From the new MTR nw we know that:

Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random and may not be performed more than once any time a deck is being randomized.

And from there it's easy to know that you have to do some other kind of shuffling before presenting your deck to your opponent.

At comp or pro REL “ players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them ” and since the changes in the IPG occurred at the Born of the Gods release we know that if the deck is randomized, a three-pile shuffle is a totally acceptable way to randomize the deck, so is ok if we just pile shuffle our opponent's deck after he/she have randomized it.

Since in the new MTR pile shuffling is defined as not sufficiently random, but not as a “not shuffling procedure” I have a doubt: is that still legal?


Thanks in advance

Luca

Yes, the three-pile “shuffle” is still going to be allowed when shuffling your opponent's deck.

One important takeaway from the new policy, and from Toby's blog, is the implied need for us to educate players; pile “shuffling” is not shuffling, it's a means of counting. Reinforce that idea with your players - emphasize pile COUNTING, try to get away from calling it a “pile SHUFFLE”, etc.

Another important takeaway - this is my recommendation, for the customer service aspect: don't be too quick to penalize players as they become accustomed to this change in policy. Think about the number of times you've seen players - even well-known “pros” - do a complex combination of piles, riffles, inserts, etc. Old habits are very hard to break, so educate, Educate, EDUCATE!

If a player starts to pile shuffle a 2nd time, educate them.

And remember, there isn't an infraction for violating the new MTR wording that prohibits a 2nd pile method. It's just another of the many things the MTR says you must or can't do, but isn't called out in the Tournament Errors section of the IPG. (There is no TE-Other, nor should there be.) Again - educate, then hope they don't ignore your instructions and keep wasting time with multiple pile counts. (Dang, it's hard not to type ‘pile shuffle’!)

d:^D

Just a quick question on the wording of this new ruling
“Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random and may not be performed more than once any time a deck is being randomized.”

If a player takes a mulligan and reshuffles / re-randomise their deck would they be permitted to do another “Pile shuffle”?

IS there a need to count the deck again after a mulligan? I would say no, so a pile shuffle is of no use here. Please ask the player to randomise the deck, not count it.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

IS there a need to count the deck again after a mulligan? I would say no, so a pile shuffle is of no use here. Please ask the player to randomise the deck, not count it.

How do you know there is no need? He might want to make sure he has at least 60 cards in his deck… I would not want to presume here if a pile counting is needed or not (same applies during the game).

Of course, you can and should investigate to try to understand the intent… But I would not be as categorical as dustin and forbid it per default.

Greets
Jeremie

Edited Jeremie Granat (Sept. 27, 2016 09:29:56 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

One important takeaway from the new policy, and from Toby's blog, is the implied need for us to educate players; pile “shuffling” is not shuffling, it's a means of counting. Reinforce that idea with your players - emphasize pile COUNTING, try to get away from calling it a “pile SHUFFLE”, etc.

Thank you for this. I have been calling it Pile Stacking for years now, to try and make players realize that there is 0% shuffling in there. I don't like that a player could potentially argue that they are allowed to pile count every time they randomize, but this policy is such a great step in the right direction!

Originally posted by Jeremie Granat:

How do you know there is no need? He might want to make sure he has at least 60 cards in his deck… I would not want to presume here if a pile counting is needed or not (same applies during the game).

Well if he is resolving a mulligan and the deck is not legal, wouldn't we be looking at a D/DLP as he has presented the deck once already?

Oops went to the document and read actual text, found this “Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random and may not be performed more than once any time a deck is being randomized”

So my above comment may be accurate by the new MTR he is allowed to do so.

Edited Jim Shuman (Oct. 4, 2016 06:16:24 AM)

Originally posted by Tyler Awrey:

Just a quick question on the wording of this new ruling
“Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random and may not be performed more than once any time a deck is being randomized.”

If a player takes a mulligan and reshuffles / re-randomise their deck would they be permitted to do another “Pile shuffle”?

Technically speaking, they can “pile shuffle” every time they crack a fetch land, but at that point, I'd be breaking out the slow play warnings.

Originally posted by Hank Wiest:

Technically speaking, they can “pile shuffle” every time they crack a fetch land, but at that point, I'd be breaking out the slow play warnings.

Yes, just as technically a player is allowed to know (or derive) the number of cards in an opponent's library. If they are doing this by physically counting after every drawn card, we have a problem.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

And remember, there isn't an infraction for violating the new MTR wording that prohibits a 2nd pile method.

While it might not have a direct ruling it does easily fall under Slow Play or even Stalling correct? Which if that is the case then doing it even at Regular REL is something that could throw red flags.

Another thing I am curious about is if “pile counting” should be stated to happen before actual shuffles. The reason being that if you count your deck after you shuffle and find a discrepancy then you wasted the time that you took to shuffle. Another reason that making it a prior to shuffling only would be so your opponent can actually see how many times you shuffle! If you shuffle twice, “pile count”, then shuffle once more how much randomization is actually going into your deck? How is you opponent supposed to see if they have been sideboarding? If you were to pile count first then A no time is wasted shuffling to have to fix a deck after its been randomized, B opponent should be done sideboarding and can see you randomize your deck.

On another note one thing that I feel might also be addressed is “pile counting” in piles that 60 is not actually divisible by. Players have this idea that “pile counting” in an odd number of piles helps their deck configuration which is something we want to get away from so why do we allow them to use seven piles? Lets be honest are they actually counting or are they getting away with what the system will let them? If they are not actually counting then are they not also committing Slow Play?

That was so well put Scott, I shared this entire thread with my community
and told them to read it :D

2016-10-04 22:04 GMT+02:00 Torrance PeLong <

Originally posted by Torrance PeLong:

While it might not have a direct ruling it does easily fall under Slow Play or even Stalling correct?

Any action that wastes time could fall under Slow Play, or even Stalling (if the actions are intended to use up time). With piling, let's not be piling on - just tell the players “please don't do that”, esp. at first. This is new to players, so be patient and educate.

As for the rest of your post, Torrance - I think you're really reaching, there. Please don't add to policy as written - and this new policy makes no mention of piling only before shuffling; neither does it say anything about number of piles.

Again, let me stress: this is new policy, players need to learn it (as do we), and we should forgive and educate - not look for reasons to call it Slow Play.

d:^D

Originally posted by Torrance PeLong:

Another thing I am curious about is if “pile counting” should be stated to happen before actual shuffles. The reason being that if you count your deck after you shuffle and find a discrepancy then you wasted the time that you took to shuffle. Another reason that making it a prior to shuffling only would be so your opponent can actually see how many times you shuffle! If you shuffle twice, “pile count”, then shuffle once more how much randomization is actually going into your deck? How is you opponent supposed to see if they have been sideboarding? If you were to pile count first then A no time is wasted shuffling to have to fix a deck after its been randomized, B opponent should be done sideboarding and can see you randomize your deck.

Pile counting (dang, it really is hard to not say “pile shuffling!”) does not negate other randomization. If you take a deck which has been randomized and then pile count it, you have not suddenly de-randomized the deck. What you have done, however, if you have not further randomized the deck beyond the degree to which it was random after the first randomization. To illustrate by example:

Let's say there's a gauge of how “random” a deck is. The closer to 0 randomness, the more a player has the ability to know the order of the cards in their deck, and the closer to 10 randomness (to use an arbitrary value), the closer the deck is to “true random” (where none of the cards are known). So let's say you do a shuffle which brings the deck up to 3 randomness. Then you pile count. The deck is still considered to have 3 randomness, not zero. The issue with pile counting is not that it makes the deck less random, but that it wastes clock time without making the deck more random.

To wit, and this explanation is much better done in person but I'll try to explain over a text medium (and I apologize in advance for being vague in the extreme), let's say you have a standard (or Standard, whichever you prefer) Magic deck. Let's say you happen to know for whatever reason that the top card of your deck is Siege Rhino (my examples are dated). Then you pile count your deck where you lay out the cards into piles and then stack up the piles (as pile counts tend to do). Let's say, without loss of generality, that the first pile you make is the last pile you stack (so it goes at the bottom of the stack). Now you know that the bottom card of your deck is Siege Rhino, because it was the first card in the first stack (to be laid out) and hence the bottom card in the last stack (to be collected). Extend this analysis out to all 60 of the cards in an ordered (unrandomized) deck, and you can begin to understand a) why pile counting is not shuffling, and b) the effect it actually has on randomness of a deck.

On another note one thing that I feel might also be addressed is “pile counting” in piles that 60 is not actually divisible by. Players have this idea that “pile counting” in an odd number of piles helps their deck configuration which is something we want to get away from so why do we allow them to use seven piles? Lets be honest are they actually counting or are they getting away with what the system will let them? If they are not actually counting then are they not also committing Slow Play?

Players have many ideas which are wrong. So long as they are not actually breaking the rules, there is no issue. As another, even more egregious example, I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that it is permissible to “mana weave” your deck, provided that you then proceed to sufficiently shuffle afterwards. Players believe that mana-weaving their deck before shuffling helps their configuration, but if they sufficiently randomize afterwards, then it actually does nothing. We allow it (modulo slow-play issues) because it doesn't actually do anything, even if the players think it does.

Also, players do not have to count out loud to be counting. When I pile count my decks, I actually do count, but I never count aloud; after all, if I happen to be playing a 61-card deck I don't want my opponent to know that (unless he wants to count along with me), and if I make a mistake and only count 59 cards I want to reserve the right to count again before my opponent tries to call me on DDLP (before I have presented, which I know is not a thing but some people might try to get away with it and I'd like to avoid the whole situation altogether to save everyone the headache).

Edited Lyle Waldman (Oct. 5, 2016 09:54:44 AM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

As for the rest of your post, Torrance - I think you're really reaching, there. Please don't add to policy as written - and this new policy makes no mention of piling only before shuffling; neither does it say anything about number of piles.

To his credit, I don't think Torrance was suggesting those two qualifiers under the current policy, but proposing it as a tweak for a future revision.

I would suggest that the number of piles is irrelevant from a practical standpoint. I mean, what if someone has a lucky number they like to implement in non-functional ways?

I think that requiring pile counting before shuffling has its merits, but the upside is probably not worth the extra line of text in the MTR. In fact, it could easily be detrimental as players start calling for a judge whenever someone pile counts after shuffling.