Expansion Pack Release Date?

69 posts / 0 new
Last post
Does anyone know when the expansion decks will be released (for PSN at least)?

I keep seeing the descriptions with all the cards and after having run the 10 core decks pretty much into the ground I'm ready for new decks.
Not an official announcement, but September 11th seems the most obvious and likely date.
Not an official announcement, but September 11th seems the most obvious and likely date.



No doubt, good looks!

Not an official announcement, but September 11th seems the most obvious and likely date.


why
Not an official announcement, but September 11th seems the most obvious and likely date.


why



Dont know Splattercats exact reasoning but it might have something to do with "Return to Ravicana" being released early in October and releasing every DoTP/Expansion/DLC so far 2-3 weeks previous to the release on a tuesday.

Absurdity, n. A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.

 

Yeah sometime in early September.


I also think we will get a second Expansion Pack with the 5 guilds from Gatecrash - Simic, Orzhov, Gruul, Dimir, Boros. Would be so sweet!

IMAGE(http://oi39.tinypic.com/14mvxh5.jpg)

Not an official announcement, but September 11th seems the most obvious and likely date.


why



Dont know Splattercats exact reasoning but it might have something to do with "Return to Ravicana" being released early in October and releasing every DoTP/Expansion/DLC so far 2-3 weeks previous to the release on a tuesday.


This, plus '12s Expansion hit on September 13th/14th last year.
I hope in this expansion they allow customize the amount of land cards in each deck.
And a new algorithm to shuffle the library.  Something to reduce the chance of having 3 or 4 land in a row.
....Something to reduce the chance of having 3 or 4 land in a row.



Well, that IS magic. 

...but at the same time I must say, that there is strange amount of times I get flooded / screwed with mana. In 61 card decks. The 80+ I play against seem to NOT have the same problem.

...but at the same time I must say, that there is strange amount of times I get flooded / screwed with mana. In 61 card decks. The 80+ I play against seem to NOT have the same problem.




Nothing strange about that.

61-card deck with 24 land = 1:1.54 land:nonland ratio
80-card deck with 30 land = 1:1.67 land:nonland ratio
100-card deck with 37 land = 1:1.7 land:nonland ratio

Because of the way land is handeled automatically, the more cards you have in your deck, the less likely you are to get mana flooded.

Of course, you're also less likely to draw good cards, so it's not really worth it. Manual control of land amounts would be much preferred in either case.
I am just asking something to REDUCE the chance of having 3 or 4 lands in a row. Not to remove that chance completely.

I think, that anyone who play magic with real deck care about no shuffle so much.  And before start a duel, we put a land every 1 or 2 cards, then we shuffle with care.

But when the program does it..   is fully random each time.

That is difference.

With a good algorithm, the talent will be more important than luck. Is not this what we all want?

How many times you get 6 lands in the first hand or 6 spells in the first hand? Or 5 land in a row?   In the DOTP is very common.


Because of the way land is handeled automatically, the more cards you have in your deck, the less likely you are to get mana flooded.
That is true..  is something that I learn in statistics.
It shuffles each card randomly and counts lands as an equal card compared to the nonlands.  There's nothing wrong with how the shuffling works.  24 lands in a 61 card deck results in a 39% chance the first card will be a land.  This increases each time you draw a card that is not a land because then you're dealing with less of a card pool, which means the chances of stumbling into a clump of lands is more likely or then again, less likely from drawing nonlands.

You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
It shuffles each card randomly and counts lands as an equal card compared to the nonlands.  There's nothing wrong with how the shuffling works.  24 lands in a 61 card deck results in a 39% chance the first card will be a land.  This increases each time you draw a card that is not a land because then you're dealing with less of a card pool, which means the chances of stumbling into a clump of lands is more likely or then again, less likely from drawing nonlands.




There is also nothing wrong with peperoni pizza but if the pizza place decided to give me another free topping to make me better enjoy my experience I would take it.  

I would like to see something like this put into play as I think it would add value to game play experience, but it pales in comparison to some other "more legitimate" concerns.   
See something like what put into play?  You're quoting me but I'm confused as to what exactly you're referring to in my post since the game already shuffles decks in this manner.
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
They want to screw around with randomness implementing a mechanic that reduces negative outcome.

This is pretty retarded imo since this is an important aspect of the game. There are even decks that work with this same aspect (decks that are able to search/tutor for lands or specific cards). Giving all decks a higher rate of getting the cards they need would be a indirect nerf to those decks that actually include cards to do that.
Would be really stupid to implement something like that. Random is random. Deal with it or play decks that aren't that dependent on it.
There's nothing wrong with how the shuffling works


You read my post?
First:  is not like we shuffle in the real magic game, so is not a good simulator.
Second:  I dont have any problem if I lost by a bad decision, but if lost against any noob several times just becoz i get 5 or 6 land in a row..   is not cool.

KungfuDojo:  I am talking about lands!!! what it has the other card to do with this???
Please... can someone read and think what I am saying??
 

I read your post.  How everyone shuffles in real life is not truly random.  Treating each card equally when it comes to shuffling is as random as you can get.  You can't prioritize cards in the fashion that you're suggesting and call it random.

You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
And before start a duel, we put a land every 1 or 2 cards, then we shuffle with care.



This is an incorrect way to shuffle.  Granted everyone I play the physical card game with does this also however it's still incorrect.  If I was going to play in a tournament, I would imagine I'd be required to have a much more random shuffle than what I use currently but not sure since I'm not really into any tournaments.


But when the program does it..   is fully random each time.




This is the correct way to shuffle.  Either it's random or it's not.
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
You are wrong in everything.
In tournaments everyone shuffle like that.  If someone win just by luck the whole tournament.. there it will no tournaments at all.  Why make people to compete if is just luck the main factor?  There it will not be professional players in that case.

You see profesional players in lottery?

And I am just asking to REDUCE (not remove) the chance of having 3 or 5 land in a row. The other cards can be in the place that they want.. I give a ****!
This is a strategics game!!   Not a roulette.

Maybe my english is very bad and you can not understand me, but I think is a very logical ask.
Like to be able to set the amount of land that we want. That is magic!


 
What you are describing is not shuffling, I would call it cheating. Part of the skill of building a deck is determining how many land cards to include so that on average you don't get land flooded or starved. Why not just go through your whole deck and lay it out exactly like you want it to play? That cheating too much for you? There is no way that tournaments are conducted with money on the line and people are allowed to "shuffle" that way.

Should we be able to adjust how many basic lands are in our decks in DoTP? Of course. What you are asking for should never, ever get added in. 
I've played in a lot of tournaments, back in the day.  No one was allowed to shuffle like that.

Shuffle the whole thing 6-7 times and go. 
Yeah sometime in early September.


I also think we will get a second Expansion Pack with the 5 guilds from Gatecrash - Simic, Orzhov, Gruul, Dimir, Boros. Would be so sweet!



I also think this will happen, except instead of orzhov, Karn's deck.
So, it was my english then...
Yes!  first.. you have your deck with land and spells, you put land between them.
Then you shuffle the whole thing 6 or 7 times.  And that is different that fully random.

And in the physsical game is the concern that you make shuffle techniques to allow you get 1 spell in the first hand.
There is not this concern here becoz the computer is the one who shuffle.
(and is not full random, if someone know something about programing, he/she will know that there are no such thing like a real random function in binary, they always take a parameter like the time and day, in some cases you will notice that your hand after some reset and mulligans looks the same, is a problem about work with binary options, you can read about that.  But is ok..  is sufficiently random to the task)


Part of the skill of building a deck is determining how many land cards to include
And that is the first thing that i am asking.. we dont have that!!!

so that on average you don't get land flooded or starved
So, now we have 25 land in each deck and the chance of having flooded or starved are super common.What is wrong then?

So, you think is ok to lose or win 1/3 of the games just for flooded or starved, when in this case.. we have an average of land cards.

Personally I hate if I win or lose just becoz luck, is like I lost 7 min of my life in a match who does not mean anything..
I guest less talented players will think different.





 

This is an incorrect way to shuffle.  Granted everyone I play the physical card game with does this also however it's still incorrect.  If I was going to play in a tournament, I would imagine I'd be required to have a much more random shuffle than what I use currently but not sure since I'm not really into any tournaments.




Exactly the point of most everyone that thinks it would be nice.  We all do it in casual games to add to the game quality.  Since Duels is more about fun and trying to get people into the game than MtG Online, why not give us this little indulgence to increase the quality of the games even if it really isn't "right"?  Everyone recognizes that mana screw/flood just sucks and really doesn't positively contribute to the game no matter if it is you or your opponent getting it.  I get no satisfaction from beating someone round 7 when they only have two mana on the board.      

Most everyone at weekly tournaments I have played at recently do some sort of mana spread prior to shuffling.  I haven't been to a full on convention tournament since the 90s, but I only had one person there complain about the fact that I did a mana spread prior to shuffling because he had never seen it, but he ended up going with it.


To clarify, I seriously doubt this change will ever see play because it is really hard to argue for concrete terms to become flexible and still maintain real rules, I was just expressing empathy with the OP.
In tournaments everyone shuffle like that. If someone win just by luck the whole tournament. there it will no tournaments at all. Why make people to compete if is just luck the main factor? There it will not be professional players in that case.

You are very wrong. At all sanctioned tournaments, players are required to completely randomize their deck. It is cheating to order some cards in your deck so that you will draw less lands in a row.

From the Tournament Rules:
3.9 Card Shuffling

Decks must be randomized at the start of every game and whenever an instruction requires it. Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any infirmation regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck. Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random.

You will please read my last post and edit your answer PirateAmmo.
 
You guys "set" your decks because it's humanly impossible to shuffle randomly and after each game, you've got a bigass clump of mana sitting in front of you (re: the lands you put into play). Simply shuffling that in isn't likely to adequately disperse that land clump.

That or you're cheating.

Either or, unless there's something in the rules about -- Oh, look what I found:

103.1. At the start of a game, each player shuffles his or her deck so that the cards are in a random order. Each player may then shuffle or cut his or her opponents’ decks. The players’ decks become their libraries.

Yep, DotP does it correctly.


EDIT: to be fair, I can empathize with how you feel the shuffling works. However, if I'm your opponent and you evenly distribute your land then shuffle 6 or 7 times, it's my right to declare your cards not sufficiently randomized and have you continue shuffling or have someone else (in terms of a tournament, a judge) shuffle them sufficiently for you.

I've seen people at FNM torunaments that actually set their deck a more particular way; they actually redistribute spells vs. creatures as well as land (spell-creature-land, spell-creature-land etc.) And yeah, people were calling them on it and telling them to continue shuffling because their decks were so completely NOT randomized.
Agreed.  It sucks drawing lands multiple turns in a row, especially when you don't need it.  I think my record is 12 or so and I definitely sympathize with you...however that doesn't change the fact that doing what you're suggesting is cheating.  The deck is not random when you do it. 

The fact that I, my girlfriend and a few others do it is more of a house rule.  If I went to a FNM, then I wouldn't do that because it's not random.  I get what you're saying but this isn't something that will ever be implemented.  It makes more sense to let this topic die and continue discussing the expansion.
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
English is not easy for me, but I read all your post before comment..  what is your excuse?
I need to explain over and over and over the same??

This is like 2+2=4, why is so hard to understand?

I will quote my self:
you have your deck with land and spells, you put land between them.

Then you shuffle the whole thing 6 or 7 times. 

That is not cheat!!

If the game reduce the chance of having many lands in a row (REDUCE, NOT REMOVE) for everyone of course!!, it will improve the gameplay.
And we are talking about the lands only!!

If you search Magic the Gathering in wikipedia, one of the most criticized aspects from the game is the luck factor!
And that taking in count that a physical shuffle is not so hard like a digital.

LanceKalzas said his record is 12 lands in a row, I start playing the digital game 1 weak ago, my record is like 9 land in a row, and I stuck several times with only 2 lands until the turn 7 or more, I die always before to see when my bad luck finish.

I play like 2 years the real game and I dont have any remember of having so much bad luck.. And I shuffle many times with any care when i was with my friends.

So you thing that win or lose 1/3 games just by flooded or starved improves the game?? 
With this kind of fully random algorith, it does not matter much if you has 40 lands or 10 lands, you can have flooded or starved in both cases.

How I said, for me win or lose by luck, is time lost. 
And i am just asking to reduce a bit the luck factor about lands.

About the expansion, the people who choose the decks for the game, are different from the people who design the software.. I have more trust in them, they know how to balance. 
 
This idea of manual land count is fantastic it is something I hope DoTP has in future but not because of Land flood or screw, but because I am sick of seeing aggresive decks like Kerenko's get butchered by playing 24/25 lands, when closer to 20 would be correct for a low curve deck.
  And before start a duel, we put a land every 1 or 2 cards, then we shuffle with care.

.




That is called mana weaving. Any judge sees you shuffle like that, they would make you actually shuffle it and stand there and watch. You would be lucky if you didn't get off with a game warning. And if you sat down across from me, did that, presented your deck for me to cut, I'd pick it up and shuffle it for you.
@AngelLestat

I agree with you that winning or losing by luck is not fun.  To be 100% honest I have never 'won' a game via my opponent having bad luck....they always quit if that were to happen.  I think it is only amplified in this game because of the limited card pool and the inability to trim land.  

If they changed the shuffle method from something as random as they can make it, to something a little less random it would kind of defeat the purpose of random.  Also, the current randomness is fair for everyone so it is hard to complain.  Granted a less than random randomness would be equally fair but would give people aware of it and people who are better at the game a rather large advantage.

As said above if you somehow change the randomness it will make all of the cards that allow you to search your library less powerful.  You already will be getting a card you would rather have instead of that land, you will also reduce the need to add cards that thin your deck.

Being able to reduce the ammount of land in your deck would mitigate this problem and is more likely to happen than changing random shuffles.  
@AngelLestat

You are suggesting that the game reduce the probability that you get mana flooded or mana screwed. This is cheating, because it is modifying the draw, which is otherwise random. Many others have already quoted the specific rule which prohibits what you're suggesting, and you don't seem to understand that. The fact that it might make the game more enjoyable does not, in any way whatsoever, justify cheating.

You also don't seem to realise that your shuffling technique in real life is against the rules. To quote,


you have your deck with land and spells, you put land between them.
Then you shuffle the whole thing 6 or 7 times.


That is not cheat!!




It is cheating, because it means that your deck is not as random as it should be. Acknowledge your mistake, and move on.

As for future expansions, many of them seem to be multi-coloured. I'm really hoping for big fat angels from Avacyn Restored, like Sigarda, Host of Herons and Gisela, Blade of Goldnight.
Maxkirgan:   You are joking me ?  XD  you quote only the part that i said about lands and spell, then you ignore  the row below when I said (after that, you shuffle 6 or 7 times.)   That is an argument to you?

People!  lets put something in clear..  If a judges see that a deck it has 1 land every 1 or 2 spells, it will said that is not fully randomized..  That is ok.. we are all agree..   But I am not saying that!!   I am saying that after put a land every each spell, you shuffle the whole thing 7 times..  when a judges see that deck.. it will be a lot of parts with 2 or 4 lands in a row.   And that.. is not cheat!!  we are clear?

But when a computer does it.. is very problably to have 4 to 9 lands in a row.  This problem is bigger when you have a deck with 2 colors.

If we are not clear, show me the rule who said that you can not do that!  ANd dont forget that I am saying shuffle 7 times after that. 
And thouse rules exist only to avoid the perfect land match or to avoid fake shuffles or spells positions.
MagnetMagic is asking for muli-coloured deck for this expansion.. with this kind of shuffling it will be impossible to play it, you can have islands in a half of the deck, and montains in the other half.
If you lose or win 1/3 of the game by luck, with a multi-coloured deck it will be 1/2 of the times.

And why is cheat when we are talking about a land system that work for everyone... 
I am not saying remove the luck factor..  just reduce the chance of having many lands together.

And we are talking about the gameplay experiencie.  if something like that it will improve the gameplay experience..  why is wrong?
Is a shame, becoz all the card who has protection against one color, is just to encourage people to use multicolor decks, but this kind of shuffle it will do the opposite.


Yourhero1: somehow change the randomness it will make all of the cards that allow you to search your library less powerful
why you said that? We are talking about lands only.. and just reduce the chance of having 3 or 6 lands in a row, but this possibility it will still exist.
And this is not a problem for the card who search lands either, becoz the main reason of that kind of cards, example Nature's Lore is be able to play 2 lands in one turn.
In case of Liliana's Shade is just like 2 cards in one, you got a swamp and a creature occupying only one place in your deck..  but is nothing like you said that you will make less powerfull this spells.


One thing we are all agree i guess,  we need to be able to set our amount of lands in each deck.

People!  lets put something in clear..  If a judges see that a deck it has 1 land every 1 or 2 spells, it will said that is not fully randomized..  That is ok.. we are all agree..   But I am not saying that!!   I am saying that after put a land every each spell, you shuffle the whole thing 7 times..  when a judges see that deck.. it will be a lot of parts with 2 or 4 lands in a row.   And that.. is not cheat!!  we are clear?


If the deck isn't sufficiently random, it's not allowed. The way you describe, your land is spread throughout the deck a predictable manner. That's not random. Your opponent can have the deck shuffled more or by someone else. After a certain point it will be declared by your opponent to be sufficiently random. At that point. it won't matter how you put the land in your deck before shuffling.

If we are not clear, show me the rule who said that you can not do that!  ANd dont forget that I am saying shuffle 7 times after that.



As pointed out above, From the rules for every Magic game:
103.1.
At the start of a game, each player shuffles his or her deck so that the cards are in a random order. Each player may then shuffle or cut his or her opponents’ decks. The players’ decks become their libraries.



From the Tournament rules:
3.9 Card Shuffling
Decks must be randomized at the start of every game and whenever an instruction requires it. Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck. Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random.

Again, note the bolded part. As you said above, you know the land will be in parts of 2-4. Therefore you have information regarding the order of cards in the deck. Therefore it's not random. Therefore it's against the rules.

If "shuffle 7 times" is making it completely random then it doesn't matter how you spread your land through the deck. Sufficiently random means you could put all your land in one hand, all the non-land in the other, shuffle them 7 times and play.
If "shuffle 7 times" doens't allow you to do that, then you're not suffiiciently randomizing the cards. 


Yourhero1: somehow change the randomness it will make all of the cards that allow you to search your library less powerful
why you said that? We are talking about lands only.. and just reduce the chance of having 3 or 6 lands in a row, but this possibility it will still exist.
And this is not a problem for the card who search lands either, becoz the main reason of that kind of cards, example Nature's Lore is be able to play 2 lands in one turn.
In case of Liliana's Shade is just like 2 cards in one, you got a swamp and a creature occupying only one place in your deck..  but is nothing like you said that you will make less powerfull this spells.


One thing we are all agree i guess,  we need to be able to set our amount of lands in each deck.



Changing one thing, in this instance random deck shuffles, can have a ripple effect on not only what you play but how you play it.

It does reduce the power of those cards, as you now are just drawing cards you would rather have.  Which is what the point of the cards that allow you to search your deck.  You would not need a 2-in-1 card as the shuffle has been changed to make those cards moot.

I certainly appreciate your idea, but I do not know if changing the shuffle is the way to eliminate the luck factor. 
The rule it does not said the things that you are saying...
And I dont have any clue of how my cards are after 7 shuffles, you can have a clue?   I am just saying that is more problably that you can not find 10 land in a row.  but until you dont find a rule who said 7 shuffles is not enough, or find 3 or 4 land toghetther is not enough.. then you can not said nothing against that..

You think that in a tornament every body shuffle his librery 100 times??  nobody cares about that..  is just in case that someone see an opponent shuffle his deck only 1 time or he does a weirds movement while shuffles., then they can call some judges.

You are misinterpreting and prioritizing a rule which was not made for that purpose.

And you think that wizard of the coast really cares about the right things?   they allow to have at least 1 black lotus, or all the moxes, and all the other super rare cards in the restricted list (if you can afford to buy one) just becoz they have beneficts from that. Is ok, they make this game to make money, but we play it to get fun.

You read the other guys, anyone hates win or lose just by luck.  And this happens too often to be ignored in the digital game.
Is about improve our gameplay experience what we are talking about.. not how a single player can have beneficts or cheat against others.

Yourhero1:  Sorry, i guess i dont follow you.. why you dont use an example... what card it will be less important for you with this change?
Name a specific card. 
I'd like to know how a topic about the expansion's release date turned into an arguement about what is and isn't valid shuffling for paper magic on a forum for a digital game.

Duels of the Planeswalkers deck builds and analysis: http://megamaster125.angelfire.com/dotp

 

Another one of my websites: http://megamaster125.angelfire.com/rationalchristianity/

 

I am Blue/White



You think that in a tornament every body shuffle his librery 100 times??  nobody cares about that..  is just in case that someone see an opponent shuffle his deck only 1 time or he does a weirds movement while shuffles., then they can call some judges.



At competetive REL events judges generally require players to cut their opponents decks by shuffling them. This also happens when a deck gets shuffled as a result of a spell or ability. Not really a big deal in Swiss rounds, it's pretty much up to the two players. I have seen judges stop players that just do a casual cut and ask them to shuffle in Swiss rounds though. Once the event cuts to top 8, judges watch things even more closely and everybody is required to cut their opponents decks with a shuffle. So no, decks aren't shuffled 100 times, but they are shuffled more than you might think.
What I'm seeing here, is actually two issues that are at odds with eachother. Some people are defending one side, some the other. To outline:

- After playing a game, cards that have been played are fairly split in two stacks: One is lands, the other is non-lands;
- The deck, after shuffling, has to be fully random, with no card being predictable;

I will start with the latter: statistically speaking, you have a random distribution of which you know about 35-40% are lands. So, whichever card you draw, you know that about 35-40% are going to be lands, or that you have about 35-40% chance to draw a land. Of course, you have a chance of mana starvation when you draw very few lands, or mana flooding when you draw a lot (had both during a private sealed deck tourney recently), but total random distribution has the lands distributed about evenly most of the time.

However, that excludes the first: when after a game, you have a clump of "Lands" and a clump of "non-Lands" that you somehow have to merge into your deck. Now I admit that I have never been in an official tournament, so I am curious how people handle that. How do you merge your non-Library cards into your Library?

If you just bunch them up, then you will need a lot of shuffling to break apart the clumps, otherwise you can predict where you will get a clump of Lands or non-Lands, which - by the rules - is prohibited. If you mana-weave them (a technique I usually apply with my kitchentable games, before shuffling them in my hands a number of times), you know the initial distribution is controlled and thereby also not random - which is also prohibited by the rules.

Is there a shuffle technique that makes sure that neither occurs?

As an aside, even though the rules allow for it: I think it's a fairly cheap and corny way to lose or win a game, when either you or your opponent has to concede a game due to mana flooding or mana starvation.
If you just bunch them up, then you will need a lot of shuffling to break apart the clumps, otherwise you can predict where you will get a clump of Lands or non-Lands, which - by the rules - is prohibited. If you mana-weave them (a technique I usually apply with my kitchentable games, before shuffling them in my hands a number of times), you know the initial distribution is controlled and thereby also not random - which is also prohibited by the rules.

Is there a shuffle technique that makes sure that neither occurs?

All you have to do is shuffle enough so that it does not matter what the deck was like before you started shuffling.

You are allowed to diperse your lands throughout your deck before you shuffle, but it is cheating if you do it to try to gain an advantage. AngelLestat said that they weave their lands so that they are less affected by luck and are less likely to draw many lands in a row. That is why what they described was cheating.

Competitive tournament players shuffle their decks a lot. You can see an example here. It is normal to spend two to three minutes at the beginning of a game shuffling.
Sign In to post comments