Okay, I understand now that I wasn't being totally rigorous with my original bolded statement. Obviously if you could shuffle two decks with exactly the same shuffle, but one was mana-weaved, then you would have equal information about each deck's order. I'm not sure how this is relevant, though, because you never do exactly the same shuffle when randomizing a deck.
Let me try to be more rigorous in explaining my perspective. I would specifically like to refute your claim that "a weaved deck will have less impact on the final result than a fully stacked deck." I love examples, so here goes:
Setup:
I write a computer program that randomizes a virtual "deck" composed of 20 Mountains and 40 Lightning Bolts.
Scenario 1:
I stack the 20 Mountains on top of the deck and the program randomizes.
I instruct the program to find the largest land clump in the deck.
I repeat the first two steps 100 000 times, and find the average largest land clump.
Scenario 2:
All the same, except the input is a mana-weaved deck.
I believe that whether the deck was weaved will have zero impact on the final result.
I am absolutely willing to write this computer program if this would settle the debate. If it would not, I would find it very helpful to understanding your position if you could modify my proposal or write your own experiment that would express concrete, objectively observable results that would support your claim. I truly want to know if GAThraawn and I are wrong, and we have the tools to find out for sure.
Cascade lets you play the Strive spell without paying its mana cost, but it doesn't let you get around any cost additions. You can name any number of targets, but you'll have to pay for additional ones as usual.
First off, L2's are not gods, they just have a good understanding of the rules and lots of experience judging, as well as running small events. This is a policy question and everyone in this thread has access to the relevant documents. If you still want to give final say to L2's, I should point out that another L2 in this thread has disagreed.
What information do you claim they would have?
Keep in mind that I've been constantly referring to weaving followed by sufficient randomization, which will not maintain the original pattern at all.
It kind of plays into my question, but the premise and conclusion in the third sentence don't follow logically, because you don't state how 'having reason to believe that a shuffled deck looks different because of weaving' results in 'having information about the relative positions of cards in the deck'.
I thought you should know, since you went to the trouble of bolding it and everything.
It's pretty much impossible to get perfect randomization, especially because there are a set number of configurations that the cards can actually sit in. So, all wizards asks is that the deck becomes sufficiently random, and that you can not be sure what card is going to to come next.
These quotations capture what I find to be a problematic understanding of randomization. I am not claiming you can make a deck truly random through physical manipulation. Ask any physicist, and she will say that the only way to do that would be to set up some kind of quantum experiment like a photon reflectivity deal. Everything on a larger scale is deterministic. This is a futile conversation to go down.
In this thread, we define "sufficiently random" as "a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck" (TR 3.9). Here is my understanding of this passage stated as plainly as possible:
Scenario 1:
you mana weave a deck
you shuffle it some number of times
you draw two lands in a row off the top
based on the above steps, you predict the chance of seeing a land (let's say you determine it's 37%, just as an example)
Scenario 2:
you shuffle your deck one hundred times
you draw two lands in a row off the top
based on the above steps, you predict the chance of seeing a land (here, let's say you determine it's 38%)
If these two percentages are different, I believe you have "information regarding the order or position of cards" in the deck. Specifically, you have statistical "information" about how well-distributed ("position") the lands ("cards") are.
Hopefully, shuffling one hundred times is not necessary, but it is the responsibility of each player to shuffle until they have obliterated all statistical knowledge they have about the contents of their deck. If I see someone mana weaving, I can be certain they are either wasting tournament time by doing so, or else they will go on to shuffle few enough times that they have statistical knowledge about the contents of their deck. That's insufficient randomization.
If you are sufficiently randomizing afterwards (I believe you need a minimum of 7 riffle shuffles to achieve a good randomization), then there is no effect of this.
If you are insufficiently randomizing afterwards, to the point where it has an effect, then you are cheating already by insufficiently randomizing.
Parinoid has invented a term "represents", as used in the phrase "some configurations more closely resemble (or represent, if you'd prefer) a randomized deck than others." This term is not used in mathematics when discussing random numbers, and this poster has not provided a rigorous definition of it, so it would be dangerous to give it any weight until one is provided.
Furthermore, parinoid has claimed that it is unreasonable to truly randomize a deck in a timely manner, and accepts some lesser amount of shuffling as sufficiently random. However, as has been quoted in this thread, the rules require that you not have any information about the relative positions of any cards in the deck. If you have reason to believe that your shuffled deck looks different because of mana-weaving, you have information about the relative positions of cards in the deck.
So according to parinoid's logic, mana-weaving is always cheating, because, supposedly, true randomization is impossible. Unfortunately, according to this logic, it is also cheating to look at your deck, then shuffle and present it, which nearly every player does before nearly every game.
I personally believe that it IS reasonable to expect good shuffling from players that have good skill with their hands, but of course some players are slower shufflers than others. Players physically incapable of randomizing their deck should notify the Head Judge before a tournament starts and accommodations will be made for them if possible, however it is not the judges' responsibility to make such accommodations.
very true. ive also been warned on here about giving extra strategic advise in my rules answers.
That seems... silly? In my community, we try to help less-rules-inclined peers as much as possible BEFORE and AFTER tournaments, in order to make sure they're prepared! Aren't forums perfect for that? Anyway, the rules don't say anything about it, so I'll wait to be "warned" myself.
A clarification for the Kokusho scenario: you can't respond to the sacrifice effect, but there's something you CAN do.
From the beginning,
Cast Kokusho 1.
Cast Undying Evil on K1.
Cast K2. K1 dies before you can do anything.
Undying triggered ability goes on the stack, trying to bring K1 back.
In response, cast Undying Evil on K2.
Let everything resolve. K1 comes back and K2 dies before you can do anything.
Undying trigger happens, trying to bring K2 back.
Assuming you're out of Undying Evils, K2 comes back, and you must sacrifice one of them before you can do anything.
You've gained 15 and they've lost 15, and you're left with a 6/6 dragon.
Be careful how you ask questions to judges, since in a tournament, they're not allowed to tell you how to do what you're trying to do; they're only allowed to answer the exact question you asked.
I bought a box once when I was newer, and I regretted it. You simply don't get your money's worth out of opening packs.
Here's something I'll never regret: buying staple rares. When I dropped the cash for an Underground Sea, I knew I could always sell it for more than I paid a few years down the line. If you don't play older formats, go for ZEN fetch lands. They won't go down in value significantly for 5 years thanks to Extended, and even then they might stay the same.
So buy the cards you need to play the decks you want. If the format's about to rotate in a few months and the cards will go down, trade them for new staple cards. Keep on top of it! When in doubt, trade for rare lands and planeswalkers.
Well, if the player knew it was a proxy and knew it wasn't allowed? Then, yes, they are intentionally and knowingly violating a rule.
It seems odd that the following (very likely) scenario hasn't been mentioned:
a player who knows the rules is trying to put a deck together. They have proxies for cards they haven't acquired yet. Finally, they get those last couple chase rares, stick them into the deck, and sign up for FNM. They forgot that there is still one uncommon they haven't acquired yet: Bloodbraid Elf.
This person "knew it was a proxy", since they made it themselves. They "knew it wasn't allowed" because they know the rules. They're not intentionally violating a rule, since they thought their deck was legal. They just neglected to check that all the cards were real.
Obviously this person should receive consequences for being neglectful of the legality of their deck, but not for cheating. What's the penalty?
To clarify, the game is only a draw if there is a FORCED infinite loop, but if you have a loop of o-rings going, you can and must eventually choose something new to break the loop, unless there are no other permanents at all on the battlefield.
If your deck is sufficiently random, there might be clumps! If you've managed to avoid all clumps, and you know this, it sounds like you have cheated!
Let me try to be more rigorous in explaining my perspective. I would specifically like to refute your claim that "a weaved deck will have less impact on the final result than a fully stacked deck." I love examples, so here goes:
Setup:
I write a computer program that randomizes a virtual "deck" composed of 20 Mountains and 40 Lightning Bolts.
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
All the same, except the input is a mana-weaved deck.
I believe that whether the deck was weaved will have zero impact on the final result.
I am absolutely willing to write this computer program if this would settle the debate. If it would not, I would find it very helpful to understanding your position if you could modify my proposal or write your own experiment that would express concrete, objectively observable results that would support your claim. I truly want to know if GAThraawn and I are wrong, and we have the tools to find out for sure.
"When a creature becomes enchanted by Oppressive Rays, its controller may pay 3. If he or she doesn't, enchanted creature can't attack or block."
or
"At any time, enchanted creature's controller may pay 3. Unless he or she has, enchanted creature can't attack or block."
In other words, one-time costs always mention at what time they are paid.
These quotations capture what I find to be a problematic understanding of randomization. I am not claiming you can make a deck truly random through physical manipulation. Ask any physicist, and she will say that the only way to do that would be to set up some kind of quantum experiment like a photon reflectivity deal. Everything on a larger scale is deterministic. This is a futile conversation to go down.
In this thread, we define "sufficiently random" as "a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck" (TR 3.9). Here is my understanding of this passage stated as plainly as possible:
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
If these two percentages are different, I believe you have "information regarding the order or position of cards" in the deck. Specifically, you have statistical "information" about how well-distributed ("position") the lands ("cards") are.
Hopefully, shuffling one hundred times is not necessary, but it is the responsibility of each player to shuffle until they have obliterated all statistical knowledge they have about the contents of their deck. If I see someone mana weaving, I can be certain they are either wasting tournament time by doing so, or else they will go on to shuffle few enough times that they have statistical knowledge about the contents of their deck. That's insufficient randomization.
Parinoid has invented a term "represents", as used in the phrase "some configurations more closely resemble (or represent, if you'd prefer) a randomized deck than others." This term is not used in mathematics when discussing random numbers, and this poster has not provided a rigorous definition of it, so it would be dangerous to give it any weight until one is provided.
Furthermore, parinoid has claimed that it is unreasonable to truly randomize a deck in a timely manner, and accepts some lesser amount of shuffling as sufficiently random. However, as has been quoted in this thread, the rules require that you not have any information about the relative positions of any cards in the deck. If you have reason to believe that your shuffled deck looks different because of mana-weaving, you have information about the relative positions of cards in the deck.
So according to parinoid's logic, mana-weaving is always cheating, because, supposedly, true randomization is impossible. Unfortunately, according to this logic, it is also cheating to look at your deck, then shuffle and present it, which nearly every player does before nearly every game.
I personally believe that it IS reasonable to expect good shuffling from players that have good skill with their hands, but of course some players are slower shufflers than others. Players physically incapable of randomizing their deck should notify the Head Judge before a tournament starts and accommodations will be made for them if possible, however it is not the judges' responsibility to make such accommodations.
That seems... silly? In my community, we try to help less-rules-inclined peers as much as possible BEFORE and AFTER tournaments, in order to make sure they're prepared! Aren't forums perfect for that? Anyway, the rules don't say anything about it, so I'll wait to be "warned" myself.
From the beginning,
Cast Kokusho 1.
Cast Undying Evil on K1.
Cast K2. K1 dies before you can do anything.
Undying triggered ability goes on the stack, trying to bring K1 back.
In response, cast Undying Evil on K2.
Let everything resolve. K1 comes back and K2 dies before you can do anything.
Undying trigger happens, trying to bring K2 back.
Assuming you're out of Undying Evils, K2 comes back, and you must sacrifice one of them before you can do anything.
You've gained 15 and they've lost 15, and you're left with a 6/6 dragon.
Be careful how you ask questions to judges, since in a tournament, they're not allowed to tell you how to do what you're trying to do; they're only allowed to answer the exact question you asked.
Here's something I'll never regret: buying staple rares. When I dropped the cash for an Underground Sea, I knew I could always sell it for more than I paid a few years down the line. If you don't play older formats, go for ZEN fetch lands. They won't go down in value significantly for 5 years thanks to Extended, and even then they might stay the same.
So buy the cards you need to play the decks you want. If the format's about to rotate in a few months and the cards will go down, trade them for new staple cards. Keep on top of it! When in doubt, trade for rare lands and planeswalkers.
It seems odd that the following (very likely) scenario hasn't been mentioned:
a player who knows the rules is trying to put a deck together. They have proxies for cards they haven't acquired yet. Finally, they get those last couple chase rares, stick them into the deck, and sign up for FNM. They forgot that there is still one uncommon they haven't acquired yet: Bloodbraid Elf.
This person "knew it was a proxy", since they made it themselves. They "knew it wasn't allowed" because they know the rules. They're not intentionally violating a rule, since they thought their deck was legal. They just neglected to check that all the cards were real.
Obviously this person should receive consequences for being neglectful of the legality of their deck, but not for cheating. What's the penalty?