Pre-Shuffle organizing?

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
So I more or less just want to double check something,

In between rounds in "best 2 out of 3" duels, I usually take every card that was played, put them together, then put insert lands every 2 or 3 cards.  Most of my friends do this too, but there's one that gets incredibly irritated everytime I do so, he calls it cheating.

I don't think it is.  If I didn't do that, I might either have a mana drought/flood on my hands.

What's the official ruling on this? 
You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.
If you do this in a tournament and don't sufficiently randomize the deck with your shuffling (that is, to the point that it wouldn't matter how you organised the cards beforehand), then it's Cheating - Manipulation of Game Materials and is grounds for disqualification.
M:tG Rules Advisor
so then, if I did that, but really shuffled, it would be passable? 

What do you do in between rounds/duels then? 
You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.
If you're going to shuffle your deck properly, there's no point stacking the deck beforehand. At the very least, it's going to make you look incredibly suspicious and you should expect to have a judge called over by any opponent whois familar enough with the tournament rules to know that it's cheating.

Between rounds, I don't really care how I pick my cards up, because I know I'm going to shuffle them properly and it doesn't matter.
M:tG Rules Advisor
Makes sense.  I can see how it'd be considered stacking.
You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.
so then, if I did that, but really shuffled, it would be passable? 

What do you do in between rounds/duels then? 



I generally pick them up and riffle them together a couple of times. Then I make 6 stacks and randomly put cards into them until I have 6 stacks of 10. I do this with the cards face down.  Then I pick those up and shuffle. It is a pretty common practice at my card shop.
I actually really like that.  I think I may try your method next time I duel. 
You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.
I don't see how mana weaving is considered cheating..... ok granted you putting you lands inbetween 2-3 other cards but unless you opponent is really a prick and just wants to win, I think most people would want to win because they played a very well played game and not because their opponent was mana screwed or mana mobbed. I myself usually shuffle quite a bit and I always offer my opponent to cut my deck each time I shuffle it so that way they can't say I stacked my hand. 

But beyurslf's way of super shuffling is totally legit to, not saying its a bad idea, i just perfer mana weaving, mostly because that is the way i did it when i was learning to play 
>reminder to self< Best not to argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience
I don't see how mana weaving is considered cheating..... ok granted you putting you lands inbetween 2-3 other cards but unless you opponent is really a prick and just wants to win, I think most people would want to win because they played a very well played game and not because their opponent was mana screwed or mana mobbed. I myself usually shuffle quite a bit and I always offer my opponent to cut my deck each time I shuffle it so that way they can't say I stacked my hand. 



You don't see how making your deck more consistant than other players who shuffle properly would be considered cheating? You don't see anything wrong with being albe to say, "Well every second or third card in my deck will be a land, so there's a pretty good chance i'll draw one next turn."

It's cheating. Not in a way most people would recognize, and one that looks harmless, but you are trying to manipulate your library in such a way to alter the odds of you winning.

* And it's rather insulting to characarize those who don't want you to cheat as pricks who just want to win... everyone wants to win. That's why you are playing a game. I'd be pissed if you won because you stacked your deck so you'd get a more consistent hand. Whereas I, having not stacked my deck, was subject to more luck.

But beyurslf's way of super shuffling is totally legit to, not saying its a bad idea, i just perfer mana weaving, mostly because that is the way i did it when i was learning to play 



I learned alot of bad habits when i first picked up the game as well. I got rid of them when i learned they were wrong.
… and then, the squirrels came.
I don't see how mana weaving is considered cheating.....

In and of itself, it is not cheating. But a paucity of shuffling is cheating, for reasons that should be obvious. And since mana weaving isn't a shuffle, once you're done mana weaving you still need a full set of shuffles. 

If all you do is mana weave, you're cheating. If you do a mana weave and then insufficient shuffling, you're cheating (not because of the mana weaving; because of the insufficient shuffling). If you do a mana weave and then sufficient shuffling, you're fine, but then what good was the mana weave?
I think most people would want to win because they played a very well played game and not because their opponent was mana screwed or mana mobbed.

I don't see how it's relevant what type of wins players would prefer. The fact of the matter is that mana screw and mana flood are a part of the game. They can be mitigated by deck construction and mulligans, but stacking your deck to get around it is cheating -- for both players.
If you do a mana weave and then sufficient shuffling, you're fine, but then what good was the mana weave?

peace of mind ;)

proud member of the 2011 community team
If you do a mana weave and then sufficient shuffling, you're fine, but then what good was the mana weave?

peace of mind ;)

Aka, the placebo effect Tongue Out
Last friday, I had an opponent mana weave his deck and shuffle insufficiently. Instead of calling a judge (I would've looked like an ass in my store), I decided to shuffle it myself. I mash-shuffled three times. He mulliganed twice, down to five, without seeing a single land. Then, he kept the third no-land hand and drew six full cards without seeing a single land.

And I didn't even do it on purpose.

Funnily enough, he exclaimed "It's the only time this has ever happened to me since someone knew how to un-weave my deck!", which implies he never gets screwed.

If your opponent mash-shuffles, or, like I sometime hear, knows exactly how to shuffle your deck correctly to un-weave it, you're screwed. Also, he can just do the tri-pile trick and gut you. What will you say? You just un-stacked my deck?

If Magic was meant to be played with the 1-2 ratio, you'd have two piles of card and draw one card in three in your land pile.

 

Rules Advisor

Quotes
76783093 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
56945988 wrote:
Rancor dies to in-response removal.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back. Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
58331438 wrote:
57461258 wrote:
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
57817638 wrote:
I think I wasn't direct enough in my last post. I'll try to fix it now. Ahem... NO ONE CARES there you have it.
57471038 wrote:
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
76973988 wrote:
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?

Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability.  If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat.  Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap.  If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player.  Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield.  Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has?  No freaking way.  Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
57817638 wrote:
The creation of praetors was worth it just because now amoeboid changeling is a praetor.
57140668 wrote:
1. cast frankie peanuts2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power
3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo
4. donate them a platinum angel
5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus, then play enchanted evening. play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever)
6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
82423538 wrote:
57471038 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
One part of the statement being true=/=the whole statement true.
Whatever. I'm still here about ten minutes away. Whenever you want to get destroyed in Magic, I'm available.
I would like to get destroyed in Magic, actually. Do you know anybody good enough?
57617478 wrote:
Please format your statements in a way that doesn't look like a baboon hit its face on your keyboard.
57140668 wrote:
why did Garruk Relentless lose a loyalty counter
Show
to get to the other side
89522235 wrote:
You're such an obvious troll that you have hexproof and : Regenerate.
56957928 wrote:
56776038 wrote:
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
79035425 wrote:
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
97610188 wrote:
Yeah that (Content Removed) really annoys me. Moderated by MY_self right about naahowwww!
93446159 wrote:
Dilleux_Lepaire just won the thread.
57461258 wrote:
And, as usual, Dilleux wins the entire thread. Nice work, sir, nice work.
99113151 wrote:
They need to make 9 layers of zones where cards go when they "die". Much like Hell.
56778328 wrote:
Wow, holy doggy poop, kids, obvious statement is obvious.
56776038 wrote:
122053101 wrote:
i don't think your geting it WotC is trying to kill the comption to make it so that there shity app is the only one left.
I haven't tried the app. How is its use of English grammar? Cheers!
57471038 wrote:
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated. Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
56957928 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
If WotC started putting $100 bills in packs, the players would complain that they folded them wrong.
No, they just spam them with ban requests. That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
56957928 wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH. -First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20. And voila, now things are balanced.
89522235 wrote:
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
142055101 wrote:
But how to mark them without making the individual sleeve different! You could buy a skunk and slam it's butt on you deck (pardon the french) Then after the game just sniff at your opponent's pile of cards and you will know if any of your cards are there!!!
141434757 wrote:
In Soviet Russia, Sorin opens You
71235715 wrote:
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
57052258 wrote:
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates. Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block. No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
58232598 wrote:
88993869 wrote:
Torpor Orb is absolutely godawful against Vexing Devil.
whoever is playing vexing devil is probably losing anyways
56957928 wrote:
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
56957928 wrote:
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Albus Dumbledore, The Lord of the Rings.
89522235 wrote:
68978039 wrote:
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too. Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
Then we shall play in the shade.
89522235 wrote:
I'm sorry, this forum isn't for getting bad advice on mediocre decks, that's standard deck help. This forum is for starting ****storms.
97820278 wrote:
139359831 wrote:
Your advice would only lead me to make generic, boring, and unworthy content. It's of no use to me.
I just got this image of you as an architect, having finished a building suspended by only a small pole in its southwest corner, saying it's original. Then the building collapses.
56957928 wrote:
I for one love the flavor of legendary lands. "I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
56957928 wrote:
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so... "Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
57150868 wrote:
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
143211137 wrote:
57033358 wrote:
Tamiyo vs. Gideon
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
76783093 wrote:
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
191752181 wrote:
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
97820278 wrote:
192729031 wrote:
You open a booster pack, and staring back at you from the rare slot is a Lotleth Troll? At least I can stick him in my EDH deck and still have four for my standard constructed.
Because lol troll
56874518 wrote:
It helped that I more or less skipped most of GM_Champion's longer diatribes. I only have so many brain cells I'm willing to sacrifice each day.
192931349 wrote:
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
57023768 wrote:
Now show me on the Garruk doll where Zac Hill ruined your enjoyment of Magic...
63711769 wrote:
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use. From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin. 183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
147137503 wrote:
77120821 wrote:
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
196239043 wrote:
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.

 

JustTerrorIt wrote:

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

All I want to do is sit down and play magic, but when I walked in yesterday, (since I didn't talk to anyone) nobody talked to me and I silently bought what I wanted and walked out.


If you don't talk to anyone, that increases the odds that no one will talk to you.

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

So how do I just... introduce myself? "Hi, my name is Adam, wanna play magic with me?" Do I go to the counter and talk to the cashier?


Yeah. Talk to the cashier. Tell him/her that you want a Black Lotus, and if they don't have one tell them that the store isn't on par with what you expected.

 

Reach into your back left pocket. Pull out a deck list that you copied directly from some ChannelFireball top 8 Standard discussion, and ask for all the cards, as is, on that list. Then, ask for some random, probably terrible cards from whatever set is Standard legal. Say it's tech for the upcoming changes in the metagame.

 

Pull out a deck, and tell some random dude you wanna test (you have to use the term "test" for this to work) for Standard. Make sure that deck contains Kitchen Finks and Alluring Siren. Maybe throw in Nyxathid for good measure.

 

Finally, before you leave, spill (make it look like an accident) one hundred singleton, random cards onto the floor. Pick them up, put them in a pile, and say "EEE-DEE-AYCH".

 

I know this sounds dumb at first, but it will work. With the method outlined above, you will draw the attention of players that play older formats by asking for cards that no one on Earth can reasonably afford. You will get the attention of the wanna-be pro, Stomp-n00bz players by pulling out a well known decklist and declare that you have "tech" to make it better. You will get the attention of all the kind, helpful players by seemingly not knowing the most common format by having non-Standard legal cards in a deck that you claim is Standard legal. Finally, you catch all the rest of the Magic players by saying "EEE-DEE-AYCH" (EDH (or Commander)).

And there you have it. You will be talking to more people than you would have wanted to talk to in no time.

 

Smoke_Stack wrote:

EDH is the best format anyway


See, it's starting already.

 

Break the Card
What is Break the Card?
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
Week 1 : Xenograft
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft. Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1 Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad.
Week 2 : Mindlock Orb
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269 Winner : Axterix with his Maralen of the Mornsong deck. Honorable mentions : Void_Elemental.
Week 3 : Bludgeon Brawl
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797 Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
Week 4 : Followed Footsteps
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
Week 5 : Delaying Shield
This week's card was Delaying Shield : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27790101/Break_the_Card_:_Delaying_Shield Winner : Tevish_Szat. Finalist : Vampire_Bat. Honorable Mention : Zix200.
Week 6 : Painter's Servant
This week's card was Painter's Servant : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27940861/Break_the_Card_:_Painters_Servant?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Paint it Black deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his Tiger, Tiger Painted Bright deck.
Week 7 : Venser, the Sojourner
This week's card was Venser, the Sojourner : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27977489/Break_the_Card_:_Venser,_the_Sojourner Winner : Izzett with her "Venser, Trickster Trader" deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his "Tactical Sojourner Action" deck.
Week 8 : Personal Sanctuary
This week's card was Personal Sanctuary : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28005461/Break_the_card_:_Personal_Sanctuary Winner : MrQuizzles. Honorable mention : Vampire_Bat and UbberSheep
Week 9 : Sundial of the Infinite
This week's card was Sundial of the Infinite : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28038277/Break_the_card_:_Sundial_of_the_Infinite Finalist : Izzett with her "Afterlife Trespassers" deck. Winner : Xeromus with his "Fortune 500" deck.
Week 10 : Jace's Archivist
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist. Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
Week 11 : Search the City
This week's card was Search the City : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29518555/Break_the_Card_:_Search_the_City Finalist : Mown with "A Thousand Footsteps". Winner : Desolation_masticore with "Burn the City".
Week 12 : Fiend Hunter
This week's card was Fiend Hunter : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29530975/Break_the_Card_:_Fiend_Hunter Winner : Yuyu63 with "Carnival Hunting". Honorable mention : Dknowle's "Champion the Fiend".
Week 13 : Clock of Omens
This week's card was Clock of Omens : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29541549/Break_the_Card_:_Clock_of_Omens?pg=1 Winner : Dknowle's "The Myrs Go Marching".
Week 14 : Light of Sanction
This week's card was Light of Sanction : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29607219/Break_the_Card_:_Light_of_Sanction?pg=1 Winner : Zauzich's "Divine Plague".
Week 15 : Assemble the Legion
This week's card was Assemble the Legion : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29662307/Break_the_Card_:_Assemble_the_Legion Winner : JBTM's "Some Assembly Required".
Week 16 : High Tide
This week's cards were High Tide and/or Bubbling Muck : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29760427/Break_the_Card_:_High_Tide Winner : Mown's "Puppet Strings".
Week 17 : Illusionist's Bracers
This week's card was Illusionist's Bracers : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29776943/Break_the_Card_:_Illusionistss_Bracers Winner : Enigma256's "Tezzeret's Bracers"
Week 18 : Savor the Moment
This week's card was Savor the Moment : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29787235/Break_the_Card_:_Savor_the_Moment Winner : POSValkir's "A Savory Filibuster!"
Week 19 : Grinning Ignus
This week's card was Grinning Ignus : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29795547/Break_the_Card_:_Grinning_Ignus Winner : dknowle's "Luren' and Laughin'".
Week 20 : Transcendence
This week's card was Transcendence : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29806481/Break_the_Card_:_Transcendence Winners : Mown's "Transcending Timing Restrictions" and Dknowle's "Blinded by Greed", tied for the win.
Week 21 : Mortus Strider
This week's card was Mortus Strider : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29818471/Break_the_Card_:_Mortus_Strider Winner : SimonGlume's "Mortus Head".
Week 22 : High Priest of Penance
This week's card was High Priest of Penance : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29917231/Break_the_Card_High_Priest_of_Penance Winners : JBTM's "Two Clerics and a Goblin walk into a (Bom)bar(dment)..." and POSValkir1's "Choke Their Rivers with Our Dead!".
Week 23 : False Cure
This week's card was False Cure :http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29964239/Break_the_Card_:_False_Cure Winner : Dknowle's "When Hippos Fly".

Week 24 : Akroan Horse

This week's card was Akroan Horse : http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4024821.

Winner : Dknowle's "Indian Giver".

Week 25 : Leylines

This week saw multiple cards being in the contest : all of the Leylines! http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4067621

Winner : POSValkir1's "Laying the Battle Lines".

If you do a mana weave and then sufficient shuffling, you're fine, but then what good was the mana weave?



It's good for a stalling infraction.
… and then, the squirrels came.
I don't see how mana weaving is considered cheating.....

Put very simply, there are two possible scenarios here; either the weaving helped you, or it didn't (because you, or your opponent, shuffled so much that it made no difference whether the deck started out weaved). In the first case, you're playing with a stacked deck, even if not so blatantly that you can predict every card that comes up. In the second case, you're not cheating, but then what was the point of weaving in the first place?

It's not right to categorically say mana weaving is cheating, but it is correct to say it's either cheating or pointless; and in either case, it's better if you don't do it than if you do.

Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Me personally, i like to have a fair game of both players having their mana to do what they want, not like it matters (first of all i don't play tournaments i just do causual play) but i split my lands in one pile then if there is anything but one type of basic lands i shuffle that. Shuffle my non-land pile, mana weave, shuffle 6-7 more times then set the deck infront of my opponent so that way they can cut the deck or as im starting to see a couple people do, shuffle it themself, if they so choose to. If my opponent wishes to mana weave before we start im fine with that. Its not as much fun for me if my opponent can't do anything because they don't have enough, or have too much excess of lands. But thats just me, every body has their own perogative. If I ever do decide to go to FNM or anything of that sort I will just have to remember to super shuffle while im there.

EDIT: I don't see what the problem with mana weaving is, as long as the deck gets shuffled a good number of times after it gets weaved perhaps i didn't explain well enough and came across as "mana weaving an then beginning the game wasn't a problem," yes i do like to win, but i also want to have fun while doing it because, its no fun if your not able to do anything. But thats just my way of thinking, and if somebody has a problem with how i think, then you can just deal with it.
>reminder to self< Best not to argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience
... I don't see what the problem with mana weaving is, as long as the deck gets shuffled a good number of times...



You still don't get it.


If you shuffle enough, the mana weaving you done has no effect.
 
If mana weaving has any effect, then you did not shuffle enough.   

It's one OR the other.
 

Thus, mana weaving can serve but one purpose: cheating. 
Time to get rid of this highly suspicious habit.  

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one thousand, people might notice;

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one million, I might get away with it;

If I wish to steal even more and still go unnoticed, I need to make the loot bigger.

 

Now you know why taxes always go up.

 

Looting: ''the plundering of public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities'' (Wikipedia)

Me personally, i like to have a fair game of both players having their mana to do what they want, not like it matters (first of all i don't play tournaments i just do causual play) but i split my lands in one pile then if there is anything but one type of basic lands i shuffle that. Shuffle my non-land pile, mana weave, shuffle 6-7 more times then set the deck infront of my opponent so that way they can cut the deck or as im starting to see a couple people do, shuffle it themself, if they so choose to. If my opponent wishes to mana weave before we start im fine with that. Its not as much fun for me if my opponent can't do anything because they don't have enough, or have too much excess of lands. But thats just me, every body has their own perogative. If I ever do decide to go to FNM or anything of that sort I will just have to remember to super shuffle while im there.



If that's how your group plays, that's fine. Do note that mana weaving is not acceptable in tournaments. And most people don't like it.

And mana weaving is never fair. A good shuffled deck is compeltely randomized and thus the fairest you can get. With mana weaving depending on how one player shuffles afterwards, or how one player distrubutes land, each player will have a difference level of randomness in their deck.

EDIT: I don't see what the problem with mana weaving is, as long as the deck gets shuffled a good number of times after it gets weaved perhaps i didn't explain well enough and came across as "mana weaving an then beginning the game wasn't a problem," yes i do like to win, but i also want to have fun while doing it because, its no fun if your not able to do anything. But thats just my way of thinking, and if somebody has a problem with how i think, then you can just deal with it.



The chances of a player with a properly built deck not being able to do anything is slim. Most of the time decks function fine.

Mana weaving adds another element of skill to the game, how well one can stack one's deck. Most people want games settled by skill in play and skill in deck building, not in how skilled a player is in mana weaving.

* If you are so concerned with fairness, why not just seperate lands out into a secondary pile and allow players to draw from that? That would provide aboslutely fairness.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Last friday, I had an opponent mana weave his deck and shuffle insufficiently. Instead of calling a judge (I would've looked like an ass in my store), I decided to shuffle it myself.

you are required to shuffle it anyway

proud member of the 2011 community team
Its not as much fun for me if my opponent can't do anything because they don't have enough, or have too much excess of lands.



Chance comes and goes but, on the long run, randomness is fair.
(actually fairer than most existing system, Magic and otherwise)
For the short-sighted, randomness sometimes appears unfair. Try and enlarge your perceptions. 
 
Magic is a game of cards: randomness has a critical role to play. 
Mana flood, mana screw and mana shortage are supposed to happen!

With well-mounted decks, bad mana will happen less frequently.
This is where players' skill at deck-building show up.




If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one thousand, people might notice;

If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one million, I might get away with it;

If I wish to steal even more and still go unnoticed, I need to make the loot bigger.

 

Now you know why taxes always go up.

 

Looting: ''the plundering of public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities'' (Wikipedia)

like i did say before if i ever decide to do FNM or tournaments i will try to remember to super shuffle and not mana weave. and in my group, were not that sinister to stack our decks and we always offer to cut before a game. the only thing that would be consider stacking would be mana weaving in the eyes of everyone who disagrees with me on this subject, and the only time i literally see anybody doing that is when they have plenty of land pockets in their deck. also most of us don't like winning a game where we won because somebody couldn't get any lands or creatures or do anything to defend themself. I also have a 5 color deck that doesn't do so hot if im not getting the right mana when i need it so that is more then likley why i don't have a problem with because i will admit after a few games with it i mana weave it and shuffle it a few times afterward, then shuffle it again before the game starts. but yes, mana weaving is acceptable in my group that i play with and until people start getting annoyed by it, it will continue to be so. Quite frankly the only people who don't mana weave at all are the ones who do play at FNM and i have yet to hear an objection from them
>reminder to self< Best not to argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience
Last friday, I had an opponent mana weave his deck and shuffle insufficiently. Instead of calling a judge (I would've looked like an ass in my store), I decided to shuffle it myself.

you are required to shuffle it anyway



It's only a requirement to shuffle your opponent's deck at Professional or Competitive REL.  It is not a requirement at lower REL, such as FNM.

You are required to tell a judge about any shuffling issues, though.


Once the deck is randomized, it must be presented to an opponent. By this action, players state that their decks are legal and randomized. The opponent may then shuffle it additionally. Cards and sleeves must not be in danger of being damaged during this process. If the opponent does not believe the player made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the opponent must notify a judge. 

Last friday, I had an opponent mana weave his deck and shuffle insufficiently. Instead of calling a judge (I would've looked like an ass in my store), I decided to shuffle it myself.

you are required to shuffle it anyway



It's only a requirement to shuffle your opponent's deck at Professional or Competitive REL.  It is not a requirement at lower REL, such as FNM.

You are required to tell a judge about any shuffling issues, though.


Once the deck is randomized, it must be presented to an opponent. By this action, players state that their decks are legal and randomized. The opponent may then shuffle it additionally. Cards and sleeves must not be in danger of being damaged during this process. If the opponent does not believe the player made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the opponent must notify a judge. 





I'm not disagreeing with anything that has been already said. I agree that manaweaving is cheating, and in particular, chaikov's comment was right on the money: if you shuffle enough, manaweaving has no effect - either that, or you didn't shuffle enough.


The problem I have is that, suppose your opponent manaweaves, riffles once or twice, maybe even three times, and hands it to you.


SUppose at this point you do as rudolf suggests, and call a judge.
The judge will listen to your story, and then (presumably) he will look at your opponent's deck.



But precisely what is he meant to be looking for?


It's going to be very difficult to make the case that the ordering of the cards isn't random. The problem is that the judge is asked to make a call as to whether or not the ordering of cards is "random enough".
sure, there might be no/minimal mana clumps (say, no more than 3 lands in a row) - but it is entirely possible that is the random ordering the deck has after shuffling and it would be next to impossible to prove otherwise.


At most, the judge is going to be able to tell the player to shuffle more in future. There would be no eveidence to substantiate a claim of cheating.
It's not even clear to me that the player should have anything on his record. He shuffled; whatever he did beforehand shouldn't matter, right?
It's no different to, if a player were to sort a tournament deck into 15 piles, each of 4 identical cards - entirely plausible for the purposes of correctly registering his deck - then shuffle a few times.



The situation obviously becomes very different if the player has a number of similar incidents on his record - but in reality it is unlikely to get to that level.
If there is a way to keep track of how players' decks are ordered over time, then sure, we might see more DQs for mana weaving. But until then, you have to be pretty dark blatant to be called for, and be busted for, cheating due to manaweaving.
So IMO players do it because it gives them an advantage (however small) and they can get away with it because it is impractical for judges to enfirce this rule against "manaweave then shuffle" strategies.

M:tG Rules Adviser
Well a judge won't nessiarly know if a deck is shuffled correctly or not in the case of mana weaving, but informing him of the situation means he can observe the player in the future.

Also informing the judge means that he has a record of a player's lack of shuffling correctly.

Finally, there might be witnesses to the mana weaving. And while not illegal in of itself, the judge should warn them because you are either cheating or wasting time.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Well a judge won't nessiarly know if a deck is shuffled correctly or not in the case of mana weaving, but informing him of the situation means he can observe the player in the future.

Also informing the judge means that he has a record of a player's lack of shuffling correctly.

Finally, there might be witnesses to the mana weaving. And while not illegal in of itself, the judge should warn them because you are either cheating or wasting time.




thing is, the rules don't say HOW you should randomise your deck. It just says that your deck should be "sufficiently randomised".


And you can't claim that manaweaving +shuffling 3 times is "wasting time" or "stalling" unless you're also going to say that shuffling 10-15 times is as well (both probably take as long as each other). And your opponent might justifiably call YOU for stalling if you shuffle his deck many times.

So until the day manaweaving is explicitly outlawed by the rules, I would be very, very surprised if anyone is actually penalised for doing it.

M:tG Rules Adviser
thing is, the rules don't say HOW you should randomise your deck. It just says that your deck should be "sufficiently randomised".



Right... the keyword there is "randomized". If i deal my deck into six piles and stack those piles together then you have not "randomized" your cards. Similarlly, mana weaving is not randomizing your deck. You can mana weave a thousand times and your deck won't be "sufficently randomized".

And you can't claim that manaweaving +shuffling 3 times is "wasting time" or "stalling" unless you're also going to say that shuffling 10-15 times is as well (both probably take as long as each other). And your opponent might justifiably call YOU for stalling if you shuffle his deck many times.



If i were to alphabetize my deck before shuffling, it would be no different from mana weaving. Both actions take time and add nothing to the final outcome of the shuffle.

Yes, if you shuffle too long or too slowly then your opponent might think you are stalling. But mana weaving is always pointless and thus always a waste of time.

So until the day manaweaving is explicitly outlawed by the rules, I would be very, very surprised if anyone is actually penalised for doing it.



It is... mana weaving by defnition makes you deck less random. Which goes against the definition of shuffling in the rulebook.

The rulebook doesn't have room to outlaw all things. Other things not explicitly outlawed in the rules: Stacking one's deck, looking at the top card of one's library, tearing up an opponent's cards, changing your life total just because, declaring yourself the winner.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Quite frankly the only people who don't mana weave at all are the ones who do play at FNM and i have yet to hear an objection from them



Not true. I don't play at FNM, don't play tournaments, and have never once mana weaved prior to shuffling because it's a waste of time or cheating. I don't like to waste my time wherever I play, and I certainly don't want to cheat when playing with my friends at home.

But, as others have said, you're free (obviously) to play however you like, but don't assume everyone will not see it as an attempt at cheating, especially if you've already been educated about it. It isn't just FNM and tournament players that don't like it.

Rules Advisor - 10/24/2010
your taking what i said out of context. i was refering to the people that i play with, i wasn't generlizing it to everybody
>reminder to self< Best not to argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience
thing is, the rules don't say HOW you should randomise your deck. It just says that your deck should be "sufficiently randomised".



Right... the keyword there is "randomized". If i deal my deck into six piles and stack those piles together then you have not "randomized" your cards. Similarlly, mana weaving is not randomizing your deck. You can mana weave a thousand times and your deck won't be "sufficently randomized".

And you can't claim that manaweaving +shuffling 3 times is "wasting time" or "stalling" unless you're also going to say that shuffling 10-15 times is as well (both probably take as long as each other). And your opponent might justifiably call YOU for stalling if you shuffle his deck many times.



If i were to alphabetize my deck before shuffling, it would be no different from mana weaving. Both actions take time and add nothing to the final outcome of the shuffle.

Yes, if you shuffle too long or too slowly then your opponent might think you are stalling. But mana weaving is always pointless and thus always a waste of time.

So until the day manaweaving is explicitly outlawed by the rules, I would be very, very surprised if anyone is actually penalised for doing it.



It is... mana weaving by defnition makes you deck less random. Which goes against the definition of shuffling in the rulebook.

The rulebook doesn't have room to outlaw all things. Other things not explicitly outlawed in the rules: Stacking one's deck, looking at the top card of one's library, tearing up an opponent's cards, changing your life total just because, declaring yourself the winner.




I think you're missing what I'm getting at: Unless the rules explicitly say "you cannot manaweave", the unfortunate reality is taht it is a form of cheating which CANNOT be enforced against by the judges.


Because the test in the rules is "sufficiently randomised", the evidence for that is not the act of manaweaving, but whether or not the deck "looks" randomised to the judge.


I'm saying that a judge, when they pick up a pile of cards, has almost no way of being able to tell whether or not the ordering of the cards is genuinely random or is influenced by some sort of manipulation.


I know that it is impractical for the rulebook to be exhaustive, but at the same time, the rulebook is sufficiently descriptive about (for example) what constitutes "unsportsmanlike" play. It is unable to be sufficiently descriptive about what constitutes "sufficiently randomised", so if there are certain actions which are likely to result in a deck being NOT "sufficiently randomised", the way to go is to outlaw those actions rather than outlawing presenting an "insufficiently randomised" deck, since it is next to impossible to prove this from a single parse of someone's deck at a point in time.


 

M:tG Rules Adviser
I think you're missing what I'm getting at: Unless the rules explicitly say "you cannot manaweave", the unfortunate reality is taht it is a form of cheating which CANNOT be enforced against by the judges.

Why? If you are mana weaveing you are either:

* Stalling/wasting time.
* Cheating by stacking your deck.

The judge will shuffle the suspect deck to make sure the deck is fairly shuffled, and will watch the suspect player's technique to see whether they are shuffling properly. If so, then the judge will warn the player that mana weaving is a waste of time, if they aren't shuffling enough the judge will tell them that and may issue a warning.

It can be enforced pretty easily.

Because the test in the rules is "sufficiently randomised", the evidence for that is not the act of manaweaving, but whether or not the deck "looks" randomised to the judge.



You can also see how they shuffle. If you mana weave then shuffle three times, your deck isn't random. At least 7 shuffles are required to randomize a deck. While it's impossible to say whether a deck is random by it's outcome, it's not impossible to examine the method of randiminzation.


I know that it is impractical for the rulebook to be exhaustive, but at the same time, the rulebook is sufficiently descriptive about (for example) what constitutes "unsportsmanlike" play. It is unable to be sufficiently descriptive about what constitutes "sufficiently randomised", so if there are certain actions which are likely to result in a deck being NOT "sufficiently randomised", the way to go is to outlaw those actions rather than outlawing presenting an "insufficiently randomised" deck, since it is next to impossible to prove this from a single parse of someone's deck at a point in time.



I would love for the Tournament/CR to go into greater detail on what shuffling is, but as they stand, it's clear that mana weaving is illegal. It's difficult to catch, sure, but it can be caught.

And at the end of the day, if you are suspicious, just call a judge over, tell him your concerns, and then shuffle your opponent's deck.
… and then, the squirrels came.

I would love for the Tournament/CR to go into greater detail on what shuffling is, but as they stand, it's clear that mana weaving is illegal.




While I agree with you in principle - this is unfortunately... incorrect. As the rules stand, it is explicit in them that manaweaving IS legal.


On page 14 of the Infraction Procedure Guide:



A player should shuffle his or her deck using multiple methods. Patterned pile-shuffling alone is not sufficient. Any manipulation, weaving, or stacking prior to randomization is acceptable, as long as the deck is thoroughly shuffled afterwards.



So the rules actually explicitly ALLOW players to manaweave, as long as they shuffle "thoroughly" afterwards. Whatever that means...
M:tG Rules Adviser
I'm saying that a judge, when they pick up a pile of cards, has almost no way of being able to tell whether or not the ordering of the cards is genuinely random or is influenced by some sort of manipulation.

Actually, it is possible to check for that sort of thing. It's often difficult, definitely time-consuming, is imperfect at best, and in addition to all that not all judges will know how to do it, but it is possible.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.


I would love for the Tournament/CR to go into greater detail on what shuffling is, but as they stand, it's clear that mana weaving is illegal.




While I agree with you in principle - this is unfortunately... incorrect. As the rules stand, it is explicit in them that manaweaving IS legal.


On page 14 of the Infraction Procedure Guide:



A player should shuffle his or her deck using multiple methods. Patterned pile-shuffling alone is not sufficient. Any manipulation, weaving, or stacking prior to randomization is acceptable, as long as the deck is thoroughly shuffled afterwards.



So the rules actually explicitly ALLOW players to manaweave, as long as they shuffle "thoroughly" afterwards. Whatever that means...



Yes, it is legal, as long as it's followed by a complete randomization.

Also known as 'mana weaving is a waste of time if you shuffle correctly afterward, and cheating if you don't.'

MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Because the test in the rules is "sufficiently randomised", the evidence for that is not the act of manaweaving, but whether or not the deck "looks" randomised to the judge.

I don't see how this follows. If it is clear what procedure was used, and clear that that procedure could not be expected to randomize the deck sufficiently, then ipso facto the deck isn't sufficiently randomized. It is not necessary to check the deck directly.

So the rules actually explicitly ALLOW players to manaweave, as long as they shuffle "thoroughly" afterwards. Whatever that means...

This isn't a counterargument to the claim most people in this thread are making - far from it, it's a restatement of that claim. In fact, you seem to have the same misunderstanding that's already been corrected several times. The claim is (A) "Mana weaving is always either cheating or a waste of time (depending on the thoroughness of your shuffling)", not (B) "mana weaving is, always and everywhere, cheating".

Arguments against (B) are, themselves, either cheating or a waste of time, since no-one is actually claiming (B). Do you actually disagree with (A)? If so, on what grounds?
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Whilst it doesn't personally bother me what people get up to in their own casual groups, I will share my own methods and opinions anyway.

Firstly, if your case is that your group is casual so a bit of mana weaving makes everything more fun for everyone as you will have better match ups then why not just concede the game after you miss you 4th, 5th or whatever land drop and it is clear you can't catch up.  There is nothing at stake and this way you can get on to the next game, quickly forgetting the previous game that was lost to chance.

Secondly, I personally don't mana weave, I do the following:
1.  Upon creation of a new deck (FNM for me is draft so this is at least every week) I will obviously start with a pile of land and a pile of spells.  I shuffle each separately then shuffle these together and then continue to shuffle until I am ready for my first match.
2.  After each game I will shuffle the cards I used together first, then shuffle these cards into my library until ready for presenting, all face down.
3.  Only if I have a game with mana issues will I look through my deck afterwards, face up, for clumps of mana, split them up and put them where mana is sparse, possibly not necessary but makes me feel better.  After that I will shuffle.

I don't have too many mana issues, one week I lost a match because in the first game I needed GG and had one forest out of about seven lands, then in the very next game of the match I needed RR and had one mountain in a similar situation.  Both times I needed that mana to play a card that could have turned it for me.  The same night though, I won a match because game two when I was up one my oponent got mana screwed and couldn't answer me.  Bad things happen sometimes, but not always to you.

Cheers
Part of the skill in Magic is deck building.  Part of deck building is having a good enough mana base so you don't get mana screwed.  If you have a 5 color deck, building the correct mana base for it can be quite a challenge.  There is a reason multicolor cards are usually more powerful than mono-colored cards (in terms of CMC), they are harder to provide the correct mana to cast.  If your 5 color deck keeps mana screwing you, the fix should be a different mana base, not mana weaving before the game.

As already pointed out, mana weaving only has two outcomes.
1) You didn't shuffle enough and therefore it is cheating.
2) You did shuffle enough and therefore wasted time. 
DCI Level 1 Judge Please autocard: [c]Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon[/c] = Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon [c=Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon]Skittles[/c] = Skittles Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
Yes, it is legal, as long as it's followed by a complete randomization.


Or in other words, as long as you eventually randomize your deck properly, it doesn't matter what nonrandom stuff you did beforehand: weaving, piling, alphabetizing, ... (de)sideboarding ....
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
The only time I ever took extra time to "mana weave" before shuffling, I was playing the R/B variant of RDW with Blightning, etc. - my reasoning was that:

A: I wouldn't actually know the order of the cards anyways, and with 24 lands (8 being Zendikar fetches) I was going to shuffle the living hell out of it anyways. And more importantly...

B: Stalling wasn't a factor. I was playing burn. How many matches involving RDW have you ever seen go to time? Hell, if I ever had a match over 30 minutes I'd be surprised. If I did, it damn sure wasn't my fault LOL

Now, in hindsight... Comparing that to any other deck I've ever played with, it made a MAJOR difference. The difference was truly night and day. I haven't mana weaved since and I notice that my land drops aren't as consistent. I especially noticed it during my brief venture into MTGO playing THE SAME DECK card for card... Finding lands in my games was like finding Mythics in booster packs =\

I haven't played at a tournament in a while. I just haven't had the money to put together a competitive Standard deck (or the desire to drive 35 miles each way to lose with a "decent" deck on a Friday night) - but I only "mana weave" now with my friends, and even then occasionally. It's pretty well understood among us that mana screw is lame as hell. And on occasion, we've tried some of the suggestions from T&T and had a lot more fun playing. But that's another kind of unrelated subject :p

Summary: Mana-weaving is cheating, period. In my experience, with any amount of shuffling, there is NO question that it increases the odds of getting lands when you want them. In tournaments, I haven't done it since I stopped playing RDW. Casually, with the people I play with most often we all do it. But with others, I just shuffle normally unless I see them do it. Then I assume they're cool with it and I follow suit.

Sean Stackhouse Level Two Judge (Yay!) Maine

Oh. And the other thing... I shuffle constantly anyways. I shuffle my deck at home sometimes when I'm just sitting around playing ypool or watching TV, when I did go to tournaments I was shuffling in between matches, before matches, hell I shuffled a bunch after my last match just because. I've found that it does help. Because let's say you finish a match a half hour before everyone else does. You can constantly shuffle, look at the cards while you shuffle, test-draw a few opening hands, shuffle some more, then box the deck up when pairings are announced and do your usual 6-pile shuffle or whatever it is you do, as long as it isn't mana-weaving of course :p

Sean Stackhouse Level Two Judge (Yay!) Maine

In a 52-card deck, that deck must be rifle shuffled a minimum of 7 times for it to be considered sufficiently random.

In a 60-card deck, 7 is no longer the minimum.  8 would be the absolute minimum, but 9 is more likely.

Therefore, I always rifle shuffle my decks 10 times.  Sometimes I throw in a pile shuffle in order to count the deck to make sure it is still exactly 60 cards (or whatever the starting number was).  But, I always ensure that i hit 10 rifle shuffles.  This doesn't take long, but it takes longer than most people are willing to commit to.  

It saddens me when people aren't shuffling enough to randomize their cards.  They have built their decks properly to ensure they get good starting hands, but then they don't shuffle their decks and wonder why their starting hands are not what they are expecting.  You built the deck, now use it properly.  Shuffle, shuffle, shuffle and do it properly.  Your game will thank you.  How can you ensure your deck is operating properly if you don't get proper information?
Well, I do apologize for the nub question that started this thread, but I certainly love the discussion that came with it.

Lesson learned:  Don't mana weave and shuffle like 8-10 times. 
You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.