Author Topic: The zero card hand (Read 28376 times)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #25 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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #26 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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #27 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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #28 on:** January 16, 2011, 10:01:53 PM »

Quote from: 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?

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?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #29 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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #30 on:** January 16, 2011, 10:23:32 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 16, 2011, 10:08:22 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).

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #31 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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #32 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.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #33 on:** January 16, 2011, 10:49:43 PM »

Does that mean that jephthah works if i have no cards in deck?

The Schaef · « **Reply #34 on:** January 16, 2011, 10:55:10 PM »

Does Jephthah say discard your deck, or does it specify the top card?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #35 on:** January 16, 2011, 11:17:58 PM »

Jephthah specifies because it has a limit on the number, no?

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #36 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

The Guardian · « **Reply #37 on:** January 16, 2011, 11:29:26 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on January 16, 2011, 10:49:43 PM

Does that mean that jephthah works if i have no cards in deck?

No.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #38 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.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #39 on:** January 16, 2011, 11:59:27 PM »

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

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #40 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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #41 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:43:36 AM »

The thread has gone this long because multiple people think the ruling is wrong.

The Guardian · « **Reply #42 on:** January 17, 2011, 01:01:01 AM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith 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.

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.

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 12:43:36 AM

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #43 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.

browarod · « **Reply #44 on:** January 17, 2011, 04:40:55 AM »

What am I, nonexistent? *cries*

Quote from: The Guardian on January 17, 2011, 01:01:01 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?

Quote from: The Schaef on January 16, 2011, 10:44:46 PM

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #45 on:** January 17, 2011, 06:53:03 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 17, 2011, 12:43:36 AM

The thread has gone this long because multiple people think the ruling is wrong.

It isn't.

Quote from: browarod on January 17, 2011, 04:40:55 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?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #46 on:** January 17, 2011, 06:57:26 AM »

Quote from: 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.

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.

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

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

browarod · « **Reply #47 on:** January 17, 2011, 08:24:48 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on January 17, 2011, 06:53:03 AM

Quote from: browarod on January 17, 2011, 04:40:55 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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #48 on:** January 17, 2011, 08:40:58 AM »

Quote from: browarod on January 17, 2011, 08:24:48 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.

browarod · « **Reply #49 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, 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.

News:

Author Topic: The zero card hand (Read 28376 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

Warrior_Monk

browarod

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

browarod