![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I would like to open some discussions about the following two topics and posts. I know what i have posted, may sound bias, however it is what i feel, and alot of people that i know feel aswell. It is probabily the main reasons why we have quit the game, and never came back to it.
My original posts were:
Many old users simply steered away from coming back to the game simply because the amount of new abilities eliminates the usefullness of older cards. In addition, the quality of the abilities of the cards have sharply fallen in contrast to its previous editions. Many of the new cards are considered as useless, and not even worth putting in decks.
New rules in Australia prevents some of the old favourite cards, and playing styles to be used in Official Tournaments.
I have recently recieved an PM asking me to provide some information, especially on the second statement.
I can't provide some evidence atm, (at uni, in a hurry)
However, one main change i remember in the sanctioned tournament (in Sydney Australia) was the banning of the blue card, Counter Spell in type II card lists. I havn't played/followed magics cards for about 3 years now (i think, the newest card i got is form the exdous set). Many Blue deck users would know, Counter Spell is one of the most powerful blue cards. The removal of this card, render some decks underpowered or useless (Counter-Spell Decks). Thus the mechanics statement.
As for useless cards, comparing say the Common cards of Ice Age, the lowest of the lowest class cards. Although they do nothing, they dont have that much of a draw back, and some are put to use into decks such as Goblin decks. Compared to the newer Editions, their lowest of the lowest cards are not even worth putting in to a deck, they dont do anything.
here's a FAQ from a guy from university of Sydney about the various aspects of magic in Aust. http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~edney/faq.html
NeoDeGenero 06:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I recently brought the page size down from 43k to 40k though it is still out of hand. i touched it up a little in areas that wern't explained enough or things that wern't there. I also deleted some text or shorted some that didn't need to be there or was excessive. the page size is getting out of hand and I have done all I can.
Em dashes (looks like — / entered in the source code as ∓emdash;) are not a very commonly supported escape code. They tend to show up as — in older browsers, so I have edited those I saw out of this article. Are there any good reasons to keep them? -- Vishahu 20:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Good work, all who have worked on this article. I am nominating it for FA status - keep up the good work, listen to the comments and I am sure it will make it! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The caption says "Magic: the Gathering cards are designated by various types and colors," but if I were unfamiliar with the game I'd have a hard time distinguishing between the colors of the artifact cards and the land card, or between the green card and the black card. Is it possible to get clearer pics, or perhaps newer editions of the same cards, with brighter backgrounds?
I was surprised to see no mention of the addiction issues of MTG. Though these kinds of issues hardly make MTG unique among games, I think it is worthy of some mention, if only that the nickname "cardboard crack" is almost a synonym for MTG amongst its fans. -- Paraphelion 07:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear Netoholic, My edit about Eternal formats was anon because I was logged out and I did not notice. On the DCI Magic: The Gathering Floor Rules for Magic: the Gathering tournaments: http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/Magic_FLR_20dec04_EN.pdf
In point 101:
Format and Ratings Categories
The DCI sanctions the following formats. They may be sanctioned as single, two-person team, or three-person team events.
Constructed Formats
Standard
Extended
Block
Eternal Formats
Vintage
Legacy (formerly Type 1.5)
Limited Formats
Sealed Deck
Booster Draft
Rochester Draft
The DCI produces the following ratings categories:
Constructed (includes Standard, Extended, and Block formats)
Eternal (includes Vintage and Legacy formats)
Limited (includes all Limited formats)
Team Constructed (includes all Constructed team formats)
Team Limited (includes all Limited team formats)
So even if a pre-constructed deck is needed for Eternal Format Tournaments, the format is not included in the constuctred format category by the DCI. So I will revert the article to my previous version. Pharotek 04:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just think the info in the article should be correct and precise. This section isn't neither. Pharotek 16:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well this article is oversized, so I agree the extra info should go to the DCI article. I'm not quite sure how to squeeze the info on the DCI article without repeating the whole section. What do you suggest? Maybe move the whole section to the DCI article and then add the detail about eternal? Pharotek 16:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Great work!!! Pharotek 18:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed the above because it reads as very harshly POV (terms like "exploits" and "some claim") and semantically attributes such a motive to the "game" rather than the company. I would think every company makes changs to its product lines in order to continue to sell and make profit, so I don't see the point of this section. Can someone give a specific example of a game rule being expanded "no other reason than to justify the creation of new card sets" or "for greater profit"? -- Netoholic @ 06:39, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
There are way too many of them on this page. Variant rules are a much smaller part of Magic than this article would have me believe.
On the 9th March, the following was removed from this Wiki, with the reason that it was 'to remove long strings of shameless self-promotion.':
(start) Since the advent of the Internet, Magic players have wanted to play games online with various opponents. Wizards of the Coast's early attempts to produce an online version of the game consisted of the products: Magic The Gathering: Duels Of The Planeswalkers and Magic: The Gathering® Interactive Encyclopedia. After Wizards ceased to support these products, several groups game together to create OCTGN, Apprentice, and Magic Work Station. These programs are not officially supported by Wizards of the Coast although they do allow for online play for free.
The official product of Wizards of the Coast's online software is the Magic: The Gathering Online product. Controversial from its inception, players purchase digital packs of Magic: The Gathering Online cards and can play or trade with these cards. The large majority of Magic players use the MTGO system to play games of Magic: The Gathering online, however, communities do exist that allow for the playing of games online for free. (end)
Which part of that is shameless self promotion? I see it as an interesting bit of information about computer versions of Magic. Perhaps a bit could be added about the Battlegrounds game on PC and XBox too, or perhaps a new entry should be made for Online playing of Magic?
Other sections were also removed, including links to OCTGN (effectively a successor to MTGPlay, which certainly used to be in the article) and some links to interesting articles on the net about Modo (why it is unfair to pay real money for virtual products.
When I inquired about why OCTGN should be removed, and other games like GCCG and Workstation stay, I was informed that 'OCTGN did not have a large enough user base' - however, this is not true, as the community is at least as large (and probably a lot larger) as GCCG.
(Sorry if this is out of place, I'm still new to commenting stuff)
Zark the Damned 19:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Someone has made an Elf Deck article. Can someone who knows MTG take a look at it and decide what should be done with it (keep and expand, merge somewhere, or delete). It was marked as speedy (no doubt as it appears a lot like vanity) but a brief google shows a fairly broad use of the term. Comments there, please. Thanks. -- John Fader ( talk | contribs) 21:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The 'fight' between Slobad and Netaholic about game complexity is getting out of hand. Every few days, Slobad changes the complexity to 'Extremely high', and then Netaholic reverts it to 'Medium'.
Is some sort of a compromise in order? I understand that some people will find the game very easy to comprehend, others find it complex (I would guess Slobad is one of the latter, hence the repeated changes mentioned above).
Would 'Medium to High' be an acceptable compromise for the complexity? It is extremely variable depending on the individuals and decks involved (straightforward aggro beatdown tends to be a lot simpler than intricate abusive combos, for example).
Nothing personal, it's just a tad annoying to see the history full of 'Slobad changed difficulty, Netaholic reverted difficulty'.
Zark the Damned 17:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, but if Magic is medium complexity, what kind of game has high complexity then? There are not many games that have as many rules as Magic. Grue 18:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is "extremely high" even a valid ranking? What a strange revert war.
Since sixth edition, even most expansions aren't that complicated. The problem here, I think, is that Magic is medium difficulty to gamers, but it might well be the most complicated game non-gamers ever encounter. Perhaps we could link to a games wikiproject definitions page from the taxobox that would give examples of different games' complexity and so forth. I think this would be interesting to readers and useful to editors who might be unaware of the taxobox's broad scope. Cool Hand Luke 16:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The box template was made for Wikipedia:WikiProject Games, and the old discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Games/Infobox. -- Netoholic @ 17:07, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
I'd vote for High, myself. I think players tend to under-estimate how complicated the game really is. -- Khaim 22:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Taking the discussion and the results of this poll into account, I believe a fair compromise between Slobad's original "Extremely High" difficulty and Netaholic's "Medium" is a simple "High", and it is the closest we're going to get to consensus. I have reverted the page to reflect this, and I think this should be considered the "consensus" version for now. Cheers! -- Ashenai 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning that while the rules of MTG are pretty complicated, to actually PLAY the game, you only need to know a small subset of rules (ie, how turns progress, tapping land for mana, how to attack with creatures and deal damage). Sure, there are weird corner cases that pop up, but even with cards from expansion sets, this doesn't happen very often (at least not in any of my playgroups), and even when they do happen, sometimes we tend not to notice.
I know this seems like I'm reviving a dead argument, but isn't that what discussion pages are for? Anyways, just my 2 cents. Viltris 09:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I just simplified the "game play" section of the site a lot. Although I think it was important to make the section understandable to non-players, my changes have probably resulted in inconsistencies across the site, and even within the game play section.
The rule, I guess, is that nothing about the game can be mentioned unless it has been explained first. Could you all help me edit the page until it complies with that rule?
(Another thing: I know that not everything in the section is rulebook-level accurate. I spend a lot of time editing, and I believe that what I've put up is the right balance between being accurate and being readable.) Brendan62442 02:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think this section needs to be split off into its own page. We could certainly fill up a decent page with a discussion of Magic rules, not to mention interesting tidbits about unusual interactions. Plus as Brendan said, this section throws far too many keywords at the reader. A Magic player will understand it, but a layman would be completely lost.-- Khaim 16:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel this needs work? I think this section as a whole is weak, and could use some substantial work, instead of minor revisions. I'm most concerned with the part before Deck construction, which I think is far too complex for a normal reader and does a horrible job of conveying the mechanisms of the game. --
Khaim
01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Aren't they coming out with some official multiplayer rules? (Or have they already?) The fact box, and perhaps the article, needs to be updated to reflect that fact. -- L33tminion | (talk) 04:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
I used to play MTG around 1994, and the original instruction booklet described basic free-for-all multiplayer. In fact, I might have played more 3 player games than 2 player in my "career". I don't know what happened in later years, and I'm sure there are more detailed rules now, but multiplayer was in the original game.
I Slobad, huh? Slobad the planeswalker. According to the MtG article, each game of Magic is called a "duel." This is inaccurate. Each game is called a game. No card has ever used the word duel to describe a game of Magic. However, every time I remove the word duel, someone (usually Netoholic) reverts it. (Slobad)
As an MtG player since 1995, I can vouch for the fact that MtG has officially used "duel" as part of its terminology since its initial release. As an example of usage, I refer to the Fifth Edition General Rulings Summary, specifically the section regarding DCI tournaments. (I wish I had further proof available right off, but I cannot find my copies of the Revised and 4th Edition manuals. I could also refer to early issues of the Duelist, which throughout its publication had numerous articles written by people instrumental in the development of MtG.) ... (And, on a more fanciful note, I will also refer to the text on the Unglued card [s_coupon Ashnod's Coupon.) — Dan Johnson 01:49, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
I'd like to mention that the DCI stands for Duelists' Convocation International. That seems like conclusive evidence to me. Viltris 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
hey, on the German wikipedia i read that all magic the gathering cards have a glitch on their back cover: there is a ballpointer marker somewhere on all cards, as the first issue prototypes had this, and all others had to be printed the same. maybe you can tell me where i can find this marker? i guess it is found at the "ter" in "deckmaster". thanks, -- 85.72.9.147 16:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I always thought it was there to make the Deckmaster name plate look chiped.-- 70.16.17.42 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering about the Reiver Demon card image that was previously on this article. It was removed, since it didn't have any info tag on it, but isn't there anything to be done about that? I think a fair use tag would go well on it. Just like in the first image on that article. After all, it's just a card scan and nothing else. Not like anything would be done to it, other than fair use itself.
I'm not a very into copyright stuff, even in Wikipedia, so I'm not sure about this. It's just something I noticed. Any ideas?-- Kaonashi 03:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
There are a dozen or more casual mtg paper and mtgo formats including Peasant magic, Pauper Magic, Prismatic, Highlander/Singleton. No mention so far - can we have a section of major formats played and/or links?
Well, this page has long been on my watchlist and I finally decided to do something about it. I'm sure to have upset a lot of people but something needed to be done so I just shut up and did it.
Changes:
I'm sure many folks out there will not be pleased with the changes to structure or to content (or maybe both!). I just did what I felt was necessary to make this page useful, readable and cover most of the basics. IMO the "controversial aspects" should all be removed but let's take it one revolution at a time. The Gameplay article now needs a ton of work, btw. :) ] fvincent 06:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Someone wrote a rather spare article (
Vintage (Magic: The Gathering) that should probably be merged into this one.
Al
14:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
While I'm stirring the hornets nest, I strongly suggest a brief overview of the controversies and moving them to their own article. The page as a whole is overly long and something needs to go. I'm not stupid enough to move it though without some people agreeing with me. Anyone? fvincent 18:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
While the article is admittedly long, I feel more attention should be given to the patent controversy as it is an interesting story and impacts other collectible card games.-- malber 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
As for the part about luck vs. skill. There should be more about building a deck. For instance to have a nice distribution of land so that you don't end up with too much or too little, you make 1/3 of a 60 card deck land, and then when making the deck, put a land every 3rd card so that even when you shuffle a little, you should get a decent distribution. Of course adjustments have to be made for mana producing cards in your deck and the kinda of deck you are using. So it isn't as much luck as it seems. 70.111.224.85 01:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This page says Richard designed M:tG after Peter Adkison wouldn't (initially) publish RoboRally. But the Richard Garfield page says he designed M:tG much earlier, and that Adkison agreed to publish both games at that meeting. Personally I've heard both versions elsewhere; does anyone know which one is correct?
Net decking is the result of the fact that there are certain cards and strategies, that for any given block will dominate all other strategies. The main reason for this is that inevitably certain card combinations arise that become very powerful due to their synergistic qualities. One example of this was the card 'Wild Mongrel' in the Odyssey block. When a player had this creature out they could discard cards that had 'Madness' triggered effects at the same time they were activating their 'Wild Mongrel's' ability (increasing its strength and toughness). This combination made 'Wild Mongrel' decks devestating. While 'Wild Mongrel' decks were an exception, rare cards are almost always an essential element of the most powerful decks. The reason for this is that rare cards have the biggest/most bizarre effects in the game, making them prime candidates for the powerful combinations described above. This is opposed to common or uncommon cards which tend to follow set formulas of mediocrity (common cards moreso than uncommon cards). When a new expansion is released, players will spend some time experimenting with strategies and card combinations. Once the best strategies and combinations are discovered through tournament play, they are inevitably published on the Internet. After the word gets out, the cards that are needed to build these decks become much more valuable (especially the rares). The popularity of the 'good rares' and 'good uncommons' needed to build these decks causes net decks to cost upwards of a couple hundred dollars to build.
I removed this addition. I think the section doesn't need such a big explanation. Perhaps it can find its way into a new article or the MTG wiki. -- Netoholic @ 20:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
What happened to older discussions beyond a certain point? I'm pretty sure that the discussion for this page has lasted much longer than what can be see here. Are any of the old discussions archived? How can I find older discussions that are not on the immediate Talk page?
I removed the "Playing Magic on the Internet part. I think the section is not needed.
Hope everyone agrees. -- Netoholic @ 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Is there a criteria sort of for what belongs under the See also and External links sections of the article? Magic: The Gathering videogames is under the See also section, with a sublink of Magic: The Gathering Battlegrounds. Why is it that only Battlegrounds is listed, when there are so many other games, and why even list that particular game at all? There are also a bunch of other Magic related articles that could be added in the See also section, but they are not there. What is the criteria for articles that belong? How about the links that fall under the External links section? MTGNews.com is missing (the last time I checked), and it still is pretty popular.
The point is that a lot of the articles and links that appear seem to be more subjective than objective.
Moved a small section on color from deck construction to the colors of magic section. Also added a refrence to colorless and multi color cards. Hope this is agreeable. If anyone wants to expound on multi color cards it may help. -- Wirewood Shadow 14:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the "Colors of Magic" section, when mentioning the creature types, should link the M:tG-specific creature-type descriptions. There are a number of references on each creature type to be able to compile articles based on these types (shared abilities, similarities, strategies, etc.), and it would fit into the Wikiproject. I could possibly start on such articles, but I'm not as available as I'd like to be. Is there anyone who can help with this? Rjfleming84 19:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This sentence appeared in the article until yesterday:
I changed it to this:
It was reverted by Netholic (who has done a lot of great work to bring the page up to high quality), but I have just restored my version. I have three reasons: first, the sentence as it stood read like an introduction to the "Variant Rules" section (which it was, in revisions long since discarded) but it was in fact the second paragraph in that section (after "Multiplayer Rules") so it was out of place. Second, variations revolving around alternate deck construction have nothing at all to do with playing the game differently, as building a deck is a completely separate aspect of the game from its actual play. The distinction is an important one to make, since the sentence immediately follows a paragraph on variant rules which do affect game play itself (i.e. the multiplayer rules), but for which normal deck construction rules hold. Third (and least important), "many X abound" is semantically redundant. Andrew Levine 08:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
You re-inserted this phrase - "its premise and storyline are given little to no notice by many players."
I respect most of your other work on the article, but I think that phrase is jaded, wrong, and irrelevant. All players give at least notice to the the premise and storyline because the mechanics are based so much on flavor (Ninjitsu, equipment, etc.). The only group that perhaps comes close to ignoring the "premise and stroyline" are Pro Tour players, but that is a vast minority or players. Above all, what is the point of the phrase? It might be appropriate as a counter-point if the article were asserting the opposite viewpoint, but the player/storyline isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. The second paragraph starts with "In the game's primary fictional setting". Boom. Right there the context of the planswalker idea is set in place, without saying anything about how players interact with it.
I think the article doesn't need any comment about what players think of the "premise and storyline". If I thought it did, I'd instead be pointing out how many fiction books are sold and describe the mechanic/flavor relationship to show that most players do follow the storyline. I just think your phrase is a personal viewpoint that doesn't have a place in the article. Perhaps you could more neutrally state something like "the game can be played without paying any attention to the storyline". Even so, you should add such a comment to the Storyline section or on Magic: The Gathering storylines. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree here. While the sentences themselves are true in every way, it is the manner in which they are presented that is problematic. Namely, they draw attention to the flavor-side aspects of the game. That's not a bad thing per se, but as currently written it appears to be much more important than it is.
The gameplay section needs an overhaul. (Note: When I say "gameplay section", I mean the stuff between "Game play" and "Deck Construction".) For one thing, it's badly written, and I mean that purely objectively. It's hard to understand, even for me, and I already know what it's talking about! For someone who doesn't know the terms already, I suspect it's pure gibberish. Specifically:
I think everything that's discussed in this section merits being there. The issue is the level of detail and manner of presenting. Currently the material is badly presented and given what I consider too much detail. The article should mention the stack, and how it resolves timing issues; they do not need to know the details of how it works. That should be reserved for the Magic: The Gathering rules article. -- Khaim 18:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me? What is this? From what I can tell, you
We're going to dispute resolution. I tried to be civil, but you're just being an ass now. -- Khaim 22:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the basic premise of limited formats (building decks out of sealed product) ought to be explained. A word ought also to be given to explaining the procedure booster draft, which I understand is fairly badly-understood by Muggles. -- Agamemnon2 08:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The DCI rules related to this are in their own article. Also booster drafts and sealed deck tournaments are not limited to only Magic, and so should not be included in this article. -- Netoholic @ 17:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
This card is listed on the Unhinged page, but it doesn't appear in the card lists to my knowledge. Do we have a source on it or is it a hoax? R adiant _>|< 12:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this. The current graphic for this section is this.
Above, someone remarked that the cards all look rather similar to each other if you don't already know the game. In addition, I think that while these cards are powerful and well-known to serious Magic players, that isn't what we should be showing in this article. I think that instead we should show "flashy" cards that convey the flavor and mechanics of the game. Also, using the new card frames is probably a good idea. So here's my proposal for a new graphic.
I admit that Ayumi may not be the best choice, and Beacon of Tomorrows is also questionable. Pentavus is a personal favorite, but in that case I don't see an argument for anything but a personal favorite would apply. Thoughts? -- Khaim 21:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's my try:
I overwrote Andrew's, just because I don't think we should keep cluttering up the namespace with what, to anyone else, are pretty much the same picture. And of course we can go back to his version, although I hope we can all agree that Hisoka's Defiance should not be the blue card. -- Khaim 01:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Slobad removed the phrase "In the game's primary fictional setting" from the second introductory paragraph. Netoholic put it back. Personally, I think the sentence is better off without it. For one thing, "primary" implies there are other fictional settings, which there aren't. Also, the phrase is rather awkward, and I can't say what it really adds to the statement. If the question is how to distinguish the flavor from the raw card game, then I agree that something should be added to convey this, but I think this phrase is confusing. Slobad was correct in removing it.
I think the real issue is how to best explain the fact that the game has a flavorful aspect but is not entirely defined by it. We've danced around the issue but not really resolved anything. Thoughts? -- Khaim 00:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
24.179.43.142, you said there were over 12,000 cards in Magic the Gathering. I couldn't find any evidence of this, and a Gatherer search gives only 7692 cards. Where did you get your info? Ashenai 08:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Gatherer doesn't include reprints User:ShadowZ 06:45, 5 december 2005
Hello 136.1.1.101! I liked most of your revisions. There were a couple I changed, and one or two we seem to be in disgreement about. Please read and comment on anything you disagree with, so we can come to a proper consensus. Thank you! :)
I changed the following:
Thanks for your input!
-- Ashenai 19:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts: "Duelists" shouldn't be here. It's not official terminology, and I don't think it's widely used. I think "twenty" should be used, since I don't buy Netoholic's rational about being generic when talking about formats. It's information, and it's pretty consistent, so why not include it? For that matter, MTGO's Prismatic format has a 20 cards of each color restriction, and that's as close to official as we have.
I'm really torn on the last two points. While "life" is quite clearly the correct term, I can see how it might be confusing. A compromise might be to use the correct term, but explicitly explain what it is so readers aren't confused by the term.
As for white, I think both phrases are correct, so it's really a stylistic concern. You could include both if you wanted, and it would be just as valid. However, I have to say that the "protection" phrase reads much better than the original "rules" phrase; the former is clear and simple while the latter is rather convoluted, structure-wise. The current wording is decent, though. -- Khaim 01:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Removed the following text, by an anonymous user (this was his first and only edit to Wikipedia):
85.226.149.87, do you have any proof that this fact caused any sort of mainstream controversy? If yes, please show us. Thank you! :) -- Ashenai 15:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been searching for this information for awhile now, and I can't find it anywhere: what's the basic land/common/uncommon/rare breakdown for starter packs and booster packs for "modern" Magic sets? This article says a standard booster pack contains eleven common cards, three uncommon cards, and one rare. I'm assuming one of those common slots is taken up by a basic land in those sets that have them, but I have no clue what the breakdown is for starters.
An answer would be greatly appreciated, and I think this would also be very useful information to add to the article. Thanks, android 79 19:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Is the game "Magic the gathering: Battlegrounds, do you use cards or is it real time combat, can someone explain it to me?
Pece Kocovski 03:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
This question is really better suited to a video gaming site. The short answer is no, you do not use cards. The video game is essentially a real-time combat where your wizard cast spells; while the spells are based on cards from the game, they're not represented by cards in the video game. -- Khaim 14:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
So... Should we italicize the name of the game or not? I don't really have a strong preference one way or the other, but it needs to be standardized throughout the article. As it's written, it's roughly half-and-half. Suggestions? Andrew Levine 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The article contains erroneous information regarding base sets and expansion sets. The term "Core Set" was not introduced until 8th Edition, and was created to replace the term "base set", not refer to the latest revision of it. The Base Set does not have a "purpose," it IS the game. Expansion sets for Magic are no different from expansion packs for computer games. The Sims is The Sims with or without its seven expansion packs, and Magic is the base set, with or without the expansion sets. Additionally, the proper term for a "block" of three sets is a CYCLE: the Rath Cycle, the Masquerade Cycle, etc., and many expansions are not part of a Cycle at all. Expansion sets can contain ANY NUMBER of cards, and MOST of them contained 350 per large set and 143 per small set, not whatever numbers are currently listed. (preceding comment added by 68.125.130.110 -- Ashenai ( talk) 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
The article should mention both the 6th Edition rules downgrade and the 8th Edition cardface downgrade as moments when many players believe Magic to have Jumped the Shark. (preceding comment added by 68.125.130.110 -- Ashenai ( talk) 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
Since there are many Unofficial Sites based on Magic, should the section be retitled; "Popular Unofficial Sites", or is that not necessary? Also, mtgnews.com still is a popular site for news and also discussion on the game in general; it's a great source of information. So why is it excluded from the list of outside websites?
I think this would have been ok before DK sold the site. The site went to poo after that, but still remains one of the hottest "unofficial" sites. Fr0 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The reverse of the card has changed once this was after when the booster Beta was released the Alpha Cards where different in size and had a different back
As a player i am awear of this as you can not play with alpha cards in your deck unless they are all altha due to this reason
Bedford, you recently removed the StarCityGames link, with the following edit summary: "We have long decided to keep this site off here."
Could you please point me to this decision? The only reference to StarCityGames I found was in the archive for this talk page, and it actually seemed to be an agreement for including it.
I'd find an agreement to leave the site out to be highly odd; like it or not, StarCityGames is one of the largest strategy sites on the net. Its Alexa rank is around 45k, which is quite impressive. MiseTings, for instance, is around 450k. -- Ashenai 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This site has been included from time to time on this list, and is almost always within hours been deleted. Similar sites, like Brainburst, Londes, and Cardshark are not on here, and neither should this one be.--
Bedford
02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the link to StarCityGames should be removed. We should not (and have not) listed merchant sites nor sites that require payment to reach their premium content. Notability is not the only measure we should use - Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid - "4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. 5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising 6. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content"... and so on. -- Netoholic @ 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
By my tally, it seems that Mathmo, Ashenai, and myself are for including SCG. Netoholic and Bedford are against. There's also the consideration that at least two anonymous IP addresses have added SCG in, suggesting that a lot of "casual" Wikipedia browsers notice the "ommission."
Anybody else want to weigh in on this? 3 to 2 isn't the best ratio for a clear consensus... SnowFire 03:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It is primarily a store. SCG doesn't have ads on MTGSalvation praising their articles, they have ads promoting their card-selling. The individual looking to learn more about MTG on Wikipedia would learn nothing abotu MTB by being guided to SCG. If anything, they'd be turned off.-- Bedford 14:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at magiclibrary.net (a place we already currently link to!), on it they say this about SCG: "StarCityGames is one of the best Magic strategy websites on the internet, featuring articles about deckbuilding, playing, and drafting, mostly written by well-known Magic players, tournament-related news, and deck archives." Clearly when a place we already link to shows such very strong support for it we should be including SCG. Mathmo 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is yet another reason for it to be included. If you take a look at our sister site wikibooks, the front page of the book about MTG lists SCG as a "Popular Magic Strategy Site".
Mathmo
05:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing for someone learning about Magic can gain by readin Star City. It needs to stay deleted. As a matter of fact, we should probably prune a couple of other links. Does MTGNews still need to be on? After all, anything they learn is direct from Salvation. How used is Londes?
I believe the above two sites are non-notable. Neither has an Alexa rank at all. In addition, they have very little Google presence. Could someone who is interested in including the articles (Netoholic, for instance) please explain what makes these sites notable? -- Ashenai 16:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Could there be an update on what needs to be done for this to be a Featured Article? The last update for the to-do list was at the end of August, 2005. From reading the article is appears at least one remaining task is done (citations). I do question whether info on the storylines and characters should be included in this article beyond what is already there because (1) there already is a page detailing that, and (2) Magic has many characters and storylines culled from both the game itself and the novels associated with it. Including details about all of them (or even just what used to be the "main" subset) would bog down the rest of the article. -- Nis81 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think something needs to be done with the external links section. The offical sites are fine but there are over a dozen unofficial sites which need some organization. First of all, Misethings.com; do we need a link to a parody site? I don't see anything in WP:EL that warrents this. Second, we either need to delete some of these links or else organize them better. Do we need a link to a site for each format? Do we need a link to Australian and UK sites? How many general magic sites are necessary? I don't know where to draw the line but you could probably argue for the inclusion of a dozen more sites just as deserving as some of the ones we already have. If no one wants to delete any links we should at least catigorize them, for example, Strategy, General, Online Play, etc. Remember, the external links section shouldn't be a web directory, it should just be a handful of the most relevant links. -- Letslip 02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to quickly offer any explanation for those curious on my edit:
In addition to Mark Rosewater writing the series of six articles on the different colors of magic, including multicolor, he wrote an article entitled, "just the artifacts, ma'am" I do not have a link to this as I am at work.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I would like to open some discussions about the following two topics and posts. I know what i have posted, may sound bias, however it is what i feel, and alot of people that i know feel aswell. It is probabily the main reasons why we have quit the game, and never came back to it.
My original posts were:
Many old users simply steered away from coming back to the game simply because the amount of new abilities eliminates the usefullness of older cards. In addition, the quality of the abilities of the cards have sharply fallen in contrast to its previous editions. Many of the new cards are considered as useless, and not even worth putting in decks.
New rules in Australia prevents some of the old favourite cards, and playing styles to be used in Official Tournaments.
I have recently recieved an PM asking me to provide some information, especially on the second statement.
I can't provide some evidence atm, (at uni, in a hurry)
However, one main change i remember in the sanctioned tournament (in Sydney Australia) was the banning of the blue card, Counter Spell in type II card lists. I havn't played/followed magics cards for about 3 years now (i think, the newest card i got is form the exdous set). Many Blue deck users would know, Counter Spell is one of the most powerful blue cards. The removal of this card, render some decks underpowered or useless (Counter-Spell Decks). Thus the mechanics statement.
As for useless cards, comparing say the Common cards of Ice Age, the lowest of the lowest class cards. Although they do nothing, they dont have that much of a draw back, and some are put to use into decks such as Goblin decks. Compared to the newer Editions, their lowest of the lowest cards are not even worth putting in to a deck, they dont do anything.
here's a FAQ from a guy from university of Sydney about the various aspects of magic in Aust. http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~edney/faq.html
NeoDeGenero 06:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I recently brought the page size down from 43k to 40k though it is still out of hand. i touched it up a little in areas that wern't explained enough or things that wern't there. I also deleted some text or shorted some that didn't need to be there or was excessive. the page size is getting out of hand and I have done all I can.
Em dashes (looks like — / entered in the source code as ∓emdash;) are not a very commonly supported escape code. They tend to show up as — in older browsers, so I have edited those I saw out of this article. Are there any good reasons to keep them? -- Vishahu 20:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Good work, all who have worked on this article. I am nominating it for FA status - keep up the good work, listen to the comments and I am sure it will make it! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The caption says "Magic: the Gathering cards are designated by various types and colors," but if I were unfamiliar with the game I'd have a hard time distinguishing between the colors of the artifact cards and the land card, or between the green card and the black card. Is it possible to get clearer pics, or perhaps newer editions of the same cards, with brighter backgrounds?
I was surprised to see no mention of the addiction issues of MTG. Though these kinds of issues hardly make MTG unique among games, I think it is worthy of some mention, if only that the nickname "cardboard crack" is almost a synonym for MTG amongst its fans. -- Paraphelion 07:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear Netoholic, My edit about Eternal formats was anon because I was logged out and I did not notice. On the DCI Magic: The Gathering Floor Rules for Magic: the Gathering tournaments: http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/Magic_FLR_20dec04_EN.pdf
In point 101:
Format and Ratings Categories
The DCI sanctions the following formats. They may be sanctioned as single, two-person team, or three-person team events.
Constructed Formats
Standard
Extended
Block
Eternal Formats
Vintage
Legacy (formerly Type 1.5)
Limited Formats
Sealed Deck
Booster Draft
Rochester Draft
The DCI produces the following ratings categories:
Constructed (includes Standard, Extended, and Block formats)
Eternal (includes Vintage and Legacy formats)
Limited (includes all Limited formats)
Team Constructed (includes all Constructed team formats)
Team Limited (includes all Limited team formats)
So even if a pre-constructed deck is needed for Eternal Format Tournaments, the format is not included in the constuctred format category by the DCI. So I will revert the article to my previous version. Pharotek 04:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just think the info in the article should be correct and precise. This section isn't neither. Pharotek 16:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well this article is oversized, so I agree the extra info should go to the DCI article. I'm not quite sure how to squeeze the info on the DCI article without repeating the whole section. What do you suggest? Maybe move the whole section to the DCI article and then add the detail about eternal? Pharotek 16:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Great work!!! Pharotek 18:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed the above because it reads as very harshly POV (terms like "exploits" and "some claim") and semantically attributes such a motive to the "game" rather than the company. I would think every company makes changs to its product lines in order to continue to sell and make profit, so I don't see the point of this section. Can someone give a specific example of a game rule being expanded "no other reason than to justify the creation of new card sets" or "for greater profit"? -- Netoholic @ 06:39, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
There are way too many of them on this page. Variant rules are a much smaller part of Magic than this article would have me believe.
On the 9th March, the following was removed from this Wiki, with the reason that it was 'to remove long strings of shameless self-promotion.':
(start) Since the advent of the Internet, Magic players have wanted to play games online with various opponents. Wizards of the Coast's early attempts to produce an online version of the game consisted of the products: Magic The Gathering: Duels Of The Planeswalkers and Magic: The Gathering® Interactive Encyclopedia. After Wizards ceased to support these products, several groups game together to create OCTGN, Apprentice, and Magic Work Station. These programs are not officially supported by Wizards of the Coast although they do allow for online play for free.
The official product of Wizards of the Coast's online software is the Magic: The Gathering Online product. Controversial from its inception, players purchase digital packs of Magic: The Gathering Online cards and can play or trade with these cards. The large majority of Magic players use the MTGO system to play games of Magic: The Gathering online, however, communities do exist that allow for the playing of games online for free. (end)
Which part of that is shameless self promotion? I see it as an interesting bit of information about computer versions of Magic. Perhaps a bit could be added about the Battlegrounds game on PC and XBox too, or perhaps a new entry should be made for Online playing of Magic?
Other sections were also removed, including links to OCTGN (effectively a successor to MTGPlay, which certainly used to be in the article) and some links to interesting articles on the net about Modo (why it is unfair to pay real money for virtual products.
When I inquired about why OCTGN should be removed, and other games like GCCG and Workstation stay, I was informed that 'OCTGN did not have a large enough user base' - however, this is not true, as the community is at least as large (and probably a lot larger) as GCCG.
(Sorry if this is out of place, I'm still new to commenting stuff)
Zark the Damned 19:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Someone has made an Elf Deck article. Can someone who knows MTG take a look at it and decide what should be done with it (keep and expand, merge somewhere, or delete). It was marked as speedy (no doubt as it appears a lot like vanity) but a brief google shows a fairly broad use of the term. Comments there, please. Thanks. -- John Fader ( talk | contribs) 21:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The 'fight' between Slobad and Netaholic about game complexity is getting out of hand. Every few days, Slobad changes the complexity to 'Extremely high', and then Netaholic reverts it to 'Medium'.
Is some sort of a compromise in order? I understand that some people will find the game very easy to comprehend, others find it complex (I would guess Slobad is one of the latter, hence the repeated changes mentioned above).
Would 'Medium to High' be an acceptable compromise for the complexity? It is extremely variable depending on the individuals and decks involved (straightforward aggro beatdown tends to be a lot simpler than intricate abusive combos, for example).
Nothing personal, it's just a tad annoying to see the history full of 'Slobad changed difficulty, Netaholic reverted difficulty'.
Zark the Damned 17:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, but if Magic is medium complexity, what kind of game has high complexity then? There are not many games that have as many rules as Magic. Grue 18:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is "extremely high" even a valid ranking? What a strange revert war.
Since sixth edition, even most expansions aren't that complicated. The problem here, I think, is that Magic is medium difficulty to gamers, but it might well be the most complicated game non-gamers ever encounter. Perhaps we could link to a games wikiproject definitions page from the taxobox that would give examples of different games' complexity and so forth. I think this would be interesting to readers and useful to editors who might be unaware of the taxobox's broad scope. Cool Hand Luke 16:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The box template was made for Wikipedia:WikiProject Games, and the old discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Games/Infobox. -- Netoholic @ 17:07, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
I'd vote for High, myself. I think players tend to under-estimate how complicated the game really is. -- Khaim 22:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Taking the discussion and the results of this poll into account, I believe a fair compromise between Slobad's original "Extremely High" difficulty and Netaholic's "Medium" is a simple "High", and it is the closest we're going to get to consensus. I have reverted the page to reflect this, and I think this should be considered the "consensus" version for now. Cheers! -- Ashenai 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning that while the rules of MTG are pretty complicated, to actually PLAY the game, you only need to know a small subset of rules (ie, how turns progress, tapping land for mana, how to attack with creatures and deal damage). Sure, there are weird corner cases that pop up, but even with cards from expansion sets, this doesn't happen very often (at least not in any of my playgroups), and even when they do happen, sometimes we tend not to notice.
I know this seems like I'm reviving a dead argument, but isn't that what discussion pages are for? Anyways, just my 2 cents. Viltris 09:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I just simplified the "game play" section of the site a lot. Although I think it was important to make the section understandable to non-players, my changes have probably resulted in inconsistencies across the site, and even within the game play section.
The rule, I guess, is that nothing about the game can be mentioned unless it has been explained first. Could you all help me edit the page until it complies with that rule?
(Another thing: I know that not everything in the section is rulebook-level accurate. I spend a lot of time editing, and I believe that what I've put up is the right balance between being accurate and being readable.) Brendan62442 02:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think this section needs to be split off into its own page. We could certainly fill up a decent page with a discussion of Magic rules, not to mention interesting tidbits about unusual interactions. Plus as Brendan said, this section throws far too many keywords at the reader. A Magic player will understand it, but a layman would be completely lost.-- Khaim 16:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel this needs work? I think this section as a whole is weak, and could use some substantial work, instead of minor revisions. I'm most concerned with the part before Deck construction, which I think is far too complex for a normal reader and does a horrible job of conveying the mechanisms of the game. --
Khaim
01:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Aren't they coming out with some official multiplayer rules? (Or have they already?) The fact box, and perhaps the article, needs to be updated to reflect that fact. -- L33tminion | (talk) 04:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
I used to play MTG around 1994, and the original instruction booklet described basic free-for-all multiplayer. In fact, I might have played more 3 player games than 2 player in my "career". I don't know what happened in later years, and I'm sure there are more detailed rules now, but multiplayer was in the original game.
I Slobad, huh? Slobad the planeswalker. According to the MtG article, each game of Magic is called a "duel." This is inaccurate. Each game is called a game. No card has ever used the word duel to describe a game of Magic. However, every time I remove the word duel, someone (usually Netoholic) reverts it. (Slobad)
As an MtG player since 1995, I can vouch for the fact that MtG has officially used "duel" as part of its terminology since its initial release. As an example of usage, I refer to the Fifth Edition General Rulings Summary, specifically the section regarding DCI tournaments. (I wish I had further proof available right off, but I cannot find my copies of the Revised and 4th Edition manuals. I could also refer to early issues of the Duelist, which throughout its publication had numerous articles written by people instrumental in the development of MtG.) ... (And, on a more fanciful note, I will also refer to the text on the Unglued card [s_coupon Ashnod's Coupon.) — Dan Johnson 01:49, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
I'd like to mention that the DCI stands for Duelists' Convocation International. That seems like conclusive evidence to me. Viltris 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
hey, on the German wikipedia i read that all magic the gathering cards have a glitch on their back cover: there is a ballpointer marker somewhere on all cards, as the first issue prototypes had this, and all others had to be printed the same. maybe you can tell me where i can find this marker? i guess it is found at the "ter" in "deckmaster". thanks, -- 85.72.9.147 16:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I always thought it was there to make the Deckmaster name plate look chiped.-- 70.16.17.42 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering about the Reiver Demon card image that was previously on this article. It was removed, since it didn't have any info tag on it, but isn't there anything to be done about that? I think a fair use tag would go well on it. Just like in the first image on that article. After all, it's just a card scan and nothing else. Not like anything would be done to it, other than fair use itself.
I'm not a very into copyright stuff, even in Wikipedia, so I'm not sure about this. It's just something I noticed. Any ideas?-- Kaonashi 03:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
There are a dozen or more casual mtg paper and mtgo formats including Peasant magic, Pauper Magic, Prismatic, Highlander/Singleton. No mention so far - can we have a section of major formats played and/or links?
Well, this page has long been on my watchlist and I finally decided to do something about it. I'm sure to have upset a lot of people but something needed to be done so I just shut up and did it.
Changes:
I'm sure many folks out there will not be pleased with the changes to structure or to content (or maybe both!). I just did what I felt was necessary to make this page useful, readable and cover most of the basics. IMO the "controversial aspects" should all be removed but let's take it one revolution at a time. The Gameplay article now needs a ton of work, btw. :) ] fvincent 06:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Someone wrote a rather spare article (
Vintage (Magic: The Gathering) that should probably be merged into this one.
Al
14:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
While I'm stirring the hornets nest, I strongly suggest a brief overview of the controversies and moving them to their own article. The page as a whole is overly long and something needs to go. I'm not stupid enough to move it though without some people agreeing with me. Anyone? fvincent 18:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
While the article is admittedly long, I feel more attention should be given to the patent controversy as it is an interesting story and impacts other collectible card games.-- malber 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
As for the part about luck vs. skill. There should be more about building a deck. For instance to have a nice distribution of land so that you don't end up with too much or too little, you make 1/3 of a 60 card deck land, and then when making the deck, put a land every 3rd card so that even when you shuffle a little, you should get a decent distribution. Of course adjustments have to be made for mana producing cards in your deck and the kinda of deck you are using. So it isn't as much luck as it seems. 70.111.224.85 01:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This page says Richard designed M:tG after Peter Adkison wouldn't (initially) publish RoboRally. But the Richard Garfield page says he designed M:tG much earlier, and that Adkison agreed to publish both games at that meeting. Personally I've heard both versions elsewhere; does anyone know which one is correct?
Net decking is the result of the fact that there are certain cards and strategies, that for any given block will dominate all other strategies. The main reason for this is that inevitably certain card combinations arise that become very powerful due to their synergistic qualities. One example of this was the card 'Wild Mongrel' in the Odyssey block. When a player had this creature out they could discard cards that had 'Madness' triggered effects at the same time they were activating their 'Wild Mongrel's' ability (increasing its strength and toughness). This combination made 'Wild Mongrel' decks devestating. While 'Wild Mongrel' decks were an exception, rare cards are almost always an essential element of the most powerful decks. The reason for this is that rare cards have the biggest/most bizarre effects in the game, making them prime candidates for the powerful combinations described above. This is opposed to common or uncommon cards which tend to follow set formulas of mediocrity (common cards moreso than uncommon cards). When a new expansion is released, players will spend some time experimenting with strategies and card combinations. Once the best strategies and combinations are discovered through tournament play, they are inevitably published on the Internet. After the word gets out, the cards that are needed to build these decks become much more valuable (especially the rares). The popularity of the 'good rares' and 'good uncommons' needed to build these decks causes net decks to cost upwards of a couple hundred dollars to build.
I removed this addition. I think the section doesn't need such a big explanation. Perhaps it can find its way into a new article or the MTG wiki. -- Netoholic @ 20:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
What happened to older discussions beyond a certain point? I'm pretty sure that the discussion for this page has lasted much longer than what can be see here. Are any of the old discussions archived? How can I find older discussions that are not on the immediate Talk page?
I removed the "Playing Magic on the Internet part. I think the section is not needed.
Hope everyone agrees. -- Netoholic @ 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Is there a criteria sort of for what belongs under the See also and External links sections of the article? Magic: The Gathering videogames is under the See also section, with a sublink of Magic: The Gathering Battlegrounds. Why is it that only Battlegrounds is listed, when there are so many other games, and why even list that particular game at all? There are also a bunch of other Magic related articles that could be added in the See also section, but they are not there. What is the criteria for articles that belong? How about the links that fall under the External links section? MTGNews.com is missing (the last time I checked), and it still is pretty popular.
The point is that a lot of the articles and links that appear seem to be more subjective than objective.
Moved a small section on color from deck construction to the colors of magic section. Also added a refrence to colorless and multi color cards. Hope this is agreeable. If anyone wants to expound on multi color cards it may help. -- Wirewood Shadow 14:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the "Colors of Magic" section, when mentioning the creature types, should link the M:tG-specific creature-type descriptions. There are a number of references on each creature type to be able to compile articles based on these types (shared abilities, similarities, strategies, etc.), and it would fit into the Wikiproject. I could possibly start on such articles, but I'm not as available as I'd like to be. Is there anyone who can help with this? Rjfleming84 19:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This sentence appeared in the article until yesterday:
I changed it to this:
It was reverted by Netholic (who has done a lot of great work to bring the page up to high quality), but I have just restored my version. I have three reasons: first, the sentence as it stood read like an introduction to the "Variant Rules" section (which it was, in revisions long since discarded) but it was in fact the second paragraph in that section (after "Multiplayer Rules") so it was out of place. Second, variations revolving around alternate deck construction have nothing at all to do with playing the game differently, as building a deck is a completely separate aspect of the game from its actual play. The distinction is an important one to make, since the sentence immediately follows a paragraph on variant rules which do affect game play itself (i.e. the multiplayer rules), but for which normal deck construction rules hold. Third (and least important), "many X abound" is semantically redundant. Andrew Levine 08:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
You re-inserted this phrase - "its premise and storyline are given little to no notice by many players."
I respect most of your other work on the article, but I think that phrase is jaded, wrong, and irrelevant. All players give at least notice to the the premise and storyline because the mechanics are based so much on flavor (Ninjitsu, equipment, etc.). The only group that perhaps comes close to ignoring the "premise and stroyline" are Pro Tour players, but that is a vast minority or players. Above all, what is the point of the phrase? It might be appropriate as a counter-point if the article were asserting the opposite viewpoint, but the player/storyline isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. The second paragraph starts with "In the game's primary fictional setting". Boom. Right there the context of the planswalker idea is set in place, without saying anything about how players interact with it.
I think the article doesn't need any comment about what players think of the "premise and storyline". If I thought it did, I'd instead be pointing out how many fiction books are sold and describe the mechanic/flavor relationship to show that most players do follow the storyline. I just think your phrase is a personal viewpoint that doesn't have a place in the article. Perhaps you could more neutrally state something like "the game can be played without paying any attention to the storyline". Even so, you should add such a comment to the Storyline section or on Magic: The Gathering storylines. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree here. While the sentences themselves are true in every way, it is the manner in which they are presented that is problematic. Namely, they draw attention to the flavor-side aspects of the game. That's not a bad thing per se, but as currently written it appears to be much more important than it is.
The gameplay section needs an overhaul. (Note: When I say "gameplay section", I mean the stuff between "Game play" and "Deck Construction".) For one thing, it's badly written, and I mean that purely objectively. It's hard to understand, even for me, and I already know what it's talking about! For someone who doesn't know the terms already, I suspect it's pure gibberish. Specifically:
I think everything that's discussed in this section merits being there. The issue is the level of detail and manner of presenting. Currently the material is badly presented and given what I consider too much detail. The article should mention the stack, and how it resolves timing issues; they do not need to know the details of how it works. That should be reserved for the Magic: The Gathering rules article. -- Khaim 18:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me? What is this? From what I can tell, you
We're going to dispute resolution. I tried to be civil, but you're just being an ass now. -- Khaim 22:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the basic premise of limited formats (building decks out of sealed product) ought to be explained. A word ought also to be given to explaining the procedure booster draft, which I understand is fairly badly-understood by Muggles. -- Agamemnon2 08:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The DCI rules related to this are in their own article. Also booster drafts and sealed deck tournaments are not limited to only Magic, and so should not be included in this article. -- Netoholic @ 17:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
This card is listed on the Unhinged page, but it doesn't appear in the card lists to my knowledge. Do we have a source on it or is it a hoax? R adiant _>|< 12:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this. The current graphic for this section is this.
Above, someone remarked that the cards all look rather similar to each other if you don't already know the game. In addition, I think that while these cards are powerful and well-known to serious Magic players, that isn't what we should be showing in this article. I think that instead we should show "flashy" cards that convey the flavor and mechanics of the game. Also, using the new card frames is probably a good idea. So here's my proposal for a new graphic.
I admit that Ayumi may not be the best choice, and Beacon of Tomorrows is also questionable. Pentavus is a personal favorite, but in that case I don't see an argument for anything but a personal favorite would apply. Thoughts? -- Khaim 21:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's my try:
I overwrote Andrew's, just because I don't think we should keep cluttering up the namespace with what, to anyone else, are pretty much the same picture. And of course we can go back to his version, although I hope we can all agree that Hisoka's Defiance should not be the blue card. -- Khaim 01:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Slobad removed the phrase "In the game's primary fictional setting" from the second introductory paragraph. Netoholic put it back. Personally, I think the sentence is better off without it. For one thing, "primary" implies there are other fictional settings, which there aren't. Also, the phrase is rather awkward, and I can't say what it really adds to the statement. If the question is how to distinguish the flavor from the raw card game, then I agree that something should be added to convey this, but I think this phrase is confusing. Slobad was correct in removing it.
I think the real issue is how to best explain the fact that the game has a flavorful aspect but is not entirely defined by it. We've danced around the issue but not really resolved anything. Thoughts? -- Khaim 00:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
24.179.43.142, you said there were over 12,000 cards in Magic the Gathering. I couldn't find any evidence of this, and a Gatherer search gives only 7692 cards. Where did you get your info? Ashenai 08:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Gatherer doesn't include reprints User:ShadowZ 06:45, 5 december 2005
Hello 136.1.1.101! I liked most of your revisions. There were a couple I changed, and one or two we seem to be in disgreement about. Please read and comment on anything you disagree with, so we can come to a proper consensus. Thank you! :)
I changed the following:
Thanks for your input!
-- Ashenai 19:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts: "Duelists" shouldn't be here. It's not official terminology, and I don't think it's widely used. I think "twenty" should be used, since I don't buy Netoholic's rational about being generic when talking about formats. It's information, and it's pretty consistent, so why not include it? For that matter, MTGO's Prismatic format has a 20 cards of each color restriction, and that's as close to official as we have.
I'm really torn on the last two points. While "life" is quite clearly the correct term, I can see how it might be confusing. A compromise might be to use the correct term, but explicitly explain what it is so readers aren't confused by the term.
As for white, I think both phrases are correct, so it's really a stylistic concern. You could include both if you wanted, and it would be just as valid. However, I have to say that the "protection" phrase reads much better than the original "rules" phrase; the former is clear and simple while the latter is rather convoluted, structure-wise. The current wording is decent, though. -- Khaim 01:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Removed the following text, by an anonymous user (this was his first and only edit to Wikipedia):
85.226.149.87, do you have any proof that this fact caused any sort of mainstream controversy? If yes, please show us. Thank you! :) -- Ashenai 15:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been searching for this information for awhile now, and I can't find it anywhere: what's the basic land/common/uncommon/rare breakdown for starter packs and booster packs for "modern" Magic sets? This article says a standard booster pack contains eleven common cards, three uncommon cards, and one rare. I'm assuming one of those common slots is taken up by a basic land in those sets that have them, but I have no clue what the breakdown is for starters.
An answer would be greatly appreciated, and I think this would also be very useful information to add to the article. Thanks, android 79 19:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Is the game "Magic the gathering: Battlegrounds, do you use cards or is it real time combat, can someone explain it to me?
Pece Kocovski 03:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
This question is really better suited to a video gaming site. The short answer is no, you do not use cards. The video game is essentially a real-time combat where your wizard cast spells; while the spells are based on cards from the game, they're not represented by cards in the video game. -- Khaim 14:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
So... Should we italicize the name of the game or not? I don't really have a strong preference one way or the other, but it needs to be standardized throughout the article. As it's written, it's roughly half-and-half. Suggestions? Andrew Levine 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The article contains erroneous information regarding base sets and expansion sets. The term "Core Set" was not introduced until 8th Edition, and was created to replace the term "base set", not refer to the latest revision of it. The Base Set does not have a "purpose," it IS the game. Expansion sets for Magic are no different from expansion packs for computer games. The Sims is The Sims with or without its seven expansion packs, and Magic is the base set, with or without the expansion sets. Additionally, the proper term for a "block" of three sets is a CYCLE: the Rath Cycle, the Masquerade Cycle, etc., and many expansions are not part of a Cycle at all. Expansion sets can contain ANY NUMBER of cards, and MOST of them contained 350 per large set and 143 per small set, not whatever numbers are currently listed. (preceding comment added by 68.125.130.110 -- Ashenai ( talk) 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
The article should mention both the 6th Edition rules downgrade and the 8th Edition cardface downgrade as moments when many players believe Magic to have Jumped the Shark. (preceding comment added by 68.125.130.110 -- Ashenai ( talk) 11:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
Since there are many Unofficial Sites based on Magic, should the section be retitled; "Popular Unofficial Sites", or is that not necessary? Also, mtgnews.com still is a popular site for news and also discussion on the game in general; it's a great source of information. So why is it excluded from the list of outside websites?
I think this would have been ok before DK sold the site. The site went to poo after that, but still remains one of the hottest "unofficial" sites. Fr0 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The reverse of the card has changed once this was after when the booster Beta was released the Alpha Cards where different in size and had a different back
As a player i am awear of this as you can not play with alpha cards in your deck unless they are all altha due to this reason
Bedford, you recently removed the StarCityGames link, with the following edit summary: "We have long decided to keep this site off here."
Could you please point me to this decision? The only reference to StarCityGames I found was in the archive for this talk page, and it actually seemed to be an agreement for including it.
I'd find an agreement to leave the site out to be highly odd; like it or not, StarCityGames is one of the largest strategy sites on the net. Its Alexa rank is around 45k, which is quite impressive. MiseTings, for instance, is around 450k. -- Ashenai 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This site has been included from time to time on this list, and is almost always within hours been deleted. Similar sites, like Brainburst, Londes, and Cardshark are not on here, and neither should this one be.--
Bedford
02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the link to StarCityGames should be removed. We should not (and have not) listed merchant sites nor sites that require payment to reach their premium content. Notability is not the only measure we should use - Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid - "4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. 5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising 6. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content"... and so on. -- Netoholic @ 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
By my tally, it seems that Mathmo, Ashenai, and myself are for including SCG. Netoholic and Bedford are against. There's also the consideration that at least two anonymous IP addresses have added SCG in, suggesting that a lot of "casual" Wikipedia browsers notice the "ommission."
Anybody else want to weigh in on this? 3 to 2 isn't the best ratio for a clear consensus... SnowFire 03:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It is primarily a store. SCG doesn't have ads on MTGSalvation praising their articles, they have ads promoting their card-selling. The individual looking to learn more about MTG on Wikipedia would learn nothing abotu MTB by being guided to SCG. If anything, they'd be turned off.-- Bedford 14:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at magiclibrary.net (a place we already currently link to!), on it they say this about SCG: "StarCityGames is one of the best Magic strategy websites on the internet, featuring articles about deckbuilding, playing, and drafting, mostly written by well-known Magic players, tournament-related news, and deck archives." Clearly when a place we already link to shows such very strong support for it we should be including SCG. Mathmo 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is yet another reason for it to be included. If you take a look at our sister site wikibooks, the front page of the book about MTG lists SCG as a "Popular Magic Strategy Site".
Mathmo
05:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing for someone learning about Magic can gain by readin Star City. It needs to stay deleted. As a matter of fact, we should probably prune a couple of other links. Does MTGNews still need to be on? After all, anything they learn is direct from Salvation. How used is Londes?
I believe the above two sites are non-notable. Neither has an Alexa rank at all. In addition, they have very little Google presence. Could someone who is interested in including the articles (Netoholic, for instance) please explain what makes these sites notable? -- Ashenai 16:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Could there be an update on what needs to be done for this to be a Featured Article? The last update for the to-do list was at the end of August, 2005. From reading the article is appears at least one remaining task is done (citations). I do question whether info on the storylines and characters should be included in this article beyond what is already there because (1) there already is a page detailing that, and (2) Magic has many characters and storylines culled from both the game itself and the novels associated with it. Including details about all of them (or even just what used to be the "main" subset) would bog down the rest of the article. -- Nis81 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think something needs to be done with the external links section. The offical sites are fine but there are over a dozen unofficial sites which need some organization. First of all, Misethings.com; do we need a link to a parody site? I don't see anything in WP:EL that warrents this. Second, we either need to delete some of these links or else organize them better. Do we need a link to a site for each format? Do we need a link to Australian and UK sites? How many general magic sites are necessary? I don't know where to draw the line but you could probably argue for the inclusion of a dozen more sites just as deserving as some of the ones we already have. If no one wants to delete any links we should at least catigorize them, for example, Strategy, General, Online Play, etc. Remember, the external links section shouldn't be a web directory, it should just be a handful of the most relevant links. -- Letslip 02:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to quickly offer any explanation for those curious on my edit:
In addition to Mark Rosewater writing the series of six articles on the different colors of magic, including multicolor, he wrote an article entitled, "just the artifacts, ma'am" I do not have a link to this as I am at work.