Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yeesh, only in Redemption can you Discard without Discarding anything.

Peter can also defeat Goliath using Jael's Nail...I think that only happens in Redemption as well...

Well, now that we've established who is approaching the topic with an open mind

At least I have the decency, courtesy, and maturity to realize when I'm not being objective and excuse myself from the discussion. Case in point, you accuse Polarius of trying

to belittle and disregard what I'm trying to say

when that is the EXACT thing you've done countless times in response to our arguments as well. What hypocrisy allows you to think it's okay for you to do but no one else?

So no word, then, on when you actually responded to the point of the discussion when I adopted your definition and used it to explain my position?

When we do that with your arguments, you accuse us of twisting your words. Why should he have to respond to that kind of reply when you don't have to?

I also stand by my original assertion. I am of the opinion that one can never not have a hand in Redemption (even if your hand has zero cards), that discarding your hand simply means discarding all of the cards in your hand (which is sometimes zero), and that when given a choice between two actions, I can choose the one that will hurt me the least even though it appears that nothing is happening.

For instance, let's say my opponent plays Great Mourning "Opponent may not make a rescue attempt next turn." Somehow it is CBN. Now, no matter what happens, I am not allowed to make a rescue attempt next turn. Now, assume my opponent still has initiative, and plays Political Bribes "Opponent must either skip next draw phase or make no rescue attempt next turn." Given the choice, assuming I want to draw three cards, I will pick the second option. Does that mean I didn't fulfill PB? No, I made the choice I was required to make. Same thing with PO. I chose to discard all 0 cards in my hand.

You ignored the fact I was specifically replying to Hobbit's illogical example and refused to take back your claim that I was being nonsensical (especially considering nonsensical is entirely relative. Your arguments that discarding nothing is discarding something seem just as nonsensical to me, but at least I use counterarguments and evidence to refute them rather than name-calling to counter points).

You took my obvious joke comment about getting your stories straight and used it to insult me by yet again rehashing the what of the ruling. I'm not an idiot, please don't treat me as one just because I disagree with you.

Speaking of the refuting, you said that Hobbit had already refuted lambo's REG posts, but when I proceeded to provide arguments against Hobbit's claims, you proceeded to say that "oh, we're not actually saying that". So, didn't you mean to say that Hobbit had NOT refuted anything? Agreeing with him just to wait until our side posts counter-arguments only to then say you don't agree with him is just the example of changing your stance that I needed to prove what I said about you flip-flopping several pages ago. It's rude and underhanded, and yes I take it personally because you don't seem to see any fault in it. Example two was the first 2 or 3 pages of this discussion. I was operating under the assumption that the second ability of PO was also a cost:effect ability. You did not refute this nor even post a differing perspective until the 3rd or 4th page. When I challenged you on this you said "I never agreed that it was a cost. Nowhere did I say that part of the ability was a cost." That's not how it works. If you don't specifically post saying you don't agree, there's no way for me to know you aren't accepting it as a baseline fact. You never posted that it was a cost? Okay. You never posted that it wasn't a cost either.

Overall, you seem far more concerned with saving face than actually providing "real discussion" as you said you wanted a page ago. Every other "counterpoint you make seems to be "That's not what I said, you're twisting it". It's not twisting your words to take something you did in fact say (despite you denying it) and applying it in another situation ir in a slightly different way to show you that it doesn't work. You don't seem to understand how discussions work. Each side makes arguments, then they take their opponent's arguments and formulate counter-arguments. Your incessant whining about "I didn't say that" only proves that you don't have a legitimate counter-argument to what was said and instead you're attacking the fundamentals of conversational discussion to try and get out of the point we made. It's not "twisting your words" to take something you said and formulate a counterpoint from it. That's what you do in debates. You've done, we've done it, it's normal. If you can't understand/accept that, that's not our fault anymore than it's PO's fault how many cards either player has in their hand (which is a silly argument to begin with. What does assigning blame to inanimate objects have anything to do with this ruling?).

I'm angry because you treat me like an ignorant child, simply ignoring arguments you deem illogical or "nonsensical". I'm angry because you're being just as closed minded as you made a point about me being yet it's not at all a problem for you. I'm angry because you're hiding behind the cover of "well, we discussed it when this came up, and we decided on the current ruling". Any discussion that went on previous to this thread, or at the beginning of this thread, has no merit anymore due to the amount of new evidence brought up by both sides (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt even though most of your "evidence" has just been restatements of the ruling) over the course of this thread. I'm angry because you don't even seem willing to consider our side. I said that I wasn't willing to agree that you're right not because I have a closed mind, but because my arguments are being ignored as though they don't matter. We provide arguments, you either complain about us utilizing perfectly reasonable debate techniques or dismiss them altogether. That is not right, that is not fair, that is not appropriate. So if you think I have a "closed mind" it's because you had one first and I have simply gotten discouraged from attempting to change it. Humans can't be (and aren't) right all the time. I'm not using that to necessarily say you're wrong now (though undoubtedly you'll do your own version of twisting words and say that I am, irony ftw), but you need to be open to the fact that everyone is wrong sometime. You're acting as if you're right, you can't be not right, any suggestion that you're not right is preposterous, and there's no possible alternative. We've given alternatives and you refuse to accept them.

Continued in next post....

We understand that. We're asking why we need to explain to people that you can Discard your hand without discarding anything, when implementing the other rule would have it do exactly what it says and impact three cards anyway.

In every other card game, you can't discard from your hand, deck, draw from your deck, etc. when there are no cards there. This is logical. We're championing one more step in the right direction for Redemption. It's different when a card has X terminology since X can easily equal 0, but for the three cards that have "Discard/Shuffle all to do Y" wording, it is inconsistent that insteading prevents a cost from being paid, but simply not paying a cost is fine.

"All" can equal 0. That's the only explanation you really need.

{blah, blah, blah...}

I still agree with Schaef, I simply hadn't logged on yet.

I also stand by my original assertion. 

We will not repeal Obamacare.

I'm optimistic.  After all, the Berlin Wall came down.

We understand that. We're asking why we need to explain to people that you can Discard your hand without discarding anything, when implementing the other rule would have it do exactly what it says and impact three cards anyway.

In every other card game, you can't discard from your hand, deck, draw from your deck, etc. when there are no cards there. This is logical. We're championing one more step in the right direction for Redemption. It's different when a card has X terminology since X can easily equal 0, but for the three cards that have "Discard/Shuffle all to do Y" wording, it is inconsistent that insteading prevents a cost from being paid, but simply not paying a cost is fine.

I would find that easier than explaining to people that now that their hand has been reduced to zero by other means, they have to give up a Lost Soul because that is the only one of two choices that they can fulfill. Considering this thread was started as a means to legitimize a combo that could potentially break the game if allowed (at least from the rumors I have heard) I don't see why we need to change a rule that could eventually end up with an errata for PO.

The effect on Mayhem could actually do more harm then good after all. Before, it was purported to be a good thing that you would have to keep at least one card in your hand before using it, resulting in a +5 draw rather than a +6. However, if you reduce your opponent's hand to zero somehow, then you reduce your hand to two and play Mayhem, you get to draw +5, your opponent gets to draw nothing (since he shuffled nothing).

@Browarod: Um...wow. Schaef has a long and storied history on these boards of being stubbornly steadfast on various topics. I have been on his side as many times as I have been on the other, but I have never felt attacked, and I honestly have never seen any situation where he has attacked another person (as opposed to their viewpoints). I am confident Schaef doesn't believe you are an idiot any more than he believes Pol, JSB, MJB, Bryon, myself, crustpope, MasterKChief, TheHobbit, or anyone else who have had long, drawn out disagreements with him from time to time are idiots. He just believes firmly in his viewpoint, which requires that he believes all other mutually exclusive viewpoints are wrong. This requires him to demand evidence contrary to his viewpoint before he will reconsider (which he even has in the past, even after 12+ pages of discussion).

@STAMP: Aren't there any fish that still need catching? Why are you on your computer then? 

You ignored the fact I was specifically replying to Hobbit's illogical example and refused to take back your claim that I was being nonsensical

Your argument did not make sense in light of the ACTUAL logic being employed in this ruling.  The refusal here is in what you accept as being the logic employed in the ruling.

You took my obvious joke comment about getting your stories straight and used it to insult me by yet again rehashing the what of the ruling.

I'm not insulting you by saying that our two accounts do not contradict each other, in response to your claim that our accounts contradict each other.

Speaking of the refuting, you said that Hobbit had already refuted lambo's REG posts, but when I proceeded to provide arguments against Hobbit's claims, you proceeded to say that "oh, we're not actually saying that".

Yes, I quoted a post by Hobbit saying "no one is saying actual cards are being discarded".  Your arguments are against Hobbit's "x=cards" argument as applied to this scenario.  Those are two different things.

I was operating under the assumption that the second ability of PO was also a cost:effect ability. You did not refute this nor even post a differing perspective until the 3rd or 4th page.

You brought up PO's "cost" for the first time on page 4.  I immediately denied the notion at that point.

It's not twisting your words to take something you did in fact say (despite you denying it) and applying it in another situation ir in a slightly different way to show you that it doesn't work.

I deny because I did not say what you claimed, and the posts back me up.  You said yourself that you just assumed my opinion.

Your incessant whining about "I didn't say that" only proves that you don't have a legitimate counter-argument to what was said and instead you're attacking the fundamentals of conversational discussion to try and get out of the point we made.

I provided a legitimate counter-argument taking Polarius' specific claims into account and moved forward.  So how am I trying to get out of a point?

I'm angry because you're being just as closed minded as you made a point about me being yet it's not at all a problem for you.

I'm not closed-minded just because I assume a different position than you.  There is only one person in this thread who said that they will NEVER EVER EVER think that you will EVER be right EVER, and it wasn't me.

I'm angry because you're hiding behind the cover of "well, we discussed it when this came up, and we decided on the current ruling".

If I'm hiding behind the "we made this rule and that's that", then how could you possibly make counter-arguments to my points?  That can only happen if I am actually voicing thoughts of my own. Or if you assume them.

I'm angry because you don't even seem willing to consider our side. ...my arguments are being ignored as though they don't matter. We provide arguments, you either complain about us utilizing perfectly reasonable debate techniques or dismiss them altogether.

As I noted earlier, I adopted Polarius' definition for this discussion, left behind the argument about whether PO works if cards are re-destined, and started applying the argument under these new circumstances.  The response was an argument to silence, a reductive argument, and an argument to the crowd: three logical fallacies.  Reasonable debate techniques?

You're acting as if you're right, you can't be not right, any suggestion that you're not right is preposterous, and there's no possible alternative. We've given alternatives and you refuse to accept them.

I'm acting as if I am right and have not heard an argument that compels me to abandon that and change my mind.  That does not negate the merits of any claim nor does it assume such claims are preposterous.  This is something else you seem to be assuming because I didn't specifically tell you that it's NOT preposterous in case you might think that later.

If this is all about open-mindedness and fair treatment, why do you accuse me of insulting you, degrading you, incessant whining, and so many other things, just for asking that my words be taken with a fair and open mind?  If that's the kind of discussion you really want, that would seem like a reasonable request for me to make.  You say you're not built up, mostly because you are assuming malicious intent by my mere disagreement with you; the worst you can say is that I called one specific example nonsensical, even though I did not dismiss the entire discussion in this way.  By contrast, I say I am not built up because of things that YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY SAYING ABOUT ME DIRECTLY.  And even with that, I am still not assuming malicious intent on your part.

In every other card game, you can't discard from your hand, deck, draw from your deck, etc.

FWIW you can in Lotr. http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,6140.0.html

But you met the requirement by discarding all the cards that you had in your hand.  Zero just happens to be the number in question.  If you can understand and acknowledge how X can equal zero, it's not a far leap from there to understand how 100% or 50% of zero can also equal zero.

So why is X okay if it equals zero?

there removed language and cleaned it up but for petes sake stop the whining

Thank you.

-----------------

Since this ruling appears to be official, I would recommend that this thread be locked to avoid any more negativity, whether intended or not. There is very little good that continued debate can bring, IMO.