partial deck shuffling acceptable?
-
So recently i had an opponent whom when was presented with my deck for the pre game cut opted to pick up only the top 35 or so cards shuffle them and return them to the top of the deck without ever interacting with the bottom 25 cards.
now normally i dont particularly mind the manor in which someone cuts my deck but this style of cut is not something i am able to accept as legitimate. am i alone in this thinking or is any one else bothered by this.
other shuffling methods that bug me, the 2nd pile shuffle before presenting (primarily for time reasons), and riffle shuffling in formats with $900 cards.
in my thought process to properly cut a deck requires moving each card at least 1 position in the deck 1 time.
i am actively considering just scooping any further rounds i get paired against this opponent. which is probably overboard but its better than dropping the event entirely.
-
@snowydude
That doesn't sound like a legal shuffle.
It would 100% be a violation on the pro-tour.
-
As long as he is only doing it to your deck when you present it (meaning the deck was nicely shuffled to begin with) I don't see the problem here.
Of course it is not a "shuffle", but if cutting is ok, then this should be as well. If there is a requirement to shuffle, this is obviously not ok.
-
He shuffled your deck in this manner? I would be insulted at the insinuation he his laying on you here more than anything else...Is this just something he did to you or other opponents as well? If you did not observe him trying to stack the top of your deck in some way (IE moving a land(s) from the bottom to the top then I do not see an issue.
-
@snowydude said:
So recently i had an opponent whom when was presented with my deck for the pre game cut opted to pick up only the top 35 or so cards shuffle them and return them to the top of the deck without ever interacting with the bottom 25 cards.
now normally i dont particularly mind the manor in which someone cuts my deck but this style of cut is not something i am able to accept as legitimate. am i alone in this thinking or is any one else bothered by this.
other shuffling methods that bug me, the 2nd pile shuffle before presenting (primarily for time reasons), and riffle shuffling in formats with $900 cards.
in my thought process to properly cut a deck requires moving each card at least 1 position in the deck 1 time.
i am actively considering just scooping any further rounds i get paired against this opponent. which is probably overboard but its better than dropping the event entirely.
You need to change your thought process a little bit. As long as the cutting of the deck doesn't violate any rules, anything is legal. You could simply say, "I don't have easy means to replace the expensive cards in my decks so when I present to cut would you mind using a method other than riffle shuffling?"
Outside of that as long as no rules are being broken your opponent is free to cut your deck any way they choose. I normally cut it into 3 piles and stack them back up randomly. I've gotten some odd looks from some opponents but most of them don't seem to notice in the least.
-
If my opponent was shuffling their OWN deck this way, I would be very concerned. If they're shuffling mine this way I have no issue: as long as I've sufficiently randomized myself, there's no problem. If he consistently does this to every opponent he's opening himself up to cheating, but that's on him.
Riffling shuffling in eternal formats is another issue entirely. I gently riffle my own cards, but I would never do it to an opponent. If your opponent tries to shuffle your deck in a way that will damage the cards, it ceases to become a magic/floor rules issue and quickly becomes a legal/property law issue. I have never entered a tournament (including Pro Tours) where the prize for first was worth more than my vintage deck.
-
I am the opponent in question (who shuffles anywhere from 30-100% of the deck; no riffle shuffling). I shuffle every opponent's deck like this at every event from Friday Night Magic to Grand Prixs to the SCG tour, have for many years, and have had it approved by many judges. It's basically just grabbing anywhere from the top third to two-thirds of the deck and doing a couple of side shuffles, probably some overhand shuffles (no riffle shuffling), and putting it back on top, or bottom (ie. followed by a potential cut, or no). If your opponent has sufficiently randomized their deck as required to do so by the rules, it is entirely irrelevant how you cut or shuffle their deck afterward, if you are not cheating.
-
I feel like this method of cutting is fine, my only issue would be the gentleness and overall manner of the shuffle. The decks are generally worth so much money that I do either a simple cut as long as they shuffled it enough, or if its someone I know I give them the gentlemen's knock
-
I don't see the problem here, as long as your deck is sufficiently randomized (which you are required to do so anyway).
-
@snowydude said:
i am actively considering just scooping any further rounds i get paired against this opponent. which is probably overboard but its better than dropping the event entirely.
Why would you ever do this?
On a tangentially related note, what is up with these extreme responses recently? This isn't MTGSalvation, people should moderate their posts and bring well-reasoned arguments to the table. Not to be nostalgic, but that was really what made the old TMD such an amazing board.
-
@skecr8r said:
@snowydude said:
i am actively considering just scooping any further rounds i get paired against this opponent. which is probably overboard but its better than dropping the event entirely.
Why would you ever do this?
On a tangentially related note, what is up with these extreme responses recently? This isn't MTGSalvation, people should moderate their posts and bring well-reasoned arguments to the table. Not to be nostalgic, but that was really what made the old TMD such an amazing board.
in a 4 round event playing a round against someone who i dislike and whos normal actions are tilting, its basically ruining 25% of my event as a baseline. driving 30 minutes to a 4 round event and then not enjoying some portion of it because of certain people, makes playing vintage less exciting as a hobby.
not sure what you mean extreme responses. this is my honest opinion/feelings on the matter. moderating my post is not something I do as i try to just explain my stance on things honestly and accurately. moderation is 2nd to both of those. well reasoned argument, generally i think most of my posts are reasonably argued, maybe im wrong.
-
Hey Snowy, I don't have a single paper opponent to play against or to complain about and that probably isn't going to change anytime soon. So from my perspective, I would value the opportunity to play against a paper opponent and do whatever I can to keep the relationship a positive one.
-
@desolutionist said:
Hey Snowy, I don't have a single paper opponent to play against or to complain about and that probably isn't going to change anytime soon. So from my perspective, I would value the opportunity to play against a paper opponent and do whatever I can to keep the relationship a positive one.
and thus why i would scoop that round. scooping 1 rounds > dropping the event.
-
@snowydude I'd try to be easier on the issue. Think about it not as shuffling your deck but as cutting it more than once. why should it make a difference, as long as the person treats your cards with care and is polite? I mean, you properly shuffled your deck before, didn't you? so it shouldn't make any difference.
-
I honestly have no idea where you are coming from. I've played versus @JACO and he's one of the most pleasant opponents I've ever had the pleasure of playing against.
Your opponent isn't doing anything wrong. Think of it as cutting your deck. Half the opponents I used to play against would not even cut my deck. I don't see how somebody cuts your deck has any relevance as long as they are careful with your cards.
-
w/e guess im the weird one.
-
Shuffling your opponent's deck is required in comp REL and higher. Not half the deck. The entire deck. And, no offense to Jaco, but I would be really suspicious if someone did this to me. I'd be pretty certain that person saw an Ancestral Recall or whatever on the bottom of my deck as I shuffled/presented. I can't imagine a judge with reasonable foresight approving this method. You should shuffle both decks the same way, even if you're being 100% legit, why invite suspicion and extra judge calls?
-
Jaco,
Rules on shuffling are in the comprehensive rules book
"At competitive and professional level rel, players are required to shuffle their opponents deck after their owners' have shuffled them."
While you may not be gaining an advantage, a common definition of cheating, you are not playing by the rules. Any judge that approved of this is technique is actually wrong.
Another definition of cheating is: not playing by the rules.
At a pro tour, you have to display three seperate, unique, shuffling techniques for both your deck and your opponents.
-
@gkraigher I think you should also include the definition of "shuffled"
ps, this was probably at knight ware, with regular REL
-
@gkraigher said:
Jaco,
Rules on shuffling are in the comprehensive rules book
"At competitive and professional level rel, players are required to shuffle their opponents deck after their owners' have shuffled them."
While you may not be gaining an advantage, a common definition of cheating, you are not playing by the rules. Any judge that approved of this is technique is actually wrong.
Another definition of cheating is: not playing by the rules.
At a pro tour, you have to display three seperate, unique, shuffling techniques for both your deck and your opponents.
I'm well aware of the comprehensive rules. Here is the relevant text from the rules, because you are not remotely accurate in your portrayal:
*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.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. Players may request to have a judge shuffle their cards rather than the opponent; this request will be honored only at a judge’s discretion.
If a player has had the opportunity to see any of the card faces of the deck being shuffled, the deck is no longer considered randomized and must be randomized again. At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them.*
You'll notice that any explicit shuffling techniques or methods required are not part of the rules, nor will they be (other than the note that pile shuffling may not be used exclusively). There is also nothing in the IPG about it either for Competitive or Professional REL. If you wish to read more directly from the Judges site, you can do so here (and you probably should, because what you posted is entirely fabricated).
What I described is functionally the exact same as picking up the whole deck, side shuffling a few times and then cutting it in any place. If your opponent is not cheating or manipulating their deck before presenting it to you for cut/shuffle, there is literally zero problem if you are not manipulating their deck illegally. I await a reasonable argument otherwise supported by the rules (or even basic logic would do).
