Tournament Rules Question on Opponent Shuffling

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
There is a guy at the local LGS who shuffles your deck normally after you present it to him except that when he is done shuffling he cuts the deck taking one card at a time out until he gets seven cards and then places those seven on the top of your library. 

I haven't played him because we get quite a few people at the store even though we're both regulars. I'm wondering what I can do to prepare myself against him doing this to me because I don't feel that it's right and I don't think he should be able to do this. I couldn't find a section in the Tournament Rules that says something about this so maybe I overlooked. If there is a section I want to be prepared. The owner is usually the head judge but if I could have the article and section handy for him it could make it easier on everybody and finally getting this guy to stop shuffling this way. 

Any help is appreciated. Thank you.  
There is a guy at the local LGS who shuffles your deck normally after you present it to him except that when he is done shuffling he cuts the deck taking one card at a time out until he gets seven cards and then places those seven on the top of your library. 

I haven't played him because we get quite a few people at the store even though we're both regulars. I'm wondering what I can do to prepare myself against him doing this to me because I don't feel that it's right and I don't think he should be able to do this. I couldn't find a section in the Tournament Rules that says something about this so maybe I overlooked. If there is a section I want to be prepared. The owner is usually the head judge but if I could have the article and section handy for him it could make it easier on everybody and finally getting this guy to stop shuffling this way. 

Any help is appreciated. Thank you.  



I don't think there is anything against that, unless it is taking too long or you think he's looking at the cards and stacking your deck.
To prevent the shuffling, nothing you can do about that.  Depending on the REL, either he has the option or he's required to.

As for the seven cards on top, about the only thing I can think of is trying to hit him with slow play or something similar since it's not adding to the randomization but that's a long shot at best.  You could also try and appeal to the Owner/Judge that the 7 card placement is pointless unless he's somehow stacking it, but baseless allegations of cheating should be avoided.

Personally, I'd either let it go or just ask him not to.  If both of you did a good job randomizing, the 7 cards on top won't will only have an effect if he knows what those cards are.
I think it's some kind of manipulation of game materials. Something along these lines. 

We've had a problem with this in the past but I don't want it to happen against me. I doubt that he is doing some kind of sleight of hand but I think my point is that he could be and I can't prove it so he should shuffle in conventional ways. 
I tried very hard to find a rule that would give you a useful answer. I know this would annoy me to no end if someone actually did this to me. The best I can come up with is a dry interpretation of the shuffling rule.

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.


The rule explicitly states "shuffle or cut his or her opponents’ decks". As picking cards out of your deck and stacking them on top is neither "shuffling" or "cutting", I would say this is not allowed and the opponent should reshuffle.

Hope that helps. Sealed

New Players Click Here
This board uses a feature known as Autocard. It allows you to tag a card or group of cards and link them directly to the Gatherer for easy reference.

Here's how it works: Say I start a discussion about Lightning Bolt. It is well and fine for people who are familiar with Lightning Bolt and everything Lightning Bolt does.

Suppose somebody doesn't know what this card does.

I can autocard like this: [c]Lightning Bolt[/c] and it appears to everyone like this: Lightning Bolt.

You can do the same thing to an entire decklist at once by using [deck] and [/deck] at the begining and end of your list respectively.

This will make your decks easier to understand and get you better responses.

 

Here are some useful links to get you started:

Building Your First Deck

The Rule of Nine

Magic: The Gathering Rules

Magic: The Gathering Formats

Tips & Tricks

Catotheyounger wrote:
Back when I was in high school, I used to write little quotes on the whiteboard of my chemistry class, little, funny things that I'd made up and attributed to an anonymous author. Just tiny things I found amusing. Some time near the end of the year, a substitute teacher came in, read it, and told us a quote she had heard from a 13 year old girl. I don't remember what it was, but the quote sounded deep and philosophical. Then I actually thought about it. I realized that the quote was actually meaningless, but simply couched in the language of philosophy and depth. And that's what your post is. It is meaningless bull**** that you said in such a way as to make it seem sophisticated. But just as a lab coat doesn't make you a scientist, language won't make you a philosopher. Only love of wisdom will. And until then, you will always remind me of a nameless 13 year old girl.
That's the best I've heard so far. Thank you. 
You could ask the Judge to have him shuffle differently "because I feel it would be very easy for my opponent to accidentally see the cards I'll end drawing".
The rule explicitly states "shuffle or cut his or her opponents’ decks". As picking cards out of your deck and stacking them on top is neither "shuffling" or "cutting", I would say this is not allowed and the opponent should reshuffle.

Technically, his actions does match the definition of shuffling since it's a form of pile shuffling.

Anyway, the Tournament Rules override that definition with a better one. They require "randomization" (not "shuffling"), and his method does produce a random deck.
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.



Judge has been called on it before and we've had to deal with it a lot in the past and he still does it. 

See, in my eyes it doesn't produce a random deck because he is take out the seven cards from my deck for me. I don't know if he has the ability to use sleight of hand as I'm not trained to spot those kinds of things. I just don't want him manipulating my cards in that way.  
Judge has been called on it before and we've had to deal with it a lot in the past and he still does it.

Out of curiosity, what did the judge say?

See, in my eyes it doesn't produce a random deck because he is take out the seven cards from my deck for me.

Does anyone know what those seven cards are? If not, it's random. Period.

I just don't want him manipulating my cards in that way.  

So it makes you uncomfortable. As I mentioned earlier, you should ask the judge to have him shuffle differently because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Politely. This is the only recourse I see.

Judge told him to stop and watched him shuffle the deck and he did it again. 

Do you know what sleight of hand is? I don't know what he's doing and don't want him to be doing that.

If somebody is doing something that makes you uncomfortable then they should stop. But I'm not going to be polite to him because he's been asked many times to not do it.  
Here's the thing. You always shuffle your own library first. By the time your opponent gets the deck, it should already be random, so nothing he does to it will change the fact that it's random unless he looks at the card faces, which is its own violation. Shuffle your library thoroughly, then make sure he doesn't see the card faces when it's in his hands.

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

Assuming your opponent isn't engaging in sleight-of-hand (which would be nigh-impossible to perform with a deck that's not his with unknown contents presented in an unknown order), there is absolutely nothing wrong with that method of shuffling. Cutting out seven random cards from a randomized deck and putting them on top doesn't make it any less random.

However, if it makes you uncomfortable you can ask him to stop, get a judge to do so, or ask a judge to shuffle for him instead. Though personally I'd just recommend ignoring it--it's very likely the entire reason he does it in the first place is to put his opponents on tilt, and from the sounds of it he's succeeding in spades with you. The more you let it get under your skin the more you're encouraging him to continue.


That said...
Judge told him to stop and watched him shuffle the deck and he did it again.

That right there? That's failing to follow a direct instruction from a tournament official. At a Competitive-level event it would be classified as Unsporting Conduct--Major and be punishable with a Game Loss. Even at Regular-level events, a player who continues to exhibit specific unwanted behaviors after being instructed otherwise by a tournament official can be given game losses.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

It's more that I want to do it on behalf of the other people who just put up with it and make his time less than worth it. All standard events at this store are free and we have a higher level base of players so I think it's pretty insulting for him to do this to other very experienced players just for the sake of it. There is little prize support for these free events even though we get 30-50 people regularly.

It seems that getting the judge to shuffle my deck is the only thing but I think I would mostly be inclined to do that if it was a large tournament. It's more of a hassle for the store owner and the other people that work there.

Could he get unsportsmanlike conduct or something because he is making me feel uncomfortable through his actions.  
I don't see how the store owners/organisers would let this continue if it's making people uncomfortable. As has been stated, barring actual slight of hand(unlikely), the only reason to do this would be to purpousfully get under the skin and annoy an opponent, which is right in the wheelhouse of "unsportmanlike." You not wanting to hassle the store staff is, I believe, the wrong approach. The discomfort needs to make it's way up the food chain for anything to change. Remember it's this guy trying to be funny with his shuffling that is the problem here.  
First off, it is an odd way to shuffle a deck and the guy is just plain being a jerk by not listening to others concerns about his shuffling style.

If the general consensus is that most players do not like playing with him because of his shuffle there is a very easy solution.  Do not play against him.  Give up the win and take the loss.  If nobody plays against him he will either change the way he shuffles or won't come back.  Problem solved.

Like you said it is free and prizes are not really the incentive to play so people are coming to have fun.  He is taking the fun out of it so force his decision for him.

Just a thought Wink
I've met many players who do this, and every single time it's just to get under your skin. I doubt it's sleight of hand -- drawing attention to that would be a poor tactic. He's just trying to play off the superstition of players who think that this method somehow affects the hand that you draw.

I'd not waste time on this guy and just talk to the people who are bothered by it. Tell them that they should just let this guy be an idiot if he wants to. Reinforce that his behavior, though annoying, is harmless.

If you want to change his behavior on behalf of the other players in your store, then pull him aside between matches and talk to him. Tell him that people don't find it amusing. Make him aware that you and others are speaking with the store owner about how to deal with it, because it's probably not a big enough deal to him to risk getting kicked out of the store.

Above all, you have to suck it up and be polite. If you try to be anything but completely cordial with this guy, you're just going to make the situation worse.
I agree Bowshewicz about being cordial.  That is why I would shake his hand and say 'you win', then wait for my next matchup.  If everybody did that he would change pretty quickly.

The fact of the matter is that he knows it bothers other players and insists on continuing to do it.  That is not the kind of person I want play a fun game with anyway. 
A lot of oppinions and thoughts on this matter. I'll have to seriously think about it and see what the right course of action is. 

Thanks for all of the help, guys.  
Good luck and please let us know the outcome.
I disagree with scampb and Bowshewicz.  Giving the annoying player a free win for being annoying is just encouraging him to continue to be annoying (also known as "feeding the trolls" as I understand the term).  I would complain, politely, to the opponent in question, the judge, and the tournament organizer until he either stops or they tell you that he's allowed to do it.  If you are aware of other players who feel as you do about it, I would encourage them to complain as well.

On another note: this method of deck "shuffling" seems very sketchy, if only because the guy might be able to tell what a card is by the way the sleeve looks on the back , or the way it feels along the edges. Not all sleeves are perfectly cut, I've seen many a pack of sleeves where they felt and looked like some were slightly bigger than others, or rougher along the edge, etc.  Assuming there ISN'T any way to tell what a card is like that, this method still probably takes too much time, and could be considered stalling, in my opinion, depending on how much time it takes. 

Lastly, if the guy is just doing it to be annoying, isn't that the epitome of unsporting conduct?  I mean, there are lots of things that are possible but not specifically proscribed by the rules.  If I insisted on calling all of my opponents "Bob" and persisted in doing so after being asked to stop (by a judge), I believe that would be unsporting conduct, doesn't this fall under the same category?
if only because the guy might be able to tell what a card is by the way the sleeve looks on the back , or the way it feels along the edges.

this would actually be in his favour, as that would mean that the player who created the deck was marking his own cards.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

 

Taking offers on my set of unopened limited edition full art judge foil basic lands, message me if interested.
 

I'd take a "subtle offensive" approach.


I know people who actually cut a single card after cutting, but they respectfully put it on the bottom in my case.


But this guy, who only does a "peek" (lack of a better word here) just to annoy people is subtle, but is ultimately unsportsmanlike conduct IMO. It's not like asking for something unreasonable, plus I don't think by "peeking" hes actually randomizing in any way.

I'd get a quiet rally, inform your judges/tourney organizers, and if he doesn't stop, you know you should be able to get to the judges/tourney organizers for it. Sadly, if they allow it to continue, that's sad, since you know they're bad.

Just my opinion though.
Decks I run
Show
I currently run a deck for Standard, Modern, Commander and Legacy. For standard, I have a typical, horribly budget Rakdos Deck Wins. For Modern, I have a B/G/U/W Draw-go Reanimator featuring my favorite creature, Wurmcoil Engine. For Legacy, I'm trying too hard to break Pyromancer Ascension. I also run a Naya Zoo with all the oldies. For Commander/EDH, I'm running The Mimeoplasm. A little morals thing about me, I like winning through combos, but not infinitely. However quiet, I am a Christian, so feel free to tell me you are too, it's always a relief.
How to be saved?
Show
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved and your house. Book of Acts 16:31
Cheers!

I don't understand why the player hasn't been ejected from the tournament or even the game store for refusing to comply with a judge and deliberately annoying other customers.  If enough of the other participants are bothered by this to object to it, maybe those players should exert some leverage on those two parties to exert their authority in the interest of fun and fair play.

"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
if only because the guy might be able to tell what a card is by the way the sleeve looks on the back , or the way it feels along the edges.

this would actually be in his favour, as that would mean that the player who created the deck was marking his own cards.




This is grey area though.  I mean, It's possible for one's opponent to notice small differences in the cards' sleeves without there being any intention on the part of the owner of the deck to be cheating.  The last time I purchased sleeves I noticed that there was significant "slop" in the way they were cut or whatever and I took the deck to the tournament organizer saying "Look, I JUST bought these sleeves HERE, FROM YOU, and this is what they're like.  I'm  not trying to cheat, but if I can't use these sleeves for the tournament, I expect you to give me replacements for free, because it's not my fault they're like this."  we asked the judge to look at it and he gave the deck his official "OK", but that doesn't mean my opponent couldn't have tried to do something fishy while shuffling my deck.  Had one of my opponents done something similar to what was described here by the OP, I would have been VERY suspicious of it, as would the judge, I should hope.
So, per some of the suggestions I decided to just let him do it and just deal with it. I beat him 2-1 and was on my way but I know that nothing has changed and he'll keep doing it. 
I haven't read all of this (sorry), but putting 7 cards from the bottom of your deck on top of it is exactly a cut.

Often in multiplayer (casual) our playgroup will cut each other's decks by placing one card from the top onto the bottom or by tapping the deck (i.e., a cut of 0 cards).

Maybe someone has seen a relevant reason by now (again, sorry for not perusing all the comments), and I have been wrong before (see signature), but it seems fine to me.  If he does it every week, why has no judge already corrected it?
Cannot be relied upon^
There is a guy at the local LGS who shuffles your deck normally after you present it to him except that when he is done shuffling he cuts the deck taking one card at a time out until he gets seven cards and then places those seven on the top of your library. 

I haven't played him because we get quite a few people at the store even though we're both regulars. I'm wondering what I can do to prepare myself against him doing this to me because I don't feel that it's right and I don't think he should be able to do this. I couldn't find a section in the Tournament Rules that says something about this so maybe I overlooked. If there is a section I want to be prepared. The owner is usually the head judge but if I could have the article and section handy for him it could make it easier on everybody and finally getting this guy to stop shuffling this way. 

Any help is appreciated. Thank you.  



If your deck was truly random (and only you know how well you shuffled) before giving it to him and he than truly randomizes it some more; than it will not matter if he pulls 7 more cards out of any location of the deck or 50 more cards out of any location of the deck they will all already be random.

The only way his pulling 7 cards out can possibly matter is if he is looking at the cards and than manipulating them; this would be a disqualification.

Read about famous DQs here:
www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/20059-B...

Number 10 on the list Casey McCarrel was DQ'd for deck manipulation. If you can prove that his method of cutting is causing excessive mulligans than he is somehow cheating and should be punished

Beyond that, if he isnt cheating its purely up to a judge to decide whether or not they consider it unsportsmanlike conduct. Failure to obey a judge is also grounds for punishment. You may need to remind your judges of these rules, some get lax at free events.
I can think of three reasons he might be doing this.

1) He is actually manipulating your deck. This is doubtful, as I would expect a bit more subtlety in the  case of cheating.

2) He is under the impression that doing this produces a worse hand for you. But it doesn't matter, because he'd be wrong. The only way this affects anything is if the other guy cheated and stacked his deck, perhaps expecting a 50/50 cut.

3) He's just messing around. And I don't blame him. It's pretty funny. One or two players at my store cut this way, and I play along by thanking them later in the game (for example, when I play a key removal spell I say "good thing you stacked my deck for me").
If I were apt to cheat in this way, I'd probably not be able or even willing to cheat every time.  For example, if I were playing an opponent who I knew was new to the game, I might just rely on skill, because in that scenario, the risk of getting caught cheating outweighs the percieved reward.  As such, the person who cheats by feeling the cards or otherwise manipulating the shuffle like this needs to shuffle in a manner that LOOKS the same to the casual observer every time, in order to mask the times when he's actually cheating. 

I mean, it would look awfully odd if we were playing a dice game and I placed a big bet on "12" and only then did I announce "This calls for my LUCKY DICE!" and pull out a pair of (obviously) fixed dice.  Same idea here, if he changes his deck shuffling style now and then it would lead people to believe he must be cheating when he does, so instead he has to shuffle that way every time.

As such, it is entirely possible that the player in question was NOT cheating the original poster, but may have been using that same shuffle style to cheat in other matches.  The worst thing is, he might try to show you that shuffle style a few times in order to try to "prove" that he isn't cheating when he does it, when in reality he can do it fairly or do it as a cheat whenever he wants to.  Thus there can really be no "proving" that this shuffle style is clean, in reality, and you need to make him stop.

That's my opinion.



That's good logic, but it's the cheating that's the problem, and the cheating which needs to be eliminated. Some people can stack a deck with a shuffle that looks perfectly natural -- certainly "normal" shuffling shouldn't be disallowed "just in case." In the same way, it's unfair to tell someone he has to stop because "it's possible to cheat like that." It's always possible to cheat like that.

Honestly, this whole "cheating" thing seems like a straw man argument to me. There's no proof anyone's cheating and no reason to suspect they might be.
if someone is that good at sleight of hand they should play Poker instead
proud member of the 2011 community team
Nah, if you get caught cheating at a poker tournament, you're in an entirely different world of trouble.
but if you don't get caught you get more money ;)
proud member of the 2011 community team
Sounds like an extra step in between me and booster packs :P
That's good logic, but it's the cheating that's the problem, and the cheating which needs to be eliminated. Some people can stack a deck with a shuffle that looks perfectly natural -- certainly "normal" shuffling shouldn't be disallowed "just in case." In the same way, it's unfair to tell someone he has to stop because "it's possible to cheat like that." It's always possible to cheat like that.

Honestly, this whole "cheating" thing seems like a straw man argument to me. There's no proof anyone's cheating and no reason to suspect they might be.



I think this is turning into a discussion about where to draw the line, which I find intellectually interesting in itself.  The shuffling method described by the original post, to me, seems like it would at least facilitate EASIER cheating, without the need for so much sleight of hand as compared to the "normal looking" cheaty riffle shuffle, which you need to be practiced at to do effectively without getting caught.  So I think allowing this form of shuffling is inviting people to cheat more, since you don't have to be as good a con artist to do it that way.

I personally feel there IS reason to suspect cheating when I see a  shuffle like this one.  Call me paranoid if you want to, but I personally find it suspicous that he wants to shuffle the deck like that.

The fact that you are required to shuffle/cut your opponent's deck during tournaments is there because people WERE cheating in the first place.  In the old days, people were required to shuffle their own deck, then offer to let their opponent cut it.  Very often people got lazy and would decline the option to cut.  This led to more people trying to stack their deck in the hopes of the opponent not bothering to shuffle it well (the cheater would often decline the cut himself, trying to socially steer the opponent into following suit).  So they changed that rule to now in tournaments, you MUST randomize your deck and then randomize your opponent's while they randomize yours.  In other words, you no longer have the option not to, and that is because there was cheating. 

In Las Vegas, they have a rule in casinos that you have to put your most valuable chips on the top of the chip stack you're betting.  This rule came into use when they caught a guy changing his bets while the roulette wheel operator was distracted.  If the more valuable chip was on the bottom, it was more difficult for the dealer to tell whether or not the guy had placed it there fairly or if he had tried to sneak it in while the guy was looking the other way.  They implemented the chip stack rule to make it more difficult for people to cheat the casino in that way.  They didn't just throw their hands up in the air and say "Well, whattaya gunna do? We can't make a rule against how you stack your chips, so I guess we gotta just let cheaters walk all over us because it's not ALWAYS cheating when they stack their chips with the $1000s on the bottom and the $5s on top..."

The point is, you very well can put policies in place to try to curtail cheating, even if it means making everyone actually shuffle their opponent's deck every time, even if it means stacking one's chips a certain way.  It can be done, it has been done, and in my opinion it is important to do in order to discourage widespread cheating.  Making people shuffle the regular way isn't going to stop the Penn and Teller's of the world who can do amazing things with cards, but it will go a long way towards ensuring you have to be THAT good to even attempt it in the first place, and most people aren't THAT good.

So I'm all for disallowing this shuffle style in tounament play.  FNM's are a lot more casual play and often don't have a sanctioned DCI judge in the first place, so buyer beware on that I guess, but I still think that even in FNM if my opponent shuffles like this, I ought to be able to get him to stop after discussing it with the judge or store owner, or else the judge has to officially rule that he can do it.  There should not be any of this stuff where the judge says to stop, and then the guy just goes right ahead and does it again anyway, even in FNM.
This "burden of proof" argument is flawed because I don't have the ability to prove that he is manipulating the deck and I should have to be able since that would require me to be an expert or at least knowledgeable in the subject. 

I let him do it the time I played him and it resulted in a mulligan in all three games. Obviously this isn't real evidence but still, it doesn't feel right to me and it is still unnecessary. 
I don't have the ability to prove that he is manipulating the deck. 

Perhaps you do:

Mana weaving, the process of removing all the land and placing it into the deck every two or three non-land cards, is illegal in sanctioned play (...). [Adequate] shuffling will result in a deck with, on average, nine pairs of adjacent lands (assuming twenty-four lands) (...). If the situation occurs where you can look at an opponent's shuffled deck, perhaps because you are a judge or you have cast Extract, there is only a 2.5% chance that a sufficiently randomized deck will have five or less adjacent pairs of land with twenty-four land cards out of sixty. Decks that consistently have only a few pairs of adjacent land (for the given number of lands in the deck) are being illegally manipulated, and those players should be punished accordingly.

From:
www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/4004_St...  
 

It's not Logic, it's Magic!

I don't have the ability to prove that he is manipulating the deck. 

Perhaps you do:

Mana weaving, the process of removing all the land and placing it into the deck every two or three non-land cards, is illegal in sanctioned play (...). [Adequate] shuffling will result in a deck with, on average, nine pairs of adjacent lands (assuming twenty-four lands) (...). If the situation occurs where you can look at an opponent's shuffled deck, perhaps because you are a judge or you have cast Extract, there is only a 2.5% chance that a sufficiently randomized deck will have five or less adjacent pairs of land with twenty-four land cards out of sixty. Decks that consistently have only a few pairs of adjacent land (for the given number of lands in the deck) are being illegally manipulated, and those players should be punished accordingly.

From:
www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/4004_St...  
 



That sounds awfully wrong.

To start with, mana weaving is specifically allowed by the rules, so it cannot be illegal. Secondly, it doesnt matter what chances are of a deck being a certain way, because if it has been shuffled properly anything is possible. You go by how the deck was shuffled, not how it ended up.

Or are all winning lottery tickets forgeries, since there is such a small chance of anyone winning? 

~ Tim 

I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
I'm confused by this, as I was under the impression that mana weaving (or any type of manipulation of the order of the cards in your deck) was forbidden.

Of course, you can mana weave all you like so long as you shuffle sufficiently so that the mana weave has no effect on the cards' order -- but that's not really mana weaving anymore, just superstition. If your weave has any more impact on the final order of your cards than your lucky rabbit's foot does, I call foul.

Note the bit in Chaikov's post about the deck looking this way "consistently." An individual who won the lottery consistently would absolutely be suspected of cheating.
Statistics indicates trends; it does not prove anything. It may be 95% likely that your opponent is cheating based on the laws of statistics, but this is not definitive proof.
Cannot be relied upon^