Print

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

[GendoIkari]

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/816127/is-there-any-rules-problem-with-this-shady-tactic/page/1

Um, didn't we have this exact same discussion here a couple months ago?

*Edit* LOL at Theory's response there!

[ednever]

Could you link to Theory's? I went through 5 of the 9 pages and couldn't find it.

Ed

[Festuca]

Could you link to Theory's? I went through 5 of the 9 pages and couldn't find it.

Ed

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/9398546#9398546

[popsofctown]

Technically it has to be allowed since there is a legitimate justification available (top card of discard pile visibility.)

Right?

[DStu]

Technically it has to be allowed since there is a legitimate justification available (top card of discard pile visibility.)

Right?

Technically, as long as you do it because you think you get  an advantage after shuffling out of it, your are forced to shuffle more/better until you don't believe it anymore.

But I think my opinion is over in the other thread (and the old one here also), so I will just join theory with his popcorn.

[rrenaud]

Who didn't already know that we were ahead of BGG for all things Dominion?

[ednever]

My brother wrote a magic simulator way back in the day to test decks using cards we didn't have.

Instead of randomly distributing the cards on a shuffle, it would simulate actual shuffling: you choose the number of shuffles. On each shuffle it would choose a number from 1-5 and put that many cards from the top of the deck on the bottom. It would do that until the entire deck was placed. In general it would "shuffle" 3 times.

It mixed up the deck, but certainly didn't fully randomize it.

Right or wrong, this is generally what happens in real life, so we tried to simulate it to test the real (as opposed to theoretical) effectiveness of decks.

Ed

[angrybirds]

My brother yuma started the thread here http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1831.0 and I was the one he referenced doing this

I noticed once when he had played a witch and on that turn bought a second witch. After this was completed he put the used witch on top of his discard pile and his bought witch on the bottom of the discard pile. When I asked him why, he said so that after he shuffled the two witches would be less likely to collide since one would be shuffled into the top half and the other into the bottom half--this was a game without any +action villages.

I for one learned greatly from that thread and have changed my play accordingly, so as funny and aggravating as it was for some at least one person learned what it meant to "shuffle" and now apply it in games.

[eHalcyon]

Instead of randomly distributing the cards on a shuffle, it would simulate actual shuffling: you choose the number of shuffles. On each shuffle it would choose a number from 1-5 and put that many cards from the top of the deck on the bottom. It would do that until the entire deck was placed. In general it would "shuffle" 3 times.

That's all it did?  If so, it's not even close to actual shuffling.  When you side shuffle, you should at least try to take cards from the middle.  I also take a loose grip when I pull cards out, so that it's not a single contiguous chunk that I'm moving.  And of course I throw in a few riffle shuffles.

Thrice moving 1-5 cards from the top to the bottom will result in nothing more than a cut.

[sitnaltax]

Man, I would never allow this person into my home.

"I'm not stealing this DVD. I'm just increasing the probability that it ends up in my house instead of yours."

[Watno]

That's a late Aprils fool prank, isn't it?

[GendoIkari]

Instead of randomly distributing the cards on a shuffle, it would simulate actual shuffling: you choose the number of shuffles. On each shuffle it would choose a number from 1-5 and put that many cards from the top of the deck on the bottom. It would do that until the entire deck was placed. In general it would "shuffle" 3 times.

That's all it did?  If so, it's not even close to actual shuffling.  When you side shuffle, you should at least try to take cards from the middle.  I also take a loose grip when I pull cards out, so that it's not a single contiguous chunk that I'm moving.  And of course I throw in a few riffle shuffles.

Thrice moving 1-5 cards from the top to the bottom will result in nothing more than a cut.

I think you misread it. Each shuffle would continue to put 1-5 cards from the top onto the bottom until all cards had been moved. It would then repeat that process 3 (or however many times you told it to shuffle) times.

[eHalcyon]

Instead of randomly distributing the cards on a shuffle, it would simulate actual shuffling: you choose the number of shuffles. On each shuffle it would choose a number from 1-5 and put that many cards from the top of the deck on the bottom. It would do that until the entire deck was placed. In general it would "shuffle" 3 times.

That's all it did?  If so, it's not even close to actual shuffling.  When you side shuffle, you should at least try to take cards from the middle.  I also take a loose grip when I pull cards out, so that it's not a single contiguous chunk that I'm moving.  And of course I throw in a few riffle shuffles.

Thrice moving 1-5 cards from the top to the bottom will result in nothing more than a cut.

I think you misread it. Each shuffle would continue to put 1-5 cards from the top onto the bottom until all cards had been moved. It would then repeat that process 3 (or however many times you told it to shuffle) times.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the phrasing.  Saying that you're moving cards from the top to the bottom, I see something like this:

0123456789
3456789012
7890123456

If that's not the intended effect, what is?  I'm thinking maybe he meant something like this:

0123456789
3456789 012
789 3456012
8973456012

But this is pulling cards from the top of the pile to the top of a new pile.  Again, putting them from top to bottom does nothing.

[GendoIkari]

Instead of randomly distributing the cards on a shuffle, it would simulate actual shuffling: you choose the number of shuffles. On each shuffle it would choose a number from 1-5 and put that many cards from the top of the deck on the bottom. It would do that until the entire deck was placed. In general it would "shuffle" 3 times.

That's all it did?  If so, it's not even close to actual shuffling.  When you side shuffle, you should at least try to take cards from the middle.  I also take a loose grip when I pull cards out, so that it's not a single contiguous chunk that I'm moving.  And of course I throw in a few riffle shuffles.

Thrice moving 1-5 cards from the top to the bottom will result in nothing more than a cut.

I think you misread it. Each shuffle would continue to put 1-5 cards from the top onto the bottom until all cards had been moved. It would then repeat that process 3 (or however many times you told it to shuffle) times.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the phrasing.  Saying that you're moving cards from the top to the bottom, I see something like this:

0123456789
3456789012
7890123456

If that's not the intended effect, what is?  I'm thinking maybe he meant something like this:

0123456789
3456789 012
789 3456012
8973456012

But this is pulling cards from the top of the pile to the top of a new pile.  Again, putting them from top to bottom does nothing.

Yeah, you're right, I'm pretty sure that his simulator must move the cards to a new pile, or reverse the order of them when it puts them on the bottom (which would do the same thing as the new pile). But this simulates overhand shuffling perfectly.

[eHalcyon]

Yeah, you're right, I'm pretty sure that his simulator must move the cards to a new pile, or reverse the order of them when it puts them on the bottom (which would do the same thing as the new pile). But this simulates overhand shuffling perfectly.

As I said, when I side shuffle (overhand shuffle -- same thing, right?) I pull cards randomly from the middle rather than the top, and use a looser grip so that some cards from the section I grab end up not getting moved.  I usually drop the removed cards on the bottom, though sometimes I'll put them on top as well.  And I intersperse overhand shuffles with riffles multiple times.

[ccasin]

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/816127/is-there-any-rules-problem-with-this-shady-tactic/page/1

Um, didn't we have this exact same discussion here a couple months ago?

Depressingly, my response saying essentially "shuffle means randomize your deck" is my most thumbed BGG post by a wide margin 

[permanoob]

Is it still cheating if you don't know you're cheating? Like could I plant subliminal deck shuffling techniques in my own mind and then erase my own memory to cover my tracks? I wouldn't know I was scheming, I'd just play and think that's how I've always shuffled. And does it make a difference if the memory erasure is magical or scientific in nature?

[Qvist]

Is it still cheating if you don't know you're cheating? Like could I plant subliminal deck shuffling techniques in my own mind and then erase my own memory to cover my tracks? I wouldn't know I was scheming, I'd just play and think that's how I've always shuffled. And does it make a difference if the memory erasure is magical or scientific in nature?

Is it still bad to murder someone if you didn't know killing is unethical in our society?

[ftl]

Say, do we think the new FunSockets Dominion will have some anti-cheating measures?

Maybe we should complain that the new app is bad, before seeing it, since Donald hasn't talked about whether that will be the case.

[this is the internet, so pretend there are sarcasm tags around those two sentences. I shouldn't have to say that. But who knows, maybe I do.]

[Watno]

I definitely think that fun sockets should let us choose the order in which we discard our cards so we can use this tactic. The runaway leader problem caused by not being able to do that has always bugged me on isotropic.

[sitnaltax]

Is it still cheating if you don't know you're cheating? Like could I plant subliminal deck shuffling techniques in my own mind and then erase my own memory to cover my tracks? I wouldn't know I was scheming, I'd just play and think that's how I've always shuffled. And does it make a difference if the memory erasure is magical or scientific in nature?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavka%27s_toxin_puzzle is a fascinating thought experiment.

But magic or brainwashing aside, yes, it is still cheating even if you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the fact that your cheating is cheating.

Oh, and

"I didn't murder him. I just increased the probability that his blood would be found outside of his circulatory system."

[Kirian]

Is it still cheating if you don't know you're cheating? Like could I plant subliminal deck shuffling techniques in my own mind and then erase my own memory to cover my tracks? I wouldn't know I was scheming, I'd just play and think that's how I've always shuffled. And does it make a difference if the memory erasure is magical or scientific in nature?

Is it still bad to murder someone if you didn't know killing is unethical in our society?

I don't think that analogy works here.  If we're talking about literal memory erasure or mind control, which is always going to be magical or science-fictional--I mean, we're talking Harry Potter and Total Recall levels of fiction here--then I think both cheating and murder must be considered to include intent.  If you are the person who planted the suggestions, then performed the erasure--or asked/paid for same but performed by someone else--then you are still responsible.  However, if someone else did this without your consent, then they are responsible for the murder or the cheating.

It seems unlikely for someone to use another person to cheat at cards, though.  The other might make for an interesting mystery but I'm certain someone must have done it before.