Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

kibble.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#101

Post by bena »

r00fus wrote: post #99
bena wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much how you described. You have the original Wrath of God spell. The effect or spell that allows you to sacrifice or bounce those things would be in the Instant batch. The counterspell would be in the Interrupt batch. The big difference is that once that counterspell is on the stack, you can't cast any more Instants. So let's say that instead of countering the Wrath, you counter the spell that's bouncing all…

IIRC, you couldn't counter the wrath once the instant is played (at least as of say 1998-ish rules interpretation). I play Wrath. I can counter now, or let it resolve. You play instant effect. I can counter, but can't counter the wrath anymore. I'm pretty sure that's how it worked.

This is how messy it was. That could have been correct at some point. Instants and Interrupts, batches and windows were all way too much of a mess.

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#102

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

myrmi wrote: post #84
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this proof but I'm not happy with it. It goes out of its way to setup a Turing machine (though not a very obvious one) using M:tG cards- however, that doesn't prove that the M:tG _game_ is Turing-complete. It proves that the specific cards chosen can be used to create a Turing machine under a subset of the game's rules, which is not quite the same thing. For a more complete proof one needs to take into account…

> The complete language is a superset of the strings on existing cards. To prove the game as Turing complete, one needs to prove this language is Turing complete- not a subset of its strings. It is not clear to me how a subset of a language could be Turing complete but not the whole language. Can you elaborate?

Bad turn of phrase. Indeed, a Turing machine programmed in Java is a Turing machine consisting of a subset of strings in the Java language. So you are correct to doubt my claim.

I'm sorry to not have a better turn of phrase. I'll keep working on it. At this point I think the best I can do is to insist on my analogy of constructing a Turing machine out of programs written in Java, rather than writing a new program implementing a Turing machine.

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#103

Post by [deleted] »

rcxdude wrote: post #93
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this proof but I'm not happy with it. It goes out of its way to setup a Turing machine (though not a very obvious one) using M:tG cards- however, that doesn't prove that the M:tG _game_ is Turing-complete. It proves that the specific cards chosen can be used to create a Turing machine under a subset of the game's rules, which is not quite the same thing. For a more complete proof one needs to take into account…

For most MtG players, the game rules are the sum of the game rules and the set of cards which are legal to play. Including other potential card text is not relevant, or at least at that point you are playing an unofficial variant of the game. Also, I think constructing a turing machine just under the comprehensive rules with only ability text is a very simple exercise (even exluding trivial cases like an ability text…

[deleted]

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#104

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

rcxdude wrote: post #93
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this proof but I'm not happy with it. It goes out of its way to setup a Turing machine (though not a very obvious one) using M:tG cards- however, that doesn't prove that the M:tG _game_ is Turing-complete. It proves that the specific cards chosen can be used to create a Turing machine under a subset of the game's rules, which is not quite the same thing. For a more complete proof one needs to take into account…

For most MtG players, the game rules are the sum of the game rules and the set of cards which are legal to play. Including other potential card text is not relevant, or at least at that point you are playing an unofficial variant of the game. Also, I think constructing a turing machine just under the comprehensive rules with only ability text is a very simple exercise (even exluding trivial cases like an ability text…

>> For most MtG players, the game rules are the sum of the game rules and the set of cards which are legal to play. Including other potential card text is not relevant, or at least at that point you are playing an unofficial variant of the game.

I dont' think there is any other language for which we assume that the only strings that belong to it are the sum of its printed texts (which in the case of M:tG ability text are printed cards). I don't see why we should make this assumption for ability text. That's not how languages work, in general.

Note that all this has nothing to do with "official" status, or the acceptance of specific strings by players of the game, or anyone. Either ability text is some unique construct, the likes of which has never been seen before, or it's a language like any other and it can be analysed in the same way as any other language.

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#105

Post by xeonoex »

lsiq wrote: post #79
xeonoex wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't been played much for a few years now, but the game is doing well. I think the community is larger than ever. The game itself is in a bit of an odd spot. Standard (aka type 2) has been very unbalanced in recent years with many cards being banned, and sometimes emergency banned. Many players are opting to play modern rather than standard, since standard has had it's problems. The sets themselves actually look…

I would look into Hex: Shards of Fate, you can play in your underwear at home and so it doesn't require as big of a time investment. Unlike Magic Online, it actually has a great client that doesn't look like it's from the 90s and unlike MTG Arena, it's not overly Hearthstoneized and retains the TCG over the CCG model. It's very, very similar to MTG in terms of mechanics and skill cap, and it is not bound by a paper-c…

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.

I've also played Duelyst, which is a hybrid card and board game. I like it, but I wish they would release it for mobile already. I'd usually pick another game if I'm sitting at a PC.

Re: The mathematics of Magic: the Gathering (1999)

#106

Post by rcxdude »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #104
rcxdude wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most MtG players, the game rules are the sum of the game rules and the set of cards which are legal to play. Including other potential card text is not relevant, or at least at that point you are playing an unofficial variant of the game. Also, I think constructing a turing machine just under the comprehensive rules with only ability text is a very simple exercise (even exluding trivial cases like an ability text…

>> For most MtG players, the game rules are the sum of the game rules and the set of cards which are legal to play. Including other potential card text is not relevant, or at least at that point you are playing an unofficial variant of the game. I dont' think there is any other language for which we assume that the only strings that belong to it are the sum of its printed texts (which in the case of M:tG ability text…

Because when you play mtg, you don't manipulate the words on the cards, you manipulate the cards (well, some cards can manipulate ability text, but not arbitrarily). They are the fundamental unit of the game, not the ability text language itself. This does not have a great analogue with other languages. Anyway, you can analyse the language used to create ability text itself, but I think this is a far less interesting question.
Post reply on HN