Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: STAMP on January 20, 2011, 06:12:58 PM

Quote from: RTSmaniac on January 20, 2011, 05:33:21 PM

u mean they cant have a hand ever again stamp?

Not until a game rule or special ability re-establishes your hand.

Seriously.  If something's being discarded to satisfy a condition for a special ability, and it's not cards but rather the location, then it's the location that is being discarded.  And if you no longer have a location to put cards that go in hand, then you no longer have a hand.

You are not discarding the location. You are discarding your cards, which in this case is zero.

Lambo, they're nuts.  That's the scientific explanation. 

As a result, I replied with my own nutso proposal: if you discard your entire hand, as if it's the entirety of the location, then a player can no longer have a hand.

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on January 20, 2011, 06:15:44 PM

I am not discarding anything from my hand, because my hand is zero. But I am at the same time satisfying PO because x=number of cards in my hand. It says to discard zero cards, I discarded zero cards by not discarding any cards or placing anything in the discard pile.

Please point me to the usage of an X variable on Primary Objective? If PO was worded "Discard X cards, where X = number of cards in your hand" then i would completely agree. However, it does not.

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.

Then why does discarding zero count for discarding your hand? You did not physically place ANYTHING into the discard pile, so therefore the act of discarding did not occur.

Primary Objective is.

It says you need to discard to do the optional ability. If your hand is empty, you cannot discard anything from your hand, and therefore cannot meet the requirement for the optional ability.

If the numerator equals the number of cards in your hand, and the denominator equals how many cards you discarded from your hand, then you get the same result as the calculator, thus PO's SA is

You guys should get your stories straight.

Situation

billy- How many cards do you have in your hand ralph?
Bob- 8, I put down 2 characters and one artifact, I didn't discard any cards (= discarded zero cards)

By your logic bob could not have discarded zero cards because he didn't discard any. But, you see, the two terms are congruent. Simply use substitution.

Hobbit already refuted it; what do I gain by repeating what's already been said?

"No one is arguing that you discarded a card if you have discarded a hand of zero. "

I did.  It's nonsensical.  You use examples relying on no compulsion at all to try and refute a point whereby you ARE compelled to discard.

Also, Schrodinger's Cat doesn't apply when we have a single result to check, and it is met: I have no cards remaining in my hand after applying the discard effect to all valid targets.

Then how could you have met a condition that requires discarding?

In his example, Hobbit said that since the player with 8 cards in hand didn't discard anything, it means he discarded 0 cards. I simply extrapolated that to other examples. If anything is nonsensical, it's his supposition.

You also have every card remaining in your hand, hence the Cat paradox.

You can take solace in being the logically correct answer.