Cactus Game Design Message Boards

from the REG: http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=defaultconditions15.htm

If a special ability requires you to discard one or more cards from a target (e.g., draw pile, discard pile, players hand, etc.), and the target is exhausted, do not discard a card.

This does seem to be a contradiction.  I think that if this ruling is going to stand, then this part of the REG needs to be clarified.

I disagree that it's a contradiction, as you're not required to discard any specific number, only to reduce your hand to zero.  I do think it needs to be clarified, so as to avoid interpreting it otherwise.

so with the above SA, if i have no evil cards in hand when played- I technically discarded?

The discard ability took effect and discarded zero cards.  I'm not sure where you're going with this line of reasoning, though.

Or, we go with the more logical ruling that is consistent with that REG entry: if you Discard no cards, nothing was Discarded.

You don't consider it logical that if you have no cards remaining in your hand, that you have not met the requirement to discard any cards in your hand?

Alright...I think our "hand" is causing us to sin so according to Jesus we need to cut it off. No hands allowed for anyone in this discussion thread. Try typing walls of text now.

(Predicted apearance of any following responses below)

lkzxnm,zxc nm,/AZXSkAS nm,/w Zdasdasdk,adskkaszdkldasklansdwknadsfnkjdfsakjiskmoisedk,

We already h ad a thread like that. This was typed with my nose.

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on January 21, 2011, 10:27:17 AM

Alright...I think our "hand" is causing us to sin so according to Jesus we need to cut it off. No hands allowed for anyone in this discussion thread. Try typing walls of text now.

(Predicted apearance of any following responses below)

lkzxnm,zxc nm,/AZXSkAS nm,/w Zdasdasdk,adskkaszdkldasklansdwknadsfnkjdfsakjiskmoisedk,

We already h ad a thread like that. This was typed with my nose.

nice

You don't consider it logical that if you have no cards remaining in your hand, that you have not met the requirement to discard any cards in your hand?

No, I do no not, as the only thing you can move face up into the discard pile is air. No cards PHYSICALLY moved, so therefore no condition was met.

According to your logic, I can use Filling Z's Temple even if I find nothing in the deck that it was looking for. I have no temple arts or Z temples remaining in my deck, so I should still meet the cost of pulling one out of the deck.

How about Egyptian Warden? I have no evil gold enhancements remaining in my hand. I should still meet the cost of discarding an evil gold enhancement from my hand.

I am strongly opposed to the idea that inaction can complete a cost. Unless you physically do something to a card, or it uses specific X Variable wording, you did nothing.

The condition wasn't that no cards remain, the condition was that they discarded their whole hand. They didn't, since they didn't discard anything.

Actually, I just realized how that's not true. If any of the cards you had in hand were insteaded (either to Chamber or by Herod's Temple), then you had NOT Discarded your hand, yet your hand is empty. So obviously, the condition has to do with discarding, not with making sure the hand is empty.

Um, no. It's been ruled that instead abilities negate the condition that caused them. Trust me, I wanted it to work the way you're saying, and there was a HUGE discussion about it, but "insteaded" cards were not Discarded. If any cards in their hand are insteaded, they did not Discard their hand. And yet their hand would still be empty. That is not the check "Discard hand" uses.

Dude, seriously? IaH+Chamber happened like less than a couple months ago.

(FWIW, that still wouldn't change my argument because there are no re-destined cards when discarding an empty hand.  You're actually applying a different effect in place of discard.  PO + empty hand does not do this).

It affirms that you have to discard, not just empty your hand. Because of Chamber, your hand may be empty, but you didn't discard it all. Therefore, you have to have a discard take place.

There's no need to drag this down a rabbit hole.  All I'm asking is that you go easy on the dude, seriously, just because I asked you a question regarding Primary Objective, not having gleaned your reference to IaH which was never openly stated.

I can think of at least three different explanations that could separate that ruling from this discussion.  The first being that IaH specifies its quantity.  If there is not a card quantity equal to one with the discard effect applied, cost not met.  But this doesn't apply to PO which specifies no quantity.

The second, which is kind of an extension of the first, is that you could argue Chamber applies a different effect but you still discarded all the valid targets in your hand for discard, after discounting cards that get re-destined.

The third would be to concede that the discard MUST be the effect and it MUST be applied to all the cards in hand, meaning Chamber would stop the PO discard option.  Even given all those things, since I have reduced the cards in my hand to zero, and since I have not applied any other effect to my hand that would remove them in a different manner, I still have met the condition by discarding an empty hand.

So despite your claims to the contrary, I have three potential legs to stand on, even if I concede every single other point you've made.  That is because you haven't disproven the empty hand argument, only demonstrated that as a general statement taken by itself, it doesn't account for exceptional cases which may or may not require additional clarification.

And Sinning Hand.