Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jeebus]

• In "Abilities between turns" you mention "Between turns, the player who last had a turn is considered to be the current player, and so will resolve between-turn abilities first." It is perhaps good to mention that he also gets to choose which ability is resolved first, if there are multiple abilities which he should resolve. Also, you might want to explicitly mention that at this moment this player is not possessed (even if he was possessed during the last turn), so he makes the choice himself. (After writing this I noticed that this is explained in the Possession reference, but I still think it should be included here as well)
• About the lose track rule: you might want to mention that shuffling your deck will cause every ability to lose track of every card in your deck (even if the top card happens to be still the top card after shuffling). Now that I say this, I actually have a rule question myself: is this also true if your deck consists of only 1 card? So if I have 1 card in my deck, and I shuffle my deck, will abilities lose track of that card in your deck?

Thanks for your feedback! I'll make some of these changes for the next version.
To your rules question: I doubt Donald has ruled on that, but I would assume that one card is unshuffleable; since, you know, it really is. You can't randomize the order of one card, you need at least two.

[Donald X.]

To your rules question: I doubt Donald has ruled on that, but I would assume that one card is unshuffleable; since, you know, it really is. You can't randomize the order of one card, you need at least two.

I'm tentatively going the other way, but haven't done any research.

"Lose track" causes you to lose track in cases where you haven't lost track. That card goes on top of your discard pile and we all know the other card is right there under it. The point was to have the obscure rule be simple. So in this case the question is, what do ordinary people think when told to shuffle one card; do they think they shuffled or what.

[pst]

To your rules question: I doubt Donald has ruled on that, but I would assume that one card is unshuffleable; since, you know, it really is. You can't randomize the order of one card, you need at least two.

I'm tentatively going the other way, but haven't done any research.

"Lose track" causes you to lose track in cases where you haven't lost track. That card goes on top of your discard pile and we all know the other card is right there under it. The point was to have the obscure rule be simple. So in this case the question is, what do ordinary people think when told to shuffle one card; do they think they shuffled or what.

If one card would be seen as unshuffleable that might lead to the question of how to handle a deck with multiple Stashes and one non-Stash, where you can make sure the non-Stash is at the same place afterwards. Lost?

[GendoIkari]

To your rules question: I doubt Donald has ruled on that, but I would assume that one card is unshuffleable; since, you know, it really is. You can't randomize the order of one card, you need at least two.

I'm tentatively going the other way, but haven't done any research.

"Lose track" causes you to lose track in cases where you haven't lost track. That card goes on top of your discard pile and we all know the other card is right there under it. The point was to have the obscure rule be simple. So in this case the question is, what do ordinary people think when told to shuffle one card; do they think they shuffled or what.

Strong opinion for the "it counts as shuffled" side, on the grounds that you don't automatically count your cards while shuffling. Sure it may be trivial to know when the count is 1, but then why stop at 1? You can automatically know without counting when it's 2 also, and 3, maybe 4 and 5. Point is, if you don't count at all, you rely on intuition to know that the deck contains only 1 card when you go to shuffle it.

[GendoIkari]

FWIW, MTG counts a library as having been shuffled even if it contains 0 or 1 card when you shuffle it.

[Jeebus]

To me it's pretty clear. You didn't shuffle. It's not possible to shuffle one card, per definition. And I strongly doubt most people would think they shuffled one card.

You are told to shuffle, you try to, but you can't. Did you follow the instruction? Yes, you did as much as you could. Did you shuffle? No.

No card moved, so nothing was lost track of.

In the example with Stashes the card is lost track of. When there is more than one card, you shuffle. Whether the player knows where the card is, doesn't matter. The only thing that matters for lose-track is that the card moved, even if it moved back. (And I'm including being covered by another card as moving, because it goes from being on the top of a pile to not being on the top.)

[Donald X.]

To me it's pretty clear. You didn't shuffle. It's not possible to shuffle one card, per definition. And I strongly doubt most people would think they shuffled one card.

Well I'm happy to continue gathering data.

[Beyond Awesome]

I feel that if you have any cards in deck, then technically, you shuffle said deck, at least rules wise.

[scott_pilgrim]

My intuition strongly says that shuffling one card counts as shuffling.  That seems like it would make the Stash interaction simpler.  Shuffling just means randomizing the order of all the cards in your deck.  That there happens to be only one outcome is irrelevant.  What if I and all other players know my deck consists only of Copper (more than one Copper).  Do I not shuffle then because there is only one outcome?  I think this is a natural extension of the reasoning that you would need if you wanted to conclude that shuffling one card is not shuffling.

But really it's just about what feels right, and I'm skeptical that most people would disagree with me.  It especially feels more natural with other Dominion rules to me, but I'm not sure why.

Is Inn relevant?  What if I want to shuffle one card into an empty deck?  Is it not shuffling, even though Inn specifically tells me that what I'm doing is shuffling that card into my deck?

[spiralstaircase]

It seems like the things that care about shuffling care about the act of preparing a new deck with the contents of your discard, not about the number of cards involved in that act.

[qmech]

A random permutation of a singleton set is still a random permutation.

[faust]

I would go as far as saying that if you play a draw card with a empty deck and discard, you would still shuffle that empty discard pile.

[SCSN]

This touches on a fundamental question: if you're told to shuffle, but there's no card there to do it with, should the client still play a sound?

[Watno]

Also, should it show the awesome animation of your deck being shuffled?

[Accatitippi]

Also, should it show the awesome animation of your deck being shuffled?

I think the quantity and brightness of sparkles should be a linear function of the number of cards that you shuffled. That way, you always get that important piece of information.

[GendoIkari]

Is Inn relevant?  What if I want to shuffle one card into an empty deck?  Is it not shuffling, even though Inn specifically tells me that what I'm doing is shuffling that card into my deck?

Yeah I think Inn is key here. If "shuffling 1 card" were an impossible to follow instruction, then it could follow that if you gain Inn while your draw deck is empty, that you cannot shuffle only the Inn into your draw pile, and thus the Inn would have to stay in the discard. (The instruction is not "put Inn on top of your draw pile. Shuffle your draw pile.")

[Jeebus]

My intuition strongly says that shuffling one card counts as shuffling.  That seems like it would make the Stash interaction simpler.  Shuffling just means randomizing the order of all the cards in your deck.  That there happens to be only one outcome is irrelevant.  What if I and all other players know my deck consists only of Copper (more than one Copper).  Do I not shuffle then because there is only one outcome?  I think this is a natural extension of the reasoning that you would need if you wanted to conclude that shuffling one card is not shuffling.

This one is easy to refute. In Dominion all Copper is not created equal. I fear you are losing track of the fact that this is about lose-track. The only card that can be kept track of in your deck is the card on top of your deck. It has absolutely no relevance if it has the same name as the rest of your cards in your deck. If you shuffle it in, it's lost track of. It was that Copper, the one on top of your deck, that abilities kept track of. This is the essence: Did the card move? There's no way for it to move if it's physically impossible to shuffle it.

But really it's just about what feels right, and I'm skeptical that most people would disagree with me.  It especially feels more natural with other Dominion rules to me, but I'm not sure why.

Maybe these two earlier rulings by Donald will help.
1) If you have Inn on top of your discard pile and screw around with the order of your discard pile while at the same time keeping Inn as the top card, Inn did not move and is not lost track of.
2) If an ability tells you to shuffle an already shuffled deck before any card is moved to your deck, you don't shuffle, because it's already shuffled.

Yeah I think Inn is key here. If "shuffling 1 card" were an impossible to follow instruction, then it could follow that if you gain Inn while your draw deck is empty, that you cannot shuffle only the Inn into your draw pile, and thus the Inn would have to stay in the discard. (The instruction is not "put Inn on top of your draw pile. Shuffle your draw pile.")

Yes, it must be. "Shuffle the cards into your deck" must be shorthand for "put the cards into your deck, and shuffle it." Anything else is madness. "Shuffling cards into a deck" is not defined as an action you can do in Dominion, and also doesn't exist in real life, except maybe by accomplished close-up magicians.

[Polk5440]

Whether you can shuffle a single card or not (or no card or not) is essentially a matter of definition. As a standalone question it's perfectly reasonable to say "you can't shuffle 0 or 1 cards" or "you can shuffle 0 or 1 cards".

What really matters is what follows from picking one definition over the other.

Here's how you decide whether you can shuffle 1 card (or no cards): Pick the definition that best makes things work out "as they should".

We have an intuitive idea of how Dominion cards and interactions should work most of the time. And Donald, of course, knows his intentions with how things should work. If you pick one definition and it leads to non-intuitive rules rulings more often than not, then you've picked the wrong definition.

[Donald X.]

What really matters is what follows from picking one definition over the other.

I think the only thing that matters here is, one definition will in some very small number of circumstances cause more players to guess correctly as to what will happen.

[Awaclus]

I think that people are usually more inclined to think that they can do something (in this case, shuffling a deck with 0 or 1 cards in it) technically, even if they can't do it physically.

[Polk5440]

What really matters is what follows from picking one definition over the other.

I think the only thing that matters here is, one definition will in some very small number of circumstances cause more players to guess correctly as to what will happen.

Then that's the definition you pick. That's my point.

[Jeebus]

I think that people are usually more inclined to think that they can do something (in this case, shuffling a deck with 0 or 1 cards in it) technically, even if they can't do it physically.

I really don't think so.

So far I've asked 12 people this question, without context: "Can you shuffle one card? That is, if you have a deck consisting of one card, can you shuffle that deck?"
8 said no. 3 said yes, at least 2 of them math people. 1 said yes because he knows that's how it works in Magic.

[GendoIkari]

I think that people are usually more inclined to think that they can do something (in this case, shuffling a deck with 0 or 1 cards in it) technically, even if they can't do it physically.

I really don't think so.

So far I've asked 12 people this question, without context: "Can you shuffle one card? That is, if you have a deck consisting of one card, can you shuffle that deck?"
8 said no. 3 said yes, at least 2 of them math people. 1 said yes because he knows that's how it works in Magic.

I don't think you can remove context like that though. The question isn't so much "can you shuffle" as it is "should a game consider a deck to have been 'shuffled'?"

I still maintain that saying "you can't shuffle 1 card, but you can shuffle 2", requires you to count your deck every time you go to shuffle it.

[Awaclus]

I think that people are usually more inclined to think that they can do something (in this case, shuffling a deck with 0 or 1 cards in it) technically, even if they can't do it physically.

I really don't think so.

So far I've asked 12 people this question, without context: "Can you shuffle one card? That is, if you have a deck consisting of one card, can you shuffle that deck?"
8 said no. 3 said yes, at least 2 of them math people. 1 said yes because he knows that's how it works in Magic.

That's because, without context, they think you're asking them if it's possible to do it physically. In context, they don't think that, because everyone intuitively understands that game mechanics and what's going on with the physical game pieces aren't exactly the same — when you play Thief, you just take your opponent's Treasure directly from them without putting it into the trash pile first and then taking it from there, but nobody is going to argue that it doesn't trigger Market Square because the Treasure wasn't physically in the trash.

[Witherweaver]

Count me down for shuffling being defined for all N >= 0.  Seems obvious. 

[GendoIkari]

Count me down for shuffling being defined for all N >= 0.  Seems obvious.

So you're one of those elitist exclusive people who thinks that just because my deck contains -3 cards, that I can't shuffle it.

[Jeebus]

I don't think you can remove context like that though. The question isn't so much "can you shuffle" as it is "should a game consider a deck to have been 'shuffled'?"

I still maintain that saying "you can't shuffle 1 card, but you can shuffle 2", requires you to count your deck every time you go to shuffle it.

I thought removing the context was the whole idea of Donald's question: "what do ordinary people think when told to shuffle one card; do they think they shuffled or what."

If we instead go the route of trying to be as theoretically accurate as possible, and say that it's possible to randomize a set of one (which I concede) then I still say it doesn't change the fact that the card didn't move, which is all that matters for lose-track.

I admit I didn't understand your argument at all. You rely on intuition to realize you only have 1 card? So, why is that wrong? The point is that you realize you only have one card, so you are unable to move that card.

[Witherweaver]

Count me down for shuffling being defined for all N >= 0.  Seems obvious.

So you're one of those elitist exclusive people who thinks that just because my deck contains -3 cards, that I can't shuffle it.

#NegativeCardinalitiesMatter

[Jeebus]

I don't think you can remove context like that though. The question isn't so much "can you shuffle" as it is "should a game consider a deck to have been 'shuffled'?"

And I disagree with this. That's asking a leading question. Let's say you ask this: "If you are told to draw three cards, but you don't have any cards to draw, should the game consider you to have drawn the cards?" I bet most people would answer yes. The correct answer in Dominion of course is no. But if you ask: "Can you draw three cards from an empty deck," they would answer no.

[Witherweaver]

I don't think you can remove context like that though. The question isn't so much "can you shuffle" as it is "should a game consider a deck to have been 'shuffled'?"

And I disagree with this. That's asking a leading question. Let's say you ask this: "If you are told to draw three cards, but you don't have any cards to draw, should the game consider you to have drawn the cards?" I bet most people would answer yes.

I'm not sure people would answer 'yes' to that.

[Jeebus]

I don't think you can remove context like that though. The question isn't so much "can you shuffle" as it is "should a game consider a deck to have been 'shuffled'?"

And I disagree with this. That's asking a leading question. Let's say you ask this: "If you are told to draw three cards, but you don't have any cards to draw, should the game consider you to have drawn the cards?" I bet most people would answer yes.

I'm not sure people would answer 'yes' to that.

At least it leads people more towards a yes than just asking if it's possible to draw from an empty deck. The reason is that while the latter is clearly wrong, the former implies that the issue is whether the game considers that you finished doing what you were instructed to. And in Dominion, yes the game considers that. But no, the game doesn't consider that you drew the cards. So in this case asking that way leads people more to the wrong answer than asking it straight.

[Awaclus]

I thought removing the context was the whole idea of Donald's question: "what do ordinary people think when told to shuffle one card; do they think they shuffled or what."

I thought the whole idea of Donald's question was to find out how people would actually play the game without reading the rule book, because that's what relevant. I doubt he worded that question that way specifically in an effort to lead people to answer any given way.

[Jeebus]

I thought removing the context was the whole idea of Donald's question: "what do ordinary people think when told to shuffle one card; do they think they shuffled or what."

I thought the whole idea of Donald's question was to find out how people would actually play the game without reading the rule book, because that's what relevant. I doubt he worded that question that way specifically in an effort to lead people to answer any given way.

Okay, so then the question should be, "If you play a game, and the game instructs you to shuffle your deck, and your deck only has one card in it, can you do it?" Agreed? Do you think this would really make people respond differently than the question I asked?

[Awaclus]

Okay, so then the question should be, "If you play a game, and the game instructs you to shuffle your deck, and your deck only has one card in it, can you do it?" Agreed? Do you think this would really make people respond differently than the question I asked?

Yes.

[-Stef-]

Oh my.

This thread is even better then the ones about the definition of combo.

[AdrianHealey]

I am also on team 'you can shuffle one card (or zero cards)'.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I'm also on board with "you can shuffle 1 or 0 cards, but not -1 cards." Shuffling a set of size N is just picking randomly one of N! outcomes, right? 1! and 0! are defined, but -1! is undefined.

[pst]

I made a poll for this.

[Jeebus]

Note that there are two issues here.

One is whether you can lose track of a card when you are supposed to shuffle that single card. As I've said, it doesn't really matter if you did or didn't shuffle, because in any case the card didn't move, so it wasn't lost track of. (Also note that whether you have stashes, or all your cards have the same name, has absolutely no bearing on this because if you move the top card it's lost track of no matter what.) You could make a poll about whether what I said now is correct or not, but that's a different poll.

The other issue is whether the average player will think that they shuffled and therefore conclude that the card is lost track of. Donald might base his ruling entirely on this, who knows. (Although, the Dark Ages rulebook, as far as I know the only printed version of the lose-track rule, doesn't mention shuffling at all.) I would think that this forum is not really representative of the average player, so I don't see much use of this poll here.

[GendoIkari]

The other issue is whether the average player will think that they shuffled and therefore conclude that the card is lost track of. Donald might base his ruling entirely on this, who knows. (Although, the Dark Ages rulebook, as far as I know the only printed version of the lose-track rule, doesn't mention shuffling at all.) I would think that this forum is not really representative of the average player, so I don't see much use of this poll here.

My problem with this is that I think the average player (without reading the rules carefully) would think other incorrect things such as that the top card of your discard is not lost track of when it is covered up by another card.

[Watno]

I'm pretty sure the average player doesn't even know the lose-track rule exists.

[Donald X.]

I'm pretty sure the average player doesn't even know the lose-track rule exists.

I agree. I think they don't know about that rule, and incidentally would feel like if you were told to shuffle one card and it technically mattered for something that you could do it.

[Jeebus]

My problem with this is that I think the average player (without reading the rules carefully) would think other incorrect things such as that the top card of your discard is not lost track of when it is covered up by another card.

I'm pretty sure the average player doesn't even know the lose-track rule exists.

Well yes, most people don't read rulebooks very carefully and often play by all sorts of wrong rules. Sometimes there's a rules nerd in the group which they can rely on to guide them. But we must be talking about that subset of "ordinary players" who actually know enough to know the lose-track rule, or else Donald's question of "what do ordinary people think" is utterly meaningless. I mean, if they don't know about the lose-track rule, it doesn't matter at all what they think about shuffling one card.

So they either read rulebooks somewhat carefully or have a rules nerd friend who does. I assume they mostly would know the lose-track rule from the Dark Ages rulebook, which doesn't mention shuffling at all (so that makes the question somewhat meaningless after all). It just mentions cards moving and being covered up. So (to get to GendoIkari's post) these players would know about that rule actually.

[Donald X.]

I mean, if they don't know about the lose-track rule, it doesn't matter at all what they think about shuffling one card.

Well it only matters if they'll ever have the question, which we could hypothetically arrange. It wouldn't have to involve lose-track.

Similarly note that we aren't talking about a question for something that actually happened in a game. It's a question someone realized they could ask after reading your rules document, that came up for the first time in 2016. It does not matter much if shuffling one card is shuffling, any which way.

Which doesn't mean I don't care about getting it right; just putting it in perspective.

I still tentatively lean towards, shuffling one card is shuffling. If a card said "when you shuffle, +1 VP," I'd expect it to work if there was one card, but not zero (there isn't such a card, phew).

[dane-m]

I assume they mostly would know the lose-track rule from the Dark Ages rulebook, which doesn't mention shuffling at all (so that makes the question somewhat meaningless after all). It just mentions cards moving and being covered up.

I've been following this discussion and largely leaning towards the "shuffling one card would cause it to be lost track of" opinion without necessarily knowing why that was my gut feeling.  I think I can now come up with an answer with justifies (at least to myself) my gut feeling.

We know that when a card is covered up, it is lost track of even if it is subsequently uncovered (caveat: I can't remember what scenario this applied to, so I might have misremembered the exact details).  We know that the card that is now at the top of the pile is the same one that was there before it was covered up, but the card that was doing the tracking doesn't.  I feel that a similar principle applies to shuffling the deck.  We know that there was only one card in the deck and therefore it has remained at the top, but that is information that isn't known to the card doing the tracking.

[Jeebus]

So I made a poll at BGG, with the question worded exactly as Awaclus agreed would be the right way.
So far more than 750 people have responded, with 54% saying "no you can't" and 33% saying "yes you can".

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1576647/please-give-your-vote-can-you-shuffle-one-card

I had expected more people to say "no" actually.

Another thing is that the discussion in the thread made me doubt my view. You guys had convinced me that it's technically correct to say that you can shuffle one card (although for lose-track it doesn't matter, you still can't lose track). But the question is the definition of "shuffling". Is "shuffling" really the same as "randomizing"? You don't "shuffle" cubes when you randomize them. Of course, when a game tells you to shuffle, randomizing is the aim. But when a game asked you if you shuffled, maybe it didn't ask you if you randomized, but if you actually shuffled. It would depend on the context of course, but I'm saying it's not entirely straight-forward.

[eHalcyon]

So I made a poll at BGG, with the question worded exactly as Awaclus agreed would be the right way.
So far more than 750 people have responded, with 54% saying "no you can't" and 33% saying "yes you can".

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1576647/please-give-your-vote-can-you-shuffle-one-card

I had expected more people to say "no" actually.

Another thing is that the discussion in the thread made me doubt my view. You guys had convinced me that it's technically correct to say that you can shuffle one card (although for lose-track it doesn't matter, you still can't lose track). But the question is the definition of "shuffling". Is "shuffling" really the same as "randomizing"? You don't "shuffle" cubes when you randomize them. Of course, when a game tells you to shuffle, randomizing is the aim. But when a game asked you if you shuffled, maybe it didn't ask you if you randomized, but if you actually shuffled. It would depend on the context of course, but I'm saying it's not entirely straight-forward.

I think you'd get more people saying yes if you provide the context of a rule that triggers when the deck is shuffled.  I'd bet that many of the people saying no are just thinking of the physical action.

Edit: I basically agree with darkmagi:

The thread title and poll question are 2 different questions.

Title: Can you shuffle 1 card ? (No-in a literal sense)

Poll: If you play a game with cards, and the game instructs you to shuffle your deck, and your deck only has one card in it, can you do it? (Yes-in a rules sense)


Very deceptive polling...

Not that I think you were intentionally deceptive, but I think it's a major source of the disagreement.

[GendoIkari]

Interesting that 80% of F.DS users said "yes you can" in the poll made here. This seems to strongly imply that the answer to that question is different within the context of Dominion vs "a game with cards" in general. Or something like that.

[GendoIkari]

I think the following comment from BGG explains it actually":

My only hope is that the OP, once he reveals his ulterior motives, doesn't pull a fast one by stating that 'shuffling' means 'the entire mishmash of rules and triggers surrounding a rulebook-instructed activity of shuffling', and instead focuses on just the physical activity of randomising a deck of cards. Otherwise the poll is a pointless word game because you cannot glean from the results what people meant by selecting one of the three options.

Here at F.DS, people answered the poll with the understanding that we were talking about "the entire mishmash of rules and triggers surrounding a rulebook-instructed activity of shuffling".

[eHalcyon]

Somebody made a poll in the discussion that's closer in context to the one we're talking about here:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/22697738#22697738

99% say yes you can shuffle one card there...

[GendoIkari]

Somebody made a poll in the discussion that's closer in context to the one we're talking about here:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/22697738#22697738

99% say yes you can shuffle one card there...

Exactly... that's really the context that matters. We are trying to determine if a rule that happens "whenever you shuffle" happens in this case. Now as to the other point of "did the card move"; that's a good question. But I maintain still that to rule that shuffling 2 cards does move a card, while shuffling 1 card does not, you require people to count their deck every time they need to shuffle.

[Jeebus]

Hah, Awaclus is the only one who can't complain, but I expected others to do it. I wish you had spoken up against the question when I posted it here... I gave my reasons for why I thought it was neutral and why the one proposed by GendoIkari wasn't. Reply to that.

The thread title and poll question are 2 different questions.

Title: Can you shuffle 1 card ? (No-in a literal sense)

Poll: If you play a game with cards, and the game instructs you to shuffle your deck, and your deck only has one card in it, can you do it? (Yes-in a rules sense)


Very deceptive polling...

Not that I think you were intentionally deceptive, but I think it's a major source of the disagreement.

I replied to that in BGG:

I thought about this, because I didn't want to be deceptive. I considered pasting in the entire poll question in the thread title. But in the end actually the title is just a short-form of the question. If you think "yes" to the question, then you think you can shuffle one card. I'm probably not going to convince you, but think about it: You can apply the "rules sense" to both the title and the poll question, and you can do the same with the "literal sense" (both your terms, not mine). It's just that the different phrasings made you associate in a different way.

Anyway, in the end people read both the title and the poll question.

[Jeebus]

Here at F.DS, people answered the poll with the understanding that we were talking about "the entire mishmash of rules and triggers surrounding a rulebook-instructed activity of shuffling".

Yes, that's why it was useless here.
EDIT: That guy thought I wanted to settle a rules dispute.

[eHalcyon]

Hah, Awaclus is the only one who can't complain, but I expected others to do it. I wish you had spoken up against the question when I posted it here... I gave my reasons for why I thought it was neutral and why the one proposed by GendoIkari wasn't. Reply to that.

The thread title and poll question are 2 different questions.

Title: Can you shuffle 1 card ? (No-in a literal sense)

Poll: If you play a game with cards, and the game instructs you to shuffle your deck, and your deck only has one card in it, can you do it? (Yes-in a rules sense)


Very deceptive polling...

Not that I think you were intentionally deceptive, but I think it's a major source of the disagreement.

I replied to that in BGG:

I thought about this, because I didn't want to be deceptive. I considered pasting in the entire poll question in the thread title. But in the end actually the title is just a short-form of the question. If you think "yes" to the question, then you think you can shuffle one card. I'm probably not going to convince you, but think about it: You can apply the "rules sense" to both the title and the poll question, and you can do the same with the "literal sense" (both your terms, not mine). It's just that the different phrasings made you associate in a different way.

Anyway, in the end people read both the title and the poll question.

Sure,  but you really should be pushing the "rules sense", not the "literal sense". The discussion really indicates that you failed in that.  There are a large number of comments there saying,  "I voted no because you can't physically do it, but I would count it as shuffled for rules purposes."

[Jeebus]

Somebody made a poll in the discussion that's closer in context to the one we're talking about here:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/22697738#22697738

99% say yes you can shuffle one card there...

I replied to that post too! "The problem with your question is that it implies that it's the choice of shuffling that gives you a red cube."

Also, I think that the crowd who reads a discussion like that one and gets to page 5, is totally different from the crowd who just reads the poll question and responds. (Which is totally different from the crowd that hangs around in this forum.) I mean, less than 100 replied to that post, and that is plainly not a representative sample of the 800 who replied to my poll. Those 800 are the closest we'll get to regular gamers, without going around asking people in game stores and on cons. If we did that, we would get an even more useful result, because then we wouldn't just get gamers who use BGG, who are more hardcore. I would expect it to be even more people voting "no" then.

[Jeebus]

Sure,  but you really should be pushing the "rules sense", not the "literal sense". The discussion really indicates that you failed in that.  There are a large number of comments there saying,  "I voted no because you can't physically do it, but I would count it as shuffled for rules purposes."

What does that have to do with the difference between the thread title and the poll question? Are you saying the problem is that people read the thread title and not the question?

In any case, I found three such posts, not a "large number". I did write on the first page (8th post) that a game effect would trigger when you shuffle. I concede that some responders made that distinction in the wrong way though.

But I also found posts saying this or similar: Context is super important here. In a vacuum though, I would so "yes."

And this post says something true. Many people who replied to that poll on page 5 probably just thought about whether an effect that triggers at a certain time in the game when you normally shuffle, should trigger.

The bottom line is that I don't know a better way to ask the question.

[Jeebus]

But I maintain still that to rule that shuffling 2 cards does move a card, while shuffling 1 card does not, you require people to count their deck every time they need to shuffle.

And I still don't understand your point. Why does it matter if you count your deck?

[GendoIkari]

But I maintain still that to rule that shuffling 2 cards does move a card, while shuffling 1 card does not, you require people to count their deck every time they need to shuffle.

And I still don't understand your point. Why does it matter if you count your deck?

Because the rules don't require you to count your deck. Of course you could update the rules to include that, but what a weird rule it would be. Instead of "shuffle your deck", suddenly you would have "count your deck. If you have more than 1 card in your deck, shuffle it." I mean, you wouldn't have to spell it out fully that way, but the rule of what defines "shuffling" would cause that to be how you must shuffle.

[Jeebus]

Because the rules don't require you to count your deck. Of course you could update the rules to include that, but what a weird rule it would be. Instead of "shuffle your deck", suddenly you would have "count your deck. If you have more than 1 card in your deck, shuffle it." I mean, you wouldn't have to spell it out fully that way, but the rule of what defines "shuffling" would cause that to be how you must shuffle.

Ok, I get it now. But why do you have to count to know that you have one card? It's not entirely clear that you can't just know that without counting.
What about checking for empty piles? The rules don't require you to count then either, but you if you have to count to 1, you have to count to 0.

[GendoIkari]

Because the rules don't require you to count your deck. Of course you could update the rules to include that, but what a weird rule it would be. Instead of "shuffle your deck", suddenly you would have "count your deck. If you have more than 1 card in your deck, shuffle it." I mean, you wouldn't have to spell it out fully that way, but the rule of what defines "shuffling" would cause that to be how you must shuffle.

Ok, I get it now. But why do you have to count to know that you have one card? It's not entirely clear that you can't just know that without counting.

I said at some point in the beginning of this that it's an issue of having to "know intuitively".

What about checking for empty piles? The rules don't require you to count then either, but you if you have to count to 1, you have to count to 0.

Great point; I have no counter.

[singletee]

What about checking for empty piles? The rules don't require you to count then either, but you if you have to count to 1, you have to count to 0.

In that case you aren't counting, you're visually distinguishing between a card and the surface of a table. Like, does the spot I'm looking at more resemble Province or wood grain?

[eHalcyon]

Somebody made a poll in the discussion that's closer in context to the one we're talking about here:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/22697738#22697738

99% say yes you can shuffle one card there...

I replied to that post too! "The problem with your question is that it implies that it's the choice of shuffling that gives you a red cube."

Also, I think that the crowd who reads a discussion like that one and gets to page 5, is totally different from the crowd who just reads the poll question and responds. (Which is totally different from the crowd that hangs around in this forum.) I mean, less than 100 replied to that post, and that is plainly not a representative sample of the 800 who replied to my poll. Those 800 are the closest we'll get to regular gamers, without going around asking people in game stores and on cons. If we did that, we would get an even more useful result, because then we wouldn't just get gamers who use BGG, who are more hardcore. I would expect it to be even more people voting "no" then.

I don't think the question implies that at all.  It says you have a choice, then an effect depending on what you actually did, not depending on the choice itself.  But if you want, you could rephrase that question to be clearer about that distinction.

And sure, the people who are that far into discussion are a different crowd.  If that question had been the OP, I'd expect something closer to what we saw here on f.ds, with an 80/20 split instead of 99/1.

Sure,  but you really should be pushing the "rules sense", not the "literal sense". The discussion really indicates that you failed in that.  There are a large number of comments there saying,  "I voted no because you can't physically do it, but I would count it as shuffled for rules purposes."

What does that have to do with the difference between the thread title and the poll question? Are you saying the problem is that people read the thread title and not the question?

In any case, I found three such posts, not a "large number". I did write on the first page (8th post) that a game effect would trigger when you shuffle. I concede that some responders made that distinction in the wrong way though.

But I also found posts saying this or similar: Context is super important here. In a vacuum though, I would so "yes."

And this post says something true. Many people who replied to that poll on page 5 probably just thought about whether an effect that triggers at a certain time in the game when you normally shuffle, should trigger.

The bottom line is that I don't know a better way to ask the question.

My point is that your methodology was no good.  You asked a question and many of the people didn't understand the context.  The title was completely devoid of context, which confuses things, but even the poll question itslf isn't very clear about it.

I think the question needs to make it clear that this is about the abstract, technical rules concept of "shuffling" rather than the physical aspect.  Does it count as "shuffled" in the game, even if you only have 0 or 1 card in your deck?

What about checking for empty piles? The rules don't require you to count then either, but you if you have to count to 1, you have to count to 0.

Great point; I have no counter.

In a technical sense, "check that the pile is empty" is accomplished by counting the pile and returning true if the count is 0.

[Jeebus]

And sure, the people who are that far into discussion are a different crowd.  If that question had been the OP, I'd expect something closer to what we saw here on f.ds, with an 80/20 split instead of 99/1.

Ok, I think I've said enough on the subject now. Regarding what results you'd expect, it's of course very different from what I would expect, but we have no way of knowing of course. But I'll note one seeming contradiction in your post. You agree that the people that far into the discussion on BGG are a different crowd, but equate the people who replied to my poll with the people here on f.ds (since you'd expect them to answer the same with the "proper" question). Do you really think it's the same kind of crowd?

[Jeebus]

In that case you aren't counting, you're visually distinguishing between a card and the surface of a table. Like, does the spot I'm looking at more resemble Province or wood grain?

You're grasping at straws. Look: The rules say you may keep the Traveller piles that belong together in one pile. You can't exchange a Warrior if there is no Hero in the pile. You have to pick up the pile and count. The rules don't require you to count, but you have to.

[singletee]

In that case you aren't counting, you're visually distinguishing between a card and the surface of a table. Like, does the spot I'm looking at more resemble Province or wood grain?

You're grasping at straws. Look: The rules say you may keep the Traveller piles that belong together in one pile. You can't exchange a Warrior if there is no Hero in the pile. You have to pick up the pile and count. The rules don't require you to count, but you have to.

Why are we talking about travellers now? You aren't counting in that case either. You just have to look through the pile and see if there's a Hero. If you see one, grab it. Maybe there were 2 or 3 behind it, but you don't care.

[eHalcyon]

And sure, the people who are that far into discussion are a different crowd.  If that question had been the OP, I'd expect something closer to what we saw here on f.ds, with an 80/20 split instead of 99/1.

Ok, I think I've said enough on the subject now. Regarding what results you'd expect, it's of course very different from what I would expect, but we have no way of knowing of course. But I'll note one seeming contradiction in your post. You agree that the people that far into the discussion on BGG are a different crowd, but equate the people who replied to my poll with the people here on f.ds (since you'd expect them to answer the same with the "proper" question). Do you really think it's the same kind of crowd?

Not necessarily the same, but closer.

[Jeebus]

Why are we talking about travellers now? You aren't counting in that case either. You just have to look through the pile and see if there's a Hero. If you see one, grab it. Maybe there were 2 or 3 behind it, but you don't care.

Because you said that you're not counting an empty pile, you're visually distinguishing between a card and the table. In the case of Travellers, we have to look through the pile (they might not even be in order) to check if there is one or more Hero. If that's not counting, neither is looking at your deck and checking if there is no more than one card.

[Jeebus]

Hah, Awaclus is the only one who can't complain, but I expected others to do it. I wish you had spoken up against the question when I posted it here... I gave my reasons for why I thought it was neutral and why the one proposed by GendoIkari wasn't. Reply to that.

Actually, GendoIkari thumbed that post, so I don't understand why he's unhappy with the question I asked in the poll. It seems a little bit like making up excuses for why it didn't go the way he expected. At least Awaclus is staying silent about it.

[scott_pilgrim]

What if there was a card that said "While this is in play, when you shuffle your deck, +$1."  Would that trigger when you shuffle a one card deck?  I think almost everyone would agree that it would.  It's the same idea as that red cube/blue cube question.  I don't think the results to that question were significantly influenced by the fact that the card gave you a choice about whether to shuffle.

But anyway, I'm starting to agree with you that this is not at all what we care about anyway.  What we care about is whether you lose track of a card if it's the only card you're shuffling.  And I'm also starting to feel like there's not much you can say about that; either it works or it doesn't, and neither way is particularly more intuitive.  The one thing that I do think we can say about it is the argument that dane-m gave.

I guess in general it also seems better to err on the side of cards not knowing what's happening, so that you can future-proof for cards that mess with things in unexpected ways.  I wish I could come up with an example (even a totally bizarre one) but I can't imagine how any future cards could get messed up by that ruling, so maybe it's okay.  I don't know, it seems like it might be better to just be safe though.

[GendoIkari]

Hah, Awaclus is the only one who can't complain, but I expected others to do it. I wish you had spoken up against the question when I posted it here... I gave my reasons for why I thought it was neutral and why the one proposed by GendoIkari wasn't. Reply to that.

Actually, GendoIkari thumbed that post, so I don't understand why he's unhappy with the question I asked in the poll. It seems a little bit like making up excuses for why it didn't go the way he expected. At least Awaclus is staying silent about it.

I thumbed the post because it's a poll that I'm directly interested in and think is a great idea for a question to ask on BGG. I didn't think about the specific wording one way or the other when thumbing it. I don't mean to complain about the wording; just to suggest that it's different than the context of all the discussion that caused such a different outcome from the poll here.

Asked my wife just now, she competely agrees with you fwiw.

[Jeebus]

What if there was a card that said "While this is in play, when you shuffle your deck, +$1."  Would that trigger when you shuffle a one card deck?  I think almost everyone would agree that it would.

So if your deck is empty and you have one card in your discard pile, and you get +1 Card, people would think that you shuffled (so you get +$1)? I'm not convinced. But this exact scenario (empty deck, one in discard) seems like a very good poll question! I invite you to make it.

What about if you have no cards in your deck or discard, and get +1 Card? What would people think? (According to math, you shuffle. What if you get +3 Cards? You would get +$3 I guess.)

The one thing that I do think we can say about it is the argument that dane-m gave.

I didn't find that convincing. Remember that when you look through your discard pile, you can rearrange it. If you do, moving the top card, it's lost track of. If you rearrange, but leave the top card on top, it's not lost track of. All the game told you was, "You may look through your discard pile," which the game knows might mean that you rearrange it. Still the ability doing the tracking actually knows that the top card didn't move.

[dane-m]

What if there was a card that said "While this is in play, when you shuffle your deck, +$1."  Would that trigger when you shuffle a one card deck?  I think almost everyone would agree that it would.

So if your deck is empty and you have one card in your discard pile, and you get +1 Card, people would think that you shuffled (so you get +$1)? I'm not convinced. But this exact scenario (empty deck, one in discard) seems like a very good poll question! I invite you to make it.

Coincidentally this morning I was considering a hypothetical game that contained rules along the following lines (but probably better phrased!)...

At the start of your turn draw a card from the draw pile, having first shuffled the discard pile to create a new draw pile if the draw pile was empty.  If both the draw pile and the discard pile are empty, the game ends.

How would most players react to finding the draw pile empty and only one card in the discard pile?  I really don't believe that they would exclaim "Oh no!  There's only one card in the discard pile.  I can't shuffle it to create a new draw pile.  The rules don't cover this situation.  What am I supposed to do?"  Rather I think they'd take the single card from the discard pile, treating that as being a shuffle of the single card followed by drawing it.

[Jeebus]

How would most players react to finding the draw pile empty and only one card in the discard pile?  I really don't believe that they would exclaim "Oh no!  There's only one card in the discard pile.  I can't shuffle it to create a new draw pile.  The rules don't cover this situation.  What am I supposed to do?"  Rather I think they'd take the single card from the discard pile, treating that as being a shuffle of the single card followed by drawing it.

Of course they wouldn't think they couldn't create a new draw pile. But the question is whether they think it's because they can shuffle or whether they think that the obvious intent of the rules is that you create a draw pile even if you can't shuffle. A poll with your scenario and a poll with the scenario of the card "While this is in play, when you shuffle your deck, +$1" would yield different results, with more people saying "yes you do it" for your scenario. I assume you agree (even if you think both would have a majority "yes" vote)?

[dane-m]

How would most players react to finding the draw pile empty and only one card in the discard pile?  I really don't believe that they would exclaim "Oh no!  There's only one card in the discard pile.  I can't shuffle it to create a new draw pile.  The rules don't cover this situation.  What am I supposed to do?"  Rather I think they'd take the single card from the discard pile, treating that as being a shuffle of the single card followed by drawing it.

Of course they wouldn't think they couldn't create a new draw pile. But the question is whether they think it's because they can shuffle or whether they think that the obvious intent of the rules is that you create a draw pile even if you can't shuffle. A poll with your scenario and a poll with the scenario of the card "While this is in play, when you shuffle your deck, +$1" would yield different results, with more people saying "yes you do it" for your scenario. I assume you agree (even if you think both would have a majority "yes" vote)?

Yes, I think the two polls probably would get different results.  I suspect, however, that if you asked three questions, first for your scenario, then for my scenario, and then for your scenario again, at least some players would switch answers between the first and third because the second would have prompted them to accept the concept of shuffling one card.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, I had been following this discussion for quite a while without being entirely sure which way I inclined, but the scenario I thought of this morning convinced me that for consistency I had to agree that it was possible to shuffle one card.  The jury's still out on whether shuffling zero cards counts as shuffling, but my mathematical leanings cause me to be influenced by whoever it was that pointed out that zero factorial is defined.  Maybe a poll of mathematicians would give a different to one of the general populace!

EDIT: It was Drab Emordnilap who pointed out that shuffling is merely selecting one of the N! possible orderings of N cards.

[Jeebus]

Maybe a poll of mathematicians would give a different to one of the general populace!

Absolutely, and that has been one of my main points. This forum has an over-representation of math nerds, so of course you will get a reply heavily towards the mathematically correct answer.

[eHalcyon]

Maybe a poll of mathematicians would give a different to one of the general populace!

Absolutely, and that has been one of my main points. This forum has an over-representation of math nerds, so of course you will get a reply heavily towards the mathematically correct answer.

Citation needed.

Seriously though, I think f.ds is a lot like BGG.  A lot of the people commenting may be math nerds, but this is just a vocal minority.  There are a lot of lurkers out there too though.

[Jeebus]

Citation needed.

Seriously though, I think f.ds is a lot like BGG.  A lot of the people commenting may be math nerds, but this is just a vocal minority.  There are a lot of lurkers out there too though.

I have no citation. But it has been said several times in the forums. (That doesn't make it true, but it seems to be a common assumption.) This is a strategy forum, so by definition it is more narrow that BGG.

About 100 people voted. How many more-or-less known math people are among the regular commenters?

Another thing with that poll though, was that it linked to this thread, where practically everybody said that you can shuffle one card, and gave their reasonings, and even said that according to mathematical laws you can shuffle one card. I'm sure that kind of "context" didn't influence the result at all. Bot nobody here sees a problem with that poll. I wonder why.

[eHalcyon]

I don't think anybody claimed that poll was perfect either.

[Jeebus]

I don't think anybody claimed that poll was perfect either.

Are you serious? Not one person complained about it, unlike my post. And it was thumbed. And people even said why it was more valid (because of the "context", one reason I think it's less valid). Also, the poll on page whatever in the BGG thread was taken up as an example of the right kind of question so therefore it got 99% "yes", nobody noting that it's not at all the same deep in a discussion thread (until I said so, then somebody begrudgingly agreed, but then quickly noted that the poll here on f.ds was good though). It's just so obvious that people here only care about whatever supports their predefined view. That's the Internet though, and discussion forums. Nobody wants to hear reasonable and valid arguments if it happens to contradict something they already made up their minds about. I don't know why I thought maybe people were a bit more mature here.

[eHalcyon]

I don't think anybody claimed that poll was perfect either.

Are you serious? Not one person complained about it, unlike my post. And it was thumbed. And people even said why it was more valid (because of the "context", one reason I think it's less valid). Also, the poll on page whatever in the BGG thread was taken up as an example of the right kind of question so therefore it got 99% "yes", nobody noting that it's not at all the same deep in a discussion thread (until I said so, then somebody begrudgingly agreed, but then quickly noted that the poll here on f.ds was good though). It's just so obvious that people here only care about whatever supports their predefined view. That's the Internet though, and discussion forums. Nobody wants to hear reasonable and valid arguments if it happens to contradict something they already made up their minds about. I don't know why I thought maybe people were a bit more mature here.

Yeah I'm serious.  Not complaining doesn't mean that I think it's perfect.

I do think the context of the f.ds poll and the second poll on the BGG thread make them more valid.  I and others both here and in the BGG thread have explained why that context is important, and why your BGG poll kind of drops the ball on that.  I think the discussion has been pretty reasonable so far, but if you want to point at people to say that they only care about their own view, well, maybe point at yourself too.  People brought up good points in the BGG thread and you brushed them off pretty quick.

[scott_pilgrim]

I think I'm starting to feel the calling to the dark side...

Let's say that there's a card called Tornado:

Tornado
$2 Action-Reaction
+1 Card
+1 Action
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, shuffle your deck.
While this is in play, when you shuffle your deck, you may trash a card from your hand.

Now here's two different situations with the card where I think people will have seemingly contradictory intuitions.

Scenario 1: You play Tornado with an empty draw deck and one card in the discard pile, triggering a re-shuffle.  I think most people will say you can trash a card now, since you shuffled with a Tornado in play.  This is the same as a scenario I proposed before that I think Jeebus disagreed with, but I still maintain that most people would say this counts as shuffling.

Scenario 2: You play Tornado.  Later in the turn, you gain a Nomad Camp with an empty draw pile, and reveal a Tornado from your hand to shuffle your deck.  Now do you get to trash a card, since you shuffled your deck with only one card in it?  I'm guessing most people will say no.  (If you don't agree with me here, think about the same situation but with a non-Nomad Camp card.  You gain a card, and then reveal Tornado to shuffle you empty deck.  I think most people will say this does not count as shuffling.)

So what's the difference between Scenario 1 and 2?  Well I think there are two different ways that people think about shuffling in Dominion.  Usually you think of "shuffle" as meaning "make a new deck out of your discard pile, and randomize its order".  But sometimes (I think currently, only on Inn and maybe Stash?), "shuffle" just means "randomize the order of your deck".  And even though mathematically, you can still randomize the order of an empty or one-card deck, I don't think this is how most people will think of it.

So when people make a new deck out of their one-card discard pile, that feels like I did something with that card, that should be good enough to say I shuffled it.  When I mix up the order of the 1 or 0 cards in my deck, I don't feel like I'm doing anything (because I'm not), so I don't feel like I shuffled.

But really I don't know if these help us answer the question we really care about in the first place.  What we care about is this:

Scenario 3: With an empty deck, you gain a Nomad Camp, and reveal Tornado to shuffle your deck (which now consists of only Nomad Camp).  Now I reveal Watchtower.  Can I trash Nomad Camp, or has it been lost track of?

At least, I think that's what we care about, I've sort of lost track of it by now (no pun intended but it looks so obvious now I feel like people are going to think I'm trying too hard to force the joke).  So I guess this is like Scenario 2, because you don't feel like you shuffled since there's only one card in your deck.  But even if you think that counts as shuffling, that's not sufficient to say it's been lost track of.  It still didn't move, and it didn't get covered up.  Is Watchtower smart enough to realize that the outcome was guaranteed?

Also, I think Stash still messes everything up but Legend of Korra is on in 3 minutes and I don't feel like thinking about this now.

[AdrianHealey]

Fwiw: I say 'yes' to 1 and 2.

Shuffling, to me, is an instruction of 'pick up your deck and randomize it as much as possible, within reason'.



And in case of 3: you lost track, even if you accidentally know where it is, imo.

[Jeebus]

Yeah I'm serious.  Not complaining doesn't mean that I think it's perfect.

What's the logical fallacy called where you claim something has no truth just because it's not the extreme?
I obviously was not trying to claim that anybody thought it was perfect. So yeah, in addition to the mentioned fallacy, it's a strawman. Congratulations.

I do think the context of the f.ds poll and the second poll on the BGG thread make them more valid.  I and others both here and in the BGG thread have explained why that context is important, and why your BGG poll kind of drops the ball on that.

And I have explained why that "context" is counter-productive (actually prompting you to reply that "well the poll wasn't perfect", which seems contradictory). And nobody bothered to counter that. Of course "ignore" is a great way to kill arguments online. Afterwards you can even pretend they didn't even appear, referring to the greatness of your original arguments as if they were uncontested.

People brought up good points in the BGG thread and you brushed them off pretty quick.

I actually do try to take every argument seriously, and really consider it. I won't say I always succeed. For you I "brushed them off pretty quick", but I tried to take them seriously and reply to them with how I saw it. Just because they made points, doesn't mean I should automatically agree with them, right? Of course mostly nobody bothers to reply to what I reply, so then I'm not really left with anything more to consider.

I'll change my mind because of good arguments. In this thread I started saying that you obviously can't shuffle one card. I changed my mind because of the mathematical definition, thinking that you probably want to use that definition in a game. Then I read some more arguments both ways in the BGG thread, and was not sure anymore. (The way I see it, one definition isn't completely invalid and the other completely valid.)

[Jeebus]

And even though mathematically, you can still randomize the order of an empty or one-card deck, I don't think this is how most people will think of it.

That's what I think too, but the others here don't agree. They think that most people will think you did shuffle even if just told to shuffle your deck, for the sake of any trigger that happens when you shuffle. We haven't really drawn any lines between your scenario 1 and 2 up until now, but my impression is that the others here think it doesn't make a difference.

At least, I think that's what we care about, I've sort of lost track of it by now (no pun intended but it looks so obvious now I feel like people are going to think I'm trying too hard to force the joke).  So I guess this is like Scenario 2, because you don't feel like you shuffled since there's only one card in your deck.  But even if you think that counts as shuffling, that's not sufficient to say it's been lost track of.  It still didn't move, and it didn't get covered up.  Is Watchtower smart enough to realize that the outcome was guaranteed?

Well, we care about whether it was actually lost track of, yes. But then there was also the question of what most people would think about shuffling one card, even divorced from lose-track considerations. Like Donald said, if a card said "when you shuffle, +1 VP."

Also, I think Stash still messes everything up but Legend of Korra is on in 3 minutes and I don't feel like thinking about this now.

As I said, I don't see Stash making a difference in any way. If your definition of "shuffling" is a purely physical act involving moving cards around each other, you can do it with several Stashes. If you definition is mathematical ("create random order"), you can do it. If you only care about losing track, well the top Stash is the one we care about, and you can shuffle it in.

[theorel]

fwiw, IMO a very small minority reads the poll question if the title of the thread is a question (I didn't as a single example).  If you had not put a question in your thread title, I would believe the results more strongly.  (Thread title saying "Please give your vote: can you shuffle one card?" means that people are voting on that question, not reading the more nuanced version)

As-is I am surprised by the number of bgg users that say that you can't shuffle one card.  I would simply say:
The question: "do most people believe that you can shuffle a single card?" probably has answer: "no".  As I would say that BGG is still more specialized than general population.

I don't think that's a particularly reasonable position in the abstract-world of game rules, but there are plenty of people that play games without having a complete understanding of the rules.  Many people miss intricacies of rules, and rule-interactions, and sometimes it has a negative effect sometimes not.  It's not persuasive, but the majority viewpoint doesn't need to be persuasive it simply is.

For this particular issue, I don't think that misinterpreting this rule would have a negative impact.  I would be inclined to say you can shuffle a 0-or-1 card deck because it's in line with pedantic game-rules (i.e. MtG), and I think it's better to be in-line with pedantic rules than general intuition.  But what I think on this particular issue isn't necessarily relevant.

As far as interesting side-cases:
Card commands you to shuffle your empty (or single-card) deck (I would count it).
Card commands you to draw and you have empty deck and single-card discard pile (I would count it).
Card commands you to draw and you have empty deck and empty discard pile (I would not count it, because I think the inability to draw a card takes precedence over the shuffling of discard into draw deck...i.e. you can't draw even after you shuffle your discard into draw, so you skip it.  Though, I could be convinced I'm wrong).

FWIW: I'd expect (based on current poll-results) good questioning to return results along the lines of:  (left being people that think shuffling a single card counts as "shuffling")
among mathematicians: 95-5
among fds people: 80-20
among gamers: 60-40
among general population: 30-70

[eHalcyon]

Yeah I'm serious.  Not complaining doesn't mean that I think it's perfect.

What's the logical fallacy called where you claim something has no truth just because it's not the extreme?
I obviously was not trying to claim that anybody thought it was perfect. So yeah, in addition to the mentioned fallacy, it's a strawman. Congratulations.

I really don't know what you mean by this.  I said, "I don't think anybody claimed that poll was perfect either."  And you asked me if I was serious.  Yes, I was serious about that.  You sure seemed to be implying that in your post here, but maybe I misinterpreted your passive-aggressiveness there.

I do think the context of the f.ds poll and the second poll on the BGG thread make them more valid.  I and others both here and in the BGG thread have explained why that context is important, and why your BGG poll kind of drops the ball on that.

And I have explained why that "context" is counter-productive (actually prompting you to reply that "well the poll wasn't perfect", which seems contradictory). And nobody bothered to counter that. Of course "ignore" is a great way to kill arguments online. Afterwards you can even pretend they didn't even appear, referring to the greatness of your original arguments as if they were uncontested.

I'm looking back and not seeing where you explained why the context is counter-productive, and I'm not seeing that reply of mine either.  Can you point me to it?  Unless you're talking about this post where, apparently, I misinterpreted your meaning anyway.  I don't think that relates to the context I am talking about though (explained below).

People brought up good points in the BGG thread and you brushed them off pretty quick.

I actually do try to take every argument seriously, and really consider it. I won't say I always succeed. For you I "brushed them off pretty quick", but I tried to take them seriously and reply to them with how I saw it. Just because they made points, doesn't mean I should automatically agree with them, right? Of course mostly nobody bothers to reply to what I reply, so then I'm not really left with anything more to consider.

I'll change my mind because of good arguments. In this thread I started saying that you obviously can't shuffle one card. I changed my mind because of the mathematical definition, thinking that you probably want to use that definition in a game. Then I read some more arguments both ways in the BGG thread, and was not sure anymore. (The way I see it, one definition isn't completely invalid and the other completely valid.)

I do likewise.  That's why I didn't appreciate your passive-aggressive implication that everyone here only care about the stuff that supports their own views.  Likewise, I did not appreciate that you explicitly called everyone here immature, when the discussion until that point seemed pretty civil to me.




I'm pretty sure I already said it earlier, but for the sake of clarity, here's what I think is the necessary context for a poll that will actually answer the question under discussion.

The question is, "Can you shuffle a deck with only one card (or no cards at all)?"

We want this answered in the context of a game's rules and rule interactions, where effects care about when you shuffle.  Note, this is not the same as the context of "Dominion technical stuff", just game rules in general.

Your BGG poll had a title that omitted that context, which is misleading at best.  The actual poll question says it, but it's not clear enough.  There were several people who commented that they answered "no", but would have answered "yes" if they were approaching it in the context which we actually want.  I think I said earlier that it was a "large number" and you said that there were only 3(?) that you counted.  I didn't keep track and it felt like more to me, but I may have been mistaken.  Even so, that's just among the people who bothered to leave a comment (and pretty deep into the conversation too) -- that's from a group that you yourself pointed out is different from the "general" population.  They're the ones who were more likely to read your question thoroughly and understand the desired context... and they still missed it.  How many more people just read the BGG post title and said, "no you can't shuffle a single card, that's physically impossible" and left it at that?  I really don't know the answer to that, but I'd guess that it's non-negligible. 

I don't think any of the polls we've had so far are useful for answering the one-card shuffle question, including the f.ds one.  Sorry for focusing mostly on the flaws of your BGG poll, but that's the one that we were discussing at the time.  Maybe nobody was pointing out the problems with the f.ds poll, but I don't think anybody was holding it up as a paragon of poll design either.  At least I wasn't -- I barely mentioned it at all.

As for the other poll that was in the BGG comments, I said that I thought the question was asked in a good way.  The 99% result was interesting to me, but I never called it the ultimate answer and acknowledged that the context (5ish pages into comments) probably skewed results some.  It doesn't change that the question did a better job (IMO) of providing the necessary context.

[Jeebus]

I really don't know what you mean by this.  I said, "I don't think anybody claimed that poll was perfect either."  And you asked me if I was serious.  Yes, I was serious about that.  You sure seemed to be implying that in your post here, but maybe I misinterpreted your passive-aggressiveness there.

In that post I said that nobody seemed to have a problem with it. That is not the same as claiming that they thought it was perfect. It just means they found no reason to complain about it, and a few people even thumbed it, and a few people even referred to the results in it in a positive way. I contrasted it to how people commented on my poll. Your only counter to me about this, was that nobody said it was perfect. At first I didn't think you meant that literally, since that would be a strawman argument. I thought you meant to say that nobody thought that poll was very good either. That's why I said, "are you serious". But then you tell me that you meant it literally. So then it is a strawman argument.

The point was the huge disparity in how the two polls were dealt with here, which just happened to coincide with poll results matching people's opinion. (Just a coincidence of course.) The point was not to say that everybody thought that poll was 100% perfect. And it seems like you pretend to think that was the only point. Or maybe you have some language problem, in which case I apologize.

I started to write replies to the rest of your post, but frankly, I see no point. I can tell when no amount of reason will help. Also, it has all been dealt with previously in this thread anyway.

[eHalcyon]

In that post I said that nobody seemed to have a problem with it. That is not the same as claiming that they thought it was perfect. It just means they found no reason to complain about it, and a few people even thumbed it, and a few people even referred to the results in it in a positive way. I contrasted it to how people commented on my poll. Your only counter to me about this, was that nobody said it was perfect. At first I didn't think you meant that literally, since that would be a strawman argument. I thought you meant to say that nobody thought that poll was very good either. That's why I said, "are you serious". But then you tell me that you meant it literally. So then it is a strawman argument.

It wasn't meant to be a strawman.  You said: "nobody here sees a problem with that poll".  Well, nobody was really extolling it as an excellent poll either.  References were made to it in passing, sure, but that's about it.

The point was the huge disparity in how the two polls were dealt with here, which just happened to coincide with poll results matching people's opinion. (Just a coincidence of course.) The point was not to say that everybody thought that poll was 100% perfect. And it seems like you pretend to think that was the only point. Or maybe you have some language problem, in which case I apologize.

Man, I don't think there was a huge disparity.  The f.ds poll was barely mentioned.  People were discussing your BGG poll a lot more because it was the big new poll that you had just brought up for discussion.  People thought there were problems with it, so people were discussing those problems.

I wasn't pretending anything, I was responding what seemed to your main gripe.  Your follow-up only reinforced my read.  You seemed to think people were raising up this other poll as something great when that's not what I've seen at all in this thread.  Your responses make it seem like you feel personally offended, like you thought everybody was out to get you.

But maybe I'm just misreading your tone.  This is the internet, it happens.  Even now, I'm not sure whether your comment about "language problems" is meant to be insulting or if you're being sincere.  No, I don't have language problems.

I started to write replies to the rest of your post, but frankly, I see no point. I can tell when no amount of reason will help. Also, it has all been dealt with previously in this thread anyway.

If you want to put yourself on the side of reason, maybe you shouldn't call everyone immature and unwilling to listen.  Sometimes people disagree.  Sometimes your arguments aren't so convincing.  Reason will help, more if you're not combining it with insults.  But if you want to shut down a conversation, I guess this is as good a way as any.

[Donald X.]

So anyway. Some strong feelings on the one-card shuffle issue.

I actually playtested "When you shuffle, +VP" as a Landmark for Empires. It did not make the cut because it just didn't do much. If it had made it though, shuffling one card would have counted as shuffling. I mean uh. Attempting to shuffle one card would have succeeded.

So for now that's the ruling, on this key issue; you can shuffle one card.

Everyone have a safe trip home.