Temporal Shift.

[Ausplosions]

Says that Tara can give fast to all models in 6,then discards 3 cards or her whole hand.

Can she do this with 0,1or 2 cards as it is still her 'whole hand'?

[Malal]

To my mind there's no difference between having a hand of 0 cards and not having a hand. If you had no hand, you couldn't discard it therefore if you have 0 cards you can't discard it either.

No confusion for me either but a different conclusion. Hopefully it'll get picked up in the 1st FAQ

[Morgan Vening]

To my mind there's no difference between having a hand of 0 cards and not having a hand. If you had no hand, you couldn't discard it therefore if you have 0 cards you can't discard it either.

How would that apply to Jakob Lynch's Ace in the Hole? If the Jakob player has no cards, then how can he put discarded aces into it? I know it's a little facetious, but it gets to my point. If zero cards = no hand, there's a lot of other abilities that don't seem to work, if the hand no longer exists. It's just easier to assume that zero cards = hand with no cards.

No confusion for me either but a different conclusion. Hopefully it'll get picked up in the 1st FAQ

Agreed. While I think the RAW is pretty clear (though not crystal), it's entirely possible that it's not intended to work that way. In which case, clarity is key.

Morgan Vening

[Ausplosions]

Yup.

I think it's definitely able to be done with a hand of zero RAW.

[Creaturefeature]

RAW is a slippery slope, lets take a ride. The ability does state you can discard your hand which is still there, even if empty and can even be considerd to be 0 cards(not Raw though). Its a good argument Tara allows you to discard your whole hand, even if it is empty; its a neat thing she does. If you do,though, you risk another RAW argument; that you no longer have a hand at all. It has been discarded, the special rule from Tara allowed you to get rid of it regardless, page 24 does say you hand size can change depending on special rules etc... Congrats you get the ability off by discarding what is your hand per RAW. So, how do you get your hand back? Per Raw on page 34, you have to check your hand to see if you have less than your maximum hand size, then you draw back up. Since you no longer have a hand due the ability and no rule has allowed you to redraw it, its gone. You have no hand at all, there is nothing there to refill. Getting way too RAW would actually mean that unless you discard exactly 3 cards you have to discard your whole hand and can no longer draw any cards that are required be placed in youre hand, unless you get it back.

[The Godlyness]

Yep i discard my hand. hey look at that my hand is empty.

so now i have an empty discarded hand.

draw phase i have an empty hand and a discarded hand.

i draw cards.

@creature no where does it give me any model or the player Condtion you cant draw cards if you use this abilty. to try making it as you seem get the butcher's knife out and chop off you own hand and discard it. cause at that point you are no longer following the rules of the game.

and as it has been said before 0 is a number. its Real in fact. see that their that was snarky sarcasm.

if i tried to discard 3 cards when i only had 2 cards i have not met the requirements of Temporal Shift. if i discard my hand (2 cards) i have.

if i tried to discard 3 cards when i have 0 cards in my hand I have not met the requirements of temporal shift. If i discard my hand (0 cards) i have.

Tell me how you read this any other way? with great detail if you would

[Malal]

Tell me how you read this any other way? with great detail if you would

If I have 0 cards in my hand my hand is empty, I have nothing in it. You can't do anything with nothing, including discard it. If you could discard nothing, could you take a pic of the nothing and upload it into this thread?

I can see both sides of the argument from a RAW point of view but imo RAI would be you have to discard at least 1 card, obviously others have a differing opinions but we're going to have to wait for the FAQ to cover this so we can find out which way round was intended.

[Rhonlore]

The point is you are fulfilling the effects of the spell. When you discard zero cards, you are discarding "its whole hand" which is the number of cards left in your hand which as it turns out is zero.

However you want to argue it, discarding zero cards is a legal maneuver. Tara and her Nothing Beast are meant to have few if not zero cards in hand. It's the entire design of the model. Messing around with Slow, Fast and new takes on what the Control Hand is for is what Tara does.

The wording is that way to force players to discard three cards if possible. If they can't or choose not to they discard all the cards the are currently in possession of, and if they are in possession of zero, the ability is satisfied.

The ability does not require you to discard cards as part of a cost, it is merely the effect of the ability.

And finally, as I pointed out before, this wording is consistent with other card based game systems.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Rhonlore

[The Godlyness]

you can do something with nothing.

discarding nothing is discarding something which is nothing. Wrap your head around that profound logic.

(1) Temporal Shift: All models in p6 gain Fast. Then, this model discards three cards,

or its whole hand. This action may only be taken if at least one enemy model would gain

Fast from this Action

This action Goes off once you use it, there is no stopping it. It gives models fast. Then you go to the second part of discarding cards. Which if you don't, can't, want, to discard 3 cards Goes to the OR "it's whole hand".

which could me more or less than three cards. 0 is less than 3 as is 1 and 2. 4 5 6 7 is higher than three and if you desired you could discard all of them also.

there is no other way to interpret this unless its just the desire for this ability to have a restriction (which it has aka one enemy has to benefit from it.)

---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

ninjaed by a minute

[Malal]

there is no other way to interpret this unless its just the desire for this ability to have a restriction (which it has aka one enemy has to benefit from it.)

Again, that's your opinion, where as mine is that your desire to lift a restriction is colouring your opinion. There clearly is another way to interpret this and that's being expressed by myself and others in this thread. Until we have an official ruling if your opponents are happy to play by your interpretation and the TO's of any tournaments you attend are in agreement with you then you've nothing to worry about. The same goes for me and my opponents but the language yourself and others are using in this thread makes it seem like you're trying to steamroller your interpretation through

[Ausplosions]

But you are wrong.

Toot toot.

[Barnaberible]

But you are wrong.

Toot toot.

No I'm Not

[zFiend]

As in the peoples view who think you can't get that action for free without discarding something: you are wrong.

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

Say you go to the store, want an apple. The guy tells you I want 3 coins for that, you go I don't have 3 coins, he goes okay, give me all you got. You go I have nothing, now I get the apple right? No, you don't.

[Ausplosions]

Real world situations are not a way to argue rules questions.

Come back later.

[Kalkris]

The way I see it, if Tara is a master, the gist of whom includes (among many other things) a distinct lack of cards in hand, then Temporal Shift makes sense as having the upside of you, the Tara player, being able to use it without cards in hand. Besides, no cards is usually downside enough anyway.

~Lil Kalki

[Barnaberible]

Tara walks into a store...

I'd like an apple please

That will cost 3 cards

I don't have 3 cards, how about I give you all the cards I have

Ok

Wait a minute, you don't have any cards at all

Sale of goods act mate, how about you discuss it with my soulstone sword

Erm, just have the apple

[TekDekay]

I would like to see a player physically and literally discard 0 cards. Seeing is believing and if I don't see that you have discarded card(s) in your discard pile as part of a requirement, then you aren't satisfying the 'discard' portion of the requirement. If you can't meet the requirements, it isn't a legal action.

Just my 2 cents. Something for nothing just doesn't smell right.

[Fenton Crack]

My unsolicited 2 cents:

I'm not sure at this point those with opposing viewpoints on the "whether one can discard a hand when one has zero cards" debate are going to convince others of their contrary position, regardless of arguing semantics, logic, or intent. Not that things have really gotten chippy yet, it just seems like the argument is going to go circular until there is official word via FAQ or whatnot.

[zFiend]

Real world situations are not a way to argue rules questions.

Come back later.

Right. Because the logic doesn't support the outcome you want, got it.

[CRC]

Right. Because the logic doesn't support the outcome you want, got it.

No, because the weakness of drawing the analogy overrides the strength of the analogous situation.

By drawing that analogy, you now have to convince people of two things:

1. Discarding cards for an effect is like paying a shopkeeper with coins.

2. The shop keeper who had made an offer like "I'll take whatever you have", wouldn't be willing to honor that, if the other person had nothing.

Just trying to convince people of the original point is easier.

---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

Btw, I believe that if Wyrd wanted Tara to have to discard at least one card in order to use the ability, it would be worded something like:

"Tara may discard 3 cards or her entire hand. If she discarded at least one card ..."

I also believe you can discard 0 cards, in the same way I think you can pay 0 soulstones for a model, or take 0 damage from an attack. 0 is a number, like any other.

[Rhonlore]

A quiz:

1) What happens when Jacob Lynch uses his (0) Mulligan action when he has zero cards in hand.

2) What happens when you use the (1) Lure trigger She doesn't look that dead to me on a model whose controller has no cards left in his hand.

3) What happens when Jacob Lynch uses his (1) Final Debt with no cards in his hand

4) What happens when the Graveyard Spirit uses his (0) One Foot in the Grave when the opponent has no cards left in hand.

5) What happens when Tara uses Temporal Shift with no cards left in her hand

The point I'm trying to make with these examples is that the ability or trigger still resolves even lacking cards in either the target or the acting models controllers hands.

As I've attempted to explain before the "rest of your hand" is not a restriction of the ability, but merely an effect, just like all of the ones listed above that affect the users or victims control hand.

And one final question:

6) If the controller of the Graveyard Spirit has no cards in his hand, can he use (0) One Foot in the Grave?

Open Spoiler

1) His only option is to discard 0 cards, and draw 0 cards

2) The victim discards 0 cards since they are unable to discard any as per the ability

3) The victim receives 0 damage since Lynch's controller has 0 cards left in their hand

4) The victim discards 0 cards since they have 0 cards left in their hand.

5) She discards 0 cards since that is all the cards left in her hand

6) No because the ability requires the controller to discard a card

Edited September 18, 2013 by Rhonlore

[Barnaberible]

We should just open a vote on rules questions, it would be a lot simpler

[Ausplosions]

Right. Because the logic doesn't support the outcome you want, got it.

Tibbles the cat eats seven bugs. If three of those bugs were purple and four were red. It means Tara CAN use Temporal Shift.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Justin

[Justin]

Q: Can Tara use Temporal Shift if her controller has 0 cards in hand?

A: Yes.