Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: browarod on November 16, 2009, 08:22:15 PM

A cost is by very nature costly. 0 is nothing. Nothing cannot satisfy a cost because costs require something (even if it's half of something) and half of nothing is still nothing.

My salvation disagrees with your logic.

Amen!

You always have a deck, even if it there are no cards in it. 

Instant Abilities > Discard or Remove > Special Conditions
.•      When using Jephthahs special ability, the holder must have a draw pile and must discard two characters in the same territory unless only one character is available.

What exactly is the point of the bolded part of the REG quote if what you say is true? Obviously it is possible to not have a deck, hence the ruling.

Well here's something that may change the discussion. I oppose the ruling for a totally different reason. Sinning Hand lists Discarding half your hand (rounded down) as a cost. You have been focusing on what "half your hand" means. I say concentrate on what Discard means. What does the Rulebook define "Discard" as? Has this occurred if you have 1 or 0 cards in hand? If no, why is Sinning Hand Negated?

By golly

I'm sure you didn't know it, but that phrase is actually just a euphemism for "By God".  It has no other meaning other than that, and is therefore a method of taking the Lord's name in vain.  I would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing that.

Quote from: browarod on November 17, 2009, 09:11:50 AM

By golly

I'm sure you didn't know it, but that phrase is actually just a euphemism for "By God".  It has no other meaning other than that, and is therefore a method of taking the Lord's name in vain.  I would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing that.

Let's tone down the legalism.

Let's tone down the legalism.

What you consider legalism, I consider obedience and holiness.

No kidding.  Preaching your own convictions to others doesn't belong in this section.

He said something offensive to me.  I politely made a personal request that he not speak that way.  I'm not making any forum mandates here.  It was only a personal request, and I appreciate that he honored it.

I think its clear that taking God's name in vain was not what Browarod intended

I agree, which is why I started my comment with "I'm sure you didn't know it"

it was origionally a euphanism I think we can all say with some certanty that it is not any longer

Actually we can't say that with any certainty at all.  It still has the same definition (euphemism for God) in the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (which I already linked to).

Also I think we've had this debate once - so can we just delete or split these last 5-6 posts into a new thread please.

I didn't remember having this debate before.  Can you point me to the thread so that in the future, I can just post a link instead of rehashing old debates?

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17725.0

This is the thread I was thinking of Mark -

Again - Could somebody with Mod powers split and splice this into the Open Discussion segement of the board please?

I can do the math, but I agree with Gabe that the ruling is inconsistent. The point here is not the math, it is the part of the REG I quoted. Notice that it says "the holder must have a draw pile."

If that is what it says in the REG, then the REG needs clarification.  The point is not that you must have a deck.  The point is that you must have a TOP CARD of a deck.  If you have zero cards in your deck, you still have a deck.  BUT you do not have a top card.

Get the difference?  For Jephthah, focus on the TOP CARD (since that is what you are told to discard).  If you have no top card, you can't pay the cost.

You CAN have half of zero, which is zero.  You can discard zero cards.

If I play a card that says "discard all of your cards in play to discard all of opponent's cards in play," then I can discard all of zero to discard all of my opponent's one cards.

All cards can be zero cards.
Half of zero cards can be zero cards.
1 card cannot be zero cards.
The top card cannot be zero cards.  This is identical to the ruling that you can't discard the top 5 cards of your deck if you only have 4 cards in your deck.  If the cost of the card is a number, you must discard that number.  Even if that number is zero.

I would say that to discard you need to have some thing to discard (I.E you need some thing to move from your hand to the discard pile)  in order to negate sinning hand.

So, are you saying that "discard" means different things depending on if it is a cost or a benefit?

Isn't it easier to say "discard zero cards" is possible in both cases?  Why is ET/Authority "discard all evil characters in play" possible when there are no ECs in play, while "discard all evil characters in play to draw a card" is not possible if there are no evil characters in play?

As Tim said, either they need to be treated the same or differently.  Rob+playtesters decided to treat them the same.  If it is possible to have a discard ability discard zero cards as a benefit, then it is possible as a cost as well.

HOWEVER, if a NUMBER is given as a cost, then that cost MUST be payed in order to get the benefit.  So, if you are told to pay 5, then 5 and only 5 is the cost you must pay.  If you are told to pay the top card, then you MUST discard a top card.  If you don't have one, you don't get the benefit.  If you are told to discard zero cards, you can discard zero cards.

If there are zero Assyrians in play, then X = 0 for ... that card whose name escapes me (help!).  Clearly, that card was created with the intent that it is easy (not impossible!) to negate it if the number of Assyrians in play is zero.

HOWEVER, if a NUMBER is given as a cost, then that cost MUST be payed in order to get the benefit.  So, if you are told to pay 5, then 5 and only 5 is the cost you must pay.  If you are told to pay the top card, then you MUST discard a top card.  If you don't have one, you don't get the benefit.  If you are told to discard zero cards, you can discard zero cards.

I agree with your whole post but just wanted to confirm the following when expanding on your explanation:

If a number is given as a benefit, is it still up to the specified number?  i.e. not exact like cost?

We are hard at work passing a major redo through some playtesters.  (A big portion of it is in my lap currently, so I accept some blame for the slow release).  Rob will get it soon, and then hopefully he will open it up for comment to some selected members of this board.

I am very grateful to those who have volunteered to help.  You may be contacted for assistance.