What is with Thawing Galciers?
Jaglom
I read a post saying something about thawing glaciers being cool, but I
think it is in the same pile as Arcane Denial, It Sucks!!!! both cards
just slow you down, but I know they have their advantages.....
MIke
Eric Taylor
Jaglom (jag...@aol.com) wrote:
: I read a post saying something about thawing glaciers being cool, but I
: think it is in the same pile as Arcane Denial, It Sucks!!!! both cards
: just slow you down, but I know they have their advantages.....
I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but. . .
In the top ten tables at PT3, nearly 90% of the players had thawing
glaciers. In the rest of the tournament field, around 40% had thawing
glaciers. That tells you something about the power of that card in
PT3. It worked.
In the top 16 tables at the Nationals, 3 of the decks, that is, 20% of
the decks, (all the turbo stasis decks) used Arcane Denial as major
component of their decks. In the losing bracket, 1 deck, less than 1%,
used arcane denial.
Nothing proves success like success. Glaciers is a great card for any
deck in the PT3 format, especially in the recovery phase after a
jokulhaups. For a some types of decks in type II, arcane denial has
also proved to be a staple tournament card.
Maybe you had to be at the Nationals and PT3, to see and really believe
in the glaciers and arcane denial, but I can tell you right now, you'll
be seeing more of both of those spells in winning tournament decks.
You don't have to use these cards if you don't like, but to just
poo-poo these cards without even giving them a try is really doing
yourself a disservice.
I three huge stacks of cards at home. Stack 1: Cards that suck but I
can trade. Stack 2: Cards that I can use in a tournament deck. Stack
3: Cards that really suck and are so useless I can't even trade them.
I'm going to have to start moving several of the type "3" cards that
really really suck into either the type "1" trade binder or even the
type "2" tournament quality binder, after watching and playing in the
pt3 and nationals. I saw so many cards I thought were dreadful turn out
to be some of the best cards in the expansion.
--- edt
Jim Dougan
Eric Taylor (e...@ren.us.itd.umich.edu) wrote:
: Jaglom (jag...@aol.com) wrote:
: : I read a post saying something about thawing glaciers being cool, but I
: : think it is in the same pile as Arcane Denial, It Sucks!!!! both cards
: : just slow you down, but I know they have their advantages.....
Last night I placed second in a local tournament using PT3 rules (IA/AL).
Thawing glaciers won more games for me than pracrtically any other card.
Several times, it lifted me quickly out of a mana screw, and allowed me
to recover rapidly from a bad position. It has the secondary effect of
thinning one's deck - you are pulling a land out every other turn, which
means your draws are increasingly potent. Using a lodestone bauble (in case
you pull too much land) is a nice compliment.
The downside of Thawing Glaciers (and the other AL lands, too) is the
chance of a "non-mulligan mulligan" - where you draw AL lands which
unfortunately will do you no good without another mana source. I lost
one game last night in which my opening draw was 2 Jeweled Amulets, 1
Thawing Glacier, and 1 Kjeldoran Outpost. I died quickly. In fact,
virtually every game I lost was as a result of this type of problem
(I had 6 total AL lands in a 62 card deck - this may well be too
many).
My toughts after last night's tourney?
"How long before they restrict Thawing Glaciers?"
-- Jim
Mike
Jaglom wrote:
>
> I read a post saying something about thawing glaciers being cool, but I
> think it is in the same pile as Arcane Denial, It Sucks!!!! both cards
> just slow you down, but I know they have their advantages.....
>
Something I missed when I only saw the spoilers list was that there's no
tap symbol. So this card gets pretty nasty once you've got 3 or 4 mana
out. You'd probably want to play it in a control type or other slow
deck, where you've got a way of giving yourself life.
Rolf Kenneby
Jaglom wrote:
>
> I read a post saying something about thawing glaciers being cool, but I
> think it is in the same pile as Arcane Denial, It Sucks!!!! both cards
> just slow you down, but I know they have their advantages.....
>
> MIke
If you have any send ´em to me! Or why not just try them with
Sylvan Library...
Magnus
Seth Jaffee
> You can get out of this, because you can get one mana from the outpost
> before it gets buried. First turn play the glaciers (and amulets too).
> Second turn, play the outpost. It gets buried but during the damage
> prevention step you can play interrupts, so you tap the outpost for 1 mana
> before it dies. Then activate the glaciers.
I have read posts about getting mana out of AL lands while they
are on their way to being buried (right after you play them), is this
really possible? I've also heard that it won't work, according to the
rules you don't get a chance to get the mana (if you don't sac a land, it
gets buried before you can use it).
I don't know which is correct, they both sound ok (although I
think that being able to do it sounds more correct, but who am I to
say...)
- Seth
Cameron Hutchison
jdo...@titan.iwu.edu (Jim Dougan) writes:
>The downside of Thawing Glaciers (and the other AL lands, too) is the
>chance of a "non-mulligan mulligan" - where you draw AL lands which
>unfortunately will do you no good without another mana source. I lost
>one game last night in which my opening draw was 2 Jeweled Amulets, 1
>Thawing Glacier, and 1 Kjeldoran Outpost. I died quickly.
You can get out of this, because you can get one mana from the outpost
before it gets buried. First turn play the glaciers (and amulets too).
Second turn, play the outpost. It gets buried but during the damage
prevention step you can play interrupts, so you tap the outpost for 1 mana
before it dies. Then activate the glaciers.
Its a slow start, but you can recover.
--
Cameron Hutchison (ca...@zip.com.au) | Beware of the clams
GCS d--@ -p+ c++(++++) l++ u+ e+ m+(-) s n- h++ f? !g w+ t r+
Sean Klein
Jaglom wrote:
>
> I read a post saying something about thawing glaciers being cool, but I
> think it is in the same pile as Arcane Denial, It Sucks!!!! both cards
> just slow you down, but I know they have their advantages.....
Thawing Glaciers are an extraordinarily cool card and if you don't want
'em, mail them to me. Play them after turn two or three. They require a
mana foundation to work well. Once you have one out you can place a
basic land every other turn. This does two things: enables you to get
out that vital mana you need, i.e. the second plains for a Serra or
another swamp for a Sengir; and to thin your deck of land for the middle
to end game when you don't need land.
If you have two out you can place a basic land a turn by using one
glaciers and playing the other. After a few turns of this you won't get
a land run while your opponent is busy playing creatures and drawing
useful spells.
More than two thawing glaciers in play is overkill, IMHO. Try playing
with them. I underestimated the card until I used it.
Mike
Seth Jaffee wrote:
>
> > You can get out of this, because you can get one mana from the outpost
> > before it gets buried. First turn play the glaciers (and amulets too).
> > Second turn, play the outpost. It gets buried but during the damage
> > prevention step you can play interrupts, so you tap the outpost for 1 mana
> > before it dies. Then activate the glaciers.
>
> are on their way to being buried (right after you play them), is this
> really possible? I've also heard that it won't work, according to the
> rules you don't get a chance to get the mana (if you don't sac a land, it
> gets buried before you can use it).
> I don't know which is correct, they both sound ok (although I
> think that being able to do it sounds more correct, but who am I to
> say...)
>
> - Seth
Tom Wylie has ruled on this on .rules. It comes into play long enough
for you to tap it for mana as a fast effect before it gets buried.
Jim Dougan
Mike (mmas...@fhcrc.org) wrote:
I certainly would not question Tom....but can someone explain the logic
behind the ruling (so I understand it, and can explain it...)
It seems wrong because:
1) Bury effects are not damage effects, so there is no damage prevention step.
2) You can't respond to playing a land by doing anything (even playing an
interupt) so the land is played and buried before you could tap it...
Again, I am not questioning Tom - I just don't understand the ruling.
-- Jim
P.S. I know this belongs on .rules, but it came up here...
fuzz
> : Tom Wylie has ruled on this on .rules. It comes into play long enough
> : for you to tap it for mana as a fast effect before it gets buried.
>
> I certainly would not question Tom....but can someone explain the logic
> behind the ruling (so I understand it, and can explain it...)
>
> It seems wrong because:
>
> 1) Bury effects are not damage effects, so there is no damage prevention step.
>
> 2) You can't respond to playing a land by doing anything (even playing an
> interupt) so the land is played and buried before you could tap it...
>
> Again, I am not questioning Tom - I just don't understand the ruling.
>
> -- Jim
>
> P.S. I know this belongs on .rules, but it came up here...
well, it's not a damage prevention subphase per se...but there is a
subphase whenever any permanent goes to the graveyard where the only
legal spells or effects are those that prevent damage and interrupts. i
know it doesn't make a lot of sense, but them's the rules.
hope that didn't confuse you too much.
Kyle Nishioka
Jim Dougan (jdo...@titan.iwu.edu) wrote:
: Mike (mmas...@fhcrc.org) wrote:
: : Seth Jaffee wrote:
: : >
: : > > You can get out of this, because you can get one mana from the outpost
: : > > before it gets buried. First turn play the glaciers (and amulets too).
: : > > Second turn, play the outpost. It gets buried but during the damage
: : > > prevention step you can play interrupts, so you tap the outpost for 1 mana
: : > > before it dies. Then activate the glaciers.
: : >
: : > I have read posts about getting mana out of AL lands while they
: : > are on their way to being buried (right after you play them), is this
: : > really possible? I've also heard that it won't work, according to the
: : > rules you don't get a chance to get the mana (if you don't sac a land, it
: : > gets buried before you can use it).
: : > I don't know which is correct, they both sound ok (although I
: : > think that being able to do it sounds more correct, but who am I to
: : > say...)
: : >
: : > - Seth
: : Tom Wylie has ruled on this on .rules. It comes into play long enough
: : for you to tap it for mana as a fast effect before it gets buried.
: I certainly would not question Tom....but can someone explain the logic
: behind the ruling (so I understand it, and can explain it...)
The reason it works is because between the time a permanent gets a
destroy/bury effect and the permanent goes to the grave, there is a d-p
step for the permanent. In the d-p step, interrupts are legal damage
prevention and may be used.
: It seems wrong because:
: 1) Bury effects are not damage effects, so there is no damage prevention step.
Destroy and burial effects also trigger d-p stpes.
: 2) You can't respond to playing a land by doing anything (even playing an
: interupt) so the land is played and buried before you could tap it...
That is correct, but a permanent does not go directly to the grave as soon
as it is buried/destroyed.
--
Kyle
nk...@hawaii.edu
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
#include <blue_ribbon>
Cameron Hutchison
> I have read posts about getting mana out of AL lands while they
>are on their way to being buried (right after you play them), is this
>really possible? I've also heard that it won't work, according to the
>rules you don't get a chance to get the mana (if you don't sac a land, it
>gets buried before you can use it).
When something gets buried, it generates a damage prevention step. During
the DP step it is legal to play interrupts and damage prevention instants.
As tapping land for mana is an interrupt, and the AL land scheduled to be
buried is still in play, you can tap it for mana during the DP step.
Have a look over in the .rules newsgroup. Tom Wylie has already ruled on
this and you can do it. Also, you do not have to sacrifice a land even if
you do have one. You have a choice of sacrificing the land or buring the
new AL land.
Jim Dougan
: well, it's not a damage prevention subphase per se...but there is a
: legal spells or effects are those that prevent damage and interrupts. i
: know it doesn't make a lot of sense, but them's the rules.
: hope that didn't confuse you too much.
Except that is not quite true....
A sacrifice does not produce such a phase, for example. Nor does a
Terror - sure, you can respond to a terror - that is part of normal
stacking - but a terror does not produce a special subphase.
-- Jim
George W. Bayles
Jim Dougan (jdo...@titan.iwu.edu) wrote:
[snip]
: : Tom Wylie has ruled on this on .rules. It comes into play long enough
: : for you to tap it for mana as a fast effect before it gets buried.
Not quite. You tap it as an interrupt! Has to be an interrupt in order
to work.
: I certainly would not question Tom....but can someone explain the logic
: behind the ruling (so I understand it, and can explain it...)
: It seems wrong because:
: 1) Bury effects are not damage effects, so there is no damage prevention step.
This is where you are going wrong. There IS a DP step for anything hit with
a damage, reduce toughness, destroy, or bury effect.
Scott Hunt
I'm enetering a tournament next Saturday and I play with sleeves. Like a
lot of players, I've invested considerable time and money in tracking
down certain cards and I'd like to keep them as fresh as possible. My
question-HOw often do opponents make you take your sleeves of in
tournaments, and why? What's the big deal? I asked a couple of guys who
played in tournaments why they did it and their response was basically "I
just want to fuck with the other guy". Is that the main reason people
make opponents take sleeves off? Tell me no.
:::A little disappointed:::
Scott!!!
Michael Bahr
In article <31E830...@inetdirect.net>,
Scott Hunt <hu...@inetdirect.net> wrote:
>I'm enetering a tournament next Saturday and I play with sleeves. Like a
>lot of players, I've invested considerable time and money in tracking
>down certain cards and I'd like to keep them as fresh as possible. My
>question-HOw often do opponents make you take your sleeves of in
>tournaments, and why? What's the big deal? I asked a couple of guys who
>played in tournaments why they did it and their response was basically "I
It's easy to cheat-shuffle with sleeves on your cards. Often
people will request it because they have a legitimate fear of a stacked
deck being overhand-shuffled (and thus not very randomized).
- voluntas vincit omnia - Mike Bahr - dur...@indirect.com -
Alric !
On Jul 14, 1996 04:45:45 in article <Re: Card Sleeves: what's the big
deal?>, 'al...@usa.pipeline.com(Alric !)' wrote:
>On Jul 13, 1996 16:25:05 in article <Card Sleeves: what's the big deal?>,
>
>
>>I'm enetering a tournament next Saturday and I play with sleeves. Like a
>>lot of players, I've invested considerable time and money in tracking
>>down certain cards and I'd like to keep them as fresh as possible. My
>>question-HOw often do opponents make you take your sleeves of in
>>tournaments, and why? What's the big deal? I asked a couple of guys who
>>played in tournaments why they did it and their response was basically "I
>
>>just want to fuck with the other guy". Is that the main reason people
>>make opponents take sleeves off? Tell me no.
>>
>>:::A little disappointed:::
>>
>>Scott!!!
>
>Not for mature players it isn't. The only time I ask a player to take
>sleeves off is if it seems he/she is sticking cards together on purpose
>(combo after combo is a bit suspicious). Anyway, I don't normally play
>with sleeves at a tourney, but I sometimes use them in casual play. So I
>don't have a problem asking someone to take them off.
Oh yeah, and if the player does the old overhand shuffle because the
sleeves aren't cooperating, then I ask for them to be removed, since an
overhand shuffle is suspicious. It is also not as random as the dreaded
riffle shuffle.
--
Rob Gerrets
al...@usa.pipeline.com
"Beginners see endless possibilities, experts see few."
Alric !
On Jul 13, 1996 16:25:05 in article <Card Sleeves: what's the big deal?>,
'Scott Hunt <hu...@inetdirect.net>' wrote:
>I'm enetering a tournament next Saturday and I play with sleeves. Like a
>lot of players, I've invested considerable time and money in tracking
>down certain cards and I'd like to keep them as fresh as possible. My
>question-HOw often do opponents make you take your sleeves of in
>tournaments, and why? What's the big deal? I asked a couple of guys who
>played in tournaments why they did it and their response was basically "I
>just want to fuck with the other guy". Is that the main reason people
>make opponents take sleeves off? Tell me no.
>
>:::A little disappointed:::
>
>Scott!!!
Not for mature players it isn't. The only time I ask a player to take
sleeves off is if it seems he/she is sticking cards together on purpose
(combo after combo is a bit suspicious). Anyway, I don't normally play
with sleeves at a tourney, but I sometimes use them in casual play. So I
don't have a problem asking someone to take them off.
MCG13
Why doesn't the DC just ban card sleeves in tounanment play?? I have my
decks in sleeves for most casual/fun play with friends etc, but i never
even bring them to a tournament, because i was asked once to remove them
and it totally threw me off. My opponent said he thought i was cheating,
(uh, no....) the whole duel i was just annoyed and made several mistakes.
He also said it's a good psychological ploy, (after he stomped on me :-( )
against me it sure was.
--If people are cheating with sleeves, even if just a few, then get rid
of them... Just MHO, of course......
cat...@iquest.net
In article <4s5qo0$j...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
prevention subphase (remember your Lakes of the Dead) in which you can do stuff.
Just thought I'd remind ya, ;)
Christopher Atkins
cat...@iquest.net
Ron Peterson
> Hey Jim, Chris here. Um yeah it does. Bury effects do create a damage
> prevention subphase (remember your Lakes of the Dead) in which you can
do stuff.
I'll have to admit to being a relatively new Magic player, and was
wondering what these subphases are? I'm getting confused with "Damage
prevention" subphase. Are there other subphases? And are these listed in
the little instruction book and maybe I just can't find 'em? I'd
appreciate any help that anyone can provide.
Thanks!!
-Ron
Imnowdrunk
all i know about card sleves is that they're only important to people in
type 1 and for them i've designed my soldier of fortune/ instill combo....
a typical game....
"Take off your sleeves i demand you do it"
play soldier of fortune instill it..
make opponent shuffle his library
untap do it again
ask other player if he concedes before i destroy all his moxes and big
blues by making him shuffle them 50 times...
it tends to work pretty well.
-Mike Natale AKA "Death Dealer"
Member of team "The guys that are going to beat the crap out of Preston
Poulter in the back of the parking lot after the Pro Tour."
"Winter that year was strange and gray. The damp wind smelled of
apocalypse, and morning skies had a peculiar way of slipping cat-quick
into midnight."
-The Book of Counted Sorrows
bengt.h...@mbox300.swipnet.se
In Article<4s9ucp$b...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, <al...@usa.pipeline.com>
writes:
> Oh yeah, and if the player does the old overhand shuffle because the
> sleeves aren't cooperating, then I ask for them to be removed, since an
> overhand shuffle is suspicious. It is also not as random as the dreaded
> riffle shuffle.
> --
> Rob Gerrets
> al...@usa.pipeline.com
> "Beginners see endless possibilities, experts see few."
Could someone explain to me what an "Overhand shuffle" is? A "Riffle shuffle"?
English is not my native tongue, and I don't cheat much, so I wouldn't know...
;)
Twist
Christian
>
> It's easy to cheat-shuffle with sleeves on your cards. Often
> people will request it because they have a legitimate fear of a stacked
> deck being overhand-shuffled (and thus not very randomized).
>
> - voluntas vincit omnia - Mike Bahr - dur...@indirect.com -
Really? Ive always played with sleeves and have yet to be able to stack
my deck and shuffle a the same time!? Get over it people sleeves are not
a form of cheating they are just a way to make sure your cards stay new.
The tatered and ruffed up cards that have never been in sleeves are
basically marked cards! If anything I should have the right to demand my
oponents cards be in sleeves to prevent this not the other way around!
Jared Warren
See Duelist #9, page 64. It's the timing flowcharts and I suggest you
get fimiliar with them before your first (or next) tournament.
Jared Warren
jwa...@octonet.com
http://www.octonet.com/~jwarren
Health is the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
Matthew Darby - KPUR Radio
Alric ! wrote:
>
> On Jul 14, 1996 04:45:45 in article <Re: Card Sleeves: what's the big
> deal?>, 'al...@usa.pipeline.com(Alric !)' wrote:
>
> >On Jul 13, 1996 16:25:05 in article <Card Sleeves: what's the big deal?>,
> >'Scott Hunt <hu...@inetdirect.net>' wrote:
> >> >>>I'm enetering a tournament next Saturday and I play with sleeves. Like a
> >>lot of players, I've invested considerable time and money in tracking
> >>down certain cards and I'd like to keep them as fresh as possible. My
> >>question-HOw often do opponents make you take your sleeves of in
> >>tournaments, and why? What's the big deal? I asked a couple of guys who
> >>played in tournaments why they did it and their response was basically "I
> >
> >>just want to fuck with the other guy". Is that the main reason people
> >>make opponents take sleeves off? Tell me no.
> >>
> >
> >Not for mature players it isn't. The only time I ask a player to take
> >sleeves off is if it seems he/she is sticking cards together on purpose
> >(combo after combo is a bit suspicious). Anyway, I don't normally play
> >with sleeves at a tourney, but I sometimes use them in casual play. So I
> >don't have a problem asking someone to take them off.
>
> sleeves aren't cooperating, then I ask for them to be removed, since an
> overhand shuffle is suspicious. It is also not as random as the dreaded
> riffle shuffle.
> --
...
...Down here in Texas(especially Lubbock), there was a huge problem with people marking
the backs of their sleeves, especially the Ultra-Pro holgram sleeves. Players were
apparently scratching the little hologram or memorizing the patterns on the little dots.
Hard to believe, but its true. After a while, the biggest card store/tournament guy in
town (The Mad Hatter - his real name!) banned all sleeves from his tournamnets,
including the type II/Black Lotus regional qualifier a couple of months ago. My first
opponent "didn't know" and spent 5-10 minutes de-sleeving and shuffling. Jerk.
Matt Darby >>>kp...@arn.net<<<
Daniel R Law
On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Matthew Darby - KPUR Radio wrote:
> town (The Mad Hatter - his real name!) banned all sleeves from his tournamnets,
the guy's real name is The Mad Hatter?
<\---/>
( . . )
---------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo-----
Daniel Law
CSO Computer Consultant
Vice-President of the UIC Paintball Club
A.K.A. Nickoli Lupus: Vampire the Masquerade PBEM Game.
http://www.uic.edu/~dlaw2 (always something new to check out)
-----------------------------------------------------ooO-Ooo-------
"Friends don't let friends play necro"
-Sam Bryant.
Christian
Alric
Why is the overhand shuffle suspicious???? I never riffleshuffle my deck
and can never predict what cards will turn up!
Christian
How the fuck do you cheat with sleeves?? Ive never not used sleeves and
have never cheated. I coundlt cheat if I wanted to! (This is why I dont
play in tournaments, to many pricks)
KH...@delphi.com
Quoting mcg13 from a message in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strat
>Why doesn't the DC just ban card sleeves in tounanment play?? I have my
>decks in sleeves for most casual/fun play with friends etc, but i never
>even bring them to a tournament, because i was asked once to remove them
>and it totally threw me off. My opponent said he thought i was
>cheating, (uh, no....) the whole duel i was just annoyed and made
>several mistakes. He also said it's a good psychological ploy, (after
>he stomped on me :-( ) against me it sure was.
>--If people are cheating with sleeves, even if just a few, then get rid
>of them... Just MHO, of course......
>.
Then all of the T1 players with the Moxes, Lotus, Time-whatever, Ancestral,
etc., would whine about possibly damaging their precious investment when
some butterfingered newbie cuts his deck, or looks through it via Jester's
Mask/Cap, having to shuffle when going against the nasty anti-T1 Soldier of
Fortune deck, repeat ad nauseum.
Cecil of Baron
Eric Taylor
Matthew Darby - KPUR Radio (kp...@arn.net) wrote:
: ...Down here in Texas(especially Lubbock), there was a huge problem
: with people marking the backs of their sleeves, especially the
: Ultra-Pro holgram sleeves. Players were apparently scratching the
: little hologram or memorizing the patterns on the little dots. Hard to
: believe, but its true. After a while, the biggest card
: all sleeves from his tournamnets, including the type II/Black Lotus
: regional qualifier a couple of months ago. My first opponent "didn't
: know" and spent 5-10 minutes de-sleeving and shuffling. Jerk.
What is it? Something in the water in Texas? Around here nobody
bothers to try to cheat like that. As far as I can tell the people who
really suck at magic feel stacking the deck won't help them enough to
win, and the people are good enough don't want to risk getting caught
at something as stupid as marking your sleeves. However, in type I,
(and infrequently in type II), marked cards are a very big problem.
And it's not from people actually marking the cards. It's simply from
the natural wear of cards.
If you play without sleeves your cards will wear. However much you
pamper them, the cards will get worn on the backs.
I have a deck that I have often played and unfortunately some of the
cards become worn enough so I could always tell which card it is. The
sol ring was this way. I would stick it in every deck, and thus it
became more worn than the others. I could always tell which cards were
land because they would be more worn, and usually I could tell exactly
which land it was. To stop this, I would have to go out and buy a new
sol ring, demonic tutor, etc., all the staple cards which become more
worn than the others. I got tired of buying a new sol ring every week
and decided that it was time to switch to playing with sleeves. week.
Nowadays in type II tournaments if you see your opponent has one card
worn more than others, you can bet it's the zuran orb.
I don't mind someone telling me to unsleeve. After all, it's in the
rules. And I don't really mind my cards wearing out a little (in the
Beta Booster challege at Origins, I think I was practically the only
one there playing out my cards without using sleeves -- so what, the
cards wear a little). But if you play a card for more than a couple of
weeks without it being sleeved, it's going to become a marked card.
This rule about cards in a deck being all equally worn not being marked
is just nonsense. Once a card is worn, you can begin to tell them
apart. Even if two cards are equally worn out, they have their little
differences.
Sleeves are good.
--- edt
Michael Bahr
In article <31EA9D...@mind.net>, Christian <oce...@mind.net> wrote:
>> It's easy to cheat-shuffle with sleeves on your cards. Often
>> people will request it because they have a legitimate fear of a stacked
>> deck being overhand-shuffled (and thus not very randomized).
>>
>my deck and shuffle a the same time!? Get over it people sleeves are not
>a form of cheating they are just a way to make sure your cards stay new.
>The tatered and ruffed up cards that have never been in sleeves are
>basically marked cards! If anything I should have the right to demand my
>oponents cards be in sleeves to prevent this not the other way around!
Get over _nothing_... if _I_ can cheat with sleeves, ANYONE can.
In fact one dude at a recent tourney almost got his ass kicked when he
tried the same trick against a big tought fellow. Those of you in the
east Phoenix area who went to the Derelor tourney in June remember the
one guy who blew up because the other guy had mana-weaved his deck and
overhand-shuffled with sleeves, and the weave stayed.
It's simple. Do a three, four, or five pile mana weave with your
deck. Then overhand shuffle... easiest with the Ultra Pro Protector
sleeves. Even with six or seven shuffles, your mana weave stays
essentially intact. It's not as possibly random as a riffle shuffle.
Optimally, one should begin every match with a pure random shuffle, and
not bother mana-weaving. But most players go through the phase when they
try it, and one has to be aware of how it works so it doesn't get used
against YOU.
Jonathan W Newton
So far, I've seen two arguments against sleeves:
1) You can mark your cards.
2) You can overhand shuffle and preserve your mana sorting.
My question is how in the hell is this unique to
sleeves? You are terribly naive if you think
that you need sleeves to mark your cards. As far
as the overhand shuffle goes, people do it *without*
sleeves all the time. More importantly, an overhand
shuffle without sleeves randomizes *much* better
than doing it with an unsleeved deck. Where worn/used
decks are concerned, a sleeved overhand shuffle
randomizes better than an unsleeved riffle shuffle.
If you have a problem with how your opponent is
shuffling, it is your right to have them reshuffle.
Have them reshuffle several times and then make them
deal into 7 piles if you don't like them mana sorting.
Inform them that if they mana sort, that you are
going to make them do this. This is your right.
As far as the ultra pro sleeves go, it was really
stupid of them to toss on their little hologram.
At local tournaments, if all the holograms don't
have the some orientation, you are DQ'd for
marking cards. Anyway, I refuse to pay $6.00
for sleeves that have no longer of a lifetime
than my $0.60 cheap-o sleeves.
-Jon Newton
Christian
Ms simple. Do a three, four, or five pile mana weave with your
> deck. Then overhand shuffle... easiest with the Ultra Pro Protector
> sleeves. Even with six or seven shuffles, your mana weave stays
> essentially intact. It's not as possibly random as a riffle shuffle.
> Optimally, one should begin every match with a pure random shuffle, and
> not bother mana-weaving. But most players go through the phase when they
> try it, and one has to be aware of how it works so it doesn't get used
> against YOU.
Riffle shuffle doesnt guard against "mana weaving" my friend who refuses
to use sleeves mana weaves all the time. Riffle shuffling keeps the
weave just as good if not better than overhand shuffling. Does anyone
not "mana weave"? I mean who is stupid enough to put all their land in
one large clump on the top of their deck and expect it to distribute
evenly without shuffling 20,000 times???? I use sleeves to protect my
cards, pure and simple. If some guys wont play against me becasue I use
sleeves....oh well...Besides, if someone else wants to shuffle my deck
after Ive shuffled it, fine by me.
Ichabod
In article <31EBCA...@mind.net>, Christian <oce...@mind.net> wrote:
>
>Riffle shuffle doesnt guard against "mana weaving" my friend who refuses
>to use sleeves mana weaves all the time. Riffle shuffling keeps the
>weave just as good if not better than overhand shuffling.
Sure it does. I find that riffle shuffling three times optimally clumps
the mana in a mana sorted deck.
------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien http://www.cstone.net/~ichabod
ich...@cstone.net
Support the Blue Ribbon Campaign for free speech online ()
http://www.eff.org/BlueRibbon/bluehtml.html /\
Kitrick Sonesen
Michael Bahr wrote:
>
> In article <31EA9D...@mind.net>, Christian <oce...@mind.net> wrote:
> >> It's easy to cheat-shuffle with sleeves on your cards. Often
> >> people will request it because they have a legitimate fear of a stacked
> >> deck being overhand-shuffled (and thus not very randomized).
> >>
> >Really? Ive always played with sleeves and have yet to be able to stack
> >my deck and shuffle a the same time!? Get over it people sleeves are not
> >a form of cheating they are just a way to make sure your cards stay new.
> >The tatered and ruffed up cards that have never been in sleeves are
> >basically marked cards! If anything I should have the right to demand my
> >oponents cards be in sleeves to prevent this not the other way around!
>
> Get over _nothing_... if _I_ can cheat with sleeves, ANYONE can.
> In fact one dude at a recent tourney almost got his ass kicked when he
> tried the same trick against a big tought fellow. Those of you in the
> east Phoenix area who went to the Derelor tourney in June remember the
> one guy who blew up because the other guy had mana-weaved his deck and
> overhand-shuffled with sleeves, and the weave stayed.
>
> deck. Then overhand shuffle... easiest with the Ultra Pro Protector
> sleeves. Even with six or seven shuffles, your mana weave stays
> essentially intact. It's not as possibly random as a riffle shuffle.
> Optimally, one should begin every match with a pure random shuffle, and
> not bother mana-weaving. But most players go through the phase when they
> try it, and one has to be aware of how it works so it doesn't get used
> against YOU.
>
Actually, it's pretty simple to cheat with sleeves.
1. Place the "good" cards upide down in the sleeves or with the dot on
the side opposite the "regular" cards.
2. To ensure combos, a tiny bit of moisture will stick the sleeves
together enough to resist an overhand shuffle. BTW, in my neck of the
woods, the overhand shuffle is called a "Hindu Shuffle" for reasons not
known to me.
To combat the type of cheating in No.1, DCI has ruled that cards are to
be placed right side up in the sleeves with the emblems on the front.
Initially, I questioned the dot being on the front, but I've since heard
of unscrupulous players scratching the emblems to identify "good" cards.
As to No.2, you can always ask to shuffle your opponent's deck. The best
way of doing this is not to riffle shuffle but to table shuffle. If you
suspect or observe mana weaving, table shuffle into three piles...heh,
heh, but that has nothing to do with card sleeves.
Kit
KSon...@ns.net "Game on!"
Alan Hoyle
Kitrick Sonesen (KSon...@ns.net) scrawled:
: woods, the overhand shuffle is called a "Hindu Shuffle" for reasons not
: known to me.
The Hindu shuffle is similar but distinct from a standard over-hand shuffle.
They both work about as well, but look different. Either way is relatively
easy to use to stack a deck, and doesn't shuffle well. I recommend the
last chapter in the book "Scarne on Cards" to anyone who's interested in
detecting people cheating in cards. He says (paraphrazed, and in reference
to standard card games) an opponent with knowledge of the general location
of a card will beat you in the long run, and an opponent with knowledge of
the exact location of a card will beat you every time.
--
Alan P. Hoyle "I don't want Get
/ _ \ DARKSIDE: UNC-CH Ultimate the World; 0__ Horizontal,
|-=(_)=-| al...@unc.edu I just want __/\_ O Play
\ / http://help.unc.edu/~alanh/ your half." __/ Ultimate.
Kendall Redburn
The key to cheating is to think like a cheat. Simple but true.
The simple 100 per $1.00 sleeves if you examine them, are all different
widths. The Fancy pro sleeves are more consistant, and yet also have
variations in sleeve widths. What does this do?
It's an old magicians trick to have important cards slightly wider than
all the others. It makes them very easy to locate in a deck. By
carefully checking the sleeves you can find ones that are slightly
wider than others. Pick 4 of them. Put in these, 4 revised lands,
leaving the rest of your lands 4E or Ice Age. Put your most important
cards (necro/hymms, below these cards as you casually sort your deck.
Shuffle a few times and offer the cut. More times than you could ever
wish, your opponent will pick up the wide card, giving you the key car
d every time. Oh look, I drew my Library of Alexandria again! How nice!
Many many magic tricks are based on this theory and it works very well.
As for some of the other cheats, crimps, false cuts and so on, many of
those don't apply to magic because of the nature of the game. In poker
you can pick up the cards after a hand, move the face cards to the
bottom and keep them there as you shuffle, then bottom deal them back to
you, or an accomplice. Tough to do in Magic.
What to do:
When your opponent plays in sleeves, to cut, take the top card, and
stick it part way into the deck. Just slice it on in there. Cut the
deck at that point. If you are playinhg with sleeves, ask your
opponent to do this, because if your not cheating it helps eliminate the
problem as well. (i.e. your opponent keeps cutting the same card to the
bottom, could be good could be bad.)
Another card cheats trick is a very precise shuffle. You can actually
shuffle a new deck of cards so that every other card falls left/right.
DO this eight times and you have returned the cards to their original
order! To do this, shuffle the cards sideways, and it's not that hard
in sleeves. You don't have to be perfect, but a little practice and you
can get a good 1/1 ratio going. You also have to practice cutting the
deck exactly in half, also not hard because you do not have to be exact.
Why? because if your opponent has stacked the deck, 2 cards 1 land etc.
Shuffling a good 1/1 three times gives them 16 cards, 8 lands, 16 cards,
8 lands. You must try this to believe it, but it works!
Kendall
Greg Hunt
Kendall Redburn (kred...@echip.com) wrote:
: The key to cheating is to think like a cheat. Simple but true.
: The simple 100 per $1.00 sleeves if you examine them, are all different
: widths. The Fancy pro sleeves are more consistant, and yet also have
: variations in sleeve widths. What does this do?
: It's an old magicians trick to have important cards slightly wider than
: all the others. It makes them very easy to locate in a deck. By
: carefully checking the sleeves you can find ones that are slightly
: wider than others. Pick 4 of them. Put in these, 4 revised lands,
: leaving the rest of your lands 4E or Ice Age. Put your most important
: cards (necro/hymms, below these cards as you casually sort your deck.
: Shuffle a few times and offer the cut. More times than you could ever
: wish, your opponent will pick up the wide card, giving you the key car
: d every time. Oh look, I drew my Library of Alexandria again! How nice!
Well that's silly. It's much easier to cheat without sleeves. You can just soak
all your power cards in water so they puff up when dry.. That way your
opponent will ALWAYS cut to them and you will always win!
Greg :)
Hungerman ~{6v@I~}
Jonathan W Newton (yo...@ksu.ksu.edu) wrote:
: As far as the ultra pro sleeves go, it was really
: stupid of them to toss on their little hologram.
: At local tournaments, if all the holograms don't
: have the some orientation, you are DQ'd for
: marking cards. Anyway, I refuse to pay $6.00
: for sleeves that have no longer of a lifetime
: than my $0.60 cheap-o sleeves.
I am just wondering why people just dont put their hologram side of the
sleeves at the front of the card rather than the back. It will just cover
the <Illus.> word, what's the big deal? instead i see people insist to
put the hologram mark at the back of the cards. Try to mark it?
??
Kenneth.
--
home page: http://www.iscs.nus.sg/~leungche
Singapore M:tG player contact sheet:
http://www.iscs.nus.sg/~leungche/contact.html
Freedom of choice Choice is made for you my friend.
Freedom of speech Speech is words that they will bend.
Kendall Redburn
Kitrick Sonesen wrote:
> 2. To ensure combos, a tiny bit of moisture will stick the sleeves
> together enough to resist an overhand shuffle. BTW, in my neck of the
> known to me.
>
A Hindu shuffle and an over hand shuffle are two differnt things, but are basically used to stack
the deck or preserve card placement.
An overhand shuffle is where the cards are held by the ends in one hand, almost vertical, and the
other hand pulls a few off the top with the thumb, collecting them on the fingers. The process is
repeated until all the cards have transfered hands. It is effectively a bunch of cuts, but does
change the order of the cards.
A Hindu Shuffle is where the cards are held by the sides, face down and level. The other hand
grabs them by the sides and pulls them back and up (towards the body.) as this happens, the first
hand holds onto the top few cards, and then drops these onto the palm. THe process of pulling
cards of the top of the stack is repeated until the stack is empty.
The two shuffles are essentially the same, but allow for different methods of card control. A
hindu shuffle is great for getting a single card, often placed on top of a cut deck, back on top
of the deck. An overhand shuffle is good for getting a group of cards on top of the deck to stay
on top of the deck. The great thing about these two shuffles is they both can serve different
purposes, so the audience cannot see what you are trying to accomplish, and they can in some cases
be interchanged so, although you are doing the same slieght, you are doing it differently each
time.
Hope that helps.
K
David Gekiere
Gerry Mullin (bm...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: All this talk of cheating!?
: Dosen't anyone follow the "code of magic" anymore.
: i.e. you don't steal cards because it is too easy and
: you just don't cheat!! why? because it's not right.
: I've never had a problem with people stacking decks
: and have only asked to shuffle my opponents deck once or
: twice. It's called TRUST and people should have it.
Agreed. You SHOULD trust people. If only people
were trustable...
Anyway. Reading this group is quite a laugh : it's called
rec.games.trading-cards.magic.STRATEGY and people
talk about cheating. But when you come to think
of it, it's not that surprising : after all, look in the
newspaper. People killed for a few bucks are common
events, so why not cheating to win Magic tournaments,
whose prizes become more and more consequent.
And I'm sure that if you ask all the people here that
explained how to cheat while shuffling why they've got
such a knowledge, they'll tell you they got interested
to it 'just for the fun'. Yeah, right...
David
PS : keep this 'knowledge' for you. Please.
Frank Yue
In article <31EE48...@echip.com>, Kendall Redburn <kred...@echip.com>
wrote:
> Kitrick Sonesen wrote:
> > 2. To ensure combos, a tiny bit of moisture will stick the sleeves
> > together enough to resist an overhand shuffle. BTW, in my neck of the
> > woods, the overhand shuffle is called a "Hindu Shuffle" for reasons not
> > known to me.
> >
>
> A Hindu shuffle and an over hand shuffle are two differnt things, but are
> basically used to stack the deck or preserve card placement.
[snip description of shuffle concepts]
Isn't this all essentially cheating? To shuffle a deck so that you know
where a card is located, is not random and is not fair. To stack or sort
your deck so that you can place certain cards near the top or bottom is an
example as is placing cards together so that you will more likely get
combos or prevent mana screw.
I have had problems with my opponents sorting their decks before games and
giving their decks one or two poor shuffles. I would rather lose a game
by mana screw than resort to techniques which are not ethically correct.
Any sort of system whereby you know the relative position of certain cards
is wrong.
Flame at will. I am ready for it.
--
Frank Yue (Network Administrator) "I didn't do it."
Swarthmore College Computing Center -Bart Simpson et. al.
y...@swarthmore.edu
finger y...@willow.swarthmore.edu for PGP key
PGP Fingerprint:
7D 69 D7 5E 77 16 C4 E1 52 6B 87 A6 D3 A9 B3 1E
Dr. Chillboz
I must admit, since reading this post, I have crossed over to the dark
side. I now play my deck in sleeves. Becuase I started looking at my
cards, I mean REALLY looking at them. And sure enough, I could easily
detect my zuron orb, and counterspells when they were face down, due to
more wear than the rest of the deck.
my 2 cents
Doc
--
| Are you an Alanis Morissette Fan? If so check out |
| http://pages.prodigy.com/Alanis/index.htm |
| Have you seen the most popular cat on the NET? If not, check out |
| http://pages.prodigy.com/clydeman/index.htm |
Gerry Mullin
All this talk of cheating!?
Dosen't anyone follow the "code of magic" anymore.
i.e. you don't steal cards because it is too easy and
you just don't cheat!! why? because it's not right.
I've never had a problem with people stacking decks
and have only asked to shuffle my opponents deck once or
twice. It's called TRUST and people should have it.
As for it being easy to stack when overhand shuffling with
sleeves, it's just as easy without.
Just my oppinion that Sheep will rule the world.
-Jay
Lenore Grunko
violent paw, and in the comming doom those who do not fallow their
cause will die a painful sap-ridden death, HAIL TO THE LEMURES!
THE LEMURES WILL RULE!
Mark Teng Wen Chien
Lemures are ghosts. In my opinion they already are sapient. Lemurs are
furry mammals. The already ARE sapient! Never heard of Lemmures before...
> Lenore Grunko <wms...@neca.com> wrote in article
<4smsof$b...@taurus.neca.com>...
> bm...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gerry Mullin) wrote:
> Sheep? Feh! Lemmures will become sapient and rule over the apes
>
> THE LEMURES WILL RULE!
>
KH...@delphi.com
Quoting bm823 from a message in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strat
>All this talk of cheating!?
>Dosen't anyone follow the "code of magic" anymore.
>i.e. you don't steal cards because it is too easy and
>you just don't cheat!! why? because it's not right.
>I've never had a problem with people stacking decks
>and have only asked to shuffle my opponents deck once or
>twice. It's called TRUST and people should have it.
>As for it being easy to stack when overhand shuffling with
>sleeves, it's just as easy without.
>Just my oppinion that Sheep will rule the world.
>-Jay
>.
Well, it's just human nature. That, and the rather substantial monetary
awards given at some of these tourneys. I trust almost no one. (Except my
dog, and that's because she can't talk. I think.) There are people out there
who'd knife you for the spare change in your jeans pocket and not think
twice about it. That's why whenever I go to cons or tourneys, I *always*
keep my backpack close at hand and have the double-zipper arrangement
padlocked. I keep very little cash on myself, and if I have more than ten
bucks, I roll it up and put it in my front pocket. I like keeping my back to
walls, and facing doors and entryways. I don't trust "good samaritans".
Often they turn out to be con artists. Last December, one of my own friends
stole my Jester's Cap right out from under my nose, then sold it for twenty
bucks that afternoon. I think that at that moment I finally realized what's
going on, and pulled myself out of the so-called "security" of the System.
Call me weird, call me paranoid, but it's a dog eat dog world out there,
and I'm just trying to be an inconspicuous cat.
Cecil of Baron
Trust is a banking term. Honor is something you do to credit cards. Life
sucks, and then you die.
KH...@delphi.com
Quoting leungche from a message in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strat
>I am just wondering why people just dont put their hologram side of the
>sleeves at the front of the card rather than the back. It will just
>cover the <Illus.> word, what's the big deal? instead i see people
>insist to put the hologram mark at the back of the cards. Try to mark
>it?
>??
>Kenneth.
I do it because it's distracting to have all of those little holograms
reflecting back up at you during games. Plus, the hologram totally ruins the
integrity of how the card looks, distracting you and getting you "out of the
groove". At least that's how it is with me.
Cecil of Baron