Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I understand how X can equal zero. I don't understand how you can discard something without putting anything into the discard pile.

Those two statements contradict each other if you believe the first to be true.

I'm pretty sure all valid points on both sides were raised. Then as typically happens with long threads, those points were raised over and over again. No one's opinion was being changed, and all of the people who have been entrusted with deciding ruling questions were all saying the same thing. Debate is certainly not bad, but whoever posted that quote (I didn't see who it was) has probably been around long enough to understand how things have worked in the past.

If you honestly have valid points that were never raised, feel free to bring them up. But it is likely that there will be minimal response, unless you have some really strong arguments, since the decision was made before that thread ever started and none of the points raised convinced any of the elders that change was needed.

I'm not trying to rehash this but clarify.

Why can an empty hand satisfy the requirements on PO to discard your hand?  

I understand that the hand can equal 0.  I think you're saying that "your hand ends up empty" is equivalent to "Every card in your hand went to the discard pile".  If you discard all cards in your hand the result is 0 and if you started with 0 cards you still end up with the same result.  right?  

I would say that neither is what the card says nor are those statements equivalent.  It has already been established that cards that are exchanged into the discard pile are not considered to have been discarded.  It is not only where they go but how they got there.

You seem to focus only on the result as what matters when checking the card.  Why is the process not equally important?  The card does not say to have 0 cards in hand but to "discard your hand".  
As has been pointed out, if you can shuffle your hand or do something else instead (like CoA) then I don't think you have fulfilled the card.  You have the same result in regards to your hand but you did not do the action that it requires.  I see the card instructing you to do a certain action (discard) to certain target (hand) for a specific result (everything in the hand being discarded).  I understand that you get the result with a 0 card hand but you don't perform the action of actually discarding.  Also I don't think you can say that you just discarded all valid targets because if the cards are protected (the Zealot) you have not fulfilled it.  You can't shuffle your hand instead of discarding and similarly you can't do nothing instead of discarding.  

If a card directs you to perform an action then logically you should have do something to count as having done it.  If it simply checks for a state of being (be 0) then you don't have to do anything it just has to be true.  
You say that if your hand is 0 then discarding your hand means discarding 0 but 0 means nothing which means you discarded nothing which is equivalent to saying "you didn't discard".  So the action word of "discard" did not happen.  If there were a card that triggered when your opponent discarded something, would it be fulfilled when they discarded a hand of 0?  You say that you did in fact discard your hand which is something which means it would trigger.  But a trigger checks for an actual something; how would I know if the trigger was fulfilled or not because there is no discernible difference.

I also didn't see a response on whether I shuffle when the shuffler lost soul is rescued and I have no lost souls out.

Some of the things said in that thread were not good but none of us are perfect and I see it as an opportunity for mercy and forgiveness. 

I agree.  I forgive that some PTB are nuts. 


But seriously, I completely understand the point being made on discarding a hand of zero.  It's still silly and illogical, but I understand.  It's like if I told my son to take out the garbage to get his allowance.  Our garbage can that holds the garbage has a trash can liner.  He can throw away the liner without containing any real garbage, put in a new liner, and I'm none the wiser when I'm giving him his $5.00.

But here's the thing: HE ACTUALLY THREW SOMETHING TANGIBLE AWAY!  I can go to the dumpster and see the empty liner.

THERE IS NOTHING TANGIBLE ABOUT A HAND WITH ZERO CARDS!

There's nothing I can show that is proof I paid the cost for the benefit.

So stop wasting our time with silly explanations.  If you want to "make up" some weird definition that causes a hand sans cards to be something tangible sitting there on top of the discard pile, then go ahead.  But don't insult our intelligence by trying to conjure a logical explanation when there is none.

So, I haven't been active at all on this board for a good amount of time and I have been checking off-topic stuff the past few days since I am back at home in MD while I look for a job.  I glanced at a few ruling threads and found this one interesting so I've been following it a little bit.  And then STAMP posts this:

So stop wasting our time with silly explanations.  If you want to "make up" some weird definition that causes a hand sans cards to be something tangible sitting there on top of the discard pile, then go ahead.  But don't insult our intelligence by trying to conjure a logical explanation when there is none.

I love how STAMP totally pwns and he doesn't even play the game anymore.  Love it.  "Can't wait!" for the response from Schaef that dissects STAMP's post into 15 separate quotes with 3 sentence responses for each one.

It's like if I told my son to take out the garbage to get his allowance.  Our garbage can that holds the garbage has a trash can liner.  He can throw away the liner without containing any real garbage, put in a new liner, and I'm none the wiser when I'm giving him his $5.00.

Let's say you told your son to empty the garbage can and if he did so, you would give him $5. If later he reports to you that he has emptied everything that was in the garbage can and you walk over to see that there is indeed nothing in the garbage can, would you give him the $5?

Yeah, and then take it back and punish him for being deceptive.

Or better yet, pay him in Disciples packs.

Let's say you told your son to empty the garbage can and if he did so, you would give him $5. If later he reports to you that he has emptied everything that was in the garbage can and you walk over to see that there is indeed nothing in the garbage can, would you give him the $5?

Oops...our real-world analogy no longer fits the Redemption scenario...

Your analogy doesn't seem to fit with the Redemption scenario anyway for 2 reasons:

1. The card doesn't say "empty hand" it says "discard hand". Schaef said several times in the other thread that these are congruent, but I posit that they are in fact different. While discard and empty are both action words that can (but don't always) lead to a similar result, they have very different connotations (especially as discard is defined in the game of Redemption). The status of an empty hand is, in fact, "empty", but by default is not also "discarded". Discard, as defined in Redemption, requires an action of putting something from your hand (or your deck, or your field, etc.) into/onto the discard pile. Without having done that, there is no discard. If the target of the discard becomes protected, or if something interrupts the discard and otherwise gets rid of the target, no discard takes place. A card put into the discard pile for any other reason does not have the "discarded" status, and having 8 cards in your hand, then putting them down, does not give your hand the "discarded" status either. Looking solely at the ability written on the card (since there is no errata or play-as in the REG), Primary Objective says "opponent must discard hand or holder rescues that Lost Soul." To be perfectly honest, I have no idea where the Elders got the idea of anything having to do with a check for an "empty" hand. The card says nothing about "empty", the definition of discard says nothing about "empty", so I, personally, do not understand why a check of "empty" has been given to this card. PO calls for a discard, so it seems logical to me that a check relating to that discard should be the check given, and it seems illogical that any other check should be given based on the wording of the card. As such, while an empty hand does in fact have the status of "empty", it does not (and cannot by the definition of discard) have the status of "discarded", so based on the card wording and the definition of the terms used in said card wording, it doesn't seem logical that a hand of 0 cards can gain "discarded" status for absolutely nothing. I hope this helps explain where I (and perhaps others) are coming from.

2. Even ignoring the above, in order for your example to be accurate STAMP would have to be actively watching his son and the garbage can to see if he actually did anything. In Redemption, the players are always sitting across from (or next to, in the case of multiplayer) each other, and every action is watched by both/all players. There is no "reporting later", only "I saw you do that right now". As such, if STAMP was actively watching his son interact with the garbage can and saw that he did not in fact do anything, it would not be logical or prudent to give him the $5 since, while the end result of the garbage can being empty is met, his son did not actually do anything to bring about that result..

I think Guardian has put it extremely well.

Both sides have stated everything that can possibly be stated.

Let the topic rest.


NOTE: I have merged the two threads together so as to reduce clutter, and allow for easy reading of the whole situation at a later date.