8 replies to this topic

[Gappy]

Why wouldn't the card be returned to the bag? Assuming there are only 2 cards, to start a game both should be in the bag. Was this mistranslated or something?

Edited by Gappy, 13 August 2014 - 02:06 AM.

[Dinh TheTuan]

No, its correct. 

[Gappy]

No, its correct. 

Would you mind explaining it? I don't really see how can this be possible.

[ALAKTORN]

I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Both cards are in the bag, then one is picked, if it’s the Joker it’s returned to the bag, rinse and repeat.

[Gappy]

I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Both cards are in the bag, then one is picked, if it’s the Joker it’s returned to the bag, rinse and repeat.

 

Akiyama says that if Fukunaga's card, the double sided card is picked, it won't go back to the bag.

[Frenzy85]

The game is as follows:

1. Pick a card

 

2a. Card is Joker, put it back and the game is void
2b. Card is not Joker, continue

 

3. Flip over the card

a. the card turns out to be Joker => Kanzaki wins

b. the card turns out to be double back => Fukunaga wins

 

4. Return card to the bag and continue

 

What he meant by putting it back is that it is put back without determining a winner for that round.

[Gappy]

I still don't understand. I'll try to read it again after I catch up with it. Why does this have so few chapters? Isn't it being published since 2005?

[Delphi]

186 chapters doesn't seem like only a few to me. Though I suppose relative to when it started that seems fairly low. The reason is that there have been multiple hiatuses over the course of its run to give the writer time to plot out the rules of all the games and work on other projects. Fairly common for series where intellectual puzzles are important.

 

As for your original question, it sounds like you're taking Akiyama's phrasing of the rules too literally. After each round is concluded the card that was drawn would obviously be returned to the bag, otherwise as you said there would be no game. The issue is whether or not the card's face can be seen as it's being taken out of the bag. If Nao's card is drawn with the joker side up, it would be obvious which card was drawn, and thus according to Fukunaga's rules that round wouldn't count. Fukunaga's double-sided card would always appear to be face down though, so there's never an instance where a round where her card was drawn didn't count. "So it will never be returned back to the bag" meant that it would never happen that a round where it was drawn didn't result in Fukunaga's win, not that after the round was concluded the card literally wouldn't be put back in the bag. 

 

Maybe this could have been better translated for clarity, maybe it shouldn't need to be, that's not my call. I am curious if there is a better way the line could have been phrased so that even you could understand it though.

[Gappy]

186 chapters doesn't seem like only a few to me. Though I suppose relative to when it started that seems fairly low. The reason is that there have been multiple hiatuses over the course of its run to give the writer time to plot out the rules of all the games and work on other projects. Fairly common for series where intellectual puzzles are important.
 
As for your original question, it sounds like you're taking Akiyama's phrasing of the rules too literally. After each round is concluded the card that was drawn would obviously be returned to the bag, otherwise as you said there would be no game. The issue is whether or not the card's face can be seen as it's being taken out of the bag. If Nao's card is drawn with the joker side up, it would be obvious which card was drawn, and thus according to Fukunaga's rules that round wouldn't count. Fukunaga's double-sided card would always appear to be face down though, so there's never an instance where a round where her card was drawn didn't count. "So it will never be returned back to the bag" meant that it would never happen that a round where it was drawn didn't result in Fukunaga's win, not that after the round was concluded the card literally wouldn't be put back in the bag. 
 
Maybe this could have been better translated for clarity, maybe it shouldn't need to be, that's not my call. I am curious if there is a better way the line could have been phrased so that even you could understand it though.

It seems it's only a few by looking at the sheer numbers, Burt it's ver text heavy once you start reading it. Also, thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of something along those lines.