Cactus Game Design Message Boards

No I read what you said (it would be rude not to in a discussion) and I know full well how HT works, lol.

But SH is not related to this discussion (other than thinly by also being an instead) so I see no reason to continue talking about it here.

Coming back in here to comment on this part:

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on March 12, 2014, 04:11:54 AM

Of course a much bigger issue is that from a strict reading of the card your opponent would not be able to ever rescue a Lost Soul if you have Raiders' Camp, since you can release all 0 heroes from an empty Raiders' Camp to stop a Lost Soul from being rescued. Although I'm sure that they've dealt with that issue at some point or another.

This is not the case, because you have to actually perform the instead ability in order to instead the original ability.  If you have a deck size of 0, you cannot activate Herod's Temple's with at least one redeemed soul, because you didn't actually do the discard of cards from the deck in order to instead the discard of your character.

If there are no characters in Raider's Camp, you cannot release character from Raider's Camp...so you cannot instead the rescue.

Of course you can't activate Herod's Temple where X is at least one and your deck is empty, but that has nothing to do with what I said. In that case Herod's Temple's condition is discarding 1 card, which you can't do because you have 0. However you can discard 0 cards to satisfy where X = 0. Raiders' Camp says "all heroes here" or something to that effect, so converting to algebraic terms, all = number of heroes in Raiders' Camp which we are saying is 0 for an empty Raiders' Camp, therefore you have to release all which is 0, and therefore absolutely consistent with how Herod's Temple works.

I'm wondering how you're defining variables and where in the rules it states any of what you're saying.

The following scenario is perfectly logical: I have 4 apples and 3 oranges. My coworker Julio has 2 oranges and 7 bananas. Our unhappy boss says everyone is fired, but we can give all our apples and bananas to our coworker Sarah instead. I give Sarah 4 apples and 0 bananas (because I have no bananas) and Julio gives Sarah 0 apples (because he has no apples) and 7 bananas. Sarah only ended up with one fruit from each of us, but we successfully followed our boss' instructions and should not be fired simply because we didn't have one or the other of the mentioned fruits.

Why specifically are you treating variables differently? I would argue that "all" represents a set value as well, it can be defined as "X = # of cards in <location>" with location in this case being Raiders' Camp.

A New Beginning still shuffles your hand even if it's empty.

Sorry, but I cannot keep arguing the same points continuously, I'm letting this thread go

I can guarantee you that Raider's Camp will not instead the rescue of a soul if no one is released, and I've given the reasons why previously.  The ruling is consistent and there is nothing to indicate it should even be ruled as suggested.

Even with hypothetical apples-oranges (which is apples and oranges to this discussion), there really isn't anything else to add.

[Out]

EDIT: Just so there isn't confusion, I am not conceding anything.  The status quo is legitimate and I haven't seen anything to change that in this thread.  But having to argue the same points in a circle is getting tiring, so have at it if you want, can't change anything from where I sit.

I wasn't arguing how it would be ruled, I never once expected Raiders' Camp to work when empty, I was just noticed something weird with how it was worded that should allow it to be used when empty, and because every similar situation I have ever heard of works the same way, Mayhem, Primary Objective, Sinning Hand (sort of anyway), and every single X ability where X can be 0, that a solution needs to be put forward, of which I suggested a rewrite of its ability in my first post about it.

Redoubter, you never once answered my suggestion, and simply said the same thing over and over again, that for some no apparent reason or basis in previous rulings that I can see, you have to release at least one character. I answered your one completely irrelevant example by saying that it is irrelevant to the point because "All" does not have a minimum of 1 clause or anything like that.