Author Topic: The zero card hand (Read 28413 times)

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?

The Guardian · « **Reply #1 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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #2 on:** January 16, 2011, 02:51:30 PM »

How is PO not an instead ability?

The Guardian · « **Reply #3 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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #4 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.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #5 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?

Quote from: The Guardian on January 16, 2011, 02:50:10 PM

You can discard your hand even if your hand has 0 cards.

Only because of that ruling.

The Guardian · « **Reply #6 on:** January 16, 2011, 03:10:21 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith 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?

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #7 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.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2011, 03:17:33 PM »

Quote from: 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.

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #9 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?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #10 on:** January 16, 2011, 03:30:25 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on January 16, 2011, 03:10:21 PM

Quote from: Ring Wraith 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?
As for the Mayhem example, that's exactly what happens...it's been done.

I know. I did it once or twice yesterday.

However, I agree with Olijar that you can't discard something you don't have.

CJSports · « **Reply #11 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.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #12 on:** January 16, 2011, 03:58:03 PM »

It is 100% factual disinformation that Jannisary is wrong.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #13 on:** January 16, 2011, 04:09:22 PM »

Quote from: 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.

The Guardian is an elder...he made a ruling...but we already knew the ruling...we just want a change...

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on January 16, 2011, 03:58:03 PM

It is 100% factual disinformation that Jannisary is wrong.

Janissary isn't saying that PO doesn't work with a zero card hand. He's saying it shouldn't work with a zero card hand. So he's not exactly wrong.

I agree with him (mostly because I love combos).

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2011, 04:30:51 PM »

Quote from: 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?

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #15 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?

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #16 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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #17 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.

browarod · « **Reply #18 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....

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #19 on:** January 16, 2011, 06:48:05 PM »

Quote from: 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....

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #20 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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #21 on:** January 16, 2011, 07:56:59 PM »

Quote from: 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.

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #22 on:** January 16, 2011, 08:02:45 PM »

Reason #38 why I retired.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #23 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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #24 on:** January 16, 2011, 09:24:10 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 07:56:59 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?

News:

Author Topic: The zero card hand (Read 28413 times)

Warrior_Monk

TheHobbit13

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk

TheHobbit13

browarod

The Schaef

The Schaef