Does Magic the Gathering really require skill, or is it just

Yes it requires skill. Take brainstorm for example. When's the best time to brainstorm?

For reference:
"Brainstorm U -instant- Draw three then put two cards from your hand back on top of your library in any order."

>>48543584
Of course it requires skill, a lot of it is timing, resource management and predicting opponent's decisions.

Luck is a big element, but don't let that make you believe the only thing that determines who wins is who has the best cards at any one point.

It requires both skill and luck.

The skill to not make stupid decisions, and the luck to come out on top against someone else who isn't making stupid decisions.

>>48543788
Using it against thoughtseize is really cute.

>>48543584
Magic requires a few different skills:
>deckbuilding
>threat assessment
>comprehensive understanding of not only the rules, but how particular complex cards interact relative to the rules, including those you don't run
>strategic resource management
>how to "game" your opponent read: bluffs, timing, and playstyle

However, a moderate portion of the game is based on luck. Even a good deck filled with expensive cards can fail spectacularly. It is pay to win, to an extent, but that's only in certain formats, and even still a cheap well constructed deck can beat an expensive deck full of jank piloted by bad luck.

In the end, Vice said it best: "Magic is a mixture of chess and poker, except you can choose your pieces from a larger pool."

>>48543788
I suspect you would want to use it during an opponents end step, as a reaction to whatever they did during that turn. Am I right?

File: 1465939239036.jpg (34KB, 425x340px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 425x340px

>>48544019
>>48543949
Both wrong.

Before casting Maelstrom Wanderer.

>>48544050
Well at first I thought you were being a pompus ass but then I read your image

File: 1469841211529.gif (4MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 320x180px

>>48543584

>>48544019
The thing with brainstorm is that it's a card that becomes better the more information you have. Typically with brainstorm you want some kind of shuffle effect because ideally you're going to put the two worst cards in your hand back on top. The issue is that without a shuffle effect you're replacing your next two blind-draws with known bad-draws. If the three you draw initially are good enough you can over come this (say they combo to win the game), or you have a way to eek advantage (say putting something on top to ensure you flip your Delvers), you're going to want to then shuffle away the bad cards. Casting a blind brainstorm on T1 is a terrible move because you're at best getting a slight advantage, and at worst crippling your early game. Likewise brainstorming with an empty hand only nets you one card.

There's a lot that goes along with the card.

File: 1469649005302.gif (494KB, 387x305px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 387x305px

>>48544050
>>48544019
>>48543949
These are all the right and wrong answers some of the time.

Hell even Mono Red Burn requires some level of skill from the player. Should you slow your clock and kill your opponent's turn one mana dork to prevent them from being able to race, or should you go for the face and hope you'll just end up so far ahead they can't keep up?

>>48544186
Depends on the matchup, trying to out-advantage a deck like Jund is a silly proposition.

>>48544109
>Typically with brainstorm you want some kind of shuffle effect because ideally you're going to put the two worst cards in your hand back on top.
I agreed with your general concept, but I disagree with a few things. Generally you want to order your cards to ensure you get good draws early game, particularly in EDH. Popping a brainstorm in EDH T1 with 2 lands in hand is a good play, in my opinion, because it allows you to see how your next few draws are going to be shaped, and a brainstorm can let you keep an otherwise risky starting hand. If you see a land, you aren't necessarily putting your worst cards back, you're putting back things with high casting cost, and ordering them to expedite your next few plays. If you only hit one land on card 3, that's awesome because it gives you information about your next 3 draws that would have fucked you, had you not known it earlier. Even if you hit no lands, you can know not to instantly blow your wad assuming you're hitting a land drop each turn. Yes, it is vulnerable to mill, but if you're playing someone who throws down that way, chances are they're not going to use their mill on two cards you discarded from your hand t1. It's more likely that they wait until you draw those cards and then hit you in that context, but it can backfire hilariously if you aren't prepared.

Long story short, Brainstorm is a very strategic card and we have slightly different opinions on how to use it based on the formats we play.

>>48544272
Valid reasoning, but I do still think the more information you have the better. I can definitely see the times where a T1 blind brainstorm is an ok to good play, but I maintain you have to have a solid reason for doing it.

Ultimately I think the best to say about brainstorm is: be cognizant of why you're casting it.

>>48544319
>Ultimately I think the best to say about brainstorm is: be cognizant of why you're casting it.
Well put. You are a reasonable person and I want to take a moment to recognize that in the middle of summer. Hope you have an awesome night.

something something mana weaving

File: 1463381246410.jpg (57KB, 600x503px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x503px

>>48544453
Pile shuffling is not manaweaving and it's a fine way to sort your cards before mashing them a few times and offering your deck to your opponent.

>>48544393
Thanks. You're a reasonable anon as well. There's a reason I only post in /tg/, have a good night as well!

>>48544478
This is objectively false, pile shuffling is explicitly not sufficient randomization in the fucking tournament rules

>>48544478
The fuck it isn't. Only reason to pile shuffle is to count your cards at start and between sideboarding. Pile shuffling is inefficient, time consuming and not even randomizing.

....Did I take the bait?

>>48544524
Oh, and relevant to the post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUmsg7VD3pw

File: 1343370915538.gif (67KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 500x500px

>>48544516
>>48544524
Now, to be completely honest with both of you, I've pile shuffled in a sealed draft with decklists, while playing against a judge, and while the actual judge watched, mashed my deck like four times, and no one really cared. It's only a problem if shenanigans start happening, I just do it because I'm superstitious as all fuck and if I don't do it, I'll bitch if I lose because I didn't do it. It has nothing to do with anything else, just puts my mind at ease.

File: Sphinx.jpg (16KB, 214x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 214x300px

>>48543788
Eh, I've just been using it as a neat 1 cost for pic related in my mill deck.

>>48544589
Then you are objectively stupid to believe in fallacy...

>>48544695
How do you shuffle without riffling and fucking up your cards? Go on, I'm all ears.

>>48544015
From my understanding, formats exist to mitigate p2w. If you can't afford a legacy deck, go play modern, standard or pauper. I really wish pauper was more popular, its such a fun format.

>>48544109
I mean, I play death and taxes in legacy, and I cannot tell you how many times I have had opponents get fucked over by a questionable hand they kept because of brainstorm.
It's fine when the card is U, but when its now 1U, it gets a lot worse.

test

>>48544803
That's one thing I learned early on from DnT: I should never keep a bad opening hand because I happen to have a brainstorm.

I play Canadian Threshold which is why I have a lot of thoughts about brainstorm.

>>48544803
>From my understanding, formats exist to mitigate p2w. If you can't afford a legacy deck, go play modern, standard or pauper. I really wish pauper was more popular, its such a fun format.
I don't really agree with you anon. Every deck has a T1 ubermensch that's cost prohibitive, but you're right, some formats have a lower cost associated with them.

>>48545042
I think there's a difference between cost prohibitive and pay to win. Cost prohibitive is relative to one's financial situation, and varies wildly. Pay to win meanwhile is concrete language, but doesn't really hold up in certain formats like say, Standard where rogue decks appear all the time. You're definitely right about the ubermensch deck existing in all formats, but I think the original anon's point was correct in stating most formats are designed to avoid P2W from occurring.

File: card adv.jpg (136KB, 900x316px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 900x316px

turn 3 cluster fux

Depends on the format
Drafting has a really low skill floor due to the comparatively complex understanding of deckbuilding you need do well
Standard has no such requirements, once you're familiar with the basics and the meta it's pretty easy to know the optimal play at any given moment, because you know what cards they probably have in their hand and your deck's win condition is clear and defined.

>>48544708
By not doing pile shuffling and shuffling like normal. I'm sure smashing is faster than riffles with sleeves anyway and probably randomizes better.

>>48545936
>By not doing pile shuffling and shuffling like normal
Do you mean by mashing cards? Like I said I did IN ADDITION to pile shuffling?

>>48543584
>Does Magic the Gathering really require skill
Technically, yes.

However, the entirety of that skill boils down to knowing the current meta and how you should react to what using what, which makes it rather shallow.

>>48544453
Mana weaving is frowned upon in many playgroups, and is illegal in tournaments I think.

File: 4f181d8caa1b7f6bed96c42383de41294810dd88.png (19KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 390x470px

>>48543584
>Magic the Gathering
>Skill

>>48544633

Are you me?

>>48543584
As someone who fundamentally hates card games and people who play them competitively, yes there is some skill. Luck is a huge factor, if you're just getting mana-flooded or mana-screwed there ain't shit you can do and your own deck has beaten you more than your opponent has. But skill shines through in a few areas, there's skill in knowing what to play and when if you actually have options but mostly the skill part is in building a deck.

The basic way I see it is that it breaks down to roughly
>50% deckbuilding
>30% luck in game
>20% skill in game

>>48543584
It requires knowing the meta. I mean there's not really any skill in how you drop a card onto the table. But maybe some people would call acquiring and using that knowledge "skill"

File: wizard soul 02 25.jpg (634KB, 1197x1672px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 1197x1672px

its not just about what cards you have, its about when you play them

Both skill and luck, similar to other patrician games such as poker.

>>48544589
>>48544516
>>48544524

Just fucking riffle you cucks

>>48543584

There's a degree of knowledge required in putting together an effective deck, but yeah, it's very much pay-to-win.

Best way to play is agree upon a casual format with friends. Don't even bother trying to play with guys at your local game stores, as they no doubt have the NEETbux to waste on high-end decks.

>>48550331
Just play pauper.

Also, are you implying being a NEET pays well?

Where does this idea come from exactly?

File: 1169886497670.jpg (43KB, 400x559px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 400x559px

>>48543584
>Does Magic the Gathering really require skill, or is it just based off of who has the best cards at the given moment?

Both. Magic is really skill-intensive AND really pay-to-win. Given decks of equal strength, expert players can absolutely crush newbies barring massive bad luck on draws - a mirror match against a better player is a 1-9 matchup. However, an expert player cannot beat a newbie if the newbie has a stronger deck. The range of power from weakest cards and decks to strongest in this game is absurd.

File: 1368661119309.jpg (48KB, 312x442px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 312x442px

It requires a pretty good amount of skill I feel

>crafting your own deck and tweaking it
>changing your sideboard for certain events or metacalls
>limited requires quite a bit of knowledge
>knowing how to just play the game well, decision making and so on
>specific interactions go a long way

Obviously there is a pay-to-play entry fee but that's because it's a hobby not a fucking charity

>>48544186
>implying that bolting the bird isn't always the correct line of play.

File: 1028312.jpg (79KB, 750x709px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 750x709px

>>48544478
>tfw I pile shuffle and mana weave just to rattle my autistic opponents

ofc it requires skill
>using sword to plowswhares on some 1 mana mob instead of saving it for the big guns

>>48550442
>Obviously there is a pay-to-play entry fee but that's because it's a hobby not a fucking charity

I wish more people understood this. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with playing on a budget but people who bitch about the cost piss me off.

>>48550321
>Bend my $600 foil Tarmo

F U C K O F F

File: they're not even near-mint.png (150KB, 911x451px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 911x451px

>>48550478

People bitch about the cost because MAGIC COSTS TOO MUCH. No game should cost $1000+ dollars EVERY YEAR YOU PLAY IT. The game is objectively too expensive by any sane standard and if you don't like people bitching about it, too fucking bad because it's never going to end.

>>48550487
Why?

The cards are built to be bent as such.

Not to mention it's very possible and easy to riffle with very little bend.

Not that I would ever riffle another persons cards, merely my own.

I also cut by putting the first 2-3 cards on the bottom.

: ^ )

>>48550495
So buy chinaman fakes?

It's not hard.

Also;

>playing standard
>complaining about price

ohohohohoohohoho

>>48550495
Legacy is only expensive because of Wizards retarded promise to uphold the Reserved list

Standard doesn't even cost 1000+ to keep up with it in a year

Once you buy into a legacy or modern or whatever deck you really don't have to buy a new one every year unless you get cucked by choosing pod or twin.

I dunno how you are figuring you need 1000+ dollars a year every year to play this shit buddy

>>48550508

Every (official) format in Magic is too expensive. Only difference is whether it's an upfront ludicrous sum ($15000 for a Vintage control deck) or yearly extortion for a smaller, but still absurd sum.

It's by far the most crippling flaw of the game and the reason every time people ask me should they get into Magic, I have to tell them no, you can't afford it, I can't afford it either but I do it because I'm a fucking idiot.

I live in a third-world country where playing such an expensive hobby is unthinkable, me and my friends just play on forge and cockatrice instead.

>>48550528
>I dunno how you are figuring you need 1000+ dollars a year every year to play this shit buddy

Because I don't think playing a single deck all year every year is fun at all. I need multiple decks to even enjoy the game. I think only fucking weirdos can keep playing the same deck and not get bored to death.

>>48550541

Duels is pretty good too, its F2P model is really fair.

>>48550533
That vintage control deck is less than half the cost you quoted there, probably less with a measly investment of about $50-70 on chinaman fakes that are indistinguishable when sleeved.

Proxy legacy events exist.

Playing any non-rotating format insulates you from this 'yearly cost' you're obsessed with.

Pauper is an official format.

You should also kill yourself, or maybe just stop being poor.

>>48550583
Addendum;

Who the fuck plays vintage? if you're going to shitpost at least go for something believable like legacy ok?

>>48544019
No. Casting Brainstorm at your opponent's EOT is only correct if you're looking for a specific card and need the extra mana on your turn. If you're just looking for action it's much better to cast it during your main phase.

>>48550442
>entry fee

>"It's a one-time investment, guys!"

In other words, you've never actually played MtG in a competitive setting.

>>48550533
>Things cost money
Holy shit breaking fucking news stop the presses

>>48550560
So play cockatrice?

It's pretty obvious you can't hold a conversation for more than a few minutes anyway, why even bother going to fnm?

>>48550583
>$50-70 on chinaman fakes that are indistinguishable when sleeved
Your solution, when told that the game in question is too expensive, it to buy fake product? That should tell you that something is wrong with your business model.

>>48550693
It remains slightly odd that small pieces of printed cardboard are among the set of things that can cost a fairly large amount of money.

>>48550533
>Every (official) format in Magic is too expensive
sealed
draft

These are also usually going to be the best and most interesting formats to play in at any given time.

File: 1448656370472.jpg (31KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x640px

>>48550468
>mfw you get dq'd

File: 1432280593899.gif (2MB, 300x290px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x290px

How many would actually care if your opponent is playing with fakes? Cause I honestly wouldn't even at comp REL

I got all my deck 100% real because I'm autistic and enjoy holding something valuable but as long as my opponent's card look real enough that I can distinguish what card it is at a glance I'm already happy I can just get to play

The only issue I have with fakes is that I have to check every card I buy because some cuntnuggets sell them

File: 1450980778914.jpg (32KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x480px

>>48550434

Yeah, having more money for Magic always helps but there is a point where you just have to know when and where to play your cards. Hell, having a good poker face and not letting your emotions get the best of you even when you're getting manaflooded or manascrewed is a factor to victory as well.

Before I stopped going to this one LGS for FNM there was a guy there who Netdecked to the max (He had recently bought a set of Unlimited Moxes to put into perspective how much money he threw at the game) but was just the worst player. The moment he had a series of bad draws you know immediately when you could just start going all out on him and knowing he didn't have the mana curve or cards to do anything about it. Hell, I once saw him draw a card, grumble "FUCK" under his breath and pass; only to have it be thirty seconds later him cursing out loud that he forgot to play one of the four lands in his hand.

>>48550826
>The only issue I have with fakes is that I have to check every card I buy because some cuntnuggets sell them
pretty much my view on it as well

I wish wizard's would put out something along the lines of the old championship decks for legacy/vintage staples. "official" proxies would do the game a world of good.

>>48550693

While I agree with what you're saying something just feels wrong about how with the same amount of money to build certain Modern decks I could build a second high end gaming PC for my living room.

It's not the cost that's really holding me back, it's knowing what else I could do with the same cost.

>>48550898
Opportunity cost is a cost

>>48543788
before cracking polluted delta ofc

File: 9246748061f110d4bb5b22267b952a1c.jpg (36KB, 1248x413px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1248x413px

>>48543584
B>U>R>W>G in terms of skill required to fully exploit each individual color

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pJyOtEzLWo

For anyone who has ever disputed that this is a skill game.

>>48543584
Just read some of the stuff the Top-tier players of any TCG say. Skill separates the top from the bottom, but at the highest level - luck plays as more determining factor. HS pros constantly nags about the RNG.

>>48550737
It's not too expensive for me though, it's expensive for you.

I have a job and can actually afford to throw money at a hobby if I so desire.

You don't so I'm suggesting a cheaper alternative to deal with said expense that is near indistinguishable for all intents and purposes of play.

>>48550898
That sounds like your problem.

Jewelry has no real purpose than to show how much of a pretentious/insecure cunt you are and it's pretty expensive.


Putting that aside, you have hoarders, reserve list and insiders to blame for the price of a lot of these cards. Hate them, not the game.

>>48551098
>Hearthstone

AhahahhahahhahHASHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAH

>>48551135
You don't think some people are just more money wise than you, when they decide not to put down tons of cash on cardboard?

Doesn't exactly have anything to do with being able to. I just got rid off real cards and changed to fakes, because there is absolutely zero reason to play with real cards. I can get behind paying for draft as money goes straight to LGS and WotC, but second hand market is a fucking cancer.

>>48551098
>HS pros constantly nags about the RNG.
That's because Hearthstone is nothing but RNG. Cards deals random amounts of damage to random targets and summon random creatures that do random things when they come into play and other random things when they die.

>>48551220
Or I just want to be able to actually trade and resell if I wish?

Not saying I'm against fakes, I own quite a few with many being in EDH decks and my cube because as you say, it's fucking ridiculous.

But people have payed more for less. What does the price of bread(or cardboard) have to do with me being money wise? Is every person who buys something for face value not money wise?

Even so, I'm not even saying that I'M money wise, it's just a stupid claim.

>>48543584

The best skill a player can possess in any card game is deckbuilding.

However, knowing how and when and why to play the cards you currently have is also an important skill.

Really though, it's still a card game, so luck is always going to be a large factor.

>>48544478

As someone who's only ever played the most casual of kitchen table games with friends; Mana Weaving?

>>48551326
Mana weaving is to kinda arrange mana into your shuffle, so you're guaranteed to mull/draw 2-3 lands every now and then. Like for example usually players who mana weave will separate their deck into two piles, one for spells and one for land. At this point, they arrange the cards in a set pattern when they shuffle their decks: two spells, one land, two spells, one land, and so on. In a 60 card deck with 20 land cards, this leaves the deck in a nice 2:1 ratio of spells to land and assures that the player will draw plenty of land.

>>48550973
This is objectively incorrect. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how decks interact with eachother and combine in various formats.

>>48551956
No.

File: 1469886579190.gif (415KB, 480x238px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 480x238px

>>48543788
>When's the best time to brainstorm?
there isn't a best time to brainstorm, there are only times when you should not brainstorm.

for example, if you have no reliable way of shuffling your library - you should not brainstorm.
if you have a generally strong hand - you should not brainstorm.
if the other guy is a miracuck with counter-top online or a stompy player with chalice on 1, probably just don't brainstorm unless you're trying to bait the miracuck into putting top on his library for whatever reason.
if you're holding two and bluffing force, definitely do not brainstorm unless they fire off a combo piece or lethal threat.
generally brainstorm is used on your own turn to manipulate your topdeck (flip a delver, etc) or shuffle away cards you don't want. ponder is what you're normally going to use for digging into your library because of the built-in shuffle.

>>48552184
>there isn't a best time to brainstorm
Yes there is, and that time is when you need to cast Brainstorm. What you shouldn't do is cast it early just to smooth out your draws. That's a wasted Brainstorm if I've ever seen one.

What you should do is wait for as long as possible before casting it, and when you do so almost always do it at sorcery speed because that way you don't waste a turn doing nothing, alternatively get to see an extra card before casting it. If your opponent cast a discard spell while you have Brainstorm in hand and one or more other good cards in your hand that you need to protect you can Brainstorm in response, alternatively if they're doing something strong that you need to counter and you don't have any counterspells in hand you can Brainstorm to look for one.

>>48545237
Probe, Brainstorm, Ponder, Visions; in that order.

File: 1469208145085.gif (244KB, 482x500px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 482x500px

Op here. From what I gather in this thread, and from my own experience in playing, I come to the conclusion that Magic does require skill to survive in the short run, but is unfair in the long run.

Basically if you master the fundamentals and you have an amazing deck you win the game every time. However, if you master the fundamentals but have an average deck, you will win some of the time.

It's a mixed bag. It's a fun game, but it's not one that I would take seriously.

>>48550640
>If you're just looking for action it's much better to cast it during your main phase.

I mean, it's nice to play it then get that spent mana back immediately during your upkeep, that's the way I see it.

>>48552735
>it's nice to play it then get that spent mana back immediately during your upkeep
And also much worse than getting to draw an extra card.

>>48552769
Ah, I see now.

>>48552735
>Basically if you master the fundamentals and you have an amazing deck you win the game every time.
You forgot the luck part. Even an awesome deck can be fucked by bad luck, bad matchups, or good luck by your opponent. Yes, the floor and ceiling are two vastly different levels, and a deck at the floor will not beat a top deck, but this is why other formats exist.

>However, if you master the fundamentals but have an average deck, you will win some of the time.
Ya, that's fair. I can give you that.

>It's a mixed bag. It's a fun game, but it's not one that I would take seriously.
Also spot on. It's a fun hobby, but not something to do competitively. You can play competitively for fun, like I do, but in general you don't play to try and make money or win, you play because you like it.

>>48543584
If the decks are around the same price point. If not, your wallet wins more often than not.

>>48551251
Hearthstone has RNG in its cards because you get 1 mana every single turn no matter what.

Imagine playing Magic where you didn't need to play lands and got to add 1 source of any color mana every turn.

Magic has rng in mana, hearthstone has rng in the cards themselves. It's also a digital medium so it can afford to print shit like lightning storm and yogg aaron

When you're as good at magic as brian kibler you can talk down the game all you want

>>48552932
Heathstone is a trendy game played by toilet-water idiots who like to be trendy and stream on twitch. Sure, it might have some neat things going on, but I would never play that game because I would rather be associated with neckbeards than trendy scum.

>>48552932
The game already has RNG in which order you draw the cards in. Gameplay is not enhanced by having individual cards behave randomly.

>>48552835
>Also spot on. It's a fun hobby, but not something to do competitively. You can play competitively for fun, like I do, but in general you don't play to try and make money or win, you play because you like it.

I think the only format I would take "seriously" would be drafting, because:
1. everyone spends the same amount of money on it and
2. it requires deck building skills

It also limits everyone's amounts of rares and uncommons so people have less of a chance to play amazing cards every turn.

>>48552981
Actually that's a valid point. The only constructed format I play is Commander, and that's because it's singleton so I don't have to worry as much about someone buying a good deck, then stomping everyone.

Sealed and draft are almost always fun/competitive. Prereleases are especially nifty.

>>48553014
Yeah, im currently constructing a commander deck and im having a blast, but im also awaiting for my deck to be destroyed by some douche with a $600 control deck.

Sealed is aight, but drafting helps me put more focus into what I need instead of staring at a pool of cards, so I prefer drafting personally.

>>48553142
What archetype is your deck? Contrary to popular belief a budget aggro deck can beat control. Control folds to early aggression because they want to go late game. The triangle is: midrange beats aggro, aggro beats control, and control (typically) beats midrange. The longer a game goes the stronger control gets, and the weaker aggro gets.

>>48553142
>>48553014
Actually, I will say that Commander is more fair because it's singleton. You can have that one player with the $1500 domination deck, but at least that player only has one of each card instead of multiples

>>48553566
My current edh deck can do some pretty good damage midrange if I pull all of the right cards, so I would say maybe infinite combo?

>>48551283
Came here to say this.
People who blame their losses on not drawing the cards they want or saying they would never win because the opponent has better cards are just bad at deckbuilding. You even have a side deck that allows you to beat down the luck margin.

>>48553735
>People who blame their losses on not drawing the cards they want or saying they would never win because the opponent has better cards are just bad at deckbuilding.

In my opinion deck building is probably the most fun part of the game, it really makes you think and strategize. However it's funny that all of that planning that goes into deck building might not matter if you keep pulling bad hands.

>>48550826

I don't care. I don't use them because I'm too scared some autist would call a judge and then DQ me but if I noticed my opponent was using fakes I wouldn't do anything.

I don't want to force people out of the game because they don't have hundreds of dollars to give to Hasbro/WotC or the secondary market. Magic is a fun product - Wizards does a good job creating a great game, but a terrible job treating their customers well. Hasjew bleeding the player vase dry is much, much more morally shady than individual players using counterfeit cards.

I hope fakes get better and better until they are indistinguishable from real cards. I will continue to buy real cards but at least more people will have the chance to play competitive Magic without a manufactured barrier to entry.

>>48553985
I like deck building, but side boarding is where I'm iffy at. I'm probably a scrub, but I find it hard to figure out what to put into my sideboard.

>>48550500
>The cards are built to be bent as such.

To anyone believing into this; No. They are not.
You can't bend stiff paper without damaging it, you just can't. That's what magic cards are and any sort of bending will break the paper structure the card has. In short, paper is not plastic material.

>>48552958
It's a game made by Activision-Blizzard based on fucking World of Warcraft, it's not trendy anymore than fucking white bread or milk and cereal is a trendy thing to eat.

>>48552972
Ah yes, which is why we have 36 card decks in Magic that run no lands, because the difference between drawing a mountain or westvale abbey adds needless RNG and leads to mana screwing players out of games purely due to bad luck and variance

Oh wait, we don't and that's retarded

Anyone else have terrible luck?

The only mythic I opened in sealed with Ulrich of the Krallenwhores, meanwhile I see the same people in sealed and draft open planeswalkers every fucking week it seems.

It's alright, at least I'm good enough at limited to win with commons and uncommons, right? But then I open my prize packs and what do I see? ANOTHER FUCKING BITCH MYTHIC USELESS WHOREWOLF ULRICH.

Why are werewolves so bad? Why is it I always open the bulk mythics? How do I change my luck?

>>48543584
Don't be fucking stupid, as with any tcg the player who opens the best hand always wins. Any delusion you have of "skill" is just you playing your hand as well as you can, which becomes second nature pretty quickly.

>>48550931
This is, in most cases, the correct answer.

>>48554508
The sideboard is if you are serious about winning. It feels like a tryhard part of playing magic. But it does make all the difference.

>>48553985
There is always going to be an element of luck in a randomly shuffled deck,but a good deck that has been built well always sees action.
You almost never see tournament players getting landstarved/swamped and of course the mulligan rule is there to support that.

>>48543584
Yes
Part of it is knowing the meta and how to build your deck around it
Part of it is knowing how to play your own deck, how valuable any given card is in any given scenario, what your outs are, and how to get to victory
There is an element of luck but a skilled player knows how to play their hand. However you can get screwed beyond a reasonable amount and that's unfortunate, but that's the way it goes.

>>48554966
>because the difference between drawing a mountain or westvale abbey adds needless RNG
The fuck are you talking about?

File: 9.jpg (73KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 312x445px

>Does Magic the Gathering really require skill

No. People just Google which decks to use, then sink retarded amounts of money into them.

Building your own deck would take some know-how, but most people don't bother to experiment at the risk of being humiliated - because, you know, losing at a card game makes you less of a man.

>or is it just based off of who has the best cards at the given moment?

It's mostly pay2win. The rarer and more expensive cards tend to have retardedly overpowered abilities that are too difficult to counteract unless you're using a similarly priced deck. The company has to design the game this way to make any profit.

>>48556131
Progenitus is neither good or expensive, anon.

>>48556131
>"There's is only one format, right guys?"

>Formats based around everyone getting random cards and having to build a deck on the spot
>"You can only win by copying the pros's decks verbatim"

>Entire format based around only playing common cards
>"The game costs a gorillion dollars a week to play"

Stop playing vintage, I agree, its a retarded format.

>>48556175
The only thing that keeps progenitus from being a top tier monster is the inability to reliably cheat it into play.

If progenitus could hit the GY then its value would rise. I mean, not much, but it would go up.

>>48554508
It's a lot of work, but to build a good sideboard I just build a different sixty card deck for each matchup and find a way to use only seventy-five cards to play them all.

>>48557438

True-Name Nemsises is basically Progenitius that lost a lot of weight and turned into a fish.

>>48557438
>is the inability to reliably cheat it into play
No. There's several ways to cheat iit into play, but the ddecks that can would rather cheat in a creature that wins the game right away than a creature that does nothing.

>>48556131
You've obviously never fucked yourself over with a misplayed Brainstorm, or gotten BTFO by a poor pile split against a Fact or Fiction.

>>48556606
>>Formats based around everyone getting random cards and having to build a deck on the spot
Yeah, and Limited STILL has the problem of
>you opened that chase mythic that made waves even in standard? Congrats, you're already 50% of the way towards winning the draft
I've seen a below average player place because he was lucky to open up a nahiri while red was an open color. Guess what he had out every single game that provided him limitless card advantage?
Luckily I wasn't matched against him or I would have rage quit because I didn't open a single good rare that draft and had to make do with un/commons and sheer deckbuilding ability.

>>48556131
I've actually found that casual is the most p2win out of any magic situation. It's so easy to get in a money arms race.

What format requires the most skill? My vote goes to cube draft.

>>48558140
Cube draft->Cube Sealed->Retro Draft->Retro Sealed->Build-A-Standard (my personal favorite format)->Vintage/Legacy/Standard draft/sealed->Modern/Pauper/Standard/EDH

>>48558430
edh all the way on the bottom? Idk, it forces you to be cleaver and build decks that synergize well, because you can only have one of each card. The deck building process requires skill at least. But on the same token, I have played several edh games where I pulled nothing but huge cards or useless artifacts.

>>48555339
Never, ever count on sealed product to get the cards you want. It never works.

It costs far less to buy the cards you want outright, especially for new sets as they are printed to hell and back (wait for sets to rotate out of Standard if you want an even better deal).

>>48558750
My experience with EDH is nothing but one of 3 things:
Casual ( not skillful at all )
Infinite combos ( nope, no skill involved here )
Commander effect bullshit ( also no skill involved as it's the one card you're guaranteed to be able to use at some point )

>>48558827
It isnt a format I take seriously but I do take enjoyment out of building these huge colossal decks that synergize well.

as a matter of fact I dont take any of magic seriously

File: bueno.jpg (8KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x184px

>>48551028
That was a delight to watch.

>>48544708
A combination of mashing, and chunk shuffling.

Riffling will also randomize the cards, but it damages the cards, so if you get punched in the face for Riffling someone else's deck without permission, you had it coming.

Pile shuffling does not make cards any more or less random. Its good for exposing cheaters or ruining their cheating though, messes up their plans.

>>48554585
what is bend test

Now I'm not saying that wont damage the cards, as it does.

I'm saying it's very easy to riffle with minimal bend.

>>48550528
>he maybe doesnt buy a new all foil deck each year and shred last years all foil deck
wtf?

>>48561427
>what is bend test
It's something retards do. It's hardly valid to call it a "test".

>Now I'm not saying that wont damage the cards, as it does.
>The cards are built to be bent as such.

Now I'm only saying this is complete bullshit. Riffle your cards as much as you want, it's fine as long as it's not something you do on other people's cards.

>>48558931
I would also add that if anyone sees extent pile shuffling in tournament, they call a judge. It's waste of time and judges won't look at that shit for long before penalty.

>>48554585
don't listen to this cuck, the paper is designed to be bent and stressed-- fakes are not

>>48550478
Because this game cost way more than it should you dipshit.

>>48562890
Yeah, tell me more about how paper is plastic material and bending it doesn't break the microstructure it has. Not to talk about adhesives on layers the card has to ensure the bending action. Now go troll someone else.

>>48554508
Your sideboard should consist of
> cards that hose your friends decks
> cards that hose the cards your friends sideboard in use to hose your own deck
> as anti-aggro strategy
> the 4th copy of a card you need to draw in order to win the game, as safety against control players
> 1-2 of extra / alternate lands

It's very dependent against what decks you think you will play against, so it can take a while to evolve if you only play against a couple friends with decks you know how to beat. If you keep going to your LGS, you can plan for the next tournament (or whatever), and imo your sideboard should be the most liquid part of the deck

>>48562939
step 1: take a basic land
step 2: bend it

wow

>>48543584
Both yes and no. If you play a lot of limited it becomes much more apparent this is the case. The skill comes from reading the board state and extrapolating what your opponent has in his hand based on what you have seen. It also takes a great deal of skill of reading people. Looking for tells is a must. You also want to try to get a feel for the person before the match. Does he seem evasive with your lighthearted questions? If you played him before does he hold back and act reflexively or does he tend to take the initiative and try and force his way?

There is a LOT of skill play involved which can turn the tide of the game. If you notice a reflexive player suddenly appear to go "all in" you know hes being a tricky dick. If an aggressive player suddenly does not use his mana when he clearly could you know hes planing something. These can win you the game if you foil them But all that skill means nothing if they play a Sigarda with a field of humans and you just cant answer it. All the inferring and reading of board states dont mean shit if you dont have the cards to swing things back in your favor.

>>48550449
>Bolt a bird
>They play two birds next turn

File: basic land.jpg (1MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1944px

>>48563003
You ruined my basic land!

>>48544708
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1351692/how-you-should-be-shuffling-extensive-study-shuffl

1 Pile shuffle followed by 2 overhand shuffles.

>>48551135
>Be me
>Come from money
>Have connections and good education so I get a great job
>Down at LGS playing DnD with a new group.
>Become good mates with them
>One of them plays Magic
>Ask him about Magic one day cause it looks interesting
>Offers to let me play a couple of his decks.
>While we're playing he explains the formats to me, all his decks are modern.
>Have a lot of fun with one deck in particular.
>"That was fun, how much to build this deck myself?"
>"Oh that one's not too bad for price, a little under 500$ I think."
>Laughing face.jpeg
>He's not laughing
>"Wait seiously?"
>"Yep"
>Dropped

>>48550331
Mom and dad's money I guess?
I dunno.

>>48550910
I hope you die a most painful death

>>48543584
>Vintage/Legacy: Very yes
>Modern: Eh, sure
>Standard: Not really
>EDH: Not really
>Draft: Almost certainly the most skill-intensive
>Sealed: It is fun but unfortunately it is almost all luck.

>>48543584

Depends on the decks. If you have decks constructed to effectively let you use any card you want at any given time then it becomes skill. At least on your end.

But you never know when you're going to play that tournament and mulligan out 3 games in a row even with 26 lands.

Talk about an embarassing day.

>>48567065

Draft is just as luck based as sealed.

Twice I've been seated with people that just show up to grab the uncommons and rares of every color to build their collection and I've ended up with unplayable decks where my best shot was to run 4 colors and hope my land draws worked out.

>>48553566
Well, except that Wizards refuses to print good control cards any more, because they're "unfun." So, with Aggro rarely able to beat midrange and midrange's only natural predators removed...yeah.

>>48568514
Unless you suck at evaluating cards you can easily build a good draft deck with nothing but commons and uncommons.

>>48568514
>forced into unplayable decks by people who take all of the rares
You are definitely not drafting properly, my friend.
I love sealed and really wish I could claim it is more skill-intensive. Hell, my preparation for prereleases involves autistically building and goldfishing decks on sealed simulators dozens and dozens of times to get a feel for the set's limited deck-building environment.

The bottom line is that you are, however, entirely at the mercy of what you open. Some sealed pools are just shit, where you just have to build a calculated deck of jank commons and pray that you curve out properly every single game. Others have 3 unbeatable bombs. It often doesn't matter how good you are at deckbuilding when your opponent drops some mythic that there are just no possible answers to in your pool.

>>48558430
Why does cube draft require the most skill?

>>48558931
>Pile shuffling does not make cards any more or less random. Its good for exposing cheaters or ruining their cheating though, messes up their plans.

I pile shuffle when I am playing with bare cards (with no sleeves). It seems like the only way to distribute the mana evenly.

>>48569136
idk why people hate on pile shuffling.
I do 3-4 pile shuffles of varying sizes (usually piles of 5, but also 4 and 6-8) before games because I don't feel like other kinds give me as much complete randomization.
It is also gentle on the cards and sleeves, although you do have to follow it up with some other kinds of shuffles to make things comfortable for everyone.

>It seems like the only way to distribute the mana evenly.
That smells like mana weaving. The goal of shuffling is not to distribute mana (or anything else) evenly; it is to randomize your deck as best as it can be.

>>48569264
>That smells like mana weaving. The goal of shuffling is not to distribute mana (or anything else) evenly; it is to randomize your deck as best as it can be.

I didnt mean for it to come off as mana weaving. But when you have a multi colored deck, with all of the colors mashed together, you need to find a way to totally randomize it. And if you dont have sleeves, pile shuffling seems like the best way to do that. I guess this >>48565202 agrees with me.

>>48569099
Presumably because every card is good, which means that it's not enough to be able to discern which cards in the pack that are playable and which aren't. You must not only correctly evaluate which of all these powerful cards is the most powerful, but which of them is the most powerful one in the deck you're building.

I don't know though. I'm really into Cubing and think it's definetly the most fun way to experience Magic, but saying that it's the most skill requiring format... That depends so much on how that particular Cube is built.

>>48543584
The "skill" in magic, is being able to navigate through the choices presented to you to capitalize the most when things align & you get "lucky".

Not ever game is winnable, but you can lose every game if you make the wrong choices.

>>48569136
mana isn't supposed to be distributed evenly, it's supposed to be distributed randomly.

>>48569264
that's not randomization though. because your putting card into piles in order, it's different sort of ordering.

You need to use a non-ordered form of shuffling afterwords to create actual randomness. You should ideally do those shuffles enough to create randomness even from a perfectly ordered state.

most people pile shuffle because you can create something that feels more like randomness after a smaller number of suffles, because they don't understand how randomness works. Or because it makes them feel better (I fall into this category).

The only actual usefulness of pile shuffling is if your sleeves tend to build up static to stick together, thus reducing the randomization of shuffling. Pile sorting breaks up those static clinged clusters.

>>48569309
>you need to find a way to totally randomize it
Yes. That's not the same as removing chunks of lands or spells, though. Far from it, in fact.

>>48569309
>>48569309
that's not what most people consider 'pile shuffling' because the 'mtg' shuffle is put together at 'random'
which is really not the case for most pile sufflers.

A big problem I'm having with this study is it uses the term 'random' in describing how the method is performed, without indicating how this 'randomness' is being applied in the model. There is a lot about the model that's not shown.

>>48556131
I'd agree up to an extent. Paying out the wazoo for powerful cards is definitely there, but knowledge in both how to pilot your deck and how to anticipate your opponents still plays into it as well.

I won a college pauper tournament by beating some guy who was playing some serious $$$ deck. I was just running a r/g Sliver aggro deck and was up against his hexproof elf voltron deck.

I really only wound up winning not because my deck was better, but because I caught him off guard by pulling back the aggro when he was trying to lure me into tapping out my boardstate for his turn.

Likewise I've sank a ton of money into my modern aggro artifact deck, and still been routinely blown out by my friend's 15$ Illusions deck.

>>48569350
I've heard from a pro (at some point) that pile shuffles are great for randomization.

Multiple pile shuffles with overhand shuffles after each one feels like a great way to randomize to me that is easy on sleeves (and especially good if I'm playing at a draft without sleeves).

Riffling is very good but I don't have the skill to do it without messing up my sleeves.

>>48569663
>I've heard from a pro (at some point) that pile shuffles are great for randomization.
because or feeling of randomization isn't a good reflection of randomization. Randomization should resulting in some clumps.

Pile shuffling only creates actual randomization if you induce randomization into it, by using large numbers of piles and picking the order to recombine randomly (actual random, not what feels like random, again humans are bad at this). Or have the number of cards put into piles or the order of setting up piles be random.

Without those it create more even distribution, which feels like randomization, but isn't.

ITT: Kitchen table and FNM players making nebulous comments on organized play.

If you are going to play a PC game like CS:GO, you can buy a $100 PC that has a shit framerate and be at a significant disadvantage. You could also buy a $700 PC and run the game at maximum useful settings. Spending $1400 on a PC at that point will offer no additional advantage. Budget is a complete non-issue for players and it has zero bearing on the strategy of the game.

Magic is the same way. If you can't afford what is necessary to compete, you are not as much at a disadvantage as you are fundamentally not playing the same game as your opponent. Once you are playing the same game as your opponent, budget becomes completely irrelevant to the strategy of the game.

If Magic was pay-to-win or whatever nonsense you want to call it, the game would have bidding wars built into it. Magic is pay to have some cards.

>>48569877
Well to be pedantic, I guess it depends on how you interpret the term. It is definitely not "pay to win" in the typical video game sense of shitty MMOs.
It is more "pay to compete". The problem lies in the fact that this is not evident to casual/FNM players (who ironically make up a massive portion of Wizard's profits) because they compete without paying; they just lose. Hence in their mind they lose because they didn't pay (making Magic p2w), when in reality they were never an actual competitive threat to the people who dropped multiple grands on cardboard in the first place.

So if you take your budget kitchen table deck to a Modern tournament are you actually competing in said tournament? One's view of whether Magic is p2w seems to depend on the answer to that question.

>>48562910
you are way more poor than you should be, poorfag

>>48570966
I'm sorry I don't have to spend over 5$ as I can play as much as I want with proxies. Local proxy tournaments ahoy. Now I can have a real hobby besides playing children's card game.

>>48543584
All of the above.

>>48563456
>buying fake basic lands

Bad goy!

File: c4rd4r7_Hsa8OHnoib.jpg (330KB, 750x779px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 750x779px

The longer you play Magic, especially competitively, you start to realize how little luck is involved. Newer players don't see all the decisions and thus they think they played well, when they really didn't.

If you want proof as to how little luck matters in high level Magic, look at the top 8 of Grand Prixs. These tournaments are open to the public and have thousands of players competing. Yet there are always at least 1-2 high-profile pros in every top 8.

Of course you have to get lucky at least once to win a tournament, but consistently playing well will give you consistent results in Magic. Anyone who says luck decides more than 5% of Magic games is inexperienced. End of story.

>>48562939
>>48554585
You're right, cards aren't plastic. They're elastic. Not that you're bending them past the yield stress anyway.
Or at least you really shouldn't be.
Riffling won't damage your cards if you aren't retarded. The main opponents of riffle shuffling tend to be people who see MTG as finance and not a game, so it's not like they have valid opinions anyway.
You should take the time to learn what plastic means in regards to materials if you're going to use it for an argument.

>>48576120
>Why did you just key my car?
>Dude, stop looking at cars as finance and not as transportation
Yeah no, fuck off, and don't come back.

>>48576225
>riffle shuffling is just as bad as keying a car
Not even close, Mr. Bernstein. It's more like shoe polishing the windows of newlyweds.
I also posit that it is you who needs to leave and learn what plastic means, because those posts were hilarious.

>>48558082
It doesnt sound like you guys are being very casual about it.

>>48576334
I'm not even Mr. plastic over there, I just see that you're equating people being defensive about something they spent quite a lot of money on with people who view something only as an investment. And you're incorrect. And I'm letting you know.

And I'd say its a pretty good analogy. A high end mtg deck is about the same price as a low end junker, and keying a car has the same functional impact of bending a card slightly: A small, but noticeable imperfection, and in either case, you deserve to be punched in the throat if you do it to someone else.

>>48558750
EDH requires a great deal of skill to win (3-4 opponents), but political/people skills aren't really game skills per se.

>>48543584
My local shop owner once proved this point to a prospective player who said he was worried he wouldnt have fun if he couldnt buy the best cards. he called me up to the counter and opened up one of the starter decks from the shelf. he struggled, but he ended up beating me in the end because i was fairly new and he has been with the game for 20 years.

>>48576486
Mr. Goldenberg, please. Just because you've changed what you're posting from doesn't mean you're not you.
And they're not comparable. Keying a car is something that costs money to repair. Cardstock is an elastic material, which means it reverts itself with some time, though a dictionary can certainly aid in the process. So long as you don't crease the card, there's no significant damage. It's an issue of visible and costly damage versus invisible (unless you're being retarded) and insignificant damage that can be repaired for free.
Of course, this is disregarding foil cards which will bend on their own and arguably should be riffle shuffled because the bend from the shuffle counteracts the bend from time. Or, again, a good dictionary could be utilized.

>>48576820
There is no such thing as a perfect elastic, given enough repeated deformations it will deform permanently.

It also costs money to repair a broken deck, AKA buying new cards. There's also a cheap fix for keying a car, a la your "dictionary" solution, such as nail polish.

You could just admit its not a nice thing to do something that might damage something that doesn't belong to you without asking, but really, you're in too deep, aren't you. I know this word is thrown around like candy here, but you really are being autistic, as in you seem to lack the capacity for empathy.

File: 126.jpg (71KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 312x445px

>>48550055
I just looked up that comic, it's faily enjoyable and I'm almost completely caught up now, but I'd just like to point out that in their version of MtG they have Insurrection at instant speed for only four mana. Plus, it's considered a janky piece of shit that only scrubs play. What the fuck!?

>>48576120
Then what you call materials with plastic properties in english? At least the term of property is plasticity in the sense that I'm using it in here. Of course I'm not meaning the cards are fucking plastic when I am explicitly talking about paper. But I get your point, but I'm quite sure you are wrong saying magic cards are elastic, but not plastic, as usually every material has both of these properties.

But if you look at stiff combination of magic cards, which has several layers + adhesive in between, it really starts to lose that elasticity. The point where magic card goes from elastic to plastic properties in bending is really low.

>>48577564
In terms of material properties, if when you apply force to a material it changes shape, and then when the force is removed it returns to its original shape, that material is elastic. If after the force is removed it remains in its new shape, it's plastic.
Now, of course, most actual materials are elastic when a certain amount of force is applied to them and become plastic after a certain greater force is applied, and there is some gradient between them, but that's the principle.

>>48577641
Thought I said it, but thanks for clarifying this to anyone not knowing how this principle works. Now, I'm quite sure anyone not knowing about these principles could fuck off and stop bending other people's cards.

>>48567065
>EDH: Not really
Wrong. You need to know a GIANT pool of card interactions for every single colour to be somewhat decent. In order to be "good" you need to be very adept at not only building a deck, but cutting good cards that dont fit your deck's theme. Not only that, but you need a very strong understanding of fundamental interaction, particularly with cards you've never seen before because there will always be something you've never seen before used in slightly the wrong way for a massive advantage. Sounds like you haven't really played a lot and/or brought a precon to a tourny, got spanked, then complained about people with better decks winning.

>>48575923

It's really deck dependant. If you don't have ways to manipulate the field then you're going on pure luck.

But that's why pro players use fetch abilities and scry or even utilize their own graveyard.

>>48550495

I was just reflecting on how much I've spent on magic over the past two years. I'm really fucking over my retirement. I may sell off my collection and switch to Force of Will since it's significantly cheaper to own full playsets, and the national winning decks only cost around $180 to put together.

>>48550468
>>48550784
Is mana weaving really that hated?

>>48579042
>EDH tourney

Funny guy.

How it actually goes though is that players just trade board wipes for 30 minutes, then someone resolves the infinite combo they've been saving and tutoring for.

>>48581809
Yes, because "lands and spells are evenly distributed" is not "randomized deck"

>>48581948
Well shit, I've been cheating for the past couple of years now and I never even knew it.

>>48581809
"Hated" could probably go either way; flat out against the rules? yes

Since you're supposed to present your opponent with a randomized deck, mana weaving is either cheating, as you're not fufilling the randomized requirement, or a waste of time, as you're doing it and then just randomizing the deck afterwards. Pile "shuffling" touches this as well because it is by definition not a shuffle and is only really useful to count your deck to make sure you're presenting 60 cards before actually shuffling.

Solution? Buy sleeves, mash shuffle, and if you can't mash shuffle without damaging your cards consider suicide. Even with a deck with a known order, it only takes about 7 mash shuffles to have a randomized deck, and you can probably get 25+ in while your opponent sits there and piles once

>>48563168
>Dual Shot both birds
>They play three birds next turn

>>48582540
I don't think they can physically have that many birds in their deck

>>48582488

Mash shovels can be bad, too, if the player does a mash shovel with about 30 cards every time. It's only really random if you mash shuffle a small portion into random locations a few times alongside your larger mash shovels. Otherwise mash shoveling with half your deck over and over will eventually take the deck back to how it was before.

This is why I like the idea of shuffling your opponents deck in a tournament setting.

>>48582488

Mash shovels can be bad, too, if the player does a mash shovel with about 30 cards every time. It's only really random if you mash shuffle a small portion into random locations a few times alongside your larger mash shovels. Otherwise mash shoveling with half your deck over and over will eventually take the deck back to how it was before.

This is why I like the idea of shuffling your opponents deck in a tournament setting.

>>48582876
>mash shoveling with half your deck over and over will eventually take the deck back to how it was before.
That's impossible. No human being can perfect a mash shuffle to the degree that they'd be able get the deck back in the same state it was before.

>>48583455
Im not going to argue the science behind all of this, but I have mulliganed and mash shuffled several times and pulled an identical hand before

>It's only really random if you mash shuffle a small portion into random locations a few times alongside your larger mash shovels

This is how you do it. Do several small mashes with cards from all sides of the deck, then like two or three big ones.

>>48583455

Depending on the deck it only takes 3-5 equal mashes.

>>48547367
Mana weaving either
a) makes the deck at the end of shuffling non-random, and is therefore stacking the deck... and very much cheating.
or
b) Doesn't effect the deck at the end of shuffling... and is therefore just wasting time.

there is no c. You are either wasting time or cheating.

The professor riffle-shuffles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_184108507&feature=iv&src_vid=koeXhQNfCpc&v=lGyD1qyIkIQ

@ 6:36:00

File: 1468308120228.jpg (200KB, 1300x999px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1300x999px

>>48550434
god i love that art