Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

More on the topic of "declumping"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't admit to anything. There is no point in debating this with you. You are so one-sided on this.

"No need to beat around the bush but you would reset your deck for better performance."

You admitted to stacking your deck for better performance, because your definition of reset (your own words) is to split your deck "into trainer, energy and Pokemon," then you "put them into a order in the deck" through "[putting] in 1 Pokemon, trainer, and then energy."

Your own words are incriminating you.
 
I find it more fun to have a challenge, even if it was from a cheater, just have to beat the odds.

I can't even comprehend this. You're telling me you would rather play against a cheater who stacks their deck than someone who draws unlucky hands. Maybe its a good thing you don't play in tournaments.
 
If you are arguing against the legality of "deck manipulation", I have news for you:

You have hundreds of options of Pokemon cards to choose from this format. The very fact that you brought a different deck from any other player at the tournament shows that you don't believe that "deck manipulation" is wrong. Obviously you manipulated your deck the way you wanted it to be.

At this point, we can all agree that "deck manipulation" is obviously not wrong, unless you want to argue that everyone should be required to run the same deck; card-for-card.

So we have now narrowed the argument down to "deck order", not "deck contents". Deck order is the way that your cards are arranged at any given point in time.

Let me just address this whole debate with a very simple question: Is ordering your deck AFTER a game as bad as ordering the contents of your deck DURING a game?

Surely ordering your deck DURING a game is every bit as bad as doing it outside of the game, and most of us would go further to say that it is far WORSE.

But don't all of us order our decks during the game? Do we not all have the opportunity to arrange our hand however we please? That is completely legal, and we all do it. Nothing wrong with it. But what happens when your opponent plays an "N"? Don't you take your hand that you have arranged for yourself and control exactly how it is put back into the deck? Do you not have the choice to put the cards on top and then shuffle? Or perhaps put the cards on the bottom or shove it in the middle first, before shuffling?

There you go. You just changed the order of your deck before you shuffled it. Isn't that exactly the same thing that you're referring to when you say "declumping"? And even worse - you were doing this during the course of the game.

So before you go mouthing off on the forums about why you think people are cheaters for manipulating the order of their deck outside of a game, realize how big of a fool you are going to look when someone with common sense comes along and points out that you've been doing the exact same thing DURING GAMEPLAY since as long as "shuffle your hand into your deck" cards have been around.
 
Last edited:
When I play a N, I put my cards in random spots in the deck. I take my hand card for card and put it into the deck in a random spot and then shuffle the deck. I do the same thing with Super Rod or any other effect that requires me to put more then 1 card into the deck. It will shuffle better.
 
Let me just address this whole debate with a very simple question: Is ordering your deck AFTER a game as bad as ordering the contents of your deck DURING a game?

Surely ordering your deck DURING a game is every bit as bad as doing it outside of the game, and most of us would go further to say that it is far WORSE.

No. I wouldn't say that. I'd call it about even. I mean, if you're manipulating your deck in such a way that WHEN you do it matters, well, you're doing something far beyond the basic scope of "is declumping bad?".

But don't all of us order our decks during the game? Do we not all have the opportunity to arrange our hand however we please? That is completely legal, and we all do it. Nothing wrong with it. But what happens when your opponent plays an "N"? Don't you take your hand that you have arranged for yourself and control exactly how it is put back into the deck? Do you not have the choice to put the cards on top and then shuffle? Or perhaps put the cards on the bottom or shove it in the middle first, before shuffling?

I'm sure you are all excited about the logical soundness of this argument, but it doesn't hold in the same context. You don't have total control over the cards in your hand. You might could group them favorably (say you had 3 Juniper in hand so you scatter them through the deck.......) but it's still only those cards you happened to have in your hand at that one time.

When you're declumping you are picking and choosing the bits to rearrange from your entire deck. Whether or not there's a technical difference, there is definitely a clear practical difference.
 
So before you go mouthing off on the forums about why you think people are cheaters for manipulating the order of their deck outside of a game, realize how big of a fool you are going to look when anyone with common sense comes along.

If someone were as misguided to think that organizing your deck into Pokemon-Trainer-Energy-Pokemon-Trainer-Energy-etc. (as vaporeon has admits to) is a legal form of deck manipulation with only "a quick pile shuffle and a riffle or two," then that person would be a fool.

What would make that person even more of a fool would be to ignore one of the most reputable judges in the game when he tells you that such actions are categorized as stacking and that stacking is illegal. Thankfully, there isn't a respectable player that would be so foolish.
 
No. I wouldn't say that. I'd call it about even. I mean, if you're manipulating your deck in such a way that WHEN you do it matters, well, you're doing something far beyond the basic scope of "is declumping bad?".

I would agree. I personally don't think the timing is important, hence my inclusion of the phrase "every bit as bad". They are equally bad if indeed they are "bad".

I'm sure you are all excited about the logical soundness of this argument, but it doesn't hold in the same context. You don't have total control over the cards in your hand. You might could group them favorably (say you had 3 Juniper in hand so you scatter them through the deck.......) but it's still only those cards you happened to have in your hand at that one time.

When you're declumping you are picking and choosing the bits to rearrange from your entire deck. Whether or not there's a technical difference, there is definitely a clear practical difference.

Grouping cards favorably IS the definition of declumping is it not? Just because you can declump MORE cards out of the game when you have your whole deck to work with, doesn't mean that it's declumping to a higher degree. The definition doesn't change just based on the number of cards involved.
 
Grouping cards favorably IS the definition of declumping is it not? Just because you can declump MORE cards out of the game when you have your whole deck to work with, doesn't mean that it's declumping to a higher degree. The definition doesn't change just based on the number of cards involved.

Remember that when I am making definitions, I'm trying to logically emulate P!P's stance. They're the ones who matter here.

My definition of declumping is kind of irrelevant. I never directly made the argument that declumping is never stacking, but I did try to say that not all declumping is stacking, and now I'd feel more strongly about that equivalence. They are very difficult to separate.

As I said above: stacking your deck is manipulating the order of your deck with the intent to gain an advantage. We can talk about the severity and 'degree', as you said, of the stacking or reordering all we want, but I think this is a fair, understandable, and reasonably valid definition that a TO would readily agree with.

In this case, reordering your cards in hand before shuffling for N would be stacking.

Fwiw, I NEVER see ANYONE do this. Ever.
 
When I play a N, I put my cards in random spots in the deck. I take my hand card for card and put it into the deck in a random spot and then shuffle the deck. I do the same thing with Super Rod or any other effect that requires me to put more then 1 card into the deck. It will shuffle better.

Are you willing to police this at a tournament? Is there going to be a new rule established saying that players must meld their hand into their decks in a certain fashion? We all know it's impossible to enforce a rule like that. It's impractical.

My logic is because we allow it IN GAME, we must therefore allow it OUT OF GAME.
 
No. I wouldn't say that. I'd call it about even. I mean, if you're manipulating your deck in such a way that WHEN you do it matters, well, you're doing something far beyond the basic scope of "is declumping bad?".



I'm sure you are all excited about the logical soundness of this argument, but it doesn't hold in the same context. You don't have total control over the cards in your hand. You might could group them favorably (say you had 3 Juniper in hand so you scatter them through the deck.......) but it's still only those cards you happened to have in your hand at that one time.

When you're declumping you are picking and choosing the bits to rearrange from your entire deck. Whether or not there's a technical difference, there is definitely a clear practical difference.

If you're going, this card should be the second card drawn, this card should be the last card drawn, and such and such, that is stacking, and that isn't declumping. If Vaporeon shows us a video, I can probably describe whether it is stacking or declumping. My definition of declumping is ensuring that all the discard pile, the leftover deck, the active pokemon and its attachments, the bench, and the unclaimed prizes are not grouped together. I'm not thinking what goes where, and I don't think about how many cards I designate to be a pile, that is I pick up a pile of cards from a deck, without actually counting the actual pile.

is that what you do Vaporeon, or do you physically have to look through the entire deck, and have to place it at some known spot? Even so, I really don't think that moving one card to another place is breaking any rules, nor helping in any way. Doing 8 to 12 mash shuffles should separate them. You don't expect results. The only thing I expect from doing any sort of deck manipulation is that I don't get constant results game after game, match after match. That is what I expect not to happen. I'm pretty sure that you declump in order to guarantee that you remove consistency in draws for every game you play. I feel that doing it during a game, after a search, is totally a waste. I don't see the point in that, as I don't do it myself, but if it makes you happy, it's fine I guess, but some squares don't allow it, because it's...

HIP HIP HIP HIP It's HIP to be a SQUARE.

I'd rather play good balanced matches, meaning I am willing to stack my opponent's deck, well maybe not, but I'll let him stack his deck, and play with a disadvantage, ok fine, I probably won't let him outright stack his deck, than to play some unlucky person game after game, because some squares don't allow him to rearrange the deck to give a slight advantage from the already handicapped disadvantage. Hence, squares make the game boring, unfun, not cool, out of style. Playing magic, I find having bad hands myself is boring. I find that playing against someone who has a bad hand is boring. If this happens all the time, then it makes it even more boring. I'd rather have my opponent to rearrange his deck to change the probability that a bad hand will happen again, to guarantee that it doesn't happen for the, oh, let's say 5th time in a row.
 
Remember that when I am making definitions, I'm trying to logically emulate P!P's stance. They're the ones who matter here.

My definition of declumping is kind of irrelevant. I never directly made the argument that declumping is never stacking, but I did try to say that not all declumping is stacking, and now I'd feel more strongly about that equivalence. They are very difficult to separate.

As I said above: stacking your deck is manipulating the order of your deck with the intent to gain an advantage. We can talk about the severity and 'degree', as you said, of the stacking or reordering all we want, but I think this is a fair, understandable, and reasonably valid definition that a TO would readily agree with.

In this case, reordering your cards in hand before shuffling for N would be stacking.

Fwiw, I NEVER see ANYONE do this. Ever.

Well then I would argue heavily that their definition of stacking or declumping is skewed.

The common sense in me says that they are the exact same scenarios outside of two variables:

Location and # of cards.

One is in game. One is out of game.
One is with your hand size. One is with your entire deck


If the definition had not already been set by P!P, I think that my example would make a strong case to allow this "Manipulation of order" as I like to call it. I don't see a fault with my logic in and of itself.

---------- Post added 10/03/2012 at 09:59 PM ----------

We don't allow players to order their cards Pokemon-Trainer-Energy-Pokemon-Trainer-Energy-etc. in game, nor do we allow it out of game.

Is that the official definition of declumping?


It has to be Pokemon-Trainer-Energy-P-T-E... and so on?

Because your hand may not encompass those criteria.

It could simply be my decision to take Rare Candy/Hydreigon and place them back-to-back on top of my deck directly from my hand before I shuffle. I don't always have energy in my hand, etc. to be able to manipulate the order of.
 
I'd rather play good balanced matches, meaning I am willing to stack my opponent's deck, well maybe not, but I'll let him stack his deck, and play with a disadvantage, ok fine, I probably won't let him outright stack his deck, than to play some unlucky person game after game, because some squares don't allow him to rearrange the deck to give a slight advantage from the already handicapped disadvantage. Hence, squares make the game boring, unfun, not cool, out of style. Playing magic, I find having bad hands myself is boring. I find that playing against someone who has a bad hand is boring. If this happens all the time, then it makes it even more boring. I'd rather have my opponent to rearrange his deck to change the probability that a bad hand will happen again, to guarantee that it doesn't happen for the, oh, let's say 5th time in a row.

A reputable, upstanding player would rather lose than cheat through stacking (as stipulated in Spirit of the Game). Your advocacy of cheating is disgusting and despicable. Shame, shame, shame.

---------- Post added 10/04/2012 at 02:01 AM ----------

Is that the official definition of declumping?

It has to be Pokemon-Trainer-Energy-P-T-E... and so on?

No. That is just what vaporeon admits to doing between every round. It's stacking, and we've already had one of the most esteemed judges in the game make it clear that he would consider this to be illegal.
 
A reputable, upstanding player would rather lose than cheat through stacking (as stipulated in Spirit of the Game). Your advocacy of cheating is disgusting and despicable. Shame, shame, shame.

---------- Post added 10/04/2012 at 02:01 AM ----------



No. That is just what vaporeon admits to doing between every round. It's stacking, and we've already had one of the most esteemed judges in the game make it clear that he would consider this to be illegal.

You say that, but did Vaporeon really say it, find me the post where he actually said it. I'm to lazy to search it myself. He probably doesn't sort trainer, pokemon, energy, etc. That's too extreme and isn't even declumping.

I'd seriously rather let my opponent reorder the deck, even if it means moving some chunks of cards to another location, or separating that chunk, if it means I don't win game after game after game from boring one sided matches.

Hey, for you, what can I say? It's hip to be a square.
 
Hold on, here, guys. We shouldn't be resorting to this kind of name calling, ok?

Well then I would argue heavily that their definition of stacking or declumping is skewed.

The common sense in me says that they are the exact same scenarios outside of two variables:

Location and # of cards.

And I just told you that your example that you gave, with ordering your hand before Ning, would be considered stacking.

It's unpoliceable, but that's a completely unrelated argument at this point.


If the definition had not already been set by P!P, I think that my example would make a strong case to allow this "Manipulation of order" as I like to call it. I don't see a fault with my logic in and of itself.

Of course not; that's why you take the perspective in this argument that you do. But you don't set the definition, and you've got a long ways to go to get them to change their mind. Sorry.
 
And I just told you that your example that you gave, with ordering your hand before Ning, would be considered stacking.

It's unpoliceable, but that's a completely unrelated argument at this point.

Of course not; that's why you take the perspective in this argument that you do. But you don't set the definition, and you've got a long ways to go to get them to change their mind. Sorry.


Ok. Well this must be one of those times where I simply bow out because I don't have the authority in the matter.

That's too bad, because I think that the majority of non-authoritative people like myself might agree with my view. I wish that it was more open to discussion.
 
You say that, but did Vaporeon really say it, find me the post where he actually said it. I'm to lazy to search it myself. He probably doesn't sort trainer, pokemon, energy, etc. That's too extreme and isn't even declumping.

Here you go:

I split all my into trainer, energy and pokemon, then I put them into a order in the deck. I put in 1 Pokemon, trainer and then energy.

Now you understand why people think he's stacking/cheating?
 
Here you go:



Now you understand why people think he's stacking/cheating?

So what, he has a 1:1:1 ratio of trainers, pokemon, and energy? I don't see how he can achieve such a feat. If he says so, then I believe it.

@Vaporeon: You've got some splainin to do.

Why I still think the no stacking rule is dumb. You can stack your deck all you like, and you can have any distribution of energies within your deck, because it is RANDOM.

Heck, the rules say to FULLY RANDOMIZE the deck. I mean, who came up with that. It's impossible. Everybody knows that you can't shuffle the deck into the same configuration you started out in. It's impossible, and being fully random means you have a chance of doing it. Even shuffling so all the energy, trainers, and Pokemon are together. It's impossible with any shuffling technique unless you physically move them one by one.

Why I know what Vaporeon is doing WON'T give him an advantage. I did it too, with old magic theme decks, when I first open them. They are sorted in order, from top to bottom, other spells in order of decreasing mana cost, then creatures, in order of decreasing mana cost, and then lands. I place them 1 by 1 in a pile of 8's and I shuffle it like crap. I get an advantage, not because I did the piling, but I shuffled it like crap. Even if I didn't pile it, I shuffle like crap, the end result is bad draws, because all the lands were grouped together. Using a different shuffling method, a better one, I don't always get the even distruibution of lands, if I made piles, or I don't always get lands grouped together if I didn't do the pile thing.

As such, there are squares out there trying to follow and enforce stupid rules, that are meant to be questioned or changed, and make the game super boring, because some unlucky dude is not allowed to manipulate the deck to decrease any bit of a constant disadvantage. Hey, if the opponent WANTS him to do it in order to gain a better match, than a one sided one, because he plays for FUN, and not winning, then nobody should stop them. It's is squares that cause the game to be boring, one-sided matches, rather than bending the rules, to create more fun matches.
 
That's too bad, because I think that the majority of non-authoritative people like myself might agree with my view. I wish that it was more open to discussion.

This thread isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the world, but I'd say it's pretty stacked against you so far.

sorry, that was bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top