Would this magic be legal? http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/attac ... 1261063937 The pattern doesn't span any squares, which could lead to a situation where a shorter route is possible to get into the correct shape, but the pattern wouldn't match what you'd have if you didn't get use the official solution. I'm not saying all custom magics should be banned. Most of them have some design that's obvious and can't get rearranged, so they're fine. But something like this seems very odd.

If more solutions are possible, it would be illegal under both 3c) and 3h): 3c) For [non-cube] puzzles competitors must use any [color scheme] that has the same moves, positions and solutions as the original puzzle. 3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: [...] more or other solved states.

[quote="jbcm627":1tv5k31o]If more solutions are possible, it would be illegal under both 3c) and 3h): 3c) For [non-cube] puzzles competitors must use any [color scheme] that has the same moves, positions and solutions as the original puzzle. 3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: [...] more or other solved states.[/quote:1tv5k31o] No, because the solution to that puzzle is unique, since all the squares are unique and they have a defined orientation. There are no other solutions like that solution, it's just that the single solution is not obvious and solutions that do not match the single solution are not obviously different enough.

Bryan: Alright, may I use a clock whose solved state looks like this? I just looked, and I couldn't even find something defining the solved state. But my version definitely has all clocks pointing to 12 exactly when solved, and exactly the same moves possible; there's an obvious isomorphism to a real clock. [img:1zewzfx5]http://archive.garron.us/img/2009/pi_clock.png[/img:1zewzfx5] How about having Stefan's face on the clock dials and making his tongue point to 12 in the solved state?

I think what this boils down to is the puzzle being scrutinized by a competent judge of the regulations. If the wca delegate/organizer/trusted person verifies that the standard solution legitimately works in a way that follows the regulations, I don't see any reason why the puzzle shouldn't be allowed. Another scenario that came up in my experience: Lars V borrowed my master magic for the latest competition we had. My magic is reverse strung, and Lars is used to the 'normal' stringing. I told him that he should just be able to solve his normal way, even though the picture wouldn't match, as long as his solved/start state are consistent and the solution is one that is legitimized by a judge. He and Jim Mertens (both WCA delegates) said that this would not be allowed. I personally see no reason why it wouldn't, as long as the solution used would work on a standard magic.

[quote="DanCohen":mdd7qlqw]I personally see no reason why it wouldn't, as long as the solution used would work on a standard magic.[/quote:mdd7qlqw] Not sure I understand, please clarify. What you proposed would always get the puzzle to the same final state, but that state would not be the solved state?

[quote="Lucas":zumjwwby]I just looked, and I couldn't even find something defining the solved state. But my version definitely has all clocks pointing to 12 exactly when solved, and exactly the same moves possible; there's an obvious isomorphism to a real clock.[/quote:zumjwwby] 10h) Other puzzles are solved according to the solved state as defined in the generally accepted goal of the puzzle, with the regulations of the cube solved state applied when applicable. 3c) Competitors must use any colour scheme for cube puzzles, as long as the puzzles show one colour per face in solved state. For other puzzles competitors must use any variation that has the same moves, [b:zumjwwby]positions [/b:zumjwwby]and solutions as the original puzzle. I'd say based on these two, it's not legal. 10h is kind of vague, since it requires outside knowledge. [quote="DanCohen":zumjwwby]I think what this boils down to is the puzzle being scrutinized by a competent judge of the regulations. If the wca delegate/organizer/trusted person verifies that the standard solution legitimately works in a way that follows the regulations, I don't see any reason why the puzzle shouldn't be allowed.[/quote:zumjwwby] Again, most custom magics are done in a way you can look at them and verify them quickly. For the one posted, the pattern is (Snow White with cape upside down)(Witch) (Snow White in front of castle upside down)(4 dwarves)(Dopey) (Snow White w/Prince)(Snow White with dove)(Snow White with apple) It's not exactly obvious. Plus, you'd have to verify the starting position too. Again, most are trivial, but some aren't. Is it possible to do? Sure. But it's time consuming, has potential for abuse. Also, it would be good to have some regulations dealing with the patterns. If you get multiple tiles that have the same pattern or that don't have defined orientation, I say that the Magic shouldn't be allowed. You could leave it up to the WCA delegate's opinion, but you'd have people complaining if their Magic was allowed in one competition, but not another. Or that their Magic wasn't allowed while someone else's custom was (and they don't understand the huge difference between the patterns).

I think the bigger issue here is this: legal unless clearly illegal, or illegal unless clearly legal? In the interest of being fair, generally I'd rather err on the safe side, and claim that something is illegal when it is not clearly legal. It shouldn't be an issue for a competitor to obtain a clearly legal puzzle. Of course there may be exceptions, but if there is a reasonable amount of doubt, as I think is the case with the Bryan's magic (3c and 3h give me enough doubt), and Lucas's clock (10h and 3c are uncertain), I'd consider the puzzles illegal. It isn't too much to ask competitors to use puzzles that are clearly legal.