Methuselah96
Member
The fact alone that it has more than 6 colours already does that.
But it has more than six faces, so it's allowed to have more than six colors. I guess it depends on how you define face.
The fact alone that it has more than 6 colours already does that.
But it has more than six faces, so it's allowed to have more than six colors. I guess it depends on how you define face.
Yeah maybe it does depend on the definition.
Yeah maybe it does depend on the definition. However, this in my opinion is one of those cases where it is not really necessary to go into lawyer-level discussions. If you really want to argue "creatively" like this, there are a lot of things you can do that are unwanted with current regulations. Sure, maybe the wording is not 100% perfect, but its very clear what is meant. I have heard several board members use this way of using the regulations. And hey, even if you really want to argue like this and even if the proposal would allow this (which is at most sketchy*), nobody will use this "mod" anyway.
A rhombic triacontahedron has 30 faces. I challenge you to find a definition that disagrees (a serious already published one, doesn't count if you make one up now ). So if it has 30 colors, I think it does comply with that regulation.
Though I agree that nobody would want to use it, as clearly a normal 3x3x3 is much more convenient to hold/turn. But maybe there's a way to turn an inconvenient shape (skewb, pyraminx?) into a legal more convenient shape? Or equally convenient to hold/turn, but more information visible at once?
*There are a few things going on here at this example. A pieces which normally have 2 or 3 sides, are now divided into more sides and with extra stickers. You can of course also argue that those extra stickers are not functioning as stickers or tiles and are thus, part of the base of the cube, which 3d4 says only can have one colour. Another way to prevent something like this is describing that a cube has 6 sides (which may be rounded, but not divided into more faces) and may have at most 6 sticker/tile/whatever colours and one base colour. But then again, this would make the regs. more unreadable for no reason.
I don't think we can depend on "nobody will do X" if we try to say we have an anything-goes policy.
In any case, some people think the Skewb with extra sides is okay (Exhibit 12); I don't see an intrinsic problem with allowing it under "anything goes". Arguably, the rhombic triacontahedron isn't much different.
In any case, the point here isn't to try to come up with rules to be as pedantic as possible.
The point is to judge whether a given proposal *would already handle them* by virtue of being well-written.
This could possibly be solved by replacing "basic concept" with some better description of the official puzzles (which Dene is discussing in the Delegate list).
k cool I'ma bring in my self-solving cube next time. Here I come WR.
How does it go against that?
I'll beat it with my single-colored cube.
About the Skewb: I thought you just wanted to discuss wording here and the implication of using the proposal at hand. Not discussing what we think is ok and what is not. Personally I don't like extra stickers or the creation of extra faces since they suggest the puzzle is not actually a 3x3 (in the same way this is in fact a 2x2 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Pyramorphix.jpg/200px-Pyramorphix.jpg) and this is in fact a 3x3, (http://twistypuzzles.com/museum/large/00642-01.jpg) just like this is practically a 3x3 as well (http://www.twistypuzzles.com/museum/large/02686-01.jpg)
I'd say Pyramorphix is no 2x2, as half the pieces have no orientation and thus the set of states differs. Similarly, I'd say your third example isn't a 3x3.
I think the idea is quite clear... Did you think about a way to improve the proposal? I am genuinly very interested in your opinion, but I only see you correcting people or coming up with weird puzzle examples which we will never have to deal with.
Size matters to scramblers, so there should be some size limitation (or at least something like "If your puzzle is bigger than [insert size here], then the delegate can make you not use it"). Magic the Gathering has the following rule: "There is no maximum deck size; however, you must be able to shuffle your deck with no assistance." (source)
Maybe we could do something similar?
EDIT: It's also harder to scramble the cube without it being seen and keep it hidden from other competitors until inspection starts.