arguing that having no cards of hand prevents you from meeting the conditions on the specified cards, specifically Primary Objective in this example.
In what way are you not discarding all the cards you have in your hand?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 09:38:04 PM
I have not used quotes in this post. I answer in order of your points.
I am aware it is the rule. For the purposes of this thread, I simply presenting my case as if you are the opposite side of a debate. No big deal, just terminology.
What exactly is the logically backing of the rule then?
I haven't shuffled anything. Why should I be able to reap the benefit without paying the cost?
Why would I bring an argument that I can shuffle my deck of 0 cards + the heroes I am adding to it. That makes sense. Discarding from hand of 0 cards does not make sense.
In the way that I am not actually discarding anything. The current rule structure simply says I am discarding.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 16, 2011, 09:49:39 PM
Quote
What exactly is the logically backing of the rule then?
Exactly what I told you: the player fulfills as much of the ability as he is able. This applies across a broad range of scenarios.
Quote
I haven't shuffled anything. Why should I be able to reap the benefit without paying the cost?
What cost? What benefit?
Quote
Discarding from hand of 0 cards does not make sense.
There is no "from". It's a totality. Everything that is in your hand, discard it. The player with zero cards does that as much as he is able.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 09:52:21 PM
If he can't fulfill any of the ability, why do we act like he fulfilled it?
The benefit of drawing six cards due to the cost of shuffling your hand of card(s) into the deck.
If everything in your hand is nothing, how can you discard anything? I am not able to discard anything.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 16, 2011, 10:01:53 PM
If he can't fulfill any of the ability, why do we act like he fulfilled it?
What part has he not fulfilled? He discarded everything he had.
Quote
The benefit of drawing six cards due to the cost of shuffling your hand of card(s) into the deck.
Which he did.
Quote
I am not able to discard anything.
Then you have done as much as you are able, fulfilling the requirement.
Suppose we play it your way. I use an ability that says to search for a Hero and add it to my hand. But, since a player with zero cards has no hand, I cannot add the card to something that does not exist, so the search does nothing.
You say for the draw pile is makes sense to play it as ruled, but for the hand you insist on doing this?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 10:08:22 PM
I have no cards in hand. I however still have a location where a hand can potentially be. I would say that Search adds to the location of the hand regardless of the number of cards in it. Primary Objective states that you discard your hand. You can not discard the location of your hand if you have zero cards in hand, so therefore I should be able to rescue a soul, because you did not discard anything.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 16, 2011, 10:23:32 PM
Primary Objective states that you discard your hand. You can not discard the location of your hand if you have zero cards in hand.
Sure you can. The whole point of discarding the entire hand is that the number of cards is not important. You are fulfilling as much of the ability as you are able. It's the only logical conclusion if you agree to apply the logic to other treatments of locations like the hand and discard pile (which you have), if you agree that the rules should remain simple and consistent with very limited exceptions (which you have claimed), and if you agree that doing as much as you are able is also a rule that should remain simple and consistent (which you have not even addressed despite it being cited multiple times).
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 10:31:53 PM
You can discard a location? That's news to me.
Quote
Quote
You can not discard the location of your hand if you....
Sure you can.
That is nitpicking on your statement, I agree, however I can not currently see a full answer that can justify how discarding nothing can satisfy anything. I want rules that are as easy to explain as possible. I don't see how this is an easy to rule to explain to anyway. It seems a lot easier to explain that if you don't have a hand, you can not discard your hand, so I get to rescue the soul. Sorry.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 16, 2011, 10:44:46 PM
This IS easy. You discard everything that's in your hand. Doesn't matter how many cards there are, you do as much as you are able, just like with nearly everything else in the game. You've already noted that the hand is a valid location at all times, and zero is a quantity just like one is a quantity, or twenty-one, when describing the number of cards present in that hand.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: RTSmaniac on January 16, 2011, 10:49:43 PM
Does that mean that jephthah works if i have no cards in deck?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 16, 2011, 10:55:10 PM
Does Jephthah say discard your deck, or does it specify the top card?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 11:17:58 PM
Jephthah specifies because it has a limit on the number, no?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: RTSmaniac on January 16, 2011, 11:21:46 PM
Jephthah (Pa) Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Red • Ability: 7 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Once per game, holder may discard any two evil characters in a territory or set-aside area if holder discards the top card from Holder's draw pile. • Play As: Holder may discard the top card from his deck to discard any two Evil Characters in a territory or set-aside area. Limit once per player per game • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Judge, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: Judges 11:11 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Uncommon)
sorry figured id post ability to help
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian on January 16, 2011, 11:29:26 PM
Does that mean that jephthah works if i have no cards in deck?
No.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: ChristianSoldier on January 16, 2011, 11:42:09 PM
Look at Herod's Temple, I believe that was brought up for a reason why it shouldn't work, but lets say you have rescued 0 lost souls and you also happen to have 0 cards in your deck to discard, it makes sense that I can discard 0 cards from the top of my deck (as well as an appropriate enhancement from my hand which lets say I have) should I not be able to satisfy it.
Herod's Temple requires me to discard 0 cards from a location I have 0 cards, so I can do it, because you can take 0 objects away from a reserve of 0 objects (in fact its the only amount you can take in this situation)
Primary Objective says a similar thing Discard your hand or do something, if you discard your hand you can think of it as counting the number of cards in your hand (in this case 0) and discarding that many (also 0) and you have done the same thing as using Herod's Temple when you have no redeemed lost souls.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER on January 16, 2011, 11:59:27 PM
You can discard your hand even if your hand has 0 cards.
I have no idea how this thread went this long. Unless you're a paraplegic or have encountered the aforementioned scenario twice already and failed to retrieve your digits/limb, the above quote is true and there is no need to change the ruling.
-C_S
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 17, 2011, 12:42:21 AM
There is a need to change the ruling. It makes PO lame, Mayhem crazy good, and affects Sinning Hand too...although that one probably won't come up much.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 12:43:36 AM
The thread has gone this long because multiple people think the ruling is wrong.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian on January 17, 2011, 01:01:01 AM
There is a need to change the ruling. It makes PO lame, Mayhem crazy good, and affects Sinning Hand too...although that one probably won't come up much.
How does it make PO lame?
There's a 1 card difference between playing Mayhem with 0 cards in hand and 1 card left in hand. Mayhem is "crazy good" regardless of the potential for 1 extra drawn card. (I should know, every time I've been beaten in RooT the past two months, I've had Mayhem used against me--usually in the first 1 or 2 turns.)
I'm sorry, but if you play Sinning Hand when your opponent has 0 or 1 card in hand, that's your fault.
The thread has gone this long because multiple people think the ruling is wrong.
So far I count 2. I'm certainly not saying your or RW's opinions aren't important, and you are certainly free to convey that you believe it's wrong, but unless there is some other aspect that has not been brought up yet, there's more reason to keep the current rule than change it.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 01:10:47 AM
Sauce makes 3, although he hasn't posted any real reasoning or thoughts as myself and Wraith have.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 17, 2011, 04:40:55 AM
I'm sorry, but if you play Sinning Hand when your opponent has 0 or 1 card in hand, that's your fault.
Every card you play is your fault, what's your point? If Sinning Hand is the only card in my hand, I shouldn't be punished just because my opponent emptied his hand last turn. Supposedly, Disciples was supposed to help alleviate the widespread use of Speed decks, and while it has to a point, rulings like this actively work against that goal. 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, so why are we helping them more by giving them free negates? They're already more likely to win due to drawing their dominants faster, do we really want to allow them to rescue Souls for no action at all on their part?
you do as much as you are able, just like with nearly everything else in the game.
So why do costs even exist at all, then? If we are only required to do as much as we are able, then most cards with costs could be used for no cost at all if we don't meet the requirements simply because "oh, I did as much as I am able, so that still meets the cost." Don't have a card in deck? No problem. You can discard 0 (as much as you are able) to use Jephthah. Cards in your hand protected from shuffle? No problem. You can shuffle 0 (as much as you are able) and still draw 6 from Mayhem. Are your fingers numb because it's cold in the room? No problem. You can tear 0 in half (as much as you are able) and still use Haman's Plot. No OT evil enhancements? No problem. You can discard 0 (as much as you are able) to protect NT Souls form rescue with False Teacher. Less than 4 cards in hand? No problem. You can put 0-3 under deck (as much as you are able) and still choose 4 with Feast of Trumpets.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 06:53:03 AM
So why do costs even exist at all, then? If we are only required to do as much as we are able, then most cards with costs could be used for no cost at all if we don't meet the requirements simply because "oh, I did as much as I am able, so that still meets the cost."
This is why I said "nearly" and why you need to take a step back and breathe. And maybe lay off the sarcasm a bit while you're at it, because it's not aiding the conversation at all.
Costs exist because they must be met in full. Discarding every card you have in your hand meets the requirement in full. Discarding nothing does not meet the requirement of discarding the top card of your deck.
By contrast, let's dump the "do what you can" principle of applying effects, since you seem to have a problem with it. Captured Ark says each opponent has to shuffle an active Artifact back into the draw pile. The first time you try to use it, three of your four opponents have an active Artifact, but the fourth has none. Ark does nothing, since it cannot shuffle from all your opponents. The second time you try to use it, all four opponents have an active Artifact, but one opponent has drawn all his cards. Ark does nothing, since there is no draw pile remaining to shuffle in the Artifact. Do either of those scenarios sound reasonable?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Prof Underwood on January 17, 2011, 06:57:26 AM
I have no cards in hand. I however still have a location where a hand can potentially be. I would say that Search adds to the location of the hand regardless of the number of cards in it.
And PO discards cards from the location of the hand regardless of the number of cards in it. It is the same thing. One adds cards even if your hand is empty, and the other discards cards even if your hand is empty. The point of PO is that you don't have any cards left in your hand after it, and you don't. I agree with the current ruling.
that position is (largely) predicated on upholding fun and fellowship. Since you specifically mention T2, I don't see why fun and fellowship should be as big of a concern
This is an interesting point. I'm not sure what I think about this. On the one hand, I think you are probably right that most T2 players are less concerned about "fun and fellowship" than T1 players. On the other hand, I wonder if that is why T2 is less fun. Perhaps we need to focus on making T2 more fun so that more players will play it. After all, it's better for Rob if everyone needs 5 of every card :)
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 17, 2011, 08:24:48 AM
So why do costs even exist at all, then? If we are only required to do as much as we are able, then most cards with costs could be used for no cost at all if we don't meet the requirements simply because "oh, I did as much as I am able, so that still meets the cost."
This is why I said "nearly" and why you need to take a step back and breathe. And maybe lay off the sarcasm a bit while you're at it, because it's not aiding the conversation at all.
Costs exist because they must be met in full. Discarding every card you have in your hand meets the requirement in full. Discarding nothing does not meet the requirement of discarding the top card of your deck.
By contrast, let's dump the "do what you can" principle of applying effects, since you seem to have a problem with it. Captured Ark says each opponent has to shuffle an active Artifact back into the draw pile. The first time you try to use it, three of your four opponents have an active Artifact, but the fourth has none. Ark does nothing, since it cannot shuffle from all your opponents. The second time you try to use it, all four opponents have an active Artifact, but one opponent has drawn all his cards. Ark does nothing, since there is no draw pile remaining to shuffle in the Artifact. Do either of those scenarios sound reasonable?
Silly (but true to the point) examples =/= sarcasm.
Why does doing nothing ever meet any requirements? Costs are there because whatever ability it is requires a cost in order to be balanced. Having to do nothing to satisfy the cost means you're getting an overpowered ability for nothing. That seems counter-intuitive and counterproductive (and overpowered).
"Do as much as you can" should only ever apply to the effect half of a cost:effect relationship, never to the cost. I have no problem with its use as such. No, they don't sound reasonable, but neither does a cost being fulfilled by doing nothing. Also, despite what you seem to think, the current ruling and our suggestion for change are not mutually exclusive. They can coexist perfectly well.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 08:40:58 AM
Silly (but true to the point) examples =/= sarcasm.
When you say something that is supposed to sound serious but obviously is intended not to be serious, that's sarcasm. Really, the only options you leave for interpreting your statements are a). you're serious about not having to tear Haman's Plot, b). you think this subject is amusing and not a big deal, or c). you were using sarcasm to make your point.
Quote
Why does doing nothing ever meet any requirements?
When everything is nothing. Was there anything in my hand that I did not discard?
Quote
That seems counter-intuitive and counterproductive (and overpowered).
For a lot of people who apply this principle without any problems, it seems pretty intuitive to them. I have seen no evidence that the ruling is counter-productive, and I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean in this context. I also have not seen any examples of this rule resulting in overpowered cards; perhaps someone could demonstrate that for me.
Quote
"Do as much as you can" should only ever apply to the effect half of a cost:effect relationship, never to the cost
It doesn't, it never has, and I never said it did. This is why I invited you to take a step back from this; you are applying my explanation in areas that I was not addressing, getting all worked up about it and saying I'm the one who said it.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 17, 2011, 08:54:50 AM
Quote
When everything is nothing. Was there anything in my hand that I did not discard?
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.
Quote
For a lot of people who apply this principle without any problems, it seems pretty intuitive to them. I have seen no evidence that the ruling is counter-productive, and I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean in this context. I also have not seen any examples of this rule resulting in overpowered cards; perhaps someone could demonstrate that for me.
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?
Quote
It doesn't, it never has, and I never said it did. This is why I invited you to take a step back from this; you are applying my explanation in areas that I was not addressing, getting all worked up about it and saying I'm the one who said it.
Who's worked up? I'm perfectly calm, lol. No need to get defensive. However, you actually DID apply the "do as much as you can" thought to costs in this post (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=25063.msg395552#msg395552), and I carried it further to other costs. So, you did actually say it, I didn't have to imply or infer or skew your words at all. If there needs to be a step taken back, it isn't mine.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 09:08:52 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 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=25063.msg395552#msg395552).
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?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Red 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Red on January 17, 2011, 09:30:16 AM
"This reduces consistency and adds complexity."
That isn't a good thing.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Red on January 17, 2011, 09:50:11 AM
So I can Jephthah my deck with zero cards now?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 17, 2011, 09:54:27 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.
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?
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.
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 10:16:12 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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on January 17, 2011, 10:17:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 11:21:07 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Professoralstad on January 17, 2011, 11:43:46 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 11:48:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Professoralstad on January 17, 2011, 12:03:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 12:06:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER on January 17, 2011, 12:07:48 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER on January 17, 2011, 12:34:13 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 17, 2011, 02:04:57 PM
How could a Discard have taken place if nothing was Discarded?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 02:06:14 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 02:09:52 PM
I have zero cards in hand. Alex has one card in hand. Pol has six cards in hand. Mayhem is played. Everyone shuffles the content of their hands. I have zero cards in hand. Alex has zero cards in hand. Pol has zero cards in hand. We have all achieved the result of the effect. So we all draw six.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 17, 2011, 02:13:12 PM
First off, Mayhem doesn't discard. Secondly, it says "Shuffle hand into deck TO draw six." Because you didn't shuffle your hand into the deck, then you shouldn't get to draw.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 17, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
Schaef did NOT Shuffle (or Discard if we're using special Mayhem) the contents of his hand. No shuffle occurred, and he doesn't get to shuffle his deck either.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 02:15:24 PM
Corrected, smart alecks.
And yes, a shuffle occurred, including all the contents of my deck and all the contents of my hand.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian on January 17, 2011, 02:18:17 PM
I have zero cards in hand. Alex has one card in hand. Pol has six cards in hand. Mayhem is played. Everyone shuffles the content of their hands. I have zero cards in hand. Alex has zero cards in hand. Pol has zero cards in hand. We have all achieved the result of the effect. So we all draw six.
+1
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 17, 2011, 02:24:34 PM
On a slightly note, lets say you played Birth Foretold and then your opponent played Mayhem. You wouldn't shuffle your whole hand into your deck, so would you be left with one card in your hand and not draw?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 02:32:13 PM
Abilities, please.
"Search deck for Isaac, Samson, John the Baptist, or Son of God. Protect cards with those titles from opponents' cards this turn."
I agree with that assessment: any cards that are protected are not shuffled, and since you had cards remaining in hand unshuffled, you could not match the cost, and therefore no draw.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 17, 2011, 02:33:57 PM
Quote
a shuffle occurred
Orly? What got shuffled from your hand?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 02:35:43 PM
Everything I had, same as you.
Turn that on its head, say I have decked out and you play Mayhem. If a shuffle occurred, what did my hand get shuffled into?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 17, 2011, 02:46:27 PM
Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. Mayhem isn't targeting any decks, and decks don't factor into Mayhem's do X to do Y function. I'm not disputing that the hand and the deck exist as a location even when there are no cards in them, I simply contend that a cost which involves shuffling or discarding or whatever cannot be satisfied of no cards were shuffled or discarded or whatever.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 02:51:55 PM
Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. Mayhem isn't targeting any decks, and decks don't factor into Mayhem's do X to do Y function.
You figure that decks don't figure into an ability that says to shuffle your hand into your deck?
Quote
I simply contend that a cost which involves shuffling or discarding or whatever cannot be satisfied of no cards were shuffled or discarded or whatever.
What part of the ability states a minimum or specific quantity or attribute?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 17, 2011, 03:04:39 PM
"Discard" is not an ambiguous term. If no cards were Discarded, no Discard took place.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 03:07:43 PM
All the cards that were in the hand were discarded. It is not the ability's fault that the quantity happened to be zero, but the player has no cards remaining in hand after applying the discard ability.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER on January 17, 2011, 04:09:28 PM
All the cards that were in the hand were discarded. It is not the ability's fault that the quantity happened to be zero, but the player has no cards remaining in hand after applying the discard ability.
Why am I getting the feeling that this debate is about dividing zero?
-C_S
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Prof Underwood on January 17, 2011, 04:22:10 PM
Why am I getting the feeling that this debate is about dividing zero?
Nice.
Well we've had 6 pages, and I think that both sides have very clearly (and repeatedly) stated their sides. All of the elders posting have confirmed that the current ruling stands. I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion at this time.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: ChristianSoldier on January 17, 2011, 05:19:43 PM
"Discard" is not an ambiguous term. If no cards were Discarded, no Discard took place.
So if I have 0 redeemed souls I can't use Herod's Temple because I couldn't discard any cards off of my deck because X is 0?
It should be the same with Mayhem and PO, it says all, which means the number you have, which is 0, so the cost should be fulfilled if the amount you have to shuffle or discard is 0, if you discard or shuffle 0
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 06:37:03 PM
It was clarified on page 1 that HT and PO are not going to follow the same rules.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: STAMP on January 17, 2011, 07:17:50 PM
I propose that if the rule is allowed that you can discard a hand of zero cards, then you can no longer have a hand from that point on in a game. Why? You obviously discarded it since there were no cards discarded.
Actually, I removed the tongue-in-cheek. I'm serious.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: ChristianSoldier on January 17, 2011, 08:05:03 PM
I know they are different, but the biggest argument is that with a 0 card hand you aren't discarding anything so how can it satisfy the condition?
Herod's temple involves discarding something to satisfy a condition (yes its slightly different, its an instead ability and whatnot) but the logic is the same you are discarding 0 cards and getting the benefit even though you aren't discarding anything.
At least that's the way I see it
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 17, 2011, 08:22:21 PM
I know they are different, but the biggest argument is that with a 0 card hand you aren't discarding anything so how can it satisfy the condition?
Herod's temple involves discarding something to satisfy a condition (yes its slightly different, its an instead ability and whatnot) but the logic is the same you are discarding 0 cards and getting the benefit even though you aren't discarding anything.
At least that's the way I see it
In the case of HT, you always have to discard a matching brigade card from hand, so there's always at least some cost being paid.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: TheHobbit13 on January 17, 2011, 10:42:13 PM
You cannot discard the top x (assuming you rescued at least one soul) cards of your deck if you have no cards in year deck. Therefore you cannot get the benefit.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: galadgawyn on January 20, 2011, 12:51:17 AM
First, I think there is logic to both sides but I heavily prefer the side that wants it changed.
I think the main divide is between looking at the hand or looking at the action. Scheaf says that you discard or shuffle your whole hand (which is 0) and have the result of having 0 cards in hand which fulfills the requirement. I understand that mathematically you can be directed to discard X, X=0, and so discarding nothing is discarding X.
However, if you focus on the requirement (to shuffle or discard), that is an action and in order for that action to take place, it requires a minimum of 1. In other words, did the act of discarding take place? If nothing was discarded then no.
example: a lunatic comes to your neighborhood and tells all the husbands to kill everyone else in their house or else very bad things happen. Lucky for you there is no one else in your house. You do nothing. Then the police come looking for killers in your neighborhood. Did you meet the lunatics demands? yes Did you kill anyone and will you go to jail for it? no When the police ask you if you killed everyone else in your house, you will tell them no. What is important here is not that the technical requirement of 0 was met but whether the action took place.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Warrior on January 20, 2011, 01:37:02 AM
Thread. tl;dr
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: galadgawyn on January 20, 2011, 01:50:56 AM
For Jepthah you could say that I discarded my whole deck (which happens to be zero) and my whole deck includes my top card so I satisfied the requirement. After all, top card is not a number but a position and the card in that position is discarded just like deck or hand. That does seem kind of weird but when you have do nothing count as doing something then I'm not sure why that couldn't work for this too.
Regarding some of Scheaf's other objections about adding cards to an empty hand or deck: It is not debated that the location of deck and hand exist even if there are 0 cards in them. You can logically perform the action of adding cards to a location that is currently empty so searching or shuffling is not a problem. But when someone rescues the shuffler lost soul and you have no lost souls out, you don't shuffle; you don't get to say that you are shuffling all (0) your souls so you can shuffle your deck. And when you discard your 0 card hand, you observe that no (0) cards went into a discard pile so they in fact did not discard. What if their were cards that said "every time you discard your hand, you may do x" or "every time your opponent discards their hand you can do x" would they be fulfilled along with PO? Would they be fulfilled every discard phase when they "discard" their 0 hand?
For Trumpet Blast you discard an evil Fortress to discard the evil characters, no fortress discarded = no evil character discarded. What if the card said "discard all evil fortresses to discard all evil characters in battle" and there are no evil fortresses out. According to your logic, even though the cost is worded to be more, it can be fulfilled when there are no evil fortresses to discard. You discarded all evil fortresses which happens to be 0 so it works.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: galadgawyn on January 20, 2011, 01:58:34 AM
Lastly for Herod's Temple, if they didn't have the discard from hand requirement and you had no lost souls rescued, would it really make sense to continually do nothing instead of having your character discarded? Nothing happened "instead" which doesn't really make sense.
So I think for cards like HT you should also have to perform the action to fulfill the card.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 07:46:13 AM
However, if you focus on the requirement (to shuffle or discard), that is an action and in order for that action to take place, it requires a minimum of 1. In other words, did the act of discarding take place? If nothing was discarded then no.
Requirements are defined by their results. A player who discards three of the four cards in his hand has taken the action of discarding, but with a card still in his hand, has not achieved the result. Yet your logic credits him more than I, even though I have achieved the desired result and he has not.
Quote
What is important here is not that the technical requirement of 0 was met but whether the action took place.
Since the requirement was set by the lunatic, with a consequence for failing to do so, it actually is the more important thing to have met his requirement. By bringing in the police later, you substituted the original effect that you stated (protection from bad things) with a different effect (going to jail) which was not part of your (coerced) agreement with the lunatic, but you just assume is supposed to take precedence. The requirement by these cards is only that you apply their effect to any and all cards you have in your hand; there is not some secondary ghost requirement that shows up later to enforce a different set of rules.
Quote
What if their were cards that said "every time you discard your hand, you may do x" or "every time your opponent discards their hand you can do x" would they be fulfilled along with PO? Would they be fulfilled every discard phase when they "discard" their 0 hand?
That is correct. Which is why you will never see a card like that.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: RTSmaniac on January 20, 2011, 01:51:52 PM
"each time you discard a card you may do X" would be a great card in my opinion.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 02:02:24 PM
But that's a 1 for 1 exchange, not a discarding of all the contents of a location.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: RTSmaniac on January 20, 2011, 04:00:11 PM
so if you discard all, then that includes 0. right?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian on January 20, 2011, 04:06:23 PM
Yes.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: uthminister [BR] on January 20, 2011, 04:35:32 PM
So when my Luke hero calls for an opponent to draw a card, but there is no card to draw, do they have to discard because of Abom? I caused them to draw 0 cards but Abom doesn't say a specific number so zero would satisfy that condition...right?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 20, 2011, 04:38:47 PM
"If used by a Greek, place in opponent's territory. Each time opponent draws cards (except during draw phase), you may discard a card in that territory except a Lost Soul."
I would say yes. They are drawing, it's just they're drawing 0 cards. Their hand number doesn't have to change. They still have a deck, it just doesn't have any cards in it.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 04:50:51 PM
Those specify drawing cards, they are not referencing the totality of a location. In particular, "draw a card" has a specific single number, so it either happens or it doesn't.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on January 20, 2011, 04:53:20 PM
Those specify drawing cards, they are not referencing the totality of a location. In particular, "draw a card" has a specific single number, so it either happens or it doesn't.
Except, Abom does not specifically say "Draw a card"
It says "draws cards", with no specific number. Therefore, you can draw zero cards and still trigger it.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 20, 2011, 04:54:47 PM
Zeal for the Lord can discard one evil character if only one is in play. It fulfills it to the fullest it is able. Say Meeting the Messiah is played. You draw to the fullest you are able, which is zero cards. You drew.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 04:55:15 PM
But it DOES SAY draw cards. The objects of this discussion, such as Primary Objective do not say to discard CARDS, but the total contents of your HAND.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on January 20, 2011, 04:57:19 PM
The principle is the same. Neither specifies a set number, so therefore Zero will meet the requirements.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 05:00:39 PM
The principle is not in fact the same and I told you exactly how they differ. Discarding zero cards does not constitute discarding cards. Discarding all the contents of your hand does constitute discarding your hand.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on January 20, 2011, 05:05:04 PM
The principle is not in fact the same and I told you exactly how they differ. Discarding zero cards does not constitute discarding cards. Discarding all the contents of your hand does constitute discarding your hand.
Discard your hand. I have to discard X cards to satisfy the requirement. My hand = 0. I discard 0 cards and meet the requirement. Draw cards. I have to draw any number of cards to satisfy the requirement. My deck = 0. I draw 0 cards and meet the requirement.
If doing absolutely no action satisfies one vague condition, it should satisfy the other.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: CJSports on January 20, 2011, 05:05:45 PM
Those specify drawing cards, they are not referencing the totality of a location. In particular, "draw a card" has a specific single number, so it either happens or it doesn't.
Except, Abom does not specifically say "Draw a card"
It says "draws cards", with no specific number. Therefore, you can draw zero cards and still trigger it.
Drawing zero is does not trigger A-Boms ability because it says "when your opponent draws cards" drawing zero would not qualify as drawing cards because zero is nothing so your not drawing anything therefore not meeting the requirement. It don't know if it works the same way with PO. I have used an A-bom deck and I got ruled this against me so I had to use feast of trumpets to keep reseting there deck.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 20, 2011, 05:07:54 PM
If doing absolutely no action satisfies one vague condition, it should satisfy the other.
This does not account for the distinction between the specific action of manipulating cards, and the general reference to the entirety of a location. I'm not going to repeat that argument (again), I'm just going to wait for you to actually address it one way or the other.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: 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.
Discard by nature is just as much a specific action of manipulating cards as drawing is. You move a card from one location to another. This does not happen in EITHER scenario.
From the REG:
Discard is removing a card from its current location and placing it face up on the top of the discard pile.
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.
*EDIT*
also from the REG: http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=defaultconditions15.htm (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=defaultconditions15.htm)
If a special ability requires you to draw one or more cards and the draw pile is exhausted, do not draw a card. If a special ability requires you to discard one or more cards from a target (e.g., draw pile, discard pile, players hand, etc.), and the target is exhausted, do not discard a card.
My hand is exhausted. By GAME RULE I cannot discard anything, and therefore I cannot meet the requirement.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: RTSmaniac on January 20, 2011, 05:23:42 PM
+1 Lambo
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: RTSmaniac on January 20, 2011, 05:33:21 PM
u mean they cant have a hand ever again stamp?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: TheHobbit13 on January 20, 2011, 05:48:55 PM
also from the REG: http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=defaultconditions15.htm (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=defaultconditions15.htm)
If a special ability requires you to draw one or more cards and the draw pile is exhausted, do not draw a card. If a special ability requires you to discard one or more cards from a target (e.g., draw pile, discard pile, players hand, etc.), and the target is exhausted, do not discard a card.
My hand is exhausted. By GAME RULE I cannot discard anything, and therefore I cannot meet the requirement.
No one is arguing that you discarded a card if you have discarded a hand of zero.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 20, 2011, 06:06:54 PM
Thank you Lambo for finding the REG quotes to prove what I've been trying to get across. :)
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: STAMP on January 20, 2011, 06:12:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: TheHobbit13 on January 20, 2011, 06:15:44 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on January 20, 2011, 06:24:16 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: STAMP on January 20, 2011, 06:42:21 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER 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 mathematically.
-C_S
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: TheHobbit13 on January 20, 2011, 07:17:29 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.
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 20, 2011, 07:22:52 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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 20, 2011, 08:18:12 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 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=25063.msg396417#msg396417) on page 8.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 20, 2011, 10:27:40 PM
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.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 20, 2011, 11:37:42 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.
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 12:15:21 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: COUNTER_SNIPER 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
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian on January 21, 2011, 02:44:44 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.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on January 21, 2011, 08:51:26 AM
I ask again...
What is being placed face up into the discard pile?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef 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..
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: RTSmaniac on January 21, 2011, 10:09:58 AM
Holy unto the Lord (Pi) Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Teal • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Shuffle all Evil Characters in play into owners’ draw piles. Reveal your hand and discard all revealed evil cards. Cannot be interrupted. • Play As: Shuffle [return] all Evil Characters in play into owners’ deck. Reveal your hand and discard all revealed evil cards. Cannot be interrupted. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ezra 8:28 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Rare)
so with the above SA, if i have no evil cards in hand when played- I technically discarded?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Prof Underwood on January 21, 2011, 10:13:56 AM
from the REG: http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=defaultconditions15.htm (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=defaultconditions15.htm)
If a special ability requires you to discard one or more cards from a target (e.g., draw pile, discard pile, players hand, etc.), and the target is exhausted, do not discard a card.
This does seem to be a contradiction. I think that if this ruling is going to stand, then this part of the REG needs to be clarified.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 10:18:36 AM
Or, we go with the more logical ruling that is consistent with that REG entry: if you Discard no cards, nothing was Discarded.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 10:19:53 AM
I disagree that it's a contradiction, as you're not required to discard any specific number, only to reduce your hand to zero. I do think it needs to be clarified, so as to avoid interpreting it otherwise.
Quote
so with the above SA, if i have no evil cards in hand when played- I technically discarded?
The discard ability took effect and discarded zero cards. I'm not sure where you're going with this line of reasoning, though.
Quote
Or, we go with the more logical ruling that is consistent with that REG entry: if you Discard no cards, nothing was Discarded.
You don't consider it logical that if you have no cards remaining in your hand, that you have not met the requirement to discard any cards in your hand?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: uthminister [BR] on January 21, 2011, 10:27:17 AM
Alright...I think our "hand" is causing us to sin so according to Jesus we need to cut it off. No hands allowed for anyone in this discussion thread. Try typing walls of text now.
(Predicted apearance of any following responses below)
Alright...I think our "hand" is causing us to sin so according to Jesus we need to cut it off. No hands allowed for anyone in this discussion thread. Try typing walls of text now.
(Predicted apearance of any following responses below)
We already h ad a thread like that. This was typed with my nose.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: STAMP on January 21, 2011, 10:52:45 AM
You know, if this was April 1st I would continue playing along, but it's not.
And now you've made me grumpy. When you come to your senses DON'T call me. I'll just find out from Lambo or Pol when the ruling is changed to what it should be.
In the meantime, I'm going to go teach some RLKs to fish. It takes an infinitely shorter amount of time than to teach them Redemption at this point.
:P
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: uthminister [BR] on January 21, 2011, 10:58:16 AM
Alright...I think our "hand" is causing us to sin so according to Jesus we need to cut it off. No hands allowed for anyone in this discussion thread. Try typing walls of text now.
(Predicted apearance of any following responses below)
We already h ad a thread like that. This was typed with my nose.
nice
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 10:59:15 AM
I keep hearing that but let's be honest, as it stands now, the basics of the game are still pretty simple to teach, ruling controversies on this board tend to center on narrow and exceptional scenarios or trying to game the wording of a particular definition, and at most of the tournaments I've been to or hosted, it's an anomaly if more than one or maybe two questions come up that can't be easily answered out of the rulebook.
In short, the rulings board is not a microcosm of the game at large.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on January 21, 2011, 11:57:52 AM
You don't consider it logical that if you have no cards remaining in your hand, that you have not met the requirement to discard any cards in your hand?
No, I do no not, as the only thing you can move face up into the discard pile is air. No cards PHYSICALLY moved, so therefore no condition was met.
According to your logic, I can use Filling Z's Temple even if I find nothing in the deck that it was looking for. I have no temple arts or Z temples remaining in my deck, so I should still meet the cost of pulling one out of the deck.
How about Egyptian Warden? I have no evil gold enhancements remaining in my hand. I should still meet the cost of discarding an evil gold enhancement from my hand.
I am strongly opposed to the idea that inaction can complete a cost. Unless you physically do something to a card, or it uses specific X Variable wording, you did nothing.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 12:24:43 PM
No cards PHYSICALLY moved, so therefore no condition was met.
No cards REMAIN, so the condition WAS met.
Quote
According to your logic, I can use Filling Z's Temple even if I find nothing in the deck that it was looking for. I have no temple arts or Z temples remaining in my deck, so I should still meet the cost of pulling one out of the deck.
The requirement is that you add the card to your hand. If you did not add a card to your hand, you did not meet the requirement.
Quote
How about Egyptian Warden? I have no evil gold enhancements remaining in my hand. I should still meet the cost of discarding an evil gold enhancement from my hand.
"An Enhancement" is one card. Discarding less than one card does not meet the requirement.
Quote
Unless you physically do something to a card, or it uses specific X Variable wording, you did nothing.
The ability says to discard your hand. You are emptying your hand of whatever number of cards are there until zero remain. You try to have it both ways by saying some variable abilities (like X = ) are okay, but other variables (like 50% or 100% of the total number) are not okay.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 21, 2011, 12:25:49 PM
The condition wasn't that no cards remain, the condition was that they discarded their whole hand. They didn't, since they didn't discard anything.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 12:27:55 PM
The condition wasn't that no cards remain, the condition was that they discarded their whole hand.
Having no cards remaining in hand is HOW you identify that you met the condition of discarding your whole hand. If you have a card in your hand, you did not achieve the same result as a player with no cards in hand. If I have no cards in hand and you have no cards in hand, the discard ability produced the same result for both of us.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 12:41:49 PM
Actually, I just realized how that's not true. If any of the cards you had in hand were insteaded (either to Chamber or by Herod's Temple), then you had NOT Discarded your hand, yet your hand is empty. So obviously, the condition has to do with discarding, not with making sure the hand is empty.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 12:43:05 PM
You would still meet the condition of the card, however, even if the cards are re-destined after the fact. So you make a distinction without a difference, since my claim was that you need an end result of an empty hand and you got it.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 12:46:13 PM
Um, no. It's been ruled that instead abilities negate the condition that caused them. Trust me, I wanted it to work the way you're saying, and there was a HUGE discussion about it, but "insteaded" cards were not Discarded. If any cards in their hand are insteaded, they did not Discard their hand. And yet their hand would still be empty. That is not the check "Discard hand" uses.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 12:57:17 PM
There is no "inherent negate" in an instead ability. That may or may not be what you meant but I've spent far too many years stamping down wording that was only intended to be explanatory but was taken as gospel, to just accept on its face an observation that specifies an effect used in the game.
If someone said PO doesn't work if a card gets re-destined during a discard action, I'd like to see that thread.
(FWIW, that still wouldn't change my argument because there are no re-destined cards when discarding an empty hand. You're actually applying a different effect in place of discard. PO + empty hand does not do this).
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 12:59:40 PM
Dude, seriously? IaH+Chamber happened like less than a couple months ago.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 01:00:54 PM
See above.
Plus, dude, seriously, it may surprise you to know that I don't read every single thread on the forum, and even the ones I do, I don't necessarily remember them off the top of my head.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 21, 2011, 01:02:06 PM
(FWIW, that still wouldn't change my argument because there are no re-destined cards when discarding an empty hand. You're actually applying a different effect in place of discard. PO + empty hand does not do this).
It affirms that you have to discard, not just empty your hand. Because of Chamber, your hand may be empty, but you didn't discard it all. Therefore, you have to have a discard take place.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 01:02:56 PM
Every single thread? Did you seriously miss the massive discussion in which IaH was ruled not to work with Chamber because an insteaded card was not, in fact, Discarded so the cost was not paid?
I may be able to believe that since I don't specifically remember you being a part of that discussion. Let me go search the 5ish posts for where the ruling may have shown up.
... I know a more general definition of how "instead" is carried out is what a lot of us (and other players) have been waiting for. From your ruling on I am Holy/Chamber of Angels, I have kind of inferred thus:
If an ability is "insteaded" that ability is considered to never have been carried out, for any reason. Only the ability that took place instead of the original is considered to have happened.
I agree.
*EDIT*
Quote
(FWIW, that still wouldn't change my argument because there are no re-destined cards when discarding an empty hand. You're actually applying a different effect in place of discard. PO + empty hand does not do this).
This proves that the check for PO's condition is not "is the hand empty," like you've been arguing for the past few pages. Without that argument, you don't have a leg to stand on and must either agree that something has to be Discarded for a Discard to take place or refuse to admit you were wrong and just bluster until we get tired of trying to get you to see reason. Hopefully, now that you're aware of the recent "instead" ruling you'll re-evaluate your position.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 01:10:02 PM
There's no need to drag this down a rabbit hole. All I'm asking is that you go easy on the dude, seriously, just because I asked you a question regarding Primary Objective, not having gleaned your reference to IaH which was never openly stated.
I can think of at least three different explanations that could separate that ruling from this discussion. The first being that IaH specifies its quantity. If there is not a card quantity equal to one with the discard effect applied, cost not met. But this doesn't apply to PO which specifies no quantity.
The second, which is kind of an extension of the first, is that you could argue Chamber applies a different effect but you still discarded all the valid targets in your hand for discard, after discounting cards that get re-destined.
The third would be to concede that the discard MUST be the effect and it MUST be applied to all the cards in hand, meaning Chamber would stop the PO discard option. Even given all those things, since I have reduced the cards in my hand to zero, and since I have not applied any other effect to my hand that would remove them in a different manner, I still have met the condition by discarding an empty hand.
So despite your claims to the contrary, I have three potential legs to stand on, even if I concede every single other point you've made. That is because you haven't disproven the empty hand argument, only demonstrated that as a general statement taken by itself, it doesn't account for exceptional cases which may or may not require additional clarification.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 01:16:25 PM
Based on what? You're making a bottom-up ruling here. The condition for "Discarding Entire Hand" is not "Hand Ends Up Empty." I've demonstrated why that can't be the case. Doesn't it make a lot more sense to make the condition "Every card in the hand went to the Discard pile?" That's what the card says, so why play word games with it?
The only cards in the game that would even be affected by this are Mayhem and PO. Every other similar card either has an X identifier (which can be 0) or can't activate without the requirement being met (SSS can't activate when there are no EC's in battle, for example). Furthermore, if it works your way, when the shuffler LS is rescued everyone shuffles their decks whether or not they had any LS's out of Sites to shuffle.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 21, 2011, 01:19:25 PM
And Sinning Hand.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 01:22:12 PM
Based on what? You're making a bottom-up ruling here.
Incorrect. Please read on.
Quote
Doesn't it make a lot more sense to make the condition "Every card in the hand went to the Discard pile?"
If you read my reply, you see that my third possible response is the same condition as this, just worded differently. And worded as you have done so, Mayhem and PO still work because it doesn't contradict the rule about discarding an empty hand.
Quote
The only cards in the game that would even be affected by this are Mayhem and PO.
And Sinning Hand with < 2 cards in hand. Which also would NOT be affected, as noted above.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 01:25:48 PM
"Hand ends up empty" is bunk and false. You're making that up on the spot. Or if not, why are no other elders agreeing with that made-up bad rule?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 01:35:15 PM
"Hand ends up empty" is bunk and false. You're making that up on the spot. Or if not, why are no other elders agreeing with that made-up bad rule?
I'm not "making up" anything, it's just a different form of "discard all the cards in your hand".
Neither is it false just because in its brevity it doesn't account for exceptional situations. I would not argue that AoC's ability to discard all ECs in play is "false" just because it does not discard ECs that are protected, or if certain potential discards get re-destined. Most reasonable people would accept or reject the correctness of the general premise without demanding that every possible exceptional possibility be openly stated for maximum clarity. To the contrary, I'm frequently criticized for taking the time to explain my position in detail with examples and citations. So either people want me to keep it brief and simple, or to spell everything out in exacting detail. Whichever it is, I just need people to make up their minds so I know what's expected of me.
Lastly, I'm not aware of a single elder in this thread who disagreed that you can discard an empty hand to meet this requirement. Instead, you choose to attach accusations of rules being "made up" and "bad" to pretend that somehow I'm being irrational or obtuse. If I have to be turned into an adversary just to have this discussion, it's not going to go very far.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2011, 01:36:10 PM
I sure started a winner. I think it's really interesting how only 1 player (that I remember) has sided with the PTBs, and the rest have disagreed. Just interesting.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 01:37:40 PM
Schaef, none of the other elders have been responding for quite some time, especially as the opposition presents more and more valid proof. I think you're the only one who hasn't realized that "hand ends up empty" doesn't work.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: STAMP on January 21, 2011, 01:38:02 PM
I sure started a winner. I think it's really interesting how only 1 player (that I remember) has sided with the PTBs, and the rest have disagreed. Just interesting.
Yeah, well just wait until election day. :laugh:
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 01:48:53 PM
Schaef, none of the other elders have been responding for quite some time, especially as the opposition presents more and more valid proof. I think you're the only one who hasn't realized that "hand ends up empty" doesn't work.
Argument from silence is a logical fallacy, since they may also just get tired of repeating the same things over and over. Or, I could just as easily argue that browarod gave up because he knows I'm right, but I intend to keep things reasonable, and that would be an unreasonable assumption.
What is becoming plain, however, as this discussion goes on, is that the more effort I make to clarify and reconcile my position, the more you move away from any additional information and pigeonhole my statements more and more. To look at your posts now, one might conclude the only thing I ever said on the subject was "hand ends up empty", neither more nor less. That's a reductive fallacy.
To continue to respond in this fashion disinclines me from wasting any more effort trying to increase understanding. If I had to make an argument from silence about why the elders have stopped responding, it would probably be what I am actually the last one to realize is how little regard you are showing for those efforts.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 01:52:59 PM
What efforts? If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is? I propose that it's "every card that was in your hand went to the Discard Pile." Do you have a different suggestion?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 01:56:25 PM
If you don't know my response to that, you have only proven my point that you haven't read anything I wrote for the last hour.
In fact, what interests me most is that ever since that exact response, you have used that reductive phrase in every post you've made, even though it doesn't appear in my response or ANY of my posts after that, other than once to address your fallacious treatment of my words.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 02:02:15 PM
Quote
If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?
That's really a simple question. Perhaps the answer was lost in your over-long responses to everything.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 02:09:34 PM
Please inform me which displeases you more, when my responses are too detailed, or when my responses do not have a suitable degree of specificity, causing you to run around tearing down the over-simplified version of my position, which I note again that you are the one still using that phrase.
I'd like to respond in a way that will generate real discussion, but I'm having trouble determining what you actually want from me. I even allowed the use of your definition for the purposes of this discussion, and employed it in my explanation, and not only was that not good enough for you, you seem to have lost it in an "over-long" response of exactly two sentences totaling less than 50 words.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 02:14:44 PM
Quote
If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 02:17:01 PM
Quote
I even allowed the use of your definition for the purposes of this discussion, and employed it in my explanation
I didn't ask you to quote what I already read, I asked you to start reading what I write.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 02:20:56 PM
Just read all your posts since I asked that question, no answer found. So again,
Quote
If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2011, 02:22:33 PM
Please inform me which displeases you more, when my responses are too detailed, or when my responses do not have a suitable degree of specificity, causing you to run around tearing down the over-simplified version of my position, which I note again that you are the one still using that phrase.
When your responses don't address the questions asked or simply rehash a previous response (typically involving the restatement of a ruling rather than an explanation thereof).
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 02:34:51 PM
Let's look at what Polarius said:
Quote
Doesn't it make a lot more sense to make the condition "Every card in the hand went to the Discard pile?"
In response I said:
Quote
If you read my reply, you see that my third possible response is the same condition as this, just worded differently. And worded as you have done so, Mayhem and PO still work because it doesn't contradict the rule about discarding an empty hand.
My assertion is that I took his response, incorporated it into the discussion and moved it forward. Please explain how I did not address the question, and/or restated a ruling with no explanation.
The "third possible response", by the way, refers to three different possible explanations as to why discarding an empty hand for PO can work within the existing ruleset while accounting for the I Am Hole rule, and NONE of which rely on a basic, unqualified "hand ends up empty" statement.
Meanwhile, Polarius said in subsequent posts:
Quote
"Hand ends up empty" is bunk and false.
Quote
I think you're the only one who hasn't realized that "hand ends up empty" doesn't work.
Quote
If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?
Quote
If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?
Quote
If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?
Quote
If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?
There is somebody repeating the same points over and over, and there is somebody who is adding new information or trying to explain the same information in a different way to increase understanding. Yet, somehow there seems to be some confusion about which is which.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 02:38:40 PM
Oh, you're going back to that? I explained why that was wrong, so I thought you must have been talking about something else.
Mayhem and PO do not work with an empty hand unless the condition is "empty hand at the end." This obviously can't be the condition. So what set of checks are you proposing for whether or not a hand was Discarded or shuffled?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2011, 02:44:39 PM
The third possible explanation? Where was the first possible explanation? Doesn't an explanation account for holes in it? Pol exposed holes in the dam. Do we need a flood before we fix it? The ruling adjustment that is being presented is so minor - why does it matter this much? Literally every player on this thead but Hobbit has stated that they feel it is more logical to overturn to current ruling. We have given reason. You have provided the main argument, with mostly passive support from other playtesters. Guardian went so far as to say he didn't necessarily disagree with me about PO discarding your hand. If this issue was so abundantly clear like you seem to suppose it is, we wouldn't be having a 13+ thread about it.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 21, 2011, 02:46:32 PM
There's no need to drag this down a rabbit hole. All I'm asking is that you go easy on the dude, seriously, just because I asked you a question regarding Primary Objective, not having gleaned your reference to IaH which was never openly stated.
I can think of at least three different explanations that could separate that ruling from this discussion. The first being that IaH specifies its quantity. If there is not a card quantity equal to one with the discard effect applied, cost not met. But this doesn't apply to PO which specifies no quantity.
The second, which is kind of an extension of the first, is that you could argue Chamber applies a different effect but you still discarded all the valid targets in your hand for discard, after discounting cards that get re-destined.
The third would be to concede that the discard MUST be the effect and it MUST be applied to all the cards in hand, meaning Chamber would stop the PO discard option. Even given all those things, since I have reduced the cards in my hand to zero, and since I have not applied any other effect to my hand that would remove them in a different manner, I still have met the condition by discarding an empty hand.
So despite your claims to the contrary, I have three potential legs to stand on, even if I concede every single other point you've made. That is because you haven't disproven the empty hand argument, only demonstrated that as a general statement taken by itself, it doesn't account for exceptional cases which may or may not require additional clarification.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 21, 2011, 02:47:41 PM
Quote from: The Schaef
Or, I could just as easily argue that browarod gave up because he knows I'm right, but I intend to keep things reasonable, and that would be an unreasonable assumption.
I'm not going to let you even bring that up. I gave up because you have a browarod-brigade evil enhancement on your Golgotha and have ignored or "I didn't say that"'d everything I tried to say over the course of a good 4+ pages of this thread. I gave up because I realized that talking to a brick wall will get me nowhere.
I do not, cannot, and will not believe that you are right, I will never, ever admit/say/hint/joke that you are right, I will never agree with the ruling as is and your stance on it, so please learn that now and leave my giving up out of this discussion from now on. Retracted.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 02:51:34 PM
I read that, and so thoroughly debunked it I was sure he was talking about something else.
The first one still leaves the question as to what does constitute a check on whether a hand was Discarded. Therefore, it is not an answer in and of itself.
The second one directly contradicts the "instead" ruling.
The third one relies on the assumption that "empty hand" is the check for having Discarded hand, combined with a bottom-up rule about "I didn't happen to apply any instead abilities."
Furthermore, when everyone is on the other side of this, why not acknowledge that a ruling, affecting exactly three cards, that is by all appearances agreed to be the more logical ruling, has merit? Why not consider it? And where are all the other elders in this?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2011, 02:52:54 PM
To his first, the quantity is the Hand. To his second, refer to Pol's responses of Schaef apparentely missing the IaH thread. To his third, PO does not say reduce your hand to 0. It says discard your hand.
It is flooding.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 02:58:30 PM
Oh, you're going back to that? I explained why that was wrong, so I thought you must have been talking about something else.
This is false. As I demonstrated from each of your subsequent posts, you have not addressed anything that I have said on this topic that wasn't "hand ends up empty" going back to before you even offered that definition. So no, you did not even respond to that point, much less explain why it was wrong. Else, show me where you responded to it specifically.
Quote
Mayhem and PO do not work with an empty hand unless the condition is "empty hand at the end."
I adopted your definition for this discussion: "Every card in the hand went to the Discard pile". I noted that Mayhem and PO work with an empty hand using this definition. Again, these statements all go back several posts now, as I have been trying to move the discussion forward while you are intent on moving the discussion backward.
Quote
The ruling adjustment that is being presented is so minor - why does it matter this much?
... say the people who have spent thirteen pages insisting that it is so critical that it MUST be changed, it MUST be to this other ruling, and it MUST happen now.
I do not, cannot, and will not believe that you are right, I will never, ever admit/say/hint/joke that you are right, I will never agree with the ruling as is and your stance on it, so please learn that now and leave my giving up out of this discussion from now on.
Well, now that we've established who is approaching the topic with an open mind, I think that if you have a problem with this, you need to talk to Polarius, who thinks it's okay to take people who haven't been saying anything on a topic, and just make up reasons why they're not continuing to respond.
Why not acknowledge that a ruling, affecting exactly three cards, that is by all appearances agreed to be the more logical ruling, has merit? Why not consider it?
More false claims to irrationality. The merits of the argument were acknowledged. The issue was considered at some depth when it first came up, and this was the decision that was reached. If you have so little regard for the process that you genuinely believe rulings are just invented on the fly with no forethought or logic applied, there's really nothing else to talk about.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 03:01:02 PM
When everyone else on the thread is calling your claims irrational, and you're calling them rational, are our claims really false?
The reason we are insisting on the change is so that Redemption gets one step closer to logical, consistent rules. We point out that it is a very minor change to make the proposition more palatable to the great poo-bah of stasis.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian on January 21, 2011, 03:03:22 PM
I still agree with Schaef, I simply hadn't logged on yet.
The condition is "did you discard every card possible from your hand?"
If you did this, whether your hand consisted of 0 cards, 16 cards or somewhere in between, the condition is met.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 03:03:48 PM
When everyone else on the thread is calling your claims irrational, and you're calling them rational, are our claims really false?
As has been demonstrated by a review of recent posts in the thread, I am expanding the discussion to incorporate your viewpoint, and you are using fallacious arguments to belittle and disregard what I'm trying to say. Appeal to the majority is also a logical fallacy, especially when there is a demonstrable difference between your claims and what has been said on this thread, and by whom.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
Yeesh, only in Redemption can you Discard without Discarding anything.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian on January 21, 2011, 03:08:04 PM
Well, now that we've established who is approaching the topic with an open mind
At least I have the decency, courtesy, and maturity to realize when I'm not being objective and excuse myself from the discussion. Case in point, you accuse Polarius of trying
when that is the EXACT thing you've done countless times in response to our arguments as well. What hypocrisy allows you to think it's okay for you to do but no one else?
At least I have the decency, courtesy, and maturity to realize when I'm not being objective and excuse myself from the discussion.
My responses on the topic have been objective. My responses regarding the behavior of others is in response to their false accusations. If you want to address decency and maturity on the board, maybe you can talk to the people who are minus-one-ing posts that only state a position and give an explanation for that position.
Quote
Case in point, you accuse Polarius of trying to "belittle and disregard what I'm trying to say" when that is the EXACT thing you've done countless times in response to our arguments as well. What hypocrisy allows you to think it's okay for you to do but no one else?
I don't think it's okay for me to do. But I submit to you that I have not done this. When addressing the issue, I have focused on what arguments do and do not work, and the reasons they do not work. Can you show an example of me treating someone's position the way Polarius is treating mine?
When we do that with your arguments, you accuse us of twisting your words. Why should he have to respond to that kind of reply when you don't have to?
Well, when I adopt someone else's definition of a term so that we can move forward on common ground, and that person continues to use reductive arguments in EVERY SINGLE POST following that, even after I have allowed for THEIR wording instead of mine, can you explain to me how that is not twisting my words? Can you explain how that is trying to increase understanding?
I wouldn't accuse people of twisting my words if they wouldn't actually do it, and continuously. I stand behind the things that I say, and generally, I can back them up or demonstrate what I meant and why. You seem to have a lot of anger directed towards me which I believe is unwarranted. Can you show me somewhere that I have shown an open disrespect to you that justifies these kinds of accusations?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Professoralstad on January 21, 2011, 03:53:27 PM
I also stand by my original assertion. I am of the opinion that one can never not have a hand in Redemption (even if your hand has zero cards), that discarding your hand simply means discarding all of the cards in your hand (which is sometimes zero), and that when given a choice between two actions, I can choose the one that will hurt me the least even though it appears that nothing is happening.
For instance, let's say my opponent plays Great Mourning "Opponent may not make a rescue attempt next turn." Somehow it is CBN. Now, no matter what happens, I am not allowed to make a rescue attempt next turn. Now, assume my opponent still has initiative, and plays Political Bribes "Opponent must either skip next draw phase or make no rescue attempt next turn." Given the choice, assuming I want to draw three cards, I will pick the second option. Does that mean I didn't fulfill PB? No, I made the choice I was required to make. Same thing with PO. I chose to discard all 0 cards in my hand.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 03:58:22 PM
We understand that. We're asking why we need to explain to people that you can Discard your hand without discarding anything, when implementing the other rule would have it do exactly what it says and impact three cards anyway.
In every other card game, you can't discard from your hand, deck, draw from your deck, etc. when there are no cards there. This is logical. We're championing one more step in the right direction for Redemption. It's different when a card has X terminology since X can easily equal 0, but for the three cards that have "Discard/Shuffle all to do Y" wording, it is inconsistent that insteading prevents a cost from being paid, but simply not paying a cost is fine.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 21, 2011, 04:09:00 PM
You ignored the fact I was specifically replying to Hobbit's illogical example and refused to take back your claim that I was being nonsensical (especially considering nonsensical is entirely relative. Your arguments that discarding nothing is discarding something seem just as nonsensical to me, but at least I use counterarguments and evidence to refute them rather than name-calling to counter points).
You took my obvious joke comment about getting your stories straight and used it to insult me by yet again rehashing the what of the ruling. I'm not an idiot, please don't treat me as one just because I disagree with you.
Speaking of the refuting, you said that Hobbit had already refuted lambo's REG posts, but when I proceeded to provide arguments against Hobbit's claims, you proceeded to say that "oh, we're not actually saying that". So, didn't you mean to say that Hobbit had NOT refuted anything? Agreeing with him just to wait until our side posts counter-arguments only to then say you don't agree with him is just the example of changing your stance that I needed to prove what I said about you flip-flopping several pages ago. It's rude and underhanded, and yes I take it personally because you don't seem to see any fault in it. Example two was the first 2 or 3 pages of this discussion. I was operating under the assumption that the second ability of PO was also a cost:effect ability. You did not refute this nor even post a differing perspective until the 3rd or 4th page. When I challenged you on this you said "I never agreed that it was a cost. Nowhere did I say that part of the ability was a cost." That's not how it works. If you don't specifically post saying you don't agree, there's no way for me to know you aren't accepting it as a baseline fact. You never posted that it was a cost? Okay. You never posted that it wasn't a cost either.
Overall, you seem far more concerned with saving face than actually providing "real discussion" as you said you wanted a page ago. Every other "counterpoint you make seems to be "That's not what I said, you're twisting it". It's not twisting your words to take something you did in fact say (despite you denying it) and applying it in another situation ir in a slightly different way to show you that it doesn't work. You don't seem to understand how discussions work. Each side makes arguments, then they take their opponent's arguments and formulate counter-arguments. Your incessant whining about "I didn't say that" only proves that you don't have a legitimate counter-argument to what was said and instead you're attacking the fundamentals of conversational discussion to try and get out of the point we made. It's not "twisting your words" to take something you said and formulate a counterpoint from it. That's what you do in debates. You've done, we've done it, it's normal. If you can't understand/accept that, that's not our fault anymore than it's PO's fault how many cards either player has in their hand (which is a silly argument to begin with. What does assigning blame to inanimate objects have anything to do with this ruling?).
I'm angry because you treat me like an ignorant child, simply ignoring arguments you deem illogical or "nonsensical". I'm angry because you're being just as closed minded as you made a point about me being yet it's not at all a problem for you. I'm angry because you're hiding behind the cover of "well, we discussed it when this came up, and we decided on the current ruling". Any discussion that went on previous to this thread, or at the beginning of this thread, has no merit anymore due to the amount of new evidence brought up by both sides (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt even though most of your "evidence" has just been restatements of the ruling) over the course of this thread. I'm angry because you don't even seem willing to consider our side. I said that I wasn't willing to agree that you're right not because I have a closed mind, but because my arguments are being ignored as though they don't matter. We provide arguments, you either complain about us utilizing perfectly reasonable debate techniques or dismiss them altogether. That is not right, that is not fair, that is not appropriate. So if you think I have a "closed mind" it's because you had one first and I have simply gotten discouraged from attempting to change it. Humans can't be (and aren't) right all the time. I'm not using that to necessarily say you're wrong now (though undoubtedly you'll do your own version of twisting words and say that I am, irony ftw), but you need to be open to the fact that everyone is wrong sometime. You're acting as if you're right, you can't be not right, any suggestion that you're not right is preposterous, and there's no possible alternative. We've given alternatives and you refuse to accept them.
Continued in next post....
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: browarod on January 21, 2011, 04:09:39 PM
I'm angry because God wants us to treat each other with respect and speak only things that will build each other up. You've insulted me, you've degraded me, you've belittled me, you've called me a liar. At this very moment, I don't feel very built up. This is why I gave up, this is why I probably shouldn't have posted again after giving up, this is why I am 100% certain that your next reply to this thread will be something about how my interpretation that you've said nasty things about/to me was a complete misinterpretation and that I'm completely and irrevocably twisting your words and that these entire posts should just be ignored. All I know is I'm tired of this. I can't take this anymore, especially not from a supposedly Christian community, and so I am leaving this thread for good. Do what you want. Attribute this to exhaustion, misinterpretation, word-twisting, pent-up frustration, whatever helps you sleep at night. I'm done.
@Polarius and others - Best of luck trying to get through to them. I've given it my best and gotten nowhere, but perhaps you can get farther than I could.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Guardian on January 21, 2011, 04:11:41 PM
We understand that. We're asking why we need to explain to people that you can Discard your hand without discarding anything, when implementing the other rule would have it do exactly what it says and impact three cards anyway.
In every other card game, you can't discard from your hand, deck, draw from your deck, etc. when there are no cards there. This is logical. We're championing one more step in the right direction for Redemption. It's different when a card has X terminology since X can easily equal 0, but for the three cards that have "Discard/Shuffle all to do Y" wording, it is inconsistent that insteading prevents a cost from being paid, but simply not paying a cost is fine.
"All" can equal 0. That's the only explanation you really need.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on January 21, 2011, 04:22:04 PM
There is no "All" in the SA of Primary Objective.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: STAMP on January 21, 2011, 04:23:11 PM
Which is why I suggested that part of the problem is that the term "hand" is not defined in any way. Were it to be defined, it would be something like:
When the term "hand" appears in a special ability, it refers to all cards that a player is holding.
I'm not sure that's the best wording, but do you see anything wrong with that clarification? That is essentially the basis for why I believe it to work like I do, and I'm guessing it is the same for Schaef and Prof A, though I will let them confirm if they are operating under that definition as well.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Professoralstad on January 21, 2011, 04:34:40 PM
We understand that. We're asking why we need to explain to people that you can Discard your hand without discarding anything, when implementing the other rule would have it do exactly what it says and impact three cards anyway.
In every other card game, you can't discard from your hand, deck, draw from your deck, etc. when there are no cards there. This is logical. We're championing one more step in the right direction for Redemption. It's different when a card has X terminology since X can easily equal 0, but for the three cards that have "Discard/Shuffle all to do Y" wording, it is inconsistent that insteading prevents a cost from being paid, but simply not paying a cost is fine.
I would find that easier than explaining to people that now that their hand has been reduced to zero by other means, they have to give up a Lost Soul because that is the only one of two choices that they can fulfill. Considering this thread was started as a means to legitimize a combo that could potentially break the game if allowed (at least from the rumors I have heard) I don't see why we need to change a rule that could eventually end up with an errata for PO.
The effect on Mayhem could actually do more harm then good after all. Before, it was purported to be a good thing that you would have to keep at least one card in your hand before using it, resulting in a +5 draw rather than a +6. However, if you reduce your opponent's hand to zero somehow, then you reduce your hand to two and play Mayhem, you get to draw +5, your opponent gets to draw nothing (since he shuffled nothing).
@Browarod: Um...wow. Schaef has a long and storied history on these boards of being stubbornly steadfast on various topics. I have been on his side as many times as I have been on the other, but I have never felt attacked, and I honestly have never seen any situation where he has attacked another person (as opposed to their viewpoints). I am confident Schaef doesn't believe you are an idiot any more than he believes Pol, JSB, MJB, Bryon, myself, crustpope, MasterKChief, TheHobbit, or anyone else who have had long, drawn out disagreements with him from time to time are idiots. He just believes firmly in his viewpoint, which requires that he believes all other mutually exclusive viewpoints are wrong. This requires him to demand evidence contrary to his viewpoint before he will reconsider (which he even has in the past, even after 12+ pages of discussion).
@STAMP: Aren't there any fish that still need catching? Why are you on your computer then? ;)
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: STAMP on January 21, 2011, 04:52:30 PM
@STAMP: Aren't there any fish that still need catching? Why are you on your computer then? ;)
I'm giving the fish in the local lakes a bit of grace. ;)
Of course, the ones already caught will be my sushi dinner tonight. :D
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 05:08:00 PM
Quote from: browarod
You ignored the fact I was specifically replying to Hobbit's illogical example and refused to take back your claim that I was being nonsensical
Your argument did not make sense in light of the ACTUAL logic being employed in this ruling. The refusal here is in what you accept as being the logic employed in the ruling.
Quote
You took my obvious joke comment about getting your stories straight and used it to insult me by yet again rehashing the what of the ruling.
I'm not insulting you by saying that our two accounts do not contradict each other, in response to your claim that our accounts contradict each other.
Quote
Speaking of the refuting, you said that Hobbit had already refuted lambo's REG posts, but when I proceeded to provide arguments against Hobbit's claims, you proceeded to say that "oh, we're not actually saying that".
Yes, I quoted a post by Hobbit saying "no one is saying actual cards are being discarded". Your arguments are against Hobbit's "x=cards" argument as applied to this scenario. Those are two different things.
Quote
I was operating under the assumption that the second ability of PO was also a cost:effect ability. You did not refute this nor even post a differing perspective until the 3rd or 4th page.
You brought up PO's "cost" for the first time on page 4. I immediately denied the notion at that point.
Quote
It's not twisting your words to take something you did in fact say (despite you denying it) and applying it in another situation ir in a slightly different way to show you that it doesn't work.
I deny because I did not say what you claimed, and the posts back me up. You said yourself that you just assumed my opinion.
Quote
Your incessant whining about "I didn't say that" only proves that you don't have a legitimate counter-argument to what was said and instead you're attacking the fundamentals of conversational discussion to try and get out of the point we made.
I provided a legitimate counter-argument taking Polarius' specific claims into account and moved forward. So how am I trying to get out of a point?
Quote
I'm angry because you're being just as closed minded as you made a point about me being yet it's not at all a problem for you.
I'm not closed-minded just because I assume a different position than you. There is only one person in this thread who said that they will NEVER EVER EVER think that you will EVER be right EVER, and it wasn't me.
Quote
I'm angry because you're hiding behind the cover of "well, we discussed it when this came up, and we decided on the current ruling".
If I'm hiding behind the "we made this rule and that's that", then how could you possibly make counter-arguments to my points? That can only happen if I am actually voicing thoughts of my own. Or if you assume them.
Quote
I'm angry because you don't even seem willing to consider our side. ...my arguments are being ignored as though they don't matter. We provide arguments, you either complain about us utilizing perfectly reasonable debate techniques or dismiss them altogether.
As I noted earlier, I adopted Polarius' definition for this discussion, left behind the argument about whether PO works if cards are re-destined, and started applying the argument under these new circumstances. The response was an argument to silence, a reductive argument, and an argument to the crowd: three logical fallacies. Reasonable debate techniques?
Quote
You're acting as if you're right, you can't be not right, any suggestion that you're not right is preposterous, and there's no possible alternative. We've given alternatives and you refuse to accept them.
I'm acting as if I am right and have not heard an argument that compels me to abandon that and change my mind. That does not negate the merits of any claim nor does it assume such claims are preposterous. This is something else you seem to be assuming because I didn't specifically tell you that it's NOT preposterous in case you might think that later.
If this is all about open-mindedness and fair treatment, why do you accuse me of insulting you, degrading you, incessant whining, and so many other things, just for asking that my words be taken with a fair and open mind? If that's the kind of discussion you really want, that would seem like a reasonable request for me to make. You say you're not built up, mostly because you are assuming malicious intent by my mere disagreement with you; the worst you can say is that I called one specific example nonsensical, even though I did not dismiss the entire discussion in this way. By contrast, I say I am not built up because of things that YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY SAYING ABOUT ME DIRECTLY. And even with that, I am still not assuming malicious intent on your part.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Red on January 21, 2011, 05:29:00 PM
If this is such a problem, add this to Mayhem's and PO's SAs May only be played if both players have at least one card in hand.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: TheHobbit13 on January 21, 2011, 06:18:29 PM
We understand that. We're asking why we need to explain to people that you can Discard your hand without discarding anything, when implementing the other rule would have it do exactly what it says and impact three cards anyway.
In every other card game, you can't discard from your hand, deck, draw from your deck, etc. when there are no cards there. This is logical. We're championing one more step in the right direction for Redemption. It's different when a card has X terminology since X can easily equal 0, but for the three cards that have "Discard/Shuffle all to do Y" wording, it is inconsistent that insteading prevents a cost from being paid, but simply not paying a cost is fine.
"All" can equal 0. That's the only explanation you really need.
That's not the argument. The argument is that you can't discard zero cards because no discard took place.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 09:16:03 PM
But you met the requirement by discarding all the cards that you had in your hand. Zero just happens to be the number in question. If you can understand and acknowledge how X can equal zero, it's not a far leap from there to understand how 100% or 50% of zero can also equal zero.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 21, 2011, 09:19:23 PM
But you met the requirement by discarding all the cards that you had in your hand. Zero just happens to be the number in question. If you can understand and acknowledge how X can equal zero, it's not a far leap from there to understand how 100% or 50% of zero can also equal zero.
No, you didn't. You didn't discard any cards in your hand.
It's moot point now, though. We're just going to keep restating what we've said before.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 10:32:45 PM
So why is X okay if it equals zero?
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 21, 2011, 10:37:28 PM
I understand how X can equal zero. I don't understand how you can discard something without putting anything into the discard pile.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: YourMathTeacher on January 21, 2011, 11:02:51 PM
there removed language and cleaned it up but for petes sake stop the whining
Thank you.
-----------------
Since this ruling appears to be official, I would recommend that this thread be locked to avoid any more negativity, whether intended or not. There is very little good that continued debate can bring, IMO.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 21, 2011, 11:08:11 PM
Agreed.
Title: Re: The zero card hand
Post by: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 11:43:25 PM
I understand how X can equal zero. I don't understand how you can discard something without putting anything into the discard pile.
Those two statements contradict each other if you believe the first to be true.
Title: The zero card hand 2
Post by: galadgawyn on January 22, 2011, 03:39:15 PM
Quote
Since this ruling appears to be official, I would recommend that this thread be locked to avoid any more negativity, whether intended or not. There is very little good that continued debate can bring, IMO.
I mostly and strongly disagree with this statement.
There is much good that can come from debate and there is Biblical support for this. I will agree that not all debate is good, that sometimes it can be negative or should be avoided or limited. Some of the things said in that thread were not good but none of us are perfect and I see it as an opportunity for mercy and forgiveness. I think that much of the thread was spent debating how other people communicate. I do think that various people can learn and grow in that area and I wish that could take place in a different thread but I would like a chance to stick to and discuss the actual topic. I do not think that simply stopping all debate or communication as a way to avoid any possible disagreement is the answer.
That statement also assumes that no one else will have any valid points or questions to contribute. I was gone for 2? days and missed 9 pages and it is locked. So are we saying that if you don't live online and constantly check this then tough luck and your thoughts don't matter? I happen to have a few thoughts that I don't think were addressed in that thread (since so much of it was off-topic). I'm hoping to get a chance to do that here.
P.S. If we don't discuss things because they appear to be official then we wouldn't discuss most things and we would ignore the many official things that have changed.
P.S.S. I started with this off-topic post in hopes of avoiding any more of that (happy to discuss it eslewhere) and to not have this locked while trying to get understanding on the topic.
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: Professoralstad on January 22, 2011, 03:53:08 PM
I'm pretty sure all valid points on both sides were raised. Then as typically happens with long threads, those points were raised over and over again. No one's opinion was being changed, and all of the people who have been entrusted with deciding ruling questions were all saying the same thing. Debate is certainly not bad, but whoever posted that quote (I didn't see who it was) has probably been around long enough to understand how things have worked in the past.
If you honestly have valid points that were never raised, feel free to bring them up. But it is likely that there will be minimal response, unless you have some really strong arguments, since the decision was made before that thread ever started and none of the points raised convinced any of the elders that change was needed.
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: The Guardian on January 22, 2011, 04:08:39 PM
I'm pretty sure all valid points on both sides were raised. Then as typically happens with long threads, those points were raised over and over again. No one's opinion was being changed, and all of the people who have been entrusted with deciding ruling questions were all saying the same thing. Debate is certainly not bad, but whoever posted that quote (I didn't see who it was) has probably been around long enough to understand how things have worked in the past.
If you honestly have valid points that were never raised, feel free to bring them up. But it is likely that there will be minimal response, unless you have some really strong arguments, since the decision was made before that thread ever started and none of the points raised convinced any of the elders that change was needed.
+1 I was about to post the same thing.
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: galadgawyn on January 22, 2011, 04:22:30 PM
I'm not trying to rehash this but clarify.
Why can an empty hand satisfy the requirements on PO to discard your hand?
I understand that the hand can equal 0. I think you're saying that "your hand ends up empty" is equivalent to "Every card in your hand went to the discard pile". If you discard all cards in your hand the result is 0 and if you started with 0 cards you still end up with the same result. right?
I would say that neither is what the card says nor are those statements equivalent. It has already been established that cards that are exchanged into the discard pile are not considered to have been discarded. It is not only where they go but how they got there.
You seem to focus only on the result as what matters when checking the card. Why is the process not equally important? The card does not say to have 0 cards in hand but to "discard your hand". As has been pointed out, if you can shuffle your hand or do something else instead (like CoA) then I don't think you have fulfilled the card. You have the same result in regards to your hand but you did not do the action that it requires. I see the card instructing you to do a certain action (discard) to certain target (hand) for a specific result (everything in the hand being discarded). I understand that you get the result with a 0 card hand but you don't perform the action of actually discarding. Also I don't think you can say that you just discarded all valid targets because if the cards are protected (the Zealot) you have not fulfilled it. You can't shuffle your hand instead of discarding and similarly you can't do nothing instead of discarding.
If a card directs you to perform an action then logically you should have do something to count as having done it. If it simply checks for a state of being (be 0) then you don't have to do anything it just has to be true. You say that if your hand is 0 then discarding your hand means discarding 0 but 0 means nothing which means you discarded nothing which is equivalent to saying "you didn't discard". So the action word of "discard" did not happen. If there were a card that triggered when your opponent discarded something, would it be fulfilled when they discarded a hand of 0? You say that you did in fact discard your hand which is something which means it would trigger. But a trigger checks for an actual something; how would I know if the trigger was fulfilled or not because there is no discernible difference.
I also didn't see a response on whether I shuffle when the shuffler lost soul is rescued and I have no lost souls out.
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: The Guardian on January 22, 2011, 04:37:45 PM
You're basically restating what others have said in different words, but I respect the fact that you have brought this up in a way respectful way.
Quote
You say that if your hand is 0 then discarding your hand means discarding 0 but 0 means nothing which means you discarded nothing which is equivalent to saying "you didn't discard".
This is not true. You discarded what you were required to discard.
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: STAMP on January 22, 2011, 05:00:38 PM
Some of the things said in that thread were not good but none of us are perfect and I see it as an opportunity for mercy and forgiveness.
I agree. I forgive that some PTB are nuts. ;D
But seriously, I completely understand the point being made on discarding a hand of zero. It's still silly and illogical, but I understand. It's like if I told my son to take out the garbage to get his allowance. Our garbage can that holds the garbage has a trash can liner. He can throw away the liner without containing any real garbage, put in a new liner, and I'm none the wiser when I'm giving him his $5.00.
But here's the thing: HE ACTUALLY THREW SOMETHING TANGIBLE AWAY! I can go to the dumpster and see the empty liner.
THERE IS NOTHING TANGIBLE ABOUT A HAND WITH ZERO CARDS!
There's nothing I can show that is proof I paid the cost for the benefit.
So stop wasting our time with silly explanations. If you want to "make up" some weird definition that causes a hand sans cards to be something tangible sitting there on top of the discard pile, then go ahead. But don't insult our intelligence by trying to conjure a logical explanation when there is none.
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: SomeKittens on January 22, 2011, 05:06:01 PM
But seriously, I completely understand the point being made on discarding a hand of zero. It's still silly and illogical, but I understand. It's like if I told my son to take out the garbage to get his allowance. Our garbage can that holds the garbage has a trash can liner. He can throw away the liner without containing any real garbage, put in a new liner, and I'm none the wiser when I'm giving him his $5.00.
But here's the thing: HE ACTUALLY THREW SOMETHING TANGIBLE AWAY! I can go to the dumpster and see the empty liner.
If I was your son, I wouldn't even throw out the liner. Why waste a perfectly good liner, 2 or 3?
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: Sean on January 22, 2011, 05:11:08 PM
So, I haven't been active at all on this board for a good amount of time and I have been checking off-topic stuff the past few days since I am back at home in MD while I look for a job. I glanced at a few ruling threads and found this one interesting so I've been following it a little bit. And then STAMP posts this:
Quote
So stop wasting our time with silly explanations. If you want to "make up" some weird definition that causes a hand sans cards to be something tangible sitting there on top of the discard pile, then go ahead. But don't insult our intelligence by trying to conjure a logical explanation when there is none.
I love how STAMP totally pwns and he doesn't even play the game anymore. Love it. "Can't wait!" for the response from Schaef that dissects STAMP's post into 15 separate quotes with 3 sentence responses for each one.
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: The Schaef on January 22, 2011, 05:29:13 PM
The card does not say to have 0 cards in hand but to "discard your hand". As has been pointed out, if you can shuffle your hand or do something else instead (like CoA) then I don't think you have fulfilled the card.
Yes, and it was also pointed out in response immediately after that, there is no ability directing any cards elsewhere or applying any other effect. So the point could be conceded that re-destined cards do not satisfy the requirement, without affecting the logic underlying this ruling.
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: The Guardian on January 22, 2011, 06:04:43 PM
Quote
It's like if I told my son to take out the garbage to get his allowance. Our garbage can that holds the garbage has a trash can liner. He can throw away the liner without containing any real garbage, put in a new liner, and I'm none the wiser when I'm giving him his $5.00.
Let's say you told your son to empty the garbage can and if he did so, you would give him $5. If later he reports to you that he has emptied everything that was in the garbage can and you walk over to see that there is indeed nothing in the garbage can, would you give him the $5?
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 22, 2011, 06:13:50 PM
Yeah, and then take it back and punish him for being deceptive.
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: The M on January 22, 2011, 06:15:51 PM
Let's say you told your son to empty the garbage can and if he did so, you would give him $5. If later he reports to you that he has emptied everything that was in the garbage can and you walk over to see that there is indeed nothing in the garbage can, would you give him the $5?
Oops...our real-world analogy no longer fits the Redemption scenario... :P
Your analogy doesn't seem to fit with the Redemption scenario anyway for 2 reasons:
1. The card doesn't say "empty hand" it says "discard hand". Schaef said several times in the other thread that these are congruent, but I posit that they are in fact different. While discard and empty are both action words that can (but don't always) lead to a similar result, they have very different connotations (especially as discard is defined in the game of Redemption). The status of an empty hand is, in fact, "empty", but by default is not also "discarded". Discard, as defined in Redemption, requires an action of putting something from your hand (or your deck, or your field, etc.) into/onto the discard pile. Without having done that, there is no discard. If the target of the discard becomes protected, or if something interrupts the discard and otherwise gets rid of the target, no discard takes place. A card put into the discard pile for any other reason does not have the "discarded" status, and having 8 cards in your hand, then putting them down, does not give your hand the "discarded" status either. Looking solely at the ability written on the card (since there is no errata or play-as in the REG), Primary Objective says "opponent must discard hand or holder rescues that Lost Soul." To be perfectly honest, I have no idea where the Elders got the idea of anything having to do with a check for an "empty" hand. The card says nothing about "empty", the definition of discard says nothing about "empty", so I, personally, do not understand why a check of "empty" has been given to this card. PO calls for a discard, so it seems logical to me that a check relating to that discard should be the check given, and it seems illogical that any other check should be given based on the wording of the card. As such, while an empty hand does in fact have the status of "empty", it does not (and cannot by the definition of discard) have the status of "discarded", so based on the card wording and the definition of the terms used in said card wording, it doesn't seem logical that a hand of 0 cards can gain "discarded" status for absolutely nothing. I hope this helps explain where I (and perhaps others) are coming from. :P
2. Even ignoring the above, in order for your example to be accurate STAMP would have to be actively watching his son and the garbage can to see if he actually did anything. In Redemption, the players are always sitting across from (or next to, in the case of multiplayer) each other, and every action is watched by both/all players. There is no "reporting later", only "I saw you do that right now". As such, if STAMP was actively watching his son interact with the garbage can and saw that he did not in fact do anything, it would not be logical or prudent to give him the $5 since, while the end result of the garbage can being empty is met, his son did not actually do anything to bring about that result..
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: The Guardian on January 22, 2011, 08:01:04 PM
Quote
The card doesn't say "empty hand" it says "discard hand".
So STAMP can use non-Redemption terms in an analogy and it's okay, but I can't? ??? Or do you not agree with his analogy either?
Quote
In Redemption, the players are always sitting across from (or next to, in the case of multiplayer) each other, and every action is watched by both/all players
.
That has nothing to do with how special abilities are worded and how they are carried out.
Quote
But don't insult our intelligence by trying to conjure a logical explanation when there is none.
I'm insulted that you think I'm being insulting.
Title: Re: The zero card hand 2
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on January 23, 2011, 08:50:37 AM
I think Guardian has put it extremely well.
Both sides have stated everything that can possibly be stated.
Let the topic rest.
NOTE: I have merged the two threads together so as to reduce clutter, and allow for easy reading of the whole situation at a later date.