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.
Edited Jeremie Granat (Sept. 27, 2016 04:29:56 AM)
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.
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).
Edited Jim Shuman (Oct. 3, 2016 01:16:24 PM)
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”?
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.
Originally posted by Scott Marshall:
And remember, there isn't an infraction for violating the new MTR wording that prohibits a 2nd pile method.
Originally posted by Torrance PeLong: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.
While it might not have a direct ruling it does easily fall under Slow Play or even Stalling correct?
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.
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?
Edited Lyle Waldman (Oct. 4, 2016 04:54:44 PM)
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.
Replies have been disabled because this topic is closed.