Author Topic: Question about Sinning Hand (Read 7734 times)

FresnoRedemption · « **on:** April 20, 2009, 11:20:28 PM »

Hey, folks:

I saw a thread about this a long time ago (called Sinning Hand vs. Thinning Hand), but I searched and searched for it and it seems to have disappeared. So my question is this:

Say my opponent makes a rescue attempt (specific Hero is irrelevant -- not a FBN hero), and I block his hero (specific Evil Character is irrelevant -- not a FBN evil character). Then, I play Sinning Hand, which states:

"Remove a Hero from the game. Any player may discard half the cards in hand (rounded down) to negate this. Otherwise, it cannot be interrupted."

What happens if my opponent only has one card in his hand? Does he have to discard to negate removing his Hero from the game?

What happenes if my opponent has no cards in his hand? Can I even play the card, or can he just not interrupt it at all?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2009, 11:24:03 PM »

I believe your opponent cannot discard, and therefore it becomes CBI.

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2009, 11:34:22 PM »

I would think that if he had 1 or 0 cards in his hand, he could still choose to discard to negate it...it's just that he would be discarding zero cards. But that's just my opinion.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2009, 11:54:16 PM »

Lambo is correct.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2009, 07:12:25 AM »

Yes, since the player cannot fulfil the second option, he must allow his character to be removed.

sk · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2009, 07:22:36 AM »

Quote from: Scottie_ffgamer on April 20, 2009, 11:34:22 PM

I would think that if he had 1 or 0 cards in his hand, he could still choose to discard to negate it...it's just that he would be discarding zero cards. But that's just my opinion.

A player cannot discard zero cards. I agree with the consensus.

crustpope · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2009, 07:57:11 AM »

Quote from: sk on April 21, 2009, 07:22:36 AM

Quote from: Scottie_ffgamer on April 20, 2009, 11:34:22 PM
I would think that if he had 1 or 0 cards in his hand, he could still choose to discard to negate it...it's just that he would be discarding zero cards. But that's just my opinion.
A player cannot discard zero cards. I agree with the consensus.

I dissagree with the consensus. Here is my reason. In a different thread I brought up the problem of playing Assyria Conquers Israel" with no assyrians in play.

Assyria Conquers Israel
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Pale Green • Ability: X / X • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard a Site or an O.T. Fortress. Opponent may discard the top X cards of deck instead. Place Lost Souls in play instead. • Attributes: X = the number of Assyrians in play • Identifiers: OT, X = the number of Assyrians in play • Verse: II Kings 18:11

In this scenario, x=0 so the4 opponent would simply choose to discard 0 cards to negate its effect. are you telling me that different mechanics work for different cards? I say that if my opponent has no hand and I play sinning hand, then they would choose to discard half of 0 and negate its abiliyt

The Schaef · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2009, 08:03:18 AM »

The opponent may discard half of his hand, rounded down.
Half of one, rounded down, is zero.
Opponent may discard zero cards from his hand to cancel the effect.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2009, 10:05:37 AM »

That's incorrect unless the ruling has changed. One of more-official-than-Schaef PTB ruled that because it is a cost, just as you can't Discard from a deck of zero to use Jephthah, you can't discard a hand of zero to fulfill the condition on Sinning Hand. The reasoning is that the SA specifies to discard, and if you have no cards in your hand, you can't discard anything.

crustpope · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2009, 10:10:47 AM »

Well then we have conflicting opinions and we need to know how this will go down in these situations.

How are we going to group these cards together and how are we going to rule on them?

jepthah with 0 cards in your deck
Assyria conquers Israel with 0 assyrians in play
sinning hand with an opponent with 1 or 0 cards in hand

any others?

The Schaef · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2009, 10:43:30 AM »

A cost for the card player to use an action is one thing. Giving the opponent an option is another thing. Zero cards happens to be the calculated half rounded down. It was ruled that an opponent can discard his empty hand to cancel Primary Objective. I am going forward based on that ruling.

Bryon · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2009, 11:27:43 AM »

Schaef is correct. If X = 0, you can discard zero.

Players might be mixed up with the Assyria Conquers Israel ruling where a player had 5 Assyrians and there was only 1 card left on top of deck. If X = 5 and you only have 1, you can't fulfill the 5-card requirement, so you lose the fort. But if X=0, you can discard 0.

crustpope · « **Reply #12 on:** April 21, 2009, 11:41:36 AM »

Quote from: Da Muzik Maker on April 21, 2009, 10:51:25 AM

what does rounded down mean though? i dont get it... cause if they (your opponent) has 6 cards in hand they would discard 3 right? and if they had 5 cards in hand would they only discard 3 or 2 cards? i would asume 3 but.... idk...

Rounded down means you take half of 5 ( 2.5) and round down ( to 2)

half of 1=.5 and rounded down makes it 0

@ Bryon. Yeah, I understand that id x=5 and you only have 1 thenyou cannot fulfill the demands of the card, but what about jepthah? what if you have 0 cards in your deck? can you d/c 0 cards to discard up to two EC's in an opponents territory?

I would say that you could but it has been ruled elsewhere that you cannot. are we going to have different rules for different d/c abilitiy cards?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #13 on:** April 21, 2009, 11:51:02 AM »

This is a change in ruling. I don't really care on the one hand (giggle) because I don't ever use this card, but even though I don't get on the "REDEMPTION IS DOOMED BECAUSE OF BLAH BLAH BLAH" bandwagon, I do agree with the recurring complaint about rulings changing with no notice or even admission that a rule changed.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #14 on:** April 21, 2009, 11:56:43 AM »

My vote is for polarius as the next playtester

Bryon · « **Reply #15 on:** April 21, 2009, 12:09:32 PM »

Jephthah cannot work if you have no deck, because there is no "top card of deck" if you have no deck.

But I have never ruled that X can't equal zero. Nor have I affirmed such an answer. Stephen and I are in agreement about this answer. Where is this "rule change" of which you speak?

X can equal 0, and you can chose to use an ability where x = 0.

The Schaef · « **Reply #16 on:** April 21, 2009, 12:12:02 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on April 21, 2009, 11:41:36 AM

but what about jepthah? what if you have 0 cards in your deck? can you d/c 0 cards to discard up to two EC's in an opponents territory?

No. Jepthah demands you discard one card. Zero does not equal one.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 21, 2009, 11:51:02 AM

This is a change in ruling... I do agree with the recurring complaint about rulings changing with no notice or even admission that a rule changed.

It's not my impression that a rule has been changed here. This is the way I understood it to be played since it was designed three years ago, and it's consistent with a Primary Objective ruling that has been in place for five years. You might want to explore the idea that somebody simply might have gotten a ruling wrong.

:edit: instapost

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 21, 2009, 12:17:01 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on April 21, 2009, 12:09:32 PM

But I have never ruled that X can't equal zero. Nor have I affirmed such an answer. Stephen and I are in agreement about this answer.

Bryon, I share Pol's recollection in its entirety. The ruling was made by one or more of the PTB that if you had no hand, you could not choose to discard zero cards to cancel Sinning Hand. (I remember because I was far in the "I should be able to discard zero cards" camp, and felt this ruling was kinda goofy.) For the past two years I have consistently ruled it that way in tournaments based on the official ruling on this board.

Quote

Where is this "rule change" of which you speak?

Probably with the 85% of all rulings on this board that were deleted as a space saving measure.

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #18 on:** April 21, 2009, 12:21:15 PM »

The easiest way to understand this is to look at what the cost is. Jephthah's cost is 1 card off the top of your deck. If you don't have a card in your deck, you cannot fulfill the discard to use the ability. Sinning Hand's cost depends on your hand. If that cost happens to be 0, then you can still fulfill that by discarding 0 cards. There's been no rule changes or contradictory rulings on this that I've seen.

PS Here is the thread about Assyria Conquers Irael

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #19 on:** April 21, 2009, 04:02:41 PM »

MJB and I understand the logic, and we both agree with it. But it's not what was ruled before, and nobody wants to admit that this is a change. A change for the better, yes, but still another unannounced ruling change.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #20 on:** April 21, 2009, 04:15:09 PM »

I guess that makes sense but... How can doing nothing be a cost? It requires you to discard, which is the act of putting something into the discard pile.. if you do that with zero cards, you didnt discard anything.... $:-\$

TimMierz · « **Reply #21 on:** April 21, 2009, 04:23:22 PM »

In some games, like Battlestar Galactica, it is specifically stated in the rules that you can choose an option you can't fully fulfill (for instance, opt to discard 3 skill cards rather than lose a fuel, even though you only have 1 skill card). I would prefer this to be the case here too, although it doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. This rule would make "option" style cards to be a little softer on the recipient, and in my opinion more intuitive.

There is a difference between "costs" and "options" (a distinction some people are missing). Jephthah, Saint Patrick, etc. all require one action to occur for another one to. Ones that have an "instead" like Sinning Hand or Assyria Conquers Israel, I would think, are just an option between two alternatives for the victim player. I would like being able to allow choosing to discard 0 cards, or discarding "as much as possible" if there aren't enough.

The Schaef · « **Reply #22 on:** April 21, 2009, 04:41:15 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 21, 2009, 04:02:41 PM

But it's not what was ruled before, and nobody wants to admit that this is a change.

If somebody wants to come forward and say they were the ones who ruled it this way, I'd be interested to hear it. It was never me.

What is it about this that it HAS to be change, and not just that somebody got it wrong? That happens too, you know.

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #23 on:** April 21, 2009, 05:11:03 PM »

So then, the "current" ruling (in quotation marks because there seemed to be some question about whether or not it has always been this way) is that since the required discard is half the hand, then half the hand can equal zero so zero cards can be discarded to negate Sinning Hand?

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #24 on:** April 21, 2009, 06:33:33 PM »

Quote from: FresnoRedemption on April 21, 2009, 05:11:03 PM

So then, the "current" ruling (in quotation marks because there seemed to be some question about whether or not it has always been this way) is that since the required discard is half the hand, then half the hand can equal zero so zero cards can be discarded to negate Sinning Hand?

Yes

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on April 21, 2009, 04:15:09 PM

I guess that makes sense but... How can doing nothing be a cost? It requires you to discard, which is the act of putting something into the discard pile.. if you do that with zero cards, you didnt discard anything.... $:-\$

If the cost IS doing nothing. Sure, you can't do nothing if the cost is discard 1 card and negate it...but the cost is to discard 0 cards. You are still, in essence, fulfilling the cost - you are discarding 0 cards. Don't look at it as doing nothing, but fulfilling the cost by discarding 0 cards.

News:

Author Topic: Question about Sinning Hand (Read 7734 times)

FresnoRedemption

Lamborghini_diablo

Scottie_ffgamer

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

Scottie_ffgamer

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

FresnoRedemption

Scottie_ffgamer