Newsgroups: alt.fan.pratchett
\nSubject: Re: Pathetic Request
\nMessage-ID:
\nFrom: jsv@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Julian Visch)
\nDate: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:46:58 GMT
\nOrganization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury
\nLines: 610<\/p>\n
In article , hobbs_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Anthony ‘SCHWAibo’ Hobbs) writes:
\n|> Someone please post or mail me the rules to Cripple Mr Onion. Pretty please?<\/p>\n
Here are the rules for Cripple Mr Onion that were written by Terry Tao<\/p>\n
This is the first part of the Cripple Mr Onion game: the general
\npurpose and the layout of the cards. Some people have complained about
\nword wrap problems, so please tell me if the paragraphs are short
\nenough.<\/p>\n
The object of the game is to create the highest scoring collection of
\ncard-groupings from the ten cards that the player is dealt during the
\ncourse of the game. Each of the ten cards can only be used in one
\nparticular card-grouping.<\/p>\n
The game is a combination of poker and blackjack. One player acts as
\na dealer-banker, chosen on the outcome of the previous game. There are
\nslight advantages in being the dealer.<\/p>\n
Procedures for the gambling and non-gambling versions will be given in
\nlater sections. The gambling version is the one used by the Disc
\nplayers, but the non-gambling version is easier. Also, I will post
\nsome suggested variations to reflect the mythology of the disk.<\/p>\n
Finally, there will be a discussion of the relevant passage of
\n“Witches Abroad” about the game.<\/p>\n
Now to the scoring system. The valuable card groupings are based
\naround the concept of an “onion”, which is a combination of two or more
\ncards adding up to 21. Aces (A) are one or eleven, picture cards (P)
\nand tens (T) score 10. All others score their face value.<\/p>\n
Incidentally, there are 104 cards: 8 of each type, as 8 is the magic
\nnumber of the Disc. On Earth this can be achieved by shuffling two
\nnon-identical decks together. There are eight suits with the thirteen
\nstandard denominations, but their Disc names are uncertain. Standard
\ndeck suits will do.<\/p>\n
The groupings, in order of least scoring to highest scoring, are:<\/p>\n
A. bagel: this consists of two cards adding up to 20,
\ni.e. PP, TP, TT, 9A. Fairly frequently, more than one bagel is
\npossible, giving a “double bagel”, “triple bagel”, “lesser bagel”, and
\nfinally “great bagel” (all ten cards used up.)<\/p>\n
2. two card onion: Two cards which add up to 21, i.e. TA, PA.<\/p>\n
3. broken flush: This consists of at least three cards, adding up to
\nat least 16, but no more than 21. All except one of them is of the
\nsame suit.<\/p>\n
4. three-card onion: Three cards which add up to 21, e.g. 47T, ATT.<\/p>\n
5. flush: Just like the broken flush, except all cards must be of the
\nsame suit.<\/p>\n
6. four-card onion: e.g. 4557, A46T.<\/p>\n
7. broken Royal: a special case of the three card onion: the cards 678
\n of any suit.<\/p>\n
8. five-card onion: e.g. 23466, 2234P.<\/p>\n
9. Royal – another special case of the three-card onion: three 7’s.<\/p>\n
T. six-card onion: e.g. A23456, 222555.<\/p>\n
J. Wild Royal (see additional rules): this slot not used at present.<\/p>\n
Q. seven-card onion: e.g. AA22456, A223445. Note that there are no
\neight-card onions, eight being a very unlucky number.<\/p>\n
K. Onion: A pontoon or blackjack: PA. However, this combination is
\nonly a two-card bagel unless there is more than one Onion, e.g. KAQA.
\nThus, we have Double Onion (two Onions), Triple Onion, Lesser Onion,
\nand Greater Onion (PAPAPAPAPA). Greater Onion beats Lesser Onion, and
\nso on. The Greater Onion is almost unbeatable (see below).<\/p>\n
There is one more card combination: the nine-card straight flush
\n(e.g. 23456789T). This combination is normally worthless, unless
\nanother player has a Great Onion, in which case the straight flush
\nbeats everybody. This is called “Crippling Mr Onion”, hence the name
\nof the game.<\/p>\n
Note also that Greater Onion requires five aces; thus, the two decks.<\/p>\n
This ends part 1 of the rules of the game.<\/p>\n
Andrew Millard (typed up by Terry Tao).<\/p>\n
At last! Now that I’ve figured out how to use this system, all you avid
\nor potentially avid Cripple Mr Onion players will not have to wait so
\nlong for the rest of the rules, as I can now type them in myself, and
\nnot have to ask Terry Tao to do it for me. In response to Terry’s
\n(Pratchett not Tao) note about the rules so far, my idea was that a
\nsimple list of 13 winning card groupings could be augmented to a
\nfiendishly complicated level by the use of modifiers, of which the
\nfirst,
\nor #0 I suppose would be:<\/p>\n
\t” i. A nine-card running flush may be used to cripple a Great
\n\tOnion and hence win the game if played after a Great Onion.<\/p>\n
\t ii. A ten-card running flush overrides a nine-card running
\n\tflush in crippling a Great Onion and may also be used to
\n\tcripple a Lesser Onion.”<\/p>\n
My original aim in raising the subject of Cripple Mr Onion on this net
\nwas to get other people to come up with ideas for modifiers; so far, I
\njust have one for letting 8s be wild and another using the queen of
\nspades, which may be given certain properties, to represent the Lady.
\n(Further details of these will, of course, appear soon.) My point is,
\nthough, that the essence of the game, which should be simple in order
\nto give newcomers, or suckers, the impression that the whole game is
\nsimple, need not be overly complex, as long as a sufficiently large
\ncollection of modifiers exists. Even as I write, Terry Tao is scribbling
\nfuriously, goaded no doubt by a storm of inspiration particles, about
\nmodifiers based around ideas involving Fate, Death, the Octavo (likely
\nto be something involving all eight 8s) and even Great A’tuin him(?)self.
\nAnyway, we’ll have to see what turns up, but I’ve got a feeling that a
\nbook containing the complete list of modifiers is going to end up
\nlooking like Carrot’s book of laws…
\nAndrew C. Millard
\nPhysics Department,
\nPrinceton University.<\/p>\n
> Incidentally, there are 104 cards: 8 of each type, as 8 is the magic
\n> number of the Disc. On Earth this can be achieved by shuffling two
\n> non-identical decks together. There are eight suits with the thirteen
\n> standard denominations, but their Disc names are uncertain. Standard deck
\n> suits will do.<\/p>\n
If you shuffle two different decks together, other players will be able
\nto see the different backs…<\/p>\n
Concerning the Disc suits … the scene in ‘The Light Fantastic’ where
\nTwoflower attempts to teach the Four Horsemen of the Apocralypse to play
\nbridge (or at least, something you put across a river) mentions some of the
\nsuits. Twoflower mentions Turtles and Elephants; Death mentions ‘the Knave
\nof Terrapins’, but it’s not clear whether he means Turtles or there are
\ntwo different suits by these names. Twoflower also refers to the Greater
\nArcana, which suggests that Discworld card games are actually played with a
\nTarot-like deck, presumably the ‘Caroc cards’ mentioned elsewhere.<\/p>\n
Earlier in the same book, Rincewind has his fortune told, and we’re told
\nthe names of some Caroc cards. Suits include Octograms and the aforementioned
\nElephants and Turtles.<\/p>\n
Remember that eight is an unlucky number, not a lucky one, on the Disc.
\nIn view of that, I’m inclined to suspect that there are seven ‘real’ suits
\nin the Discworld deck, the ‘eighth suit’ being the Major Arcana.<\/p>\n
As for the actual names of the suits, here are my suggestions (I’m
\nassuming that Death’s ‘Terrapins’ was a mistake, quite likely given his
\nstate of confusion at the time) :<\/p>\n
Coins (to represent the common Discworld mercenary spirit…)
\n Dragons
\n Elephants
\n Eyes (in honour of Blind Io)
\n Octograms
\n Swords
\n Turtles (or tortoises or terrapins or whatever…)<\/p>\n
For playing with Earthly decks, we need some sort of standard equivalents;
\nI don’t see any obvious correspondences (except Swords = Spades), so I suppose
\nthey can just be chosen at random.<\/p>\n
If you really want eight suits, you can always assume ‘Terrapins’ wasn’t
\na mistake. Somehow the confusion that would be caused by this seems entirely
\nin the spirit of the Discworld … \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n
And the Major Arcana? Earth’s Tarot deck has 22, but in the interests of
\nmaking it possible to play CMO on Earth without actually buying two Tarot
\ndecks I think we should assume that the Caroc deck has 13, the same as the
\n‘real’ suits (Earth’s Tarot actually has 14 in the suits, but let’s not
\nmake matters any more complicated than they already are). TLF mentions five :
\n‘The Star’, ‘The Importance of Washing the Hands’, ‘The Dome of the Sky’,
\n‘The Pool of Night’, and (of course) ‘Death’.<\/p>\n
Naming the other eight would, I think, be an excellent topic for
\nsuggestions from the Net. I think ‘The Octavo’ should be one, and probably
\n‘The Disc’ itself (something like Josh Kirby’s magnificent painting on
\npages 34-35 of ‘Eric’), but beyond that I’ll wait and see what everyone
\ncan come up with…<\/p>\n
—
\n…… Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) …… alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ……
\n “Reasonable thought can only go so far. Beyond that,
\n you must either be unreasonable or stop thinking.” (A. Brilliant)<\/p>\n
However, Andrew and I are working on some special cards.
\nThe suits may now need to be changed, though.<\/p>\n
Luck (the Lady): Queen of Spades
\nDeath: King of Swords
\nGreat A’tuin: Queen of Coins
\nArchchancellor: Jack of Staves
\nFate: King of Cups
\nBel’Shamaroth: Jack of Clubs<\/p>\n
As you can see, our idea for the 8 suits were the four tarot and the
\nfour modern suits. But to make flushes even remotely possible, two of
\nthe suits have to be combined together, making four suits overall.<\/p>\n
Also, we have some ideas for special combinations, like the Octavo
\n(eight 8’s) and the Disc (Great A’tuin with four 10s). At present they
\nare being playtested, so don’t expect these rules for at least a week.
\nWe don’t want to embarrass ourselves prematurely.<\/p>\n
Terry
\nIt’s too complicated to write out the full details here, but here is a
\nsketch of the order of play so far.<\/p>\n
Each person places 1 penny (or stone, etc) in the pot as an ante.<\/p>\n
Each person gets dealt 5 cards. Starting from the dealer’s right, they
\nhave the option of exchanging up to four cards from the deck.<\/p>\n
The first round of betting ensues.<\/p>\n
Starting from the dealer, everyone is dealt a further 5 cards. The dealer’s are
\nface down; the players are face up. However, each player can pay a penny to have
\none card face down, hence a player putting 5 pennies in the pot will have all his
\ncards face down.<\/p>\n
The second round of betting ensues.<\/p>\n
Now starting from the dealer’s right, each player must reveal his
\nentire hand and sort it into winning combinations. Usually some cards
\nwill not be part of any combination and they are of no value.<\/p>\n
The winner is the person with the highest ranking combination. If two
\nor more people have the same combination, then the player’s
\nsecond-highest-ranking combinations are compared. If there is a tie
\nall the way down the line, the dealer wins. (The way the game is
\norganized, the dealer is always playing, for if the dealer folds the
\ndealership is up for auction.)<\/p>\n
e.g. if a person has<\/p>\n
2234467KKA<\/p>\n
the best way to sort this hand would be to have a six-card onion first (2234467)
\nthen a two card onion (KA), with the second king being worthless.<\/p>\n
The game is fairly playable: I’ve already been suckered out of 60c so far. A few
\nproblems: it seems to depend too much on the number of aces one gets. 10s and 9s
\nare almost worthless. To combat this, we have playtested a few modifiers to bring
\ndown the power of the Aces and to bring up the worth of the 10s and 9s, but we’re still testing.<\/p>\n
Our first modifier is the use of 8s. The 8s represent magic. eight 8s
\nare the Octavo and we are ranking them at about the level of a Lesser
\nOnion. The 8s can be used as 8s or 0s: the idea of using them as 0s is
\nto “trump up” a small onion into a slightly larger onion: hence,
\nwhile 3567 is a four card onion, 35678 is a five card onion. three 8s
\nare a wild
\nroyal. After an 8 has been used as a 0, for the next round they are
\nwild (can act as any card from A to K, excepting special god cards).
\nHowever, the use of
\ntoo many 8’s will attract the attention of Bel Shamharoth, among others.<\/p>\n
The Aces represent heroes of the Disc:normally they make an integral part of the
\nwinning hands (we seem to find that Double Onion is the most common winning hand,
\nbtw), but with a few modifiers we intend to make heroes subject to blind luck and
\ncruel fate. Our rules are a bit complicated here.<\/p>\n
Suggestions welcome for any modifiers, or special hands.<\/p>\n
Btw: about my remark about “non-identical decks”. While it is a minor
\npoint that decks of different color will convey a little bit of
\nknowledge about ones hand, I suppose it is best to have two identical
\ndecks. However, for special cards (if there are going to be any)
\nthere should only be one of each. For the purposes
\nof flushes, and 9-card straight flushes, it seems reasonable to have
\nonly four
\nsuits, otherwise flushes would be extremely difficult.<\/p>\n
Terry
\nSo many people seem to be champing at the bit here over the details of the
\ngame that I’ve decided to post up the rules of the game in full – at least
\nthe game as far as we are playing it here at the moment. No doubt there are
\na few problems still remaining in it, but we’ll just have to see what
\nhappens. I should state, though, that when I write onion, I mean two-card
\nup to seven-card, whereas when I write Onion (capital O), I mean Double up
\nto Great.<\/p>\n
Cripple Mr Onion requires two standard decks of playing cards, preferably
\none having the English or French suits clubs, spades, hearts and diamonds,
\nand the second having the Spanish or Italian suits swords, staves, cups and
\ncoins – for the purpose of forming flushes, these are taken to be paired in
\ntheir respective order given above. The game also requires at least two
\nplayers, but not more than seven [this isn’t something to do with the number
\neight, but a result of the fact that you’d run out of cards with more than
\nseven players], with a ready supply of small coinage or tokens. The players
\nneed to be arranged as evenly as possible around a table with two small
\npots\/boxes in the centre – one will be the Pot and the other is for
\ndiscards.<\/p>\n
At the beginning of each round, one player is identified as the Dealer, with
\nthe player to the Dealer’s left as the Elder and the player to the Dealer’s
\nright as the Younger – this sets the order of precedence in being dealt cards
\nand in winning in the event of a tie as Dealer, Elder, other players in
\norder and, lastly, Younger. In the event that the Dealership changes, these
\nidentifiers move to be based around the new Dealer. The round opens when the
\nDealer shuffles the pack of all 104 cards, the Younger cuts the pack and all
\nthe players place an amount equivalent to the Stake in the Pot. By agreement
\nof all the players, the maximum amount for a raise is usually set at some
\nmultiple of the Stake.<\/p>\n
All the players are dealt five cards in this order: the Dealer receives two
\ncards and deals all the other players, in order from Elder to Younger, three
\ncards; the Dealer then receives three cards and deals the other players two
\n[this is done to speed up the dealing, which isn’t exactly the most
\ninteresting part of the game]. Then, in turn, from Elder to Younger, each
\nplayer discards up to four cards into the discard pot, or may fold by
\ndiscarding all five cards, and announces the number of discards to the Dealer
\nwho replaces them from the top of the pack; the Dealer then discards and
\nreplaces, also announcing the number thrown away. It is important to note
\nthat up to this point all cards have been dealt face down, each player is
\nonly aware of their own cards and, by way of the draw, ought to have a
\nbetter hand than was originally dealt.<\/p>\n
The first round of betting takes place, consisting of three distinct parts.
\nIn the first two parts, the Dealer names the amount that must be matched by
\nother players individually if they wish to stay in and places this amount
\nin the Pot. In turn, from the Elder to the Younger, the players must either
\nmatch the Dealer’s bid, by placing the same amount in the Pot, or fold by
\nplacing their cards in the discard pot; if a player matches the Dealer’s bid,
\nthat player has the option of raising the Dealer by placing a named amount
\nnear the Pot on the player’s side. The process of raising does not affect
\nthe other players except for the Dealer who must match the collective raise
\nor fold – see below for events following the folding of the Dealer. The
\nmatching of the collective raise by the Dealer and the placing of all the
\nindividual raises into the Pot closes that part of the betting. In the third,
\nand at this stage final, part, the betting is the same except that no
\nraising may take place. During the betting, the Dealer may make a zero bet,
\nallowing all the other players to stay in and, in the first two parts and if
\nthey wish, to raise.<\/p>\n
The second set of five cards each is now dealt in the following way: the
\nDealer receives five cards face down on the table, and then, in turn from
\nElder to Younger, each other player may buy cards, multiply or one at a time,
\nfrom the Dealer placing an amount equal to the Stake for each bought card in
\nthe Pot. Buying stops at five bought cards, or earlier if the player wishes
\nwhen the player is then dealt the remaining cards up to five, that is up to
\nten cards in all, face up on the table. Bought cards are dealt face down and
\nthe player may mix them in with the cards from the first stage of dealing,
\nbut cards dealt face up on the table must remain that way, although the
\nplayer may rearrange them there. After receiving the second five cards, the
\nplayer is then asked to make an extra bet, which again the Dealer must alone
\nmatch later on, placing the amount, which may be zero, on the face up cards,
\nor on the table if there are no face up cards, directly in front of the
\nplayer. Once this has taken place for all the players, the Dealer considers
\nthe extra bets made on the basis of all the face up cards and the Dealer’s own
\nten cards which, of course, are unknown to the other players. If the Dealer
\ndecides to match the total amount of the extra bets made, by placing the
\ntotal value in the Pot, all extra bets are placed in the Pot as well and two
\nlast parts of betting take place in the same manner as the first two parts
\nof the first round of betting as described in the previous paragraph. If the
\nextra bets are not matched, the Dealer may give the Dealership to the Elder
\nWITHOUT being required to fold: this is the only point of the game when the
\nDealership changes without the Dealer folding – of course, the Dealer loses all
\nprivileges by becoming the new Younger. To accept the Dealership and become
\nthe new Dealer, the Elder must match the other players’ collective extra
\nbets, the Elder’s own extra bet, if there was one, being lost to the Pot
\nwithout reclaim; otherwise the Dealership is again passed left. This process
\nis repeated until either the Dealership is accepted, in which case events
\nproceed as described some twelve lines above, or the Dealership goes full
\ncircle and returns to the original Dealer – then, everybody folds, the Pot
\nbecomes the ante for the next round, the Dealer remains the Dealer and the
\nnext round begins from the beginning.<\/p>\n
The game having managed to get this far without utter confusion breaking out,
\nthe final part of the round, Showdown, takes place. Beginning from the
\nElder, the highest card grouping is declared and displayed on the table;
\nif the player to the left of the Elder cannot equal, beat or play some
\nmodifier that affects the Elder’s cards, that player’s cards are all placed
\nface up on the table, in their groupings if the player wishes, and the next
\nplayer’s cards are compared. If the Elder’s cards are equalled, then the
\nnext card grouping must be considered. If the Elder’s cards are beaten, then
\nthe Elder has the opportunity to play a modifier or rearrange the card
\ngrouping in an attempt to obtain a better arrangement. By this process of
\ncomparison, consideration of lower groupings, rearrangement of card groups
\nand playing of modifiers, the holder of the better cards, between the
\nElder and the player on the Elder’s left, is found; the player but one to the
\nElder’s left is then brought in, and the whole process of finding the
\nholder of the better cards is repeated. This continues until at last the
\nDealer has been brought in, and finally the player who holds the best cards
\nwins the contents of the Pot; in the event of a complete tie, the player of
\ngreater seniority wins – often, this means that the Dealer wins. The
\nround is then over, the cards and discards are collected up and the winner
\nbecomes the Dealer for the next round.<\/p>\n
In the event that the Dealer folds, the Dealership is auctioned as follows:
\nfrom the Elder to the Younger, the players who are still in are asked by the
\nold Dealer if they wish to be the new Dealer – if the player wishes to be
\nthe new Dealer, that player must advance an amount equal to the Stake. If
\nanother player, when asked, also wishes to be Dealer, then that player
\nmust match the existing bid and advance another amount equal to the Stake.
\nThis process continues around and around the table, with each prospective
\nDealer making sure that that player’s bid is at least an amount equal to
\nthe Stake higher that the highest bid so far, until all the players except
\nfor one decline to advance any more, when they place their own total bid
\nin the Pot as they decline, and the single player left becomes the new
\nDealer placing the winning bid in the pot. If nobody wishes to be the new
\nDealer, all the players fold, the Pot becomes the ante for the next round,
\nthe old Dealer stays as Dealer and another round beings anew.<\/p>\n
Well, that describes the basic [!] game. Hands up all those who thought that
\nthirteen simple winning hands would not make the game complicated. But, of
\ncourse, there has been discussion of modifiers [incidentally, if you think
\nthat this reconstruction is a rip-off of other card games around the
\nMultiverse, all I can say is: you don’t have to play and win a lot and
\nhave fun as well], which I shall now describe. These particular modifiers
\nare, inevitably, the creation of a small group of people: if you think they
\nshould be changed or added to or reduced in number, just say so.<\/p>\n
Modifier #0: Crippling Rules.
\n i. A nine-card running flush may be used to cripple a Great Onion and
\nhence win the game. Once crippled, a Great Onion may not be retracted.
\n ii. A ten-card running flush outcripples a nine-card running flush in
\ncrippling a Great Onion and may also cripple a Lesser Onion. Once cripped,
\nthe Onion may not be retracted.<\/p>\n
[I hope that this one at least doesn’t require any comments.]<\/p>\n
Modifier #1: Null Eights Rules.
\n i. During a round in which eights are not wild (see ii.), an eight
\nmay be used as if it had value zero in order to trump up an onion. In the
\nevent of a tie between two onions with equal numbers of cards, the onion
\nwith the fewer null eights wins.
\n ii. In the round following a round in which a null eight has been
\nplayed, eights are wild, acting as any regular card. The wild Royal, three
\nwild eights, may then be played. In the next round, eights return to their
\noriginal role.<\/p>\n
[To “trump up an onion” means to make a four-card onion into a five-card
\nonion by the addition of one null eight, or to make a three-card onion
\ninto a seven-card onion with four – it did happen, and he won. Note,
\nhowever, that there are no onions beyond seven-card and that wild eights
\ncannot be used as any of the special cards giving rise to later
\nmodifiers.]<\/p>\n
Modifier #2: Wild Crippling Rule.
\n In a round in which eights are wild, to successfully cripple the
\nrelevant Onion, the running flush must have at most the same number of
\nwild cards as the Onion being crippled.<\/p>\n
[Note that this is the only manifestation of the “fewer wild cards wins”
\nrule of poker, the equivalent here being “fewer null eights wins” as in
\n#1i. above.]<\/p>\n
Modifier #3: Octavo Rule.
\n When eights are wild, the card group consisting of eight eights can
\nbe considered as a Lesser Onion, but beats other Lesser Onions and may not
\nbe crippled like a Lesser Onion of any other composition.<\/p>\n
[Terry likes this one!]<\/p>\n
Modifier #4: The Lady’s Rules.
\n i. If eights are not wild, the queen of spades may be declared, before
\nor during Showdown, and replaced by the player’s choice of one of the next
\ntwo cards from the deck, the chosen card taking up the place of the queen;
\nthe other card goes to the discard pot. This move may not be rescinded.
\n ii. When eights are wild, the queen of spades devalues one ace, for
\nevery other player, that would otherwise be played as having value eleven, to
\nvalue one only. This does not affect any aces in a Great Onion, but may
\naffect cards, in any grouping, which, by being wild or by other means, would
\notherwise be played with value eleven.<\/p>\n
[If you’re playing with two English decks, you’re going to have to choose
\none of the two queens of spades and mark it, not on the back though, so
\nuse old or cheap cards for this. By declaring, I mean put the card on the
\ntable face up and point it out to the other players; here, of course, the
\nqueen may no longer be used in forming card groupings since a replacement
\ncard has been received (very useful for getting out of those triple
\nbagels) but should be left near the player on the table rather than in the
\ndiscard pot. For the reason for this, read on…]<\/p>\n
Modifier #5: Fate’s Rules.<\/p>\n
i. If the queen of spades has been declared and replaced, the king
\nof cups may also be declared and replaced in a like manner, in the process
\nmaking all aces held by the player who used the queen of spades have value
\nzero. Unlike null eights, however, zeroed aces cannot trump up onions.
\n ii. If eights are wild, the king of cups may be declared so that
\neights immediately cease to be wild; a different player who has the queen of
\nspades, whether visible, played or not, may then make his own eights wild
\nagain. The king of cups may not be revoked once declared, and a single
\nplayer may not use the king of cups and then the queen of spades in this way.<\/p>\n
[The suit of cups, you may remember, is paired up with hearts, so choose one
\nof the the king of hearts as Fate.]<\/p>\n
Modifier #6: Great A’Tuin’s Rule.
\n Declaring the queen of coins allows the player to reduce the value of
\none of the player’s cards by eight points and to increase the value of a
\ndifferent card by eight points. The two affected cards must still have value
\nbetween one and eleven inclusive.<\/p>\n
[Coins are paired with diamonds. A two that is shifted up to value ten may
\nbe considered a picture card, a three shifted up to eleven as an ace of
\nvalue eleven.]<\/p>\n
Modifier #7: The Elephants’ Rule.
\n Any four cards, each being either a nine or a ten or an eight when
\neights are wild, that are declared with the queen of coins in one
\nplayer’s hand, allow that player to shift as many points as are needed to
\nto generate a Double Onion. This Double Onion may be beaten by any other
\nDouble Onion. Any nines or tens in the player’s hand that are not involved
\nin the shift may be considered as ones, not aces, and twos respectively.<\/p>\n
[Since the five cards involved here have only been declared, they are, of
\ncourse, still playable as cards in groups. Remember that a ten may not
\ntake the role of a picture card in an Onion – a shifted nine, eight etc.
\nis needed. With two nines, two tens and the queen of coins, a possible shift
\nis: add one each to the nines and tens – hence the Double Onion – and take
\nfour from the queen of coins to be a six.]<\/p>\n
Modifier #8: The Sender of Eight’s Rules.
\n i. When eights are not wild, a visible jack of diamonds makes any aces
\nbelonging to a player who uses any eights become zeroed (see #5i.).
\n ii. When eights are wild, the jack of diamonds must be declared as soon
\nas it is dealt and identified, zeroing all aces and disallowing eights from
\ntaking on value one or eleven.<\/p>\n
[As before, choose one of the jacks of diamonds and mark it on the face.]<\/p>\n
Modifier #9: Death’s Rules.
\n i. When eights are not wild, a visible king of swords makes one
\npicture card in every player’s hand that has two or more picture cards have
\nno part in forming a Double Onion.
\n ii. When eights are wild, the visible king of swords makes one
\npicture card in every player’s hand that has two or more picture cards have
\nno part in forming either a Double Onion or a Triple Onion.<\/p>\n
[Swords are paired with clubs. The “killed” picture card can still take
\npart in anything else, which usually means a bagel or two.]<\/p>\n
Modifier #10: The Archchancellor’s Rules.
\n i. Any player who plays the jack of staves may not also play an
\neight as having value eight.
\n ii. If the jack of staves is declared at any time during the game, the
\nking of swords must also be declared if held; if the king of swords is
\ndeclared, then all the other players must also declare one previously
\nundisclosed card each. If no one holds the king of swords, the the jack of
\nstaves becomes wild for the rest of the round.<\/p>\n
[By a process of elimination, staves are paired with spades.]<\/p>\n
Modifier #11: The Fool’s Rule.
\n\tIf, immediately before Showdown, the jack of clubs is declared,
\nthen, for the rest of the round, bagels change places with Onions in the
\norder of winning card groupings. That is: the two-card onion and the
\nsingle bagel change places, the Double, Triple and Lesser Onions are ex-
\nchanged with the double, triple and lesser bagels respectively, and the
\ngreat bagel becomes only beaten by, but may also be crippled like, the
\nGreat Onion which remains at the top of the list.<\/p>\n
[This now makes bagels worth something, other than a tie-breaker. The
\njack of clubs, of course, can still take part in bagels, and any other
\ncard grouping, as usual.]<\/p>\n
Okay, so there are some in-jokes in that lot, but you don’t need to know
\nthem all, or indeed any of them, to be able to play the game and it hasn’t
\nstopped me playing the game with a large group of people here who have
\nnever heard of Bel-Shamharoth or the Rite of Ashk’Ente. It might be fun
\nto try and work out the reasoning behind the modifiers – and yes, there
\nis a reason behind nearly every one that may be found somewhere in the
\nDiscworld books. This is the point though: unlike Dragon Poker, where
\nthe typical modifier seems to be “If there are three players with
\nfour arms, the moon is gibbous, there’s an r in the month and the Dealer
\nis blue, the three of Unicorns is wild in the seventeenth round” (no
\ncriticism of Robert Asprin – it’s a fun idea), Cripple Mr Onion
\nmodifiers should be based on Discworld mythology and belief; I’ve taken
\nthe view that the game is as old as Ankh-Morpork and has, over the
\ncenturies, absorbed all sorts of details of Disc life.<\/p>\n
Anyway, comments please.
\nAndrew C. Millard
\nPhysics Department,
\nPrinceton University.
\nA couple of rules in the game that Andrew posted up are debatable, so I
\nthought we should bring them to your attention.<\/p>\n
They all concern the modifiers. The original game is quite playable and
\nhas no faults, but some of the modifiers have problems.<\/p>\n
First of all, the rules as stated say that if the first person lays down
\nhis hand, and the next person beats it, the the first person has a chance
\nto reform his hand. This has the small problem that the game could
\ntechnically go on forever, with everybody reforming their hands, but also
\ntakes out the “sucker” element of the game: “I didn’t know a three-card
\nflush beat a …”, etc. However, as some modifiers (Fate, the Lady,
\nBel-Shamharoth, Death) do devalue hands, perhaps after these have been
\nplayed, the people whose hands are affected have a chance to reform once.<\/p>\n
Also, if one prefers, if two combinations tie, the one with fewer wild
\ncards loses. The only problem with this is that it takes away a bit the
\nprerogative of the dealer to win tied hands, and the game traditionally has
\na bias toward the dealer (unless Weatherwax is playing).<\/p>\n
Finally, as some special cards are declared before any hands are played,
\nto prevent someone laying down his lesser Onion in a hurry before anyone
\ncan play the “Fool”, there should be a round before showdown where the
\ndealer asks if any special cards (at this stage, only the Fool and possiblt
\nBel-Shamharoth) are to be used.<\/p>\n
