Just last night, I tried - more than once! - to target my Naya Hushblade, apparently because I was thinking it was the Bant Sureblade or Grixis Grimblade that were also in my deck.

Was I Cheating? No, not at all … just making a simple (very tired brain) mistake, which - fortunately - we always caught in time to avoid any serious damage to the game state.

Now, if an active judge who is playing in an event tells me, during an investigation, that they didn't know they had to point out their opponent's GRVs - maybe saying something like “Well, we don't have to point out Triggers any more!” - I'd have a hard time believing it. (And if a judge convinced me of that, because they hadn't kept up with policy, then we have an entirely different sort of disappointment to discuss.)

Hopefully, that makes it a bit clearer?

Yes, thank you. And good to hear it is not expected from us when playing to play perfect without mistakes. From my point of view its by far easier to overview a situation when you come to a table to make a ruling. When you play you may use your brain in ways that let you sometimes overlook the most simple details.

I understand manaweaving is currently legal providing the deck presented is sufficiently shuffled.

If the player insists on manaweaving, is it legal for opposing player to examine the cards in the weaver's deck during the weaving process?

Assuming the weaver makes no attempt to hide it?

Edited Jeff Jeakins (Dec. 9, 2013 04:06:06 PM)

How do you mean “examine his cards”?

The player is manaweaving with his cards face up. The opposing player is observing all the cards in the weaver's deck during this process.

Yes, there is no problem with observing hidden information which his or her
opponent revealed to them. Players are only forbidden to actively seek
those kind of information.


2013/12/9 Jeff Jeakins <forum-3842-9f6b@apps.magicjudges.org>

Mana-weaving is legal so long as you then shuffle enough that it doesn't
matter that you mana-weaved in the first place.

As a total aside, it feels kind of like Slow Play/Stalling to me since the
player is deliberately engaging in a procedure that is either ensuring his
deck is not sufficiently random or is an utter waste of time, but I
recognize that my position is not supported by anything other than my own
feelings on the matter so I won't argue the point.

As far as the question, I see no reason why the opponent would not be
allowed to watch him mana-weave. If a player chooses to reveal the
contents of their deck, as long as the deck is sufficiently randomized
afterwards such that neither player can identify any card's position, then
he or she can go for it.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

As a total aside, it feels kind of like Slow Play/Stalling to me since the
player is deliberately engaging in a procedure that is either ensuring his
deck is not sufficiently random or is an utter waste of time, but I
recognize that my position is not supported by anything other than my own
feelings on the matter so I won't argue the point.

Even if the player in question can do it and properly shuffle within the 3 minutes they have to do so?

Originally posted by Anthony Bucchioni:

ven if the player in question can do it and properly shuffle within the 3 minutes they have to do so?

Bear in mind that the ‘three minutes’ thing was removed in a relatively recent update (because three minutes is honestly normally way more than you need), with it being left up to the judge to decide whether players are being too slow inbetween games.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

So, is it wrong for me to mana weave first, to get further away from the “ordered” state, and thus actually improve the chances of a “good” randomization? Arguably, mana weaving actually improves the chances of achieving the real goal - i.e., truly random deck order.

Not to be a jerk, but Mana weaving provides a new state that is just as ordered as the previous state.
The sequence 1-2-2-1-2-2-1-2-2-?-?-? is just as easy to continue as a the sequence 1-1-1-2-2-2-1-1-1-?-?-?, and thus is not more random at all. It's just nearer to a state that is preferential to the player, namely, a mix of lands and spells. There's only one way to randomize, and that is to shuffle.

As for the actual topic: I'd rather give both players a stern talking to and a slow play warning if they're both accidentally breaking the rules in the described scenario. Mana-weaving is not shuffling, and de-mana-weaving isn't shuffling either. Shuffle properly and hurry up with your game, because the clock is ticking and I want to end the round in time so the other players don't have to wait!

Edited Mart Leuvering (May 9, 2014 12:17:49 PM)

Since someone cast Animate Dead on this old thread, I think it's appropriate to point out that some things have changed since this was first wrapped up (over a year ago), and then wrapped up again (six months back)…

It is no longer illegal to do a 3-pile shuffle instead of calling a Judge when your opponent has done a mana-weave without thorough randomization afterwards. Yes, we still prefer that players get us involved instead of applying their own “fix” - that much of what I previously said holds true.

But performing an otherwise legal action - i.e., the 3-pile shuffle - doesn't become illegal because of what you suspect (or even know) your opponent did while shuffling.

Originally posted by Mart:

Not to be a jerk, but Mana weaving provides a new state that is just as ordered as the previous state.

I think you may have misunderstood. Not mana-weaving, in my post, referred to a deck that's in, or approximates, decklist order - not 1-1-1-2-2-2, as you suggest, but 24-36. Shuffling from any random order to any other is the ideal; shuffling from 24-36 or from 1-2-1-2-etc until random is acceptable. I prefer to “seed” my imperfect shuffling, as I've had trouble achieving good randomization starting from 24-36.

And, with that, this thread has well outlived its usefulness!

d:^D