Thanks for the heads up, but really, I'm aware of that. I'm just wondering about the why here . Maybe it's just me, but I find that looking at the why is often infinitely more helpful and interesting than the what. How can you truly understand something and how and why it works, if you're not given the motivation behind it? How can you possibly accept a conclusion if you're not given the reasoning behind it? There has to be some sort of logical flow that follows from the premise and leads up to the conclusion, no? I fully realize what the advantages of key cards are, with regards to being completely surrounded or when handling a deck that is in bad shape. What I fail to grasp, however, is how switching to a different effect or method will solve what I think is the true problem. This might be due to my failure to actually see the true problem here, of course. For all I know, I'm just rambling here from behind my computer about how they should try to focus on dealing with people first, and effects later, while the true problem was actually one of method. This is why I requested about the reasoning here. Again, all I'm trying to do here is to get some theoretical discussion off the ground, as opposed to simply suggesting more tricks. That way, we can maybe all learn from each other's ideas and positively contribute to a greater collective understanding of why we do what we do. Just a thought.